Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 509
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 509

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
delineation of meaningful and enforceable ecclesiastical
outcomes, including admonition, correction, restoration,
and, where necessary, discipline;
• avoidance of unnecessary procedural complexity, cost, and
delay; and
• service to the pure Gospel and the unity of the Church rather
than management of conflict;
and be it further
Resolved, That the committee be empowered and directed to
recommend all necessary amendments to Constitution, Bylaws, and
policies required to fully implement the replacement system; and be
it finally
Resolved, That the committee present its proposed replacement
system, with all recommended constitutional, bylaw, and policy
changes, to the next regular convention for consideration,
amendment, and adoption.
•

Mount Calvary
Omaha, NE
Ov. 10-15

To Provide Scriptural Reforms
to Dispute Resolution Process
Preamble
Bylaw 1.10.1 states, “When disputes, disagreements, or offenses
arise among members of the body of Christ, it is a matter of grave
concern for the whole church. Conflicts that occur in the body
should be resolved promptly (Matt. 5:23–24; Eph. 4:26–27).”
Dispute resolution must provide fairness and due process (James
2:1–5; Lev. 19:15). Ideally, the process should also be simple and
understandable, involve persons with formal legal training and skill,
and provide a clear and definitive resolution.
Where public sin or false doctrine by a church leader is involved, 1
Timothy 5:19–20 (KJV) directs us, “Against an elder receive not an
accusation, but before two or three witnesses,” but “Them that sin
rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” This means that false
teaching must be publicly rebuked and not swept under the rug, lest
others perish, and that, where public sin by a church leader is
involved, public rebuke of persistent sin is necessary.
• The Synod’s current dispute resolution system (Bylaw
section 1.10) is not simple. The 1989 Bylaw chapter 8,
“Reconciliation, Adjudication, and Appeal,” filled seven
pages (129–35); the current Bylaw section 1.10, “Dispute
Resolution of the Synod,” spans 17 pages (39–55). It is
supplemented by a 52-page Standard Operating Procedures
Manual (files.lcms.org/api/file/preview/standard-operatingprocedures-manual-bylaw-1-10-pdf).
• The Synod’s current dispute resolution system (Bylaw
section 1.10) is not prompt; resolution can take up to 15
months or more (up to 30 days for face-to-face meeting;
possible 30 days for CCM or CTCR opinion; up to 45 days
for district president to advise as to bylaw process; up to 15
days to select a reconciler; possible 60 days for further
reconciliation efforts; formal in-person reconciliation
meeting at “earliest reasonable date”; up to 15 days after
reconciler’s written report to request Dispute Resolution
Panel [DRP]; up to 21 days to select panel; up to 45 days to
hold formal DRP hearing; up to 30 days to issue a written

509

decision; up to 15 days to appeal; up to 21 days to select an
appeal panel; up to 30 days to issue a decision; up to 21 days
to form Review Panel; up to 45 days to proceed; up to 30
days to issue final decision [ibid., “Dispute Resolution
Process Flow Chart,” p. 27]).
• The Synod’s current dispute resolution system (Bylaw
section 1.10) imposes a “gag order” on participants
throughout the duration of the process (Bylaw 1.10.18.1 [d]).
This means that public sin cannot be publicly addressed by
those charged with authority during this extended period.
However, in recent years outside parties, who were not
bound by the bylaw, publicized certain controversies
through social media campaigns, with the perceived result of
influencing and accelerating the process, which is hardly a
salutary or edifying situation for the church.
• The Synod’s current dispute resolution system (Bylaw
section 1.10) does not provide for accountability of the panel
members to the Synod-at-large, since they are appointed, not
elected. And it does not require any of the reconcilers or
other panel members to be attorneys or have any formal legal
training.
Since 1941, the Synod has had four different adjudication systems:
the Boards of Appeals (1941–71), the Commissions on
Adjudication and Appeals (1971–92), the Dispute Resolution
System (1992–2004), and the Dispute Resolution System and
Hearing
Panels
(2004–present)
(s3.amazonaws.com/mychurchwebsite/c2001/martynolandshorthistoryofdisciplineanddisputeresolution.pdf). Notably, the
prior and more direct bylaws for Commissions on Adjudication and
Appeals were drastically altered and replaced with the Dispute
Resolution System at a time when Dr. Robert Preus, now of blessed
memory, was utilizing the prior procedures successfully to contest
his invalid removal as president of Concordia Theological
Seminary.
WHEREAS, The foregoing factors support the return to the
Commissions on Adjudication and Appeals system, with certain
improvements; therefore be it
Resolved, That a task force be formed prior to December 31,
2026, to consist of the Secretary of Synod or his designee, a member
of the Commission on Handbook appointed by that commission,
and three ordained ministers, a commissioned minister, and three
laymen (at least two of whom shall be attorneys) appointed by the
Praesidium after consultation with the Council of Presidents. The
task force shall submit a proposal for new dispute resolution bylaws
for review and comment by congregational and individual members
of the Synod not later than June 30, 2028, allowing a period of six
months for comments; and be it further
Resolved, That such proposal shall include the following:
• the replacement of the current dispute resolution system and
hearing panels with the 1989 Bylaw chapter 8,
“Reconciliation, Adjudication, and Appeal,” with
enhancements described in this resolution;
• confirmation that public teaching includes materials publicly
shared on the internet, in public worship, or through other
means whereby they are clearly not intended for private use
only: “but where the sin is so public that the judge and
everyone else are aware of it … you may also testify publicly
against them” (LC I [Eighth Commandment] 284
[Kolb/Wengert]);
2026 Convention Workbook