LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 162

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

162

RESOLUTIONS

raised by the two studies previously mentioned and also issues being raised throughout the Synod concerning ecclesiastical supervision. Serving on the task force were Rev. Phil
Esala, a parish pastor who is also an attorney and a member of the Board of Managers of Worker Benefit Plans; Dr.
Walter Rosin, former Secretary of the Synod; and Dr.
Wilbert Sohns, member of the Commission on Constitutional Matters and former President of the Wyoming District. I was asked to serve as the representative of the
Council of Presidents. Rev. Jon Braunersreuther, Senior
Assistant to the President, was appointed to serve as staff
liaison to the task force.
In his appointment letter the President noted that under
present bylaws ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution intersect at a number of points in Chapters II, VI,
and VIII, and that these intersections “experientially have
resulted in confusion, consternation, conflict, and even collisions.” The report of that Blue Ribbon Task Force is contained in the Convention Workbook beginning on page 25.
The recommendations in that report form the basis for the
proposed restatement of the bylaws in this resolution.
As an overview of the work done by the task force and
also reviewed and considered by Convention Floor Committee 8 in the preparation of the resolution before you, let
me review briefly the objectives outlined by Dr. Kieschnick
for the task force:
1. Carefully consider and offer proposed amendments to the
specific procedures involved in both the process of ecclesiastical supervision and that of dispute resolution.
2. Carefully review the relationship between ecclesiastical
supervision and dispute resolution as delineated in
Chapters II, VI, and VIII of the 2001 LCMS Handbook
and offer proposed amendments that have as their goal
the clarification and coordination of the two processes,
particularly at their points of intersection. Specific attention shall be given to Bylaws 2.23, 2.25, 2.27, 2.29,
6.47 and the entirety of Chapter VIII.
3. Carefully coordinate the work of the task force with the
LCMS Council of Presidents which has been tasked by
Resolution 7-19 of the 2001 LCMS Convention “To . . .
Discuss and Report on Bylaw 2.27 g” and with the Commission On Structure.
4. Prepare a report and recommendations of bylaw amendments to the 2004 convention of the Synod, in accord
with Bylaw 3.19 a 1.
A great deal of input was received from a variety of
sources. Included among those providing such input were
former Synod Presidents Dr. Ralph Bohlmann and Dr.
Robert Kuhn; Dr. Hartwig, Secretary of the Synod; Dr. Wm.
Meyer, Executive Director of the BHE and President of
CUS; Dr. Albert Marcis, member of the Commission on
Constitutional Matters and chairman of the group that
originally developed the dispute resolution process; and Mr.
Leonard Pranschke, legal counsel of the Synod.
The “core values” which were identified and kept in
mind in the review of present bylaws and procedures and
applied to any proposed revisions included:
2004 Convention Proceedings

1. The guidelines found in Matthew 18 are critical.
2. The presumption of innocence is maintained until or unless proved otherwise. Article III 8 and 9 of the Constitution of the Synod, calling for evangelical supervision,
counsel, and care for church workers and protection for
congregations, pastors, teachers, and other church workers in the performance of their official duties and the
maintenance of their rights, is of vital importance.
3. Galatians 6:1–3 is the governing directive in dealing
with members when charges are being considered, as it
requires that when a member is overtaken in a sin
every effort should be made to restore that member in a
spirit of gentleness. To say that again: every effort
should be made to restore that member in a spirit of
gentleness.
4. The Synod has identified those who are responsible for
the ecclesiastical supervision of its members. Those to
whom it has not been given should not assume the responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision.
5. Action to resolve issues should be taken on a timely
basis. Delay in seeking to resolve issues should not be
tolerated.
6. Where possible without jeopardizing the integrity of the
process, simplification should be promoted.
7. The impartiality of the processes for dispute resolution
(Chapter VIII) and expulsion from membership (Chapter II) should be upheld and promoted.
8. Charges are not to be filed against a member until the
initial steps outlined in Matthew 18 have been taken.
9. The public that is aware of a sin is not to be expanded
by improper publicity.
10. When charges are proved to be false, every effort must
be made to repair and/or restore the reputation of the
accused if it has been damaged.
Based on those core values, some conceptual assumptions were delineated, beginning with the following ecclesiastical supervision principles:
1. A valued element of polity since the Synod’s inception
has been evangelical supervision (Constitution, Art. III
8). Those elected to supervise are to supervise; those not
elected to supervise are not to supervise.
2. It is important to clearly define ecclesiastical supervision and promote its positive (Gospel) use and not
merely its negative (Law) use.
3. Ecclesiastical supervisors should be consulted as to which
procedure it is appropriate to use when one over whom
they exercise supervision brings to them information regarding a possible dispute or which could lead to another
member’s expulsion of membership from the Synod.
4. Charges that could lead to expulsion of a member from
the Synod can be brought only by one with supervisory
responsibilities for that member (i.e., the accused’s supervisor only initiates formal proceedings against the
accused, with the exception of matters concerning the
President of the Synod).
5. Decisions regarding possible expulsion of membership or
disputes should be handled as close as possible to the
problem (i.e., within a District rather than across the
Synod).