Collection › LCMS Convention Proceedings (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2016 · 66th Convention, Milwaukee › Page 228
LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 2016, Page 228
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
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
Page 254
Page 255
Page 256
Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
Page 264
Page 265
Page 266
Page 267
Page 268
Page 269
Page 270
Page 271
Page 272
Page 273
Page 274
Page 275
Page 276
Page 277
Page 278
Page 279
Page 280
Page 281
Page 282
Page 283
Page 284
Page 285
Page 286
Page 287
Page 288
Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
⤓ Download page image (full resolution)
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected
ber of the Synod publicly to teach or practice contrary
to the established doctrinal position of the Synod.
Any such public teaching shall place in jeopardy
membership in the Synod.
PRESENT/PROPOSED WORDING
1.10.18.1 (h) If any part of the dispute involves a specific question of doctrine or doctrinal application, …
Action: Adopted (8)
(After explanation by the committee and discussion by the
assembly, a motion to end debate was introduced and carried, and
Res. 12-07A was adopted as presented [Yes: 684; No: 244].)
To Provide Assistance to Lay Reconcilers
Serving on Dispute Resolution, Hearing,
and Final Hearing Panels
RESOLUTION 12-08
Overtures 12-29–30 (CW, pp. 426–427)
Rationale
2013 Res. 7-18 “To Study Doctrinal Training for Reconcilers”
responded to a request in Part 2 of the Synod President’s Report
“to consider doctrinal training for reconcilers” to assist them when
they are asked to serve on panels that are called upon to decide matters of doctrine or doctrinal application. The resolution’s single
resolve paragraph referred this request to the Council of Presidents
(COP), the CCM, and the Secretary of the Synod “for appropriate
study and recommendations giving particular attention to Bylaw
2.14.7, especially 2.14.7.8 (k).”
After discussions during the current triennium that included the
COP and CCM as well as the Commission on Handbook (COH)
and the reconcilers themselves during late-2014 regional training
meetings, it was generally agreed that providing such comprehensive doctrinal training for lay reconcilers as would be necessary
to cover all potential doctrinal issues would not be a reasonable
solution.
The bylaws governing dispute resolution and suspension/expulsion processes already contain resource assistance to the parties
to a dispute to help them understand and apply our Synod’s confessional Lutheran doctrines and practices (Bylaws 1.10.18.1 [h];
2.14.7.8 [l]). The same resource opportunity is available to a Dispute
Resolution, Hearing, or Final Hearing Panel as a whole (Bylaws
1.10.18.1 [h]; 2.14.7.8 [1]). In the interest of providing lay reconciler panel members with a resource for personal assistance (i.e.,
to talk through a doctrinal matter with a knowledgeable person),
the addition of a subparagraph (3) to Bylaw 1.10.18.1 [h] and a subparagraph (5) to paragraph (l) of Bylaw 2.14.7.8, as follows, will
provide such opportunity.
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the following bylaw changes be adopted by the
2016 convention of the Synod to offer ready access to resources
that may assist lay panel members in understanding confessional
Lutheran doctrines and doctrinal applications.
228
|
U P O N T H I S R O C K • Resolutions
2.14.7.8
…
(3) An individual member of the panel may also
request resource materials through the hearing
facilitator and personal assistance from the executive director of the CTCR or from a theologian
recommended by the executive director, this to
provide opportunity to read about, discuss with
a knowledgeable person, and better comprehend
doctrinal matters associated with the dispute.
The dispute resolution case itself shall not be discussed.
(l) If any part of the dispute involves a specific question of doctrine or doctrinal application, …
…
(5) The lay reconciler member of the panel may
also request resource materials through the hearing facilitator and personal assistance from the
executive director of the CTCR or from a theologian recommended by the executive director, this
to provide opportunity to read about, discuss with
a knowledgeable person, and better comprehend
doctrinal matters associated with the suspension.
The suspension case itself shall not be discussed.
Action: Adopted (5)
(After discussion, including the addition by friendly amendment of the words “through the hearing facilitator” after “request”
in both new bylaw paragraphs, the chair asked whether the assembly was willing to close debate. Hearing no objection, Res. 12-08
was adopted by voice vote.)
To Update and Amend Dispute
Resolution Process
RESOLUTION 12-09
Overture 12-42 (CW, pp. 432–435)
A. To Add “Appeal Panel” to Bylaw Section 2.14 Definitions
Rationale
When Res. 7-12A was adopted by the 2013 convention incorporating an appeal panel process into the Synod’s expulsion processes,
the inclusion of a definition of “Appeal Panel” in Bylaw 2.14.2 was
overlooked. The Commission on Handbook proposes the following
addition to this bylaw, identical to the definition of “Appeal Panel”
in Bylaw 1.10.4 for the dispute resolution process, which addition to
Bylaw 2.14.2 will also pertain to the expulsion processes provided
in Bylaw sections 2.15 and 2.17.
“12. Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution”