LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 164

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

164

RESOLUTIONS

2.28 provides a process to remove the President of Synod
between conventions of Synod while retaining the responsibility of the congregations of Synod to make that
decision.
• Bylaw 2.29 is that bylaw that deals exclusively with sexual misconduct and criminal behavior. Isolating this
process in a separate bylaw provides the opportunity for
anyone, regardless of relationship to the Synod, to enter
the process.
A principle that continued to gain strength during the
development of these proposals is that ecclesiastical supervisors are those who should do ecclesiastical supervision. A
word search of the Constitution and Bylaws reveals that in
every case, ecclesiastical supervisors are identified as the
President of Synod and the District Presidents, in some
cases with the assistance of the Circuit Counselors. The
proposed wording for Bylaw 3.51 on page 148 of the first
edition of Today’s Business makes clear the responsibilities
and scope of such ecclesiastical supervision.
The District Presidents are not, as has been suggested, a
“closed group” or an “old boys club” or “foxes guarding the
chicken coop.” They are the only group in Synod elected by
the direct vote of every congregation in Synod and the only
group that must stand for re-election by every congregation
in Synod every three years. There is, perhaps, no group
with a greater level of accountability in the LCMS!
The more prominent role of the District President at the
beginning of the process is intended to fulfill several essential functions. As ecclesiastical supervisor, the District
President can assist the member who approaches him to
understand if in fact an issue is one to be dealt with in
Chapter II (including the process for handling dissent as
described in Bylaw 2.39 c) as a case of ecclesiastical supervision or if it rightly belongs in the sphere of dispute resolution, or, in the case of the Concordia University System, if
it belongs in Chapter VI.
Secondly, District Presidents are in a better position to
understand the concerns and history of the member who
wishes to bring a complaint. A system as easily accessible
as this one is open to a considerable degree of abuse or misuse and can be a tool for harassment, however inadvertent.
A caring District President can help a member avoid that
pitfall. Finally the District President can better minister to
the member who is either the accuser or the accused if he is
involved from the beginning of the process.
Still, there must be some way to hold ecclesiastical supervisors accountable between conventions. That process is
provided in newly numbered Bylaws 2.27 and 2.28 or even,
if necessary, Bylaw 2.29.
The dispute resolution process described in Chapter VIII
has been repeatedly found to be reliable and extremely useful. This resolution affirms that and wholeheartedly endorses the institution of a group of hearing facilitators.
Modifications are suggested in support of that suggestion.
There are, however, a number of reasons for removing the
dispute resolution process as the place of appeal in ecclesiastical supervision situations. First of all and most simply
put, the dispute resolution process was designed to deal
with disputes, not ecclesiastical supervision matters, which,
by definition, may result in the expulsion of a member from
2004 Convention Proceedings

Synod. The reconcilers who are trained to manage the dispute resolution process are not ecclesiastical supervisors.
And while the behavior and decisions of the dispute resolution process panels have been generally of a very high
caliber, there is no accountability built into the system.
Included in the proposal are an overview, which would
come at the very beginning of Chapter II, and a Preamble
to Section D which deals specifically with “restricting, suspending, and expelling congregations or individuals from
membership.” Included in each bylaw is a section devoted
to the definition of terms used in the bylaw. The proposal
also calls for the development of a Standard Operating Procedures Manual for ecclesiastical supervision similar to the
one that has proven to be so helpful in the dispute resolution process.
Charts provided in Today’s Business:
At this point attention is directed to the charts that appeared in the first edition of Today’s Business beginning on
page 159. The first chart does a good job of displaying that
when a member of the Synod comes to his or her District
President with a concern regarding another member of
Synod, there is a wide variety of options to be considered,
all of which currently exist. The District President may
wish to consult with a brother District President or with
the President of the Synod. He may wish to ask an opinion
of the CTCR or the CCM.
In any case, the District President will always want to
assure that the guidelines of Matthew 18 and the 8th Commandment are being followed. At any time in the process,
as indicated by the horizontal line running under the bylaw
numbers with an arrow pointing to the box on the left-hand
side of the page, the accuser and the District President may
come to the conclusion that the matter is best handled by a
reconciliation committee.
The route from the point at which a member brings information to the attention of the District President through
the decision to proceed is shown in a simplified way on page
160. The “Decision to Proceed” at the bottom of that chart
would take us to one of the remaining four charts that describe each of the separate actions in Bylaws 2.26 through
2.29, depending on the circumstance.
With the exception of the involvement of the ecclesiastical supervisor, Bylaws 2.26 and 2.27 on pages 161 and 162
are identical to one another. Bylaw 2.26 applies to any
member of Synod whose ecclesiastical supervisor would be
the President of the District in which they hold membership, while 2.27 applies to a District President whose supervisor would be the President of Synod. If the ecclesiastical supervisor determines not to proceed, such decision
would terminate the matter. A decision to proceed would
also cause the ecclesiastical supervisor to place the accused
on suspended status. As under the current bylaw, failure
by the suspended member to request a hearing within fifteen days of the suspension is deemed to be consent to the
expulsion.
If the suspended member requests a hearing, a panel
will be formed consisting of three District Presidents. That
panel may decide to terminate the matter or to uphold the
suspension. If the decision is to uphold the suspension, the
suspended member may request a second hearing. That