LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — July 18–19, 2019, Page 2

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

The verb in Jesus’ command to go to the brother, (ὕπαγε), is an imperative. At the very least, such an
imperative requires some commitment to making the reconciliation happen. The arguments against
physical meetings suggest a lack of commitment due to the cost of time and money. While some may
consider such expense a “barrier” to reconciliation…it is a fruit of reconciliation.
Both texts suggest a high priority on maintaining relationships: [6:24: ὕπαγε πρῶτον διαλλάγηθι τῷ
ἀδελφῷ σου, 18:15: ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου]…[C]ommon sense…suggests that physical
presence is the most effective means of creating potential for good communication, (e.g., tone, facial
expression, body language, the elimination of distractions unique to the individual’s location, and
presence) … personal relationships would be served best by face-to-face meetings in person.”
This response well reflects the goal and intent of the Bylaws’ face-to-face language, as expressed in Bylaw
1.10.1.2:
The words of Jesus in Matthew 18:15–20 provide the basis for church discipline for the local
congregation. The same passage also grants Christ’s guidance to all Christians in seeking to settle
other disputes, many of which fall outside the purview of church discipline involving the
congregation. In either case, the steps of Matthew 18 should be applied lovingly in both formal and
informal settings. Matthew 18 does not apply directly in cases of public sin, but face-to-face meetings
are required nonetheless, even in the case of public sin, toward the goal of reconciliation and winning
the brother or sister. The parties and others attempting to effect resolution of a dispute must always
remain mindful that the church has been given the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18). Hence,
conflict resolution in the church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring the erring member in a spirit of
gentleness (Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system practiced in society.
The noted response also well interprets the Bylaws’ own definition of face-to-face (Bylaw 1.10.4 [f]; 2.14.2
[f]) and the Bylaws’ repeated connection of such language to its root in Matthew 18:15 (e.g., Bylaw 1.10.5,
1.10.5 [d]; 2.14.3 [f]; 2.16.3 [c]; 3.10.5.7.9 [a]).
The requirement of a face-to-face meeting was inserted when the current Bylaw section 1.10 process was
first adopted in 1992. The meaning of face-to-face was clarified by the 2004 convention:
Face-to-face: A meeting face-to-face, in person, between the parties in dispute following the
guidelines of Matthew 18:15. E-mail, regular mail, fax, or telephone call (or any combination thereof)
does not satisfy this requirement. (Note: Failure to conduct a face-to-face meeting within 30 days or
within such extension as may be established by the involved ecclesiastical supervisors shall result in
dismissal if the fault lies with the accuser or movement to the next stage if the fault lies with the
accused.) 2004 Bylaw 1.10.4 (f)
The reference to “email, regular mail, fax, or telephone call (or any combination thereof)” was not intended
to be exhaustive of insufficient means, but was simply a listing of the technological alternatives of the day.
It was clearly intended that the parties need to meet together physically.
At the same time, it also should be noted that the requirement for a face-to-face meeting is not absolute. If
one party attempts to obstruct the process by refusing to meet, or creates so many conditions for the meeting
that it creates a hardship on the other party, the ecclesiastical supervisor may make the decision to move
the process to the next stage.
In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, it is this commission’s opinion that face-to-face means what it
says, namely, the physical presence of the parties in the same place. While bylaws do acknowledge that
there can be specific exceptions to the requirement of a face-to-face meeting (e.g., Bylaw 2.17.3 [d], or
should the accused party utterly and demonstrably frustrate reasonable attempts by the accuser to arrange
a face-to-face meeting) and admit that Matt. 18:15 does not provide a dominical sine qua non in all cases
(for example, in the case of public sin, Bylaw 1.10.1.2), they do require face-to-face meetings “nonetheless”
in the general case, in pursuit of “reconciliation and winning the brother or sister” (Bylaw 1.10.1.2). There
CCM Minutes – July 18–24, 2019 – Page 160