Official Workbook PDF page source text

• 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 pe rsonal information of innocent parties (e.g., abuse victims);

and be it finally

Resolved, That the task force shall submit a final overture to the 2029 Synod convention to implement the above bylaw changes, after due consideration of comments received.

St. Paul Brookfield, IL

Ov. 10-16

To Provide Scriptural Reforms to Dispute Resolution Process

WHEREAS, 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); and

WHEREAS, The current dispute resolution process focuses excessively on the words of Matthew 18, as though that was the only scriptural passage dealing with conflict and doctrinal issues; it also implements undue secrecy. First Timothy 5:19 –20 (KJV)

reminds 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

WHEREAS, In a number of recent cases, it appeared that discipline moved rapidly only after a social media firestorm, which is hardly a salutary or edifying situation for the church; and

WHEREAS, a number of deficiencies could be addressed in our dispute resolution process. For example, laymen have no real rights or protections against malfeasance by those in control of their congregations; they are not members of the Synod so they cannot use dispute resolution, and they cannot go to civil court both for reasons scriptural and having to do with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The process cannot be completed in less than a year, and there is no requirement to comply with the mandate o f 1 Timothy 5:19–20 to publicly rebuke what is determined to be false doctrine; and

WHEREAS, It is appropriate that the Synod appoint a task force to present improvements to the 2029 Synod convention for adoption;

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 one of whom shall be an attorney) appointed by the Praesidium. The task force shall submit, not later than June 30, 2028, a proposal for review by the Synod that shall include without limitation the following:

• 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 reconciliation provisions of Bylaws 1.10.5–1.10.6 to a total of not more than 120 days and not more than one face-to-face meeting if either party would be significantly burdened by travel; and • a requirement that, when a member of the Synod is removed from membership for cause, the cause be publicly stated, provided that it can be done in a manner that does not disclose personal information of innocent parties (e.g., abuse victims).

Circuit 24 (Sedalia)

Missouri District

Ov. 10-17

To Amend Bylaw 1.10.2 to Render Dispute Resolution Non-Exclusive Remedy

WHEREAS, Dispute resolution of the Synod is addressed in Bylaw section 1.10, and Bylaw 1.10.2 states, “It shall be the exclusive remedy to resolve such disputes that involve theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues …”; and

WHEREAS, This prohibits legal action by those who have suffered actual harm; and

WHEREAS, Staff, c ongregations, districts and Synod can do anything without risk of legal consequences; and

WHEREAS, D ispute Resolution Panel (DRP) reconcilers (see

Bylaw 1.10.4 [e]), as normal sinful people subject to error, can and

2026 Convention Workbook

510 ECCLESIASTICAL SUPER VISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION