Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2004 · 62nd Convention, St. Louis › Page 160

LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 160

Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 148 Page 149 Page 150 Page 151 Page 152 Page 153 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 Page 158 Page 159 Page 160 Page 162 Page 163 Page 164 Page 165 Page 166 Page 167 Page 168 Page 169 Page 170 Page 171 Page 172 Page 173 Page 174 Page 175 Page 176 Page 177 Page 178 Page 179 Page 180 Page 181 Page 182 Page 183 Page 184 Page 185 Page 186 Page 187 Page 190 Page 191 Page 192 Page 193 Page 194 Page 195 Page 196 Page 197 Page 198 Page 199 Page 200 Page 201 Page 202 Page 203 Page 204

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

⤓ Download page image (full resolution)

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

8. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution
Introduction
(This introduction to the business of Committee 8 was
provided by Dr. John Brunner, member of Committee 8 and
Chairman of the Task Force on Ecclesiastical Supervision
and Dispute Resolution. It is provided as helpful information and is not to be regarded as a part of the formal resolutions that were adopted by the convention.)
The 61st Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod in 2001 gave the Council of Presidents the
responsibility to discuss, mutually study, and make recommendations concerning Bylaw 2.27 paragraph g which
deals with the removal of a District President from the roster of the Synod. Pursuant to that assignment, Council of
Presidents Chairman Arleigh Lutz appointed a committee
from the Council consisting of President James Keurulainen of the New England District, President Carl Krueger
of the SELC District, President George Wollenberg of the
Montana District, and myself as President of the Eastern
District to serve as convener.
Dr. Lutz’s appointment of me was either fiendishly
clever or downright retributive, since at one point in history I was his pastor and he was my ecclesiastical supervisor and at the time of the appointment I was still basically
a rookie DP with almost no Chapter II experience. Or perhaps, as I suspect, somewhere in the secret COP chairman’s manual is a directive to have all members of the
Council serve on a committee with Dr. Wollenberg at some
point in their career. And it was just my turn.
The charge from the chairman to this group included not
only a study of Bylaw 2.27 g but of all of Bylaw 2.27, including the potential misuse of it and what appeared to be
a blurring of the understanding of ecclesiastical supervision and identification of those to whom responsibility is
given for such supervision.
Specifically regarding paragraph g, the study group
raised the question whether the President of the Synod is
granted authority in the Constitution to suspend or expel
a District President or anyone else from the roster of Synod.
Based on this understanding the recommendation to the
Council was to delete paragraph g. The group also recommended replacing references to the “Praesidium” elsewhere
in Chapter II of the Bylaws with references to the President of Synod as the proper ecclesiastical supervisor, since
it was noted Vice-Presidents of the Synod are not given the
role of ecclesiastical supervision by the Constitution.
In general, current Bylaw 2.27 was thought to meet the
needs of the Synod as an outline for the ecclesiastical supervision of its members. The concern expressed by the
study group to the Council of Presidents and now reported
here, however, concerns access to the system for those with
legitimate needs to call into question the behavior or public
teaching of a member of Synod. The current provision for
the complaint of “any person” to set action in motion is
deemed to be clearly too broad. Limiting the process only
to those who are members of the Synod or of congregations
of the Synod, however, does not allow for access by those

Committee 8 Chairman Ronald Meyer

who do not happen to be members of the Synod or of a
member congregation but may have been victims of sexual
misconduct or other abusive behavior.
Those cases also call into question the extent to which
the provisions of Matthew 18 must be followed and when
they are applicable, since obviously someone in an abusive
situation should not be required to meet individually with
the alleged abuser. The recommendation to the Council was
that access to the process be limited to members of the
Synod or of a member congregation, with the exception of
cases of sexual misconduct or criminal behavior. The recommendation was also made that the District President of
the person bringing a complaint should be asked to play a
greater role in counseling that person at the initiation of
the process.
In a separate but related context, in March of 2003, the
Secretary of Synod, Dr. Raymond Hartwig, convened a
group to study and discuss the dispute resolution process
as outlined in Chapter VIII of the Bylaws. Included in the
conversation were members of the Board of Directors, the
Council of Presidents, the Commission on Structure, the
Commission on Constitutional Matters, and others. While
this group concluded that the dispute resolution process
continues to work well and meets the needs of the Synod, it
recommended that a group of specially trained facilitators
should be recruited and trained to expedite the dispute resolution process.
In May 2003 President Gerald Kieschnick appointed a
Blue Ribbon Task Force on Ecclesiastical Supervision and
Dispute Resolution in The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod to address and propose solutions for the concerns
161

2004 Convention Proceedings