LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 270

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

270 SYNOD STRUCTURE AND GOVERANCE

and conflict resolution. If a district president doesn’t view the com-
plaint to be against the Word of God, he could force the com-
plainant to follow the dispute resolution (Bylaw 1.10) track, in
order to get the complainant to “reconcile”; and

WHEREAS, This decision of whether the dispute is a matter that
could result in expulsion or a matter for dispute resolution is not of
small importance.

A. If reconciliation and conflict resolution are applied to a doc-
trinal complaint that should result in expulsion, the point at issue
will not be agreement or disagreement with the Word of God, but
the complainant will be subjected to an examination of his sup-
posed “vengeful” attitude or his personal animosity or even his lack
of forgiveness for his brother in Christ. Therefore, the Word of God
will not be applied to the complaint and false teaching or practice
(called “heresy” in Art. ITI) will be allowed to remain.

B. If procedures to determine “thus saith the Lord,” are applied
to a simple non-doctrinal disagreement among members, a possible
decision to remove a member from the Synod will result even
though the member has not violated Art. XIII, which is based on
the Word of God. This situation is called “schism” in Art. III. We
do not want members of the Synod to be removed simply because
someone has a disagreement or a personal vendetta against them;
and

District President Requires Matthew 18:15 Face-to-Face

WHEREAS, After the passage of 2004 Res. 8-01A, “If Bylaw
2.14 applies, the district president shall ensure that the accuser has
carried out the guidelines of Matthew 18:15 face-to-face with the
accused. Even if the alleged violation of Art. XIII of the Constitu-
tion is considered to be ‘public,’ this provision of Matthew 18:15
shall be followed. The reputation of all parties is to be protected as
commanded in the Eighth Commandment” (Bylaw 2.14 [c]); and

WHEREAS, This interpretation of Matthew 18, in which there is
no distinction made between public and private sins, disregards
what the Book of Concord says in the Large Catechism:

All this [concern for following Matthew 18] has been said regarding
secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and every-
body know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, be-
cause he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly
testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day,
there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we
now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in
books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the
reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it.
(p. 284)

and

WHEREAS, This “gag” order, which 2004 Res 8-01 has placed
upon the discussion of public sins, cannot be allowed to stand. As it
is, all of Jesus’ public rebukes of the Pharisees and St. Paul’s pub-
lic rebuke of St. Peter (Gal. 2:14), would be reasons for a district
president to dismiss a complaint under 2004 Res. 8-O1A. And it
could also be argued that a complainant who disobeyed Res. 8-01A
might even be disciplined under Art. XIII for not following “the
conditions of membership laid down in Art. VI” The delegates
should also consider 1 Corinthians 5:1-5; 3 John 9-10; and John
2:14-17. Our Synod should not be allowed to go against the Word
of God and the Lutheran Confessions by prohibiting a public re-
sponse to public sins; and

Hearing Panel Is Private, Closed Door

WHEREAS, If the district president determines that the facts form
a basis for your expulsion, the district president will provide you a
written notification of your suspended status and his request to
expel you from the Synod. You have 15 days to request a “Hearing
Panel,” whose purpose is “to hear the matter and render a final de-
cision unless appealed.” This hearing panel will be made up of
three district presidents—one chosen by you, one by the district
president, and another by those two district presidents already se-
lected. Although this last point might not be against Scripture, there
are two practical concerns of this hearing panel; and

WHEREAS, (1) Prior to the passage of 2004 Res. 8-01A, district
presidents were excluded from serving on dispute resolution pan-
els, because they were the ones who had made the decision con-
cerning the complaint. After the passage of Res. 8-01A, the district
presidents themselves—who determine whether there will be for-
mal proceedings, and then rule on the merits of the complaints they
decide to hear—are the only ones to serve on the hearing panels to
decide an appeal of a district president’s decision to expel; and

WHEREAS, (2) What is most distressing is that these hearing
panels made up of district presidents will be a private, closed-door
court. Res. 8-01A says, “The hearing before the pane] shall be pri-
vate, attended only by the persons involved and the witnesses who
can substantiate the facts relevant to the matter” (2.14.7.7 [b]). Al-
though the panel will issue a written decision (2.14.8.2), the delib-
erations that led to the decision shall be sealed (2.14.7.7 [j]). The
accused will be told the decision, but there is no obligation to list
the reasons for the expulsion or reinstatement; and

WHEREAS, In the old system of adjudication set up in 1965 and
before the changes to the dispute resolution process in 1992, pri-
vate court trials included several checks to ensure transparency, im-
partiality, and justice, while maintaining a concern for the reputa-
tion of the accused.

A. The “jury” had an equal number of clergy and laity (1983 Bylaw

8.15 [a}).
B. Synod officials, including district presidents, could not serve on these
juries (1983 Bylaw 8.15 [c]).

C. The formal decision required not only a statement of the facts and
conclusions, but also the reasons for the conclusions (1983 Bylaw
8.65).

therefore be it
Resolved, That the 2007 LCMS convention rescind the 2004

LCMS convention Res. 8-01A (“To Amend Bylaws on Ecclesias-
tical Supervision and Dispute Resolution”’).

St. Paul, Edna, TX; Trinity, Herrin, IL; Greater Egypt
Circuit Forum 11, Southern Illinois District

8-27

To Rescind 2004 Res. 8-01A
as Contrary to Word of God

WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS)
“accepts without reservation: 1. The Scriptures of the Old and New
Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm
of faith and of practice; 2. All the Symbolical books of the Evan-
gelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and
exposition of the Word of God, to wit: the three Ecumenical Creeds
(the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed,) the
Unaltered Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg
Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Large Catechism of Luther,
the Small Catechism of Luther, and the Formula of Concord”; and

WHEREAS, Our Lord Jesus Christ publicly rebuked or con-

‘demned members of the community of Israel such as

1. those who had committed the public sin of rejecting Him and His
Word, and warmed His disciples regarding them (Matt. 23:1-19);

2. the ruler of the synagogue who condemned Him for healing o on
the Sabbath (Luke 13:11-17);

and
WuerEAs, St. John the Baptizer publicly condemned those

within Israel, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees at the Jordan,
and called them to repentance (Matt. 3:7—10); and

WHEREAS, St. Paul the Apostle publicly

1. confronted and rebuked St. Peter for not being straightforward
about the truth of the Gospel (Gal. 2:11-21);

2. condemned in the writing of Holy Scripture the public sin of the
man having relations with his father’s wife and called for his re-
moval from the congregation (1 Cor. 5:1—13);

and