LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 215

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

RESOLUTIONS
12

Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute
Resolution
To Restore Right of Accuser to Appeal
When a District President Fails to Act
or Declines to Suspend
RESOLUTION 12-01A
Report R65D (CW, p. 301); Overtures 12-01, 12-11–13, 12-15–
21, 12-23–27, 12-39–40 (CW, pp. 415, 419–424, 430–431)
Rationale
Membership in the Synod is and always has been a privilege that
is either granted or terminated by the Synod. In the earliest period
of its history, the Synod retained the authority to make decisions
regarding membership for itself, to be made by its conventions.
Over time, the Synod adopted bylaw processes for making such
decisions. In the matter of expulsions from the Synod, such processes were to be fair and impartial.
Initially, the President of the Synod as ecclesiastical supervisor was
entrusted with the authority to suspend members prior to their
expulsion. Not long after, district presidents as the President’s
agents were given the authority to suspend, with final decisions
regarding expulsion to be made by a convention of the Synod or
district. In time, Synod bylaw changes provided opportunity for
appeals of suspensions to commissions and boards of the Synod or
districts prior to expulsion.
The 1992 convention of the Synod, which created the Synod’s dispute resolution process, retained district presidents’ authority to
suspend but delegated the authority for final decisions regarding
expulsion from membership to dispute resolution panels. When the
2004 convention created new processes solely for suspension and
expulsion, panels of three district presidents were given responsibility for expulsion decisions. The 2010 convention replaced one of
the three presidents on such panels with a lay reconciler.

accuser could now request that the matter be presented to a Referral Panel of three circuit visitors if the district president failed to
act, this panel then making the decision regarding the suspension,
thereby reducing the opportunity for a full and objective hearing
and placing an ecclesiastical supervisory decision in the hands of
circuit visitors which constitutionally is entrusted to the President
of Synod and district presidents. The 2004 Bylaws 2.14.5ff also gave
a district president the option to form a Referral Panel to make a
suspension decision (or not) in his stead.
The history of the suspension/expulsion process supports a return
to past practice which existed from 1956 to 1989, leaving the
responsibility for suspension in the hands of those charged with
ecclesiastical supervision. When a district president fails or declines
to act, this will allow an appeal by the accuser to the President of the
Synod, who will decide when an accusation warrants suspension
and, if requested by the accused, a hearing before a panel.
Finally, in response to a question posed by the chairman of Floor
Committee #12, the CCM concludes its Opinion (16-2791) with
these words:
Constitution Art. XIV provides that “[t]he Synod in convention may adopt bylaws that are consistent with and do
not contradict the Constitution of the Synod, which controls and supersedes such bylaws and all other rules and
regulations of the Synod.”
In the case of the former (1956–1989) provision, the case
for constitutionality was explicitly made, not only demon-

As the removal from membership process evolved over nearly 170
years, of particular note was the decision by the 1956 convention
to empower the President of the Synod to act when a district president failed to act on an accusation brought against a member of
the Synod. This presidential authorization to act was then given to
the Praesidium of the Synod in 1989 (Bylaw 2.27ff) and retained as
part of the overhaul of the suspension/expulsion processes in 1992.
The 2004 convention’s major overhaul of the process removed the
right of an accuser to appeal to the Praesidium of the Synod when
the district president failed to act within 60 days. In its place, the
“12. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution”

Committee 12 Chairman John Wille
U P O N T H I S R O C K • Resolutions

|

215