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

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

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