LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 269

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE 269

provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom.
16:17), and heresy”; and

WHEREAS, Art. XIII says, “Members who act contrary to the
confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions of mem-
bership laid down in Art. VI or persist in an offensive conduct,
shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from Synod”;
and

Stated Rationale for 2004 Res. 8-01A

WHEREAS, The 2004 LCMS convention passed Resolution 8-
O1A, “To Amend Bylaws on Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dis-
pute Resolution,” and the rationale (Convention Proceedings, p.
165) given for this lengthy 24-page resolution was to refine issues
with “cases involving faculty members of the Concordia Univer-
sity System against whom charges were brought, as well as those
brought against district and Synod officials”; and

WHEREAS, It would appear that the concerned cases cited were:

1. When two pastors in 2001 filed separate charges against the
Synod President (a) for his participation in two joint services with
pastors of the ELCA in an ELCA church and (b) for his approval of
a district president’s participation in a prayer service with non-
Christians and Christians alike. The merit of these charges accord-
ing to the Word of God were never considered, because an opinion
of the CCM forced the charges to be dropped. The CCM opinion
(01-2240, Dec. 9, 2001) stated that the Synod convention alone had
jurisdiction to hear these charges and the Synod convention alone
can remove a president of the Synod. When the 2004 LCMS con-
vention arrived, it did not address these charges at all, although six
district conventions requested the Synod to address this situation.

2. When in November 2001, charges were filed against a dis-
trict president for participation in a unionistic and syncretistic
prayer service (by what was, eventually, 18 pastors and congrega-
tions, throughout the Synod). When an LCMS vice-president de-
cided the case against the district president in June of 2002, the
Synod President called up the decision for review by a Dispute
Resolution Panel. Although the Dispute Resolution Panel ac-
knowledged that this vice-president “went on to present a very
thorough argument concerning the charges on the basis of the Holy
Scriptures alone,” the district president was exonerated by the Dis-
pute Resolution Panel because of a CCM opinion that the district
president followed the advice of his ecclesiastical supervisor and,
therefore, could not be charged (CCM 02-2309, February 2003).

3. When a complaint was filed against an LCMS professor for
teaching that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis are
not literally true, noting that man evolved from a prehuman ances-
tor. That college’s board of regents determined that said professor
was “neither guilty of advocacy of false doctrine nor of failure to
honor and uphold the doctrinal position of the (Missouri) Synod”;
and

WHEREAS, It must be asked what “issues” 2004 Res. 8-01A
seeks to refine before we can judge if it will or has succeeded in
its purpose. If those accused were not guilty and the process
worked, then nothing should be done. If those accused were guilty
and the process either did not find them guilty or they were let off
on technical points, will these changes assure adequate prosecu-
tion. It would seem unusual to have a complete reworking of the
ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution process on account
of only a few cases. Moreover, it must be asked whether 26 pages
of new bylaws will help to clarify the eight pages already present;
and

Wuereas, During the 2004 convention debate, at least one del-
egate thought that the purpose of this resolution was to make it
more difficult for members to file charges and, thus, avoid at least
one of the listed situations. This delegate urged passage of 8-O1A
saying, “Let’s make sure this never happens again!” The “this” was
the embarrassing attention given to Item 2 listed previously; and

District President Determines
Whether to Initiate Formal Proceedings

WHEREAS, Prior to the passage of Res. 8-O1A, each and every
member of the Synod was bound to the Holy Scriptures as the only
tule and norm of faith and life. The district president was required
to act upon the facts of a written complaint of any person that stated
that a congregation or an individual had acted in a way that could
lead to the expulsion of a member from the Synod under Art. XIII
of the Constitution (2001 Bylaw 2.27 [a]) and, furthermore, if the
district president declined to suspend the member or failed to act
within 90 days, the complainant could appeal to the Praesidium of
the Synod (2001 Bylaw 2.27 [b]); and

Wrereas, After the passage of Res. 8-01A, the district presi-
dent alone determines whether to initiate formal proceedings. The
district president alone determines whether to make use of a Re-
ferral Panel to help him in determining whether to initiate formal
proceedings (Convention Proceedings, 2.26 c, p. 167; or Bylaw
2.14.5). (Note: From this point on, all references will be to the 2004
Handbook rather than to Convention Proceedings, pp. 165-84).
“The action to commence expulsion of a congregation or individual
from membership in the Synod is the sole responsibility of the dis-
trict president who has the responsibility for ecclesiastical super-
vision of such member” (Bylaw 2.14.1). The decision of the dis-
trict president alone (or his Referral Panel) not to initiate formal
proceedings “shall terminate the matter” (Bylaw 2.14.5.2). There
is no recourse or appeal for the accuser if the district president re-
fuses to initiate formal proceedings. If the district president con-
cludes in his opinion that the facts do not form a basis for expul-
sion, then nothing will be done. Res. 8-01A has removed from
LCMS congregations and pastors their right to initiate formal pro-
ceedings to investigate and discipline erring members of the Synod;
and

WHEREAS, The effect of Res. 8-01A is that the Word of God is
not the only rule and norm of faith and practice in the LCMS (Art.
II) until a district president thinks that it is. Furthermore, if a district
president does not consider a complaint to justify a formal pro-
ceedings, then the Word of God as the only rule and norm will not
be applied, and the members of the Synod have no recourse for ap-
peal. The matter is terminated; and

District President Required to Follow Human Opinions

WHEREAS, After the passage of Res. 8-01A, the district presi-
dent alone determines whether to ask an opinion of the CCM
and/or the CTCR, should the district president decide to ask a de-
cision of the CCM and/or CTCR, the district president is required
to follow human council, even if it should contradict the Word of
God. It says, “The District President must follow any opinion re-
ceived from either the CCM or the CTCR, which shall! be rendered
within 30 days or such additional time as the district president may
allow” (Bylaw 2.14.3 [a]); and

Wuereas, The effect of 2004 Res. 8-01A is that the Word of
God is not the only rule and norm of faith and practice in the
LCMS (Art. II), but a district president is bound to follow the deci-
sions of human councils, even if the Word of God says otherwise.
The example cited in Item 2 of this overture is just such an example
where human councils trumped the Word of God; and

District President Determines Which Bylaw to Follow

WHEREAS, After the passage of Res. 8-01A, “The District Pres-
ident shall require the accuser to follow the correct bylaw provi-
sion under the circumstance, if any...,” there are primarily two
tracks for complaints. (Let it be noted that as a result of Res. 8-
O1A, there are completely separate bylaws for complaints against a
district president [2.15], Synod President [2.16], etc. The merit of
these special cases will not be considered in this resolution.) The
district president alone will determine whether the facts are such
that it could lead to the expulsion of a member from the Synod
(Bylaw 2.14), or if the facts should be considered a matter for dis-
pute resolution (Bylaw 1.10) in which disputes, disagreements, or
offenses are to be settled by the Synod’s system of reconciliation