Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2013 · 65th Convention, St. Louis › Page 188
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2013, Page 188
Page 1
Page 2
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 45
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 89
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 111
Page 112
Page 113
Page 114
Page 115
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 135
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 161
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 188
Page 189
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
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
To Address Handbook Issues re Dispute
Resolution Process
(Bylaw Section 1.10)
RESOLUTION 7-12A
Overture 7-20 (CW, pp. 259–263)
Introduction
During the triennium, concerns related to Bylaw section 1.10
(dispute resolution) were brought to the attention of the Commission on Handbook. This overture identifies those concerns and
advocates bylaw amendment solutions proposed by the commission to the 2013 convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod for adoption.
(A) Exceptional Use of Synod Dispute Resolution Process
(Bylaw 1.10.3)
Rationale
Bylaw 1.10.3 identifies matters for which the Synod’s dispute
resolution process “does not provide an exclusive remedy.” Lost in
the current wording of the bylaw is the availability of the dispute
resolution process even in the case of those disputes enumerated
by paragraphs (a) and (b) of the bylaw if both parties agree to use
and honor the outcome of the process. The Commission on Handbook proposes the addition of a final sentence to the paragraph,
as follows.
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
1.10.3
This chapter provides evangelical procedures to remedy disputes only and does not set forth procedures
for expulsion from membership (Constitution, Art.
XIII and Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17); nor does it set
forth procedures for board of regents’ supervision
of faculty and administration as specified in Bylaws
3.10.4.7.5–3.10.4.7.9 and 3.10.5.6.5–3.10.5.6.9. While
Christians are encouraged to seek to resolve all their
disputes without resorting to secular courts, this
chapter does not provide an exclusive remedy for the
following matters, unless such matters involve theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues, including
those arising under the divine call of a member of
the Synod:
(a) Disputes concerning property rights (e.g., real
estate agreements, mortgages, fraud, or embezzlement)
(b) Disputes arising under contractual arrangements
of all kinds (e.g., contracts for goods, services, or
employment benefits)
Even in the case of disputes concerning property
rights or disputes arising under contractual arrangements, this dispute resolution process may be used if
both parties sign written statements agreeing to use
and honor the outcome of the process.
188
|
2 0 1 3 C o n v e n t io n P r o c e e d i n g s
(B) Dispute Cases with Multiple Complainants or Respondents
(Bylaw 1.10.5)
Rationale
In some dispute resolution cases, multiple complainants may
bring accusations against a single respondent or a single complainant may bring accusations against multiple respondents. The
spirit of the Matthew 18 principle requiring a face-to-face meeting “between you and him alone” is best served when disputes are
addressed by individuals meeting face-to-face. The Commission on
Handbook therefore proposes the addition of a sentence to Bylaw
1.10.5, as follows.
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
1.10.5
Before any matter is submitted to the formal reconciliation process, the parties involved in a dispute must
meet together, face-to-face, in a good-faith attempt
to settle their dispute in the manner described in
Matthew 18:15 and may involve the informal use
of a reconciler. And further, before any matter is
submitted to the formal reconciliation process, the
complainant(s) must meet and consult with his/her/
their ecclesiastical supervisor(s) to seek advice and
also so that it can be determined whether this is the
appropriate bylaw procedure (Bylaw section 1.10) or
whether the matter falls under Bylaw sections 1.8,
2.14, 2.15, 2.16, or 2.17, or Bylaws 3.10.4.7.9 and/or
3.10.5.6.9. In regard to this consultation:
(a) From this point forward in this process, in the
case of multiple complainants or multiple respondents, the district president of the respondent decides
whether or not each complainant and/or respondent
proceeds singly and individually, or as a group.
(ab) The district president of the complainant shall
inform the district president of the respondent that
a consultation is underway. He may also seek advice
from the vice-presidents of his own district or from
the district president of the respondent. The district
president may also ask for an opinion of the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) and/or
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR). The district president must follow any
opinion received from either the CCM or the CTCR,
which shall be rendered within 30 days or such additional time as the district president may allow.
(bc) The district president shall require the complainant to follow the correct bylaw provision under
the circumstance, if any, Within 45 days of the conclusion of the consultation, and receipt of any advice,
or opinions as described above, the district president
shall advise the complainant and the district president of the respondent of the appropriate bylaw
section to be followed, and shall provide evangelical
supervision, counsel, and care to the party or parties.
(cd) If Bylaw section 1.10 applies, the district
president shall require the complainant to meet faceto-face with the respondent in the manner described
R e s olu t i on s