Grace Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, Elgin, Texas

What's Going On in the Missouri Synod?

Additional citations from the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions not included in the study materials are linked to this document and will open in a separate window.

Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution

In response to the Robert Preus debacle, the 1992 convention of the Synod followed the advice of the Bohlmann administration and replaced a true adjudication process, which was based on determining truth and justice through evidence, due process, and sound reasoning, with a Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) that was based on a binding arbitration model. At the time, the change was touted as moving from a harsh win-lose process to a gentler win-win solution. This new Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) was designed to be “the exclusive remedy” for all controversies and conflicts between members of the Synod.

Following the participation of District President Benke in a syncretistic service with non-Christian clergy at Yankee Stadium in 2001, many pastors and congregations filed charges. Initially Dr. Benke was suspended by Dr. Schultz for disobeying the Scripture, the Confessions and our Synodical Constitution, but later Dr. Benke was restored to the clergy roster by a Dispute Resolution Panel. The Dispute Resolution Panel, citing the opinion of the Committee on Constitutional Matters (CCM), ruled that Dr. Benke could not be disciplined because he had gotten the approval of Dr. Gerald Kieschnick, his ecclesiastical supervisor.

District President’s Rule
It is unknown what the delegates were thinking when they passed 2004 Convention Resolution 8-01A—a lengthy 26 pages long of bylaw changes, first printed in its entirety on the Tuesday that it was approved. I can only assume many did not read or understand it. While some may have thought that they were fixing a flawed dispute process, others stated from the floor of the convention, “Let’s make sure this never happens again!” The “this” was the embarrassing attention given to the Yankee Stadium controversy.

With the passage of 8-01A, widespread changes in the “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution,” process removed a congregation’s and pastor’s right to initiate formal proceedings so that each member is held to the Word of God. Now, according to 8-01A, “The action to commence expulsion of a congregation or individual from membership in the Synod is the sole responsibility of the District President who has ecclesiastical supervision for such member.” In addition, a Synodical President can no longer discipline a District President, but the District Presidents have the power to discipline themselves and the Synodical President. If the District President chooses not to initiate formal proceedings, there is nothing else that can be done.

Resolution 8-01A goes against Scripture when it excludes the laity and all rank-and-file clergy completely from their divine right to judge doctrine, and places that right solely in an ecclesiastical supervisor.
Matthew 7:15-16, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. ¹⁶You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?”
1 John 4:1, “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”
1 Corinthians 10:15, “I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say.”

Additional Burdens on the Accuser
Resolution 8-01A requires, “A face-to-face meeting in person between the accuser and the accused following the guidelines of Matt. 18:15. E-mail, regular mail, fax or telephone call (or any combination thereof) does not satisfy this requirement.” “Even if the alleged violation of Article XIII is considered to be ‘public,’ this provision of Matt. 18:15 shall be followed. The reputation of all parties is to be protected as commanded in the 8th Commandment.” Furthermore all complaints require first-person, first-hand knowledge of the offence of the accused. Until those requirements are met, the District President will not even consider disciplinary action. It is debatable whether someone who speaks publicly against public sin would be allowed to pursue a complaint under the new rules.

However, this interpretation of Matthew 18, in which there is no distinction made between public and private sins, disregards what the Book of Concord says in the Large Catechism.

“All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it” (284).

Another great concern for the process is the newly private hearing panel (bylaw 2.26.e6b)—attended only by the persons involved, the witnesses, and the panel of three District Presidents. In an effort to protect the reputation of the accused, Resolution 8-01A has created a closed unmonitored system that does not allow the scrutiny which comes from the light of day.

Binding Power of CCM and CTCR
In November of 2001, two pastors filed charges against President Kieschnick for his action of participating in two unionistic services and his approval of Dr. Benke’s syncretism at Yankee Stadium. In December of 2001, the CCM ruled that only a Synodical Convention can remove a Synodical President. The CCM did not consider the merit of President Kieschnick’s actions.

On May 30, 2002, Dr. Wil Sohns wrote An Evangelical and Fraternal Plea, in which he defended Benke on the grounds that he had gotten the approval of his ecclesiastical supervisor. On December 2, 2002, President Kieschnick appointed Dr. Sohns to the CCM, bringing the number of Kieschnick appointees to three (out of five). February 20-23, the CCM released a set of opinions in which it is stated, “The Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not allow or contemplate the expulsion of a member of the Synod on the basis of an action taken with the full knowledge and approval of the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor.” Despite what the LCMS Constitution says, the CCM interpretation effectively elevates the ecclesiastical supervisor above everything else. The Word of God is no longer the “only rule and norm of faith and life” in the LCMS.

The Greater Egypt Circuit sent an overture to the 2003 Southern Illinois District Convention. The SID Convention (SID Resolution 3-09) was one of six districts to ask the LCMS Convention that these decisions be overturned. The Synodical Board of Directors were concerned that the CCM opinions had gone well beyond an interpretation of the Constitution and bylaws. Concerned that these CCM opinions would cause great legal and financial consequences and jeopardize Synod’s incorporation status, the Synodical BOD declared in November of 2003 that eight CCM opinions were to be of “no effect.” Furthermore, the LCMS BOD stated, “Recognizing the need to address and resolve the source of the problem in the Handbook of the Synod, the Board has turned this matter over to the Commission on Structure….”

However, President Kieschnick bypassed the Commission on Structure and appointed his own Blue Ribbon Committee, which ignored the advice of the Commission on Structure and brought forth Resolution 8-01 and later 8-01A on Monday of the Convention, with changes announced orally. After complaints of confusion, the entire amended resolution was reprinted on Tuesday, the same day it was adopted by the LCMS Convention, 683-528.

Although Resolution 8-02, “To Affirm CCM Opinions Regarding Ecclesiastical Supervision,” was not considered on the floor of the Convention, another resolution sought to have the same result. Resolution 7-21, “To Amend Constitution Regarding Officer and Board Responsibilities” was passed. This resolution was presented as simply a needed clarification of the present LCMS Constitution. However, in reality it misinterprets the constitution and serves to limit the duties and authority of the Board of Directors. Most importantly, this resolution gives the CCM the responsibility and authority to overrule actions taken by the Board of Directors where property, business, and legal issues are concerned.

Because the LCMS Convention adoption of Resolution 7-21 mandated a change in the LCMS Constitution, the proposed constitutional changes needed to be approved by a two-thirds majority of the congregations. The change, called Amendment A, subsequently failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote for adoption, with only 1,801 (52%) votes for the Amendment and 1654 (48%) against it. That result came despite unprecedented lobbying for and against the Amendment’s. However, a decision of the CCM in October 2004 before voting was completed had stated that even if the amendment should fail to garner the needed 2/3 vote, the intent of the resolution would still be valid, because the change was not really a change, only a clarification. Since the vote, the Synod’s Board of Directors has asked the CCM to reconsider that opinion. [This paragraph added by Grace, Elgin, to update two paragraphs from Trinity's material.]

Justice
There are many other areas in which there are irregularities and abuse:

At the last LCMS convention, 138 delegates were seated, but did not the meet the requirements of the LCMS Handbook requiring each circuit to have seven congregations or 1500 confirmed members. The presidential election could have gone differently if 35 delegates had changed their vote.
At the last LCMS convention, Dr. David Benke was appointed by President Kieschnick to serve on the floor committee that considered overtures concerning Benke’s syncretism and unionism. The only one to reach the floor commended Dr. Benke.
The CTCR increasingly approves reports with many and significant minority reports. The CTCR does not print the minority reports along with the majority report.

I quote from Dr. Wohlrabe’s paper to the conference “Confession and Christ’s Mission: Challenges to the Future of the LCMS” on October 21, 2004, in Melrose Park, Illinois.,

“The Synodical President has appointed the majority of the members of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, which will govern procedure and make decisions in future appeals cases. The Synodical President will appoint the next floor committee, which will take up issues generated by Resolution 8-01A at the coming 2007 synodical convention. Such future convention floor committees can be expected to ignore or subvert overtures they or the Synodical President disagree with, as they did in 2004. My point here is that there is not much hope of changing the bylaws affected by Resolution 8-01A at the 2007 convention by the normal means. Laymen will not be able to regain their divinely-given powers of judging church court cases until the 2010 convention, and that is only if the current Synodical President is not reelected in 2007.

It is my opinion that the best plan of action at this time is for the pro-laymen’s group within the Missouri Synod to go on the offensive and depose (by that I mean vote out of office) all of our District Presidents….”

The foregoing material developed by and used with permission of Trinity Lutheran Church, Herrin, Illinois.

5. The Service of Women

6 Points