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-operating- procedures-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 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(Bylaw1.10.18.1 [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 reconcile rs 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/my church website/c2001/marty noland- short history of discipline and dispute resolution.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 design ee, amember 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]);

• confirmation that if those charged with ecclesiastical supervision fail to carry out their duties and responsibilities, public rebuke may be pursued by any Christian, including if those charged with supervision fail to act with reasonable promptness (see LCMS CTCR, Public Rebuke of Public Sin [adopted 2006]);

• provisions for laymen aggrieved by decisions of their congregational polity to seek enforcement of their congregation’s governing documents through their circuit visitor and/or district, provided that this shall not apply to matters of pastoral discretion (e.g., the minor ban);

• the limitation of the time frame for adjudication of disputes to a total of not more than six months, and not more than one face-to-face meeting if a party would be significantly burdened by travel; and

• a requirement that, when a congregational or individual member of the Synod is removed from membership for cause, the cause be publicly reported following the conclusion of the proceedings, provided that it can be done in a manner that does not disclose personal information of innocent parties (e.g., abuse victims);

and be it finally

Resolved, That the task force shall submit a final overture to the after due consideration of comments received.