LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — May 5, 1999, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

A pastor and congregation involved in a dispute resolution case have raised a series of questions pertaining
to the Synod’s Dispute Resolution Process. The Commission responds as follows:
1. Can District/Synodical officials intervene followed by the Synodical Reconciliation/
Dispute Resolution Process, cutting short or interrupting a congregation’s own biblically,
confessionally, and synodically approved constitutional reconciliation procedures?
Bylaw 8.05 requires that, prior to the formal reconciliation process of the Synod, the parties must make a
good-faith attempt at settling the dispute themselves. Bylaw 8.07, c, furthermore requires that the appointed
reconciler, as a first order of business, determine whether such informal reconciliation efforts have been
adequate. It is therefore the responsibility of the reconciler to determine whether informal, or as in this
case, congregational efforts have been adequate.
2. Can a Dispute Resolution Panel exclude a party’s evidence from a hearing on its own
without listening to formal arguments to retain such evidence from either party whose
evidence is being excluded? Should the DRP process provide for other avenues of due
process relative to evidence.
It is not the responsibility of the Commission on Constitutional Matters to determine whether the Dispute
Resolution Process should provide for other avenues of due process relative to evidence. Bylaw 3.905
stipulates that it is the business of the Commission only to interpret the existing Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions of the Synod.
Bylaw 8.21, g, gives responsibility to a panel for determining the number of witnesses necessary for a full
and complete understanding of the facts involved in the dispute. Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Dispute Resolution Process allows that “the parties may offer any evidence that they consider to be fair,
relevant, and pertinent to the dispute.” The same rule, however, also provides final decision-making
authority to the panel, stipulating that “the reconcilers and panels shall be the judge of the relevance and
materiality of the evidence offered, and conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.”
3. Can a called worker who resigns from his position have further recourse against a
congregation with regard to his worker/employment status when he knowingly agrees to
a congregation’s constitution and bylaw procedures that resignation is the end of the
matter?
If a called worker believes that the congregation has not proceeded according to its constitution and bylaws
in his/her resignation from a position or contends that he/she has been improperly removed from his/her
position, the worker may request a reconciler and thereby initiate the dispute resolution process according
to Bylaw 8.13, b, 2.
4. When a complainant is asking for benefits with relation to a former contractual
relationship, which according to Chapter VIII of the Handbook is excluded, would it be
proper for a DRP to rule on such a matter?
Bylaw 8.02 specifically notes those matters for which the dispute resolution process does not prescribe an
exclusive remedy, including “disputes arising under contractual arrangements of all kinds.” The Bylaw,
however, provides exception in cases that involve “theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues.”
When, therefore, a dispute involves a divine call, even though it may also include contractual elements, the
presence of a call introduces clear theological, doctrinal, and ecclesiastical considerations and is a case for
which the dispute resolution process is intended.