 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Dr. David H. Benke's Suspension Lifted As an aspect of my duties as Acting President (First Vice-President) of the Atlantic District, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, I am
hereby presenting the Final Decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel convened in the case of disputants Wallace Schulz and David H. Benke. This duty is mine under Synodical bylaw 8.09e. as follows: The first and last pages of the Final Decision are not included, since the names of the panelists occur on them, and I desire that information to be confidential. However, the full force of the decision is contained in the pages published. The leaders, church workers and parishioners of the Atlantic District thank God for this decision, and the spirit in which it was carried out. With great joy I announce to you that Dr. David H. Benke is free to carry out his duties and responsibilities as the President of the Atlantic District. His suspension has been lifted. The decision is final. Thanks be to God! With great prayers of thanksgiving, and for the continued strong mission and ministry of the Gospel in the Atlantic District, LCMS, In Christ, Rev. Charles Froehlich, First Vice-President + + + + + Decision of Dispute Resolution Panel April 10, 2003 Names of the Parties: Complainant: The Reverend Dr. Wallace P. Schulz Respondent: The Reverend Dr. David H. Benke HEARING: The Synodical Dispute Resolution Panel met January 13-14, 2003, at the Wyndham Newark Airport Hotel in Newark, New Jersey, to hear the dispute between the Parties. The hearing commenced at 9:30 am. January 13th. ISSUES:
The Primary Issue to be decided by the Panel was: Should the suspension of Rev. David H Benke be upheld, resulting in his expulsion from the Synod? The Secondary Issues to be considered in making the above decision were: On what basis does this Dispute Resolution Panel have the authority to act in this matter? Did Rev. Wallace Schulz follow the Synod's prescribed procedures in suspending Rev. Benke? Is there sufficient reason according to the Synod's Constitution and Bylaws for suspending Rev. Benke?
SUMMARY OF DECISIONS ON THE ISSUES: We, the undersigned panel members, having been selected in accordance with the Rules of Procedure for Synodical Dispute Resolution, and having heard the testimony, the proofs and allegations of the Parties, offer a unanimous decision on the issues identified as follows: 1. The Panel determined that it has authority under Synod's Constitution and Bylaws to act in this matter. 2. The Panel concludes that Rev. Schulz did follow the Synod's prescribed procedures in suspending Rev. Benke. 3. The Panel concludes that there is not sufficient reason according to the Synod's Constitution and Bylaws for suspending Rev. Benke. 4. The Panel concludes that the decision of Rev. Schulz for expulsion of Rev. Benke under Article XIII of the Constitution of the Synod is not substantiated. Therefore, the suspension of Rev. David Benke is lifted and his LCMS membership in good standing is continued.
FACTS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISIONS: ISSUE: On what basis does this Dispute Resolution Panel have the authority to act in this matter? Facts 1. Reverend Dr. David H. Benke is a Pastor and member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. 2. Reverend Dr. Wallace ft Schulz is a Pastor and member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and in this Dispute represents the complaints of other members, both Pastors and Congregations, of the Synod. 3. Under Synod's Bylaw 8.01, the purpose of the Synodical Dispute Resolution process is to "resolve, in a God-pleasing manner, disputes that involve as parties, members of the Synod, the Synod itself....and shall be the exclusive remedy to resolve such disputes." 4. The three Panel members are District Reconcilers appointed by their respective Districts according to Bylaw 8.13a. 5. The three Panel members were selected according to the process outlined in Bylaw 8.15 and 5.17. Conclusions The Panel concluded that all proper procedures were followed to request and assemble a Dispute Resolution Panel to hear the matter and make a decision regarding the dispute. The Panel concluded that it has authority in this matter to either uphold or overturn the suspension of Rev. Banks. The Panel concluded that this dispute is to be resolved pursuant to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Synod's Bylaws.
Decision The Panel determined that it has authority under Synod's Constitution and Bylaws to act in this matter. ISSUE: Did Rev. Schulz fallow the Synod's prescribed procedures in suspending Rev. Benke? Facts 1. Article II and Article XI1 of the Constitution and Bylaws 2.25, 2.27, and Section VIII of the Bylaws do set forth the basis and process of suspension of a member of Synod. 2. In accordance with Bylaw 2,27, written complaints were filed by twenty-one members (18 Pastors, 3 Congregations of the Synod) with the President of the Synod. The Presidium disqualified both the President and the 1 Vice-President of the Synod, passing the responsibility of a thorough investigation to the 2nd Vice President. 3. The 2nd Vice President, Rev. Wallace R. Schulz, carried out the prescribed thorough investigation to determine whether the allegations could be substantiated. 4. In accordance with the Synodical Dispute Resolution Process, the Parties and/or their representatives met together face to face in a good-faith attempt to resolve their dispute (Bylaw 8.05). 5. Reverend Schulz determined that the facts he identified did form a basis for expulsion of Rev. Benke and prepared the required written statement (Bylaw 2.2701,2 a-c). 6. A Dispute Resolution Panel was formed (Bylaw 2.27 c 2 d). 7. The Dispute Resolution Panel met and heard the matter in accord with Bylaw 2.27 c 2 f; and Chapter VIII of the Bylaws.
Conc!usions The Panel concluded that Rev. Schulz did follow the proper process indicated by the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod Certainly both parties might argue certain steps or points were not carried out to the letter, that breeches of confidentiality or communication, etc, were violated. However, the basic process of dealing with this matter was managed and carried out according to the prescribed process.
Decision On the basis of testimony and evidence received, the Panel concluded that Rev. Schulz did follow Synod's prescribed procedures in suspending Rev. Benke. ISSUE: Is there sufficient reason according to the Synod's Constitution and Bylaws for suspending Rev, Benke? Facts 1. In both written and oral testimony Rev. Benke states that he participated in "A Prayer For America" at Yankee Stadium in New York City, on the basis of Resolution 3-074 only after seeking, not once but twice, counsel and direction from his supervisor, Rev. Gerald Kieschnick - President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and would not have participated had favorable approval not been given. 2. Rev. Benke's participation was neither a rejection of nor a challenge to the Synod's Fellowship position and practice, but a discretionary response to a quite extraordinary set of circumstances in a quite unordinary event a terrorist attack on the United States of America, specifically in New York City and the parochial area of St. Peter's Lutheran Church - New York, New York - and the Atlantic District of the LCMS. 3. Rev. Gerald Kieschnick, President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, did, on the basis of Resolution 3-074, give counsel and guidance approving the participation of Rev. Benke so long as his witness to the Gospel was not restricted in any way. 4. Rev. Benke, on the basis of Resolution 3-074, did participate in "A Prayer For America" without his witness to the Gospel being restricted in any way. 5. On the basis of Rev. Benke's participation in the event at Yankee Stadium, 21 members of the Synod filed written complaints against Rev. Benke on the basis of Articles II, VI, and XIII, and By-law 2.27. These were charges of syncretism. violations of the Synodical Constitution and By-laws. unionism, violations of the First and Second commandments, and public defense of false doctrine. (Schulz' June 25, 2002 "Written Statement") The charges were essentially the same for adjudication purposes since they all referred to the same action, namely taking part in "A Prayer For America." 6. The complaints against Rev. Benke proceed from the conclusion that Resolution 3-074 is not sufficient basis or justification for his participation in "A Prayer For America." 7. Dr. Benke's participation and the resultant charges have generated questions, discussions, opinions, and even arguments as to what defines a "worship service," whether prayer is fellowship, witness, confession, etc., and other related questions regarding Synod's fellowship position and practice. 8. Rev. Schulz, following By-law 2.27, did thoroughly investigate the complaints and did suspend Rev. Benke. 9. In his presentation to the Panel Rev. Schulz notes that, "The question of whether or not the 2001 LCMS Convention Res. 3-074 should have been used to authorize Rev. Benke's participation at Yankee Stadium has become a critical issue in this case." [Rev. Schulz' Opening Summary to the Panel, pg 1, Parg. 4, last sentence). He later concludes that the Respondent and his witnesses attempt to interpret Resolution 3-07A an "official theological position of the Synod" [Schulz Presentation, Page 31, last full Paragraph) In His presentation Rev. Schulz questions whether Resolution 3-07A should have any bearing on the issue. His conclusions, however, appear biased, subjective, and without credible and sustainable fact. He argues that: "Pastor Benke, President Kieschnick, and Dr. Nafzger argue that by "commending" these two CTCR documents, the LOMS delegates thereby authorized all that is contained in the documents, including "Cases of Discretion" for immediate application, such as in the Benke/Yankee Stadium situation. However, this report argues just the opposite. The 2001 LCMS Convention delegates did not "commend" the CTCR Documents, (especially the "Cases of Discretion" in the Report) for immediate application, Rather, the delegates commended the documents "for continued use and guidance [in ongoing discussions in the LCMS on fellowship) in order to build unity where it is still lacking." "The Rev. Roger Gallup, secretary to the LCMS Convention Floor Committee on Theology and Church Relations, the group that brought Resolution 3-074 to the convention delegates for a vote, wrote: "The Resolve calls for the document to continue to be ussd as it had previously, AS A STUDY DOCUMENT that the church would continue to use in quidinQ our discussions over the issue of church fellowship." Pastor Gallup here stresses that the "commending" of these two documents "for continued use and guidance" did not in any way mean that these two documents [especially the "Cases of Discretion") were commended for immediate application and implementation, but only for "continued use and guidance [in fellowship discussions) to build unity [in the LCMS) where it is still lacking." (Rev. Schulz' Opening Summary to the Panel, page 2, paragraphs 2 & 3). "The greatest surprise in this entire investigation came when I read carefully the 2001 LCMS Convention Res. 2-07A. To my shock, I realized that LCMS leaders had both misinterpreted and misapplied the 2001 LCMS resolution in the Benke case." [Rev. Schulz' Opening Statement, page 5, paragraph 5): His caricature of the "Cases of Discretion" as "Pork Barrel" last minute additions by "some" to the Resolution, is without good evidence. (Schulz' verbal comments and Materials, Tab L, "Visualized Explanation of Controversial CTCR Paragraphs). 10. Having dealt with Resolution 2-074 with these arguments, Rev. Schulz went on to present a very thorough argument concerning the charges on the basis of the Holy Scriptures alone.
11. However, 2001 Convention Resolution 2-074 was adopted by the Synod in Convention and states in the fourth Resolved, "That we commend this study and response for continued use and guidance to build that unity where it is still lacking; and be it further..." As the Convention Proceedings show in the footnote to the resolution, a substitute resolution requesting that the documents involved "be recommitted for additional study to the CTCR and input from the larger..." was defeated.
12. Resolution 3-07A meets the criteria of a doctrinal resolution of the Synod and as such Is to be honored and upheld until such time as the Synod itself amends or repeals It. (Bylaw 1 .09 a and b). This is also supported by CCM Opinion 02-2294, (5th last paragraph, 2nd last sentence.) The Resolution expresses the collective will of the Synod and not only does apply, but is the very basis for participation. (See facts 1 -4). To divorce or separate Resolution 3-07A from the issue is to set aside the collective will of Synod as expressed in the Resolution.
13. Bylaw 1.09 establishes the relationship of Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and to the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.
14. Article II of the Constitution establishes the confessional basis, Article VI the Conditions of Membership in the Synod, and Article XIII the conditions for expulsion from the Synod. 15. Regarding how the Synod establishes its doctrinal position and the relationship which exists between the authority of Holy Scripture and doctrinal resolutions adopted by the Synod, Dr. Nafzger writes (Letter of January 10, 2003): 1. All members of the Synod by virtue of their membership in the Synod accept The Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice; All the Symbolical Books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church as a true and unadulterated statement and exposition of the Word of God [LCMS Constitution, Article II] 2. The Synod itself determines what it understands the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions to teach. It alone establishes the doctrinal position of the Synod. It does this by adopting, by majority vote at synodical conventions. doctrinal resolutions and more formal statements of belief. 3. When the members of the Synod [i.e., pastors, teachers, congregations, et. al.] join the Synod by signing Its constitution, they voluntarily commit themselves "by the grace and mercy of God" to honor and uphold the Synod's doctrinal resolutions and statements unless and until it is shown that they are in violation of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. 4. The "Study Materials" titled The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship were prepared by the CTCR and the President of the Synod at the request of the 1998 Synodical Convention (See 1998 Res. 3-02B "To Study Fellowship Principles and Practices"). The response to the 4300 reactions to the study of these materials titled "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship: A Report on Synodical Discussions" was unanimously adopted by the CTCR and approved by the President of the synod and reported to the Synodical Convention [see 2001 Convention Workbook, pp. 48-51]. 5. CTCR study materials or reports do not, in and of themselves, establish the doctrinal position of the Synod. Nor do any other "Study Materials" or reports prepared by other entities or individuals in the Synod. Only the Synod in convention has the authority to do this. 6. The 2001 Synodical Convention in Res. 3-07A Resolved that "we commend this study and response for continued use and guidance." The study and response referred to here are The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship, and the Report on the responses to this document which contains the paragraphs on."Cases of Discretion." It was on the basis of these documents that President Kieschnick offered guidance to President Benke with respect to participation in the Yankee Stadium event. 7. In its October 21-22, 2002, opinion, the Synod's Commission on Constitutional Matters stated with reference to the documents referred to in 2001 Res. 3-07A: Any member of the Synod who does not abide by and follow in practice the CTCR documents referred to in Resolution 3-07A is acting contrary to a study of the CTCR that the Synod has commended to its members for continued use and guidance. All doctrinal resolutions and statements are to be honored and upheld until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them. It might be helpful to note that in 1977 the Synod adopted Bylaw 1.09, which provides detailed procedures for the adoption of more formal statements of belief [I was a member of the Committee which drafted this Bylaw]. The adoption of this Bylaw by the Synod does not affect the status of "more formal statements of belief" and "doctrinal resolutions" adopted prior to this time. Nor does the adoption of this Bylaw affect the status of doctrinal resolutions adopted by the Synod since 1977. Doctrinal resolutions adopted by majority vote at conventions are to be "honored and upheld" in the same manner as "more formal statements of belief" In summary, the doctrinal resolutions and statements of belief adopted by the Synod in Convention present the Synod's own collective understanding of the teaching of Holy Scripture as the final judge, rule and norm of faith and practice. The Synod is not elevating resolutions which it adopts over the Scriptures when it requires its members to honor and uphold such doctrinal resolutions and statements. This is rather a recognition of what it is that the majority of its members understand the Scriptures to teach. Since synods, councils, commissions, theologians, officers, and pastors can err, the Synod has provided for proper ways for its members to express dissent to resolutions and statements adopted by the Synod, should anyone believe that they are in any way contrary to Holy Scripture. And, of course, individual members of the Synod are always free to disassociate themselves from this voluntary association, should they be unable to convince the majority of the members of the Synod of their own opinion regarding what the Scriptures teach. But the members of the Synod are not free to disregard synodically adopted doctrinal resolutions and statements or to teach and act contrary to them as they carry out their ministries 16. Even though doctrinal statements and resolutions are not to be included among those documents upon which membership in the Synod is based or terminated, [Hartwig Presentation. Sections UI and IV, Pages 2-3), The LCMS has always recognized that varying fellowship issues and situations may evoke different responses from different Pastors who may be equally committed to LCMS fellowship principles. In, the past, the Synod has not identified or equated Prayer with Altar and Pulpit Fellowship. Nor does the Synod have a "unit concept" of fellowship, such as does the Wisconsin Synod. The Synod has, therefore, also always acknowledged the necessity of discretion in extra ordinary circumstances for responsible pastoral care. [1986 Resolution 3-08; 1981 Resolution 3-01; 1965 CTCR Report "Theology of Fellowship," 1967 Resolution 2-13, among others]. 17. Resolution 3-07A recognizes that the document "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship" "is in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and that "a majority affirmed The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod position on church fellowship that it set forth." The resolution also recognized that a majority "found it scriptural and confessional and wanted the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to maintain its historic position." 18. All members of the Synod are to honor and uphold Resolution 3-07A together with all other doctrinal resolutions and statements until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them [Bylaw 1.09 b and c]. Bylaw 2.39c provides guidelines for dissent or disagreement 19. Testimony was presented to the panel that Rev. Benke's participation in the Yankee Stadium event was done on the basis of extraordinary, once in a lifetime, pastoral discretion conditions, not as an opportunity for syncretism or unionism. The CTCR "Report on Synodical Discussions" notes, "Not every occasion where worship takes place is necessarily a manifestation of church fellowship. There are situations where discretion is appropriate." And again: "In these and other situations nearly every Pastor may question aven his own decision and wish he had taken another course of action. We do not have the option of changing the past but must be content with believing that we made the best possible decision under the circumstances." 20. In Opinion 02-2294, entitled "Application of 2001 Resolution 3-07A," the Commission on Constitutional Matters, in response to the question "What does Resolution 3-07A mean and how should it be applied in the church," writes, ".....in response to the question regarding the meaning and effect of Resolution 3-07A, the Commission notes that "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship" is not simply a study document, as it was used prior to the 2001 convention. As noted in its first two whereas, Resolution 3-03B of the 1998 convention called for a study of fellowship principles and practices on the nature of our church body and our fellowship principles and practices, and Resolution 3-10C of the 1998 convention called for all 2000 District conventions to utilize the study to help build a "better understanding, general harmony, end more consistent practice in our Synod." The President of the Synod and the Commission on Theology and Church Relations produced the document "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship" jointly. Following a period of study by District conventions, conferences, and congregations, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in conjunction with the President of the Synod submitted a report to the Synod on the Synodical discussions, and Resolution 3-07A recognized that the document "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship" "is in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions and that "a majority affirmed The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod position on church fellowship that it set forth." The resolution also recognized that a majority "found it scriptural and confessional and wanted The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to maintain its historic position." Resolution 3-07A is a doctrinal resolution of the Synod pursuant to the requirements of Bylaw 1 .09 a and b. It was not proposed or adopted as a doctrinal statement under Bylaw 1.09 c. "The final four resolves outline the convention approved uses of "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship," and the published response of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations "In adopting Resolution 3-07A, the 2001 synodical convention not only commended "The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship" document (2001 Convention Workbook, pp. 375-387) for use and guidance, but it also commended the "response" of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations ("A Report on Synodical Discussions" - 2001 Convention Workbook, pp. 48-51] "for continued use and guidance." "In carrying out their official responsibilities, ecclesiastical supervisors of the Synod are expected, as with all synodical resolutions, including doctrinal resolutions and statements of the Synod, to heed Resolution 3-07A end see to it that it is "carried out" (Art XI B 4) and "implemented" (Bylaw 4.71 b). In carrying out their official responsibilities, officers of the Synod are expected, as with other doctrinal resolutions and statements of the Synod, to heed the resolution and submit to it. All members of the Synod are to honor and uphold Resolution 3-O7A together with all other doctrinal resolutions and statements until such time as the Synod amends or repeals them (Bylaw 1 .09 b and c]. Those members who dissent are expected to do so within the guidelines of Bylaw 2.39c..." (Commission on Constitutional Matters, January 20-21,2003]. 21. In response to the question, "May a District President who has acted in a matter after receiving the advice of and authorization of the Synodical President be charged under Bylaw 2,27 for such act, which charge could result in his removal from his position as District President as well as from the roster of the Synod?" the CCM in Opinion 02-2309 [Ecclesiastical Supervision and Conflict of interest] writes in paragraphs 6, 7, 8: "….The President of the Synod and District Presidents are officers of the Synod. Thus, the Synod, having designated to its members the individuals who will provide to them supervision and counsel, is itself responsible for the accuracy and content of such supervision and counsel, Having promised supervision and counsel, the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of Its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the Synod. "It would be inconsistent with the above constitutional provisions to place the membership of an individual or congregation at risk where that member relies on the ecclesiastical supervision and counsel of the person called and chosen for that role or function. If an act is in fact contrary to Article XlII of the Constitution, the member who acted cannot be charged since he or she acted according to the advice of his or her ecclesiastical supervisor. It should be noted, however, that when en ecclesiastical supervisor discovers error in his counsel, it is incumbent upon that supervisor to correct or amend it. The member should then be held to consider the corrected counsel. Failure to consider such amended admonition could form the basis for disciplinary action as provided in Article XIII. "Where members of Synod have doctrinal disagreements and disputes, mechanisms are in place to allow for dialogue and discussion and the adoption of doctrinal positions (Bylaws 1 .09 and 2.39). Such disagreements or disputes, however, are not intended to lead to the bringing of charges under Bylaw 2.27 or the implementation of disputes resolution process under Chapter VIII of the Bylaws," (CCM Opinion 02-2309, Question 1, January 20-21, 2003). 22. In response to the question, "May an ordained or commissioned minister or a member congregation who has acted in a matter after receiving the advice and authorization of his/her District President be charged under bylaw 2.27 for such act, which could result in removal from the roster of the Synod?" the Commission on Constitutional Matters, in Opinion 02-2309. Question 2, writes "The answer to this question, as already stated in the response to question 1, is "no." The District President has ecclesiastical supervision of the ordained and commissioned ministers and member congregations within his District as set forth in Article XII 7 and Bylaws 4.71, 4.73 and 4.75. When an ordained or commissioned minister or member congregation has acted in a manner that is consistent with the counsel of the District President, the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of its member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the Synod." (Bylaw 2.27 g applies the same to the Synodical President when the complaint is lodged against a District President).
Conclusions The Panel concludes that the evidence, especially from the Constitution and Bylaws themselves, and from the Opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters [Opinions which must be honored by the Panel] does not support the suspension of Rev. David H. Benke. While it is true that only The Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions are the basis of membership in or expulsion from the Synod, it is also true that the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod represent the collective study and will of the members of the Synod as to what the Scriptures say and how its members covenant together to teach and practice its doctrines. For that reason the collective will of the synod's members is to honor and carry out its resolutions and to provide avenue for dissent for any in disagreement until such time as the Synod itself in Convention alters its position or practice. [Bylaw 1.09, 2.39c]. The events of 9/11/2001 were certainly not directly anticipated when Resolution 3-07A was passed, nor could they have been, but the resolution was amazingly prescient in providing direction for proceeding in a situation where men equally dedicated to the Synodical principals of fellowship would inevitably be divided as to whether it was better to avoid possible doctrinal confusion by not going or to boldly go to "Lift high the cross, the love of Christ proclaim..." The uniqueness of the event went beyond the dimension of national tragedy. The perpetrators of the attack were Muslims who were attacking Christians, Jews, and "infidels" in general as well as the American way of life. New York City has a large Muslim population of which many are black, as well as a Jewish population of considerable proportion. At the time of the event there had already been a number of retaliatory attacks against Muslims. The city government was very concerned that "religious intolerance threatened to escalate to violence." [Letter from Rudolph Giuliani to St. Peters Lutheran Church, 10/18/02]. The heavy proportion of Blacks and Muslims and Jewish participants as well as Christians in the Yankee Stadium event underscores the city's desire to show that civic unity and patriotic unity existed between groups that held divergent and often-conflicting religious beliefs. The format and objective of the event was not to provide religious, ecumenical, unionistic, syncretism. The format of the event consisted of a series of short presentations by representatives of both secular and religious organizations consisting of speeches, songs, and prayers. Participants included politicians, entertainers, military, and religious leaders. There was no specific church or religious doctrine or jurisdiction under which the event developed or took place. Participants were given liberty to offer strength and encouragement to the community through the particular groups they represented. No participant appeared jointly with another and none of the presentations of the religious groups acknowledged or referenced another. Rev. Benke's prayer, even though criticized by many, was Christian. The context does not support conclusions of religious syncretisrn or unionism. Debate will and should continue. For now, the collective will of the Synod is expressed in Resolution 3-07A. Until the synod itself adopts a more definitive resolution, cases of discretion will be managed in accordance with 3.07A and the corresponding ecclesiastical supervision. In such cases, the Resolution does not encourage the bringing of charges and possible dismissal, but patience, putting the best construction on everything [charity], and the opportunity for continued study and discussion as per 2.39 c. If the collective will of the Synod as expressed in its resolutions adopted in convention is first set aside so that complaints can be dealt with only with the use and exegesis of the Scriptures, then one can certainly develop a long and thorough argument for complaints. Such argument, however, can also be very subjective and reflect the beginning assumptions, bias, and even desired outcome of the examiner. Where the Synod has provided even a minimal measure of guidance, we should not stand in judgment of one another in matters of discretionary and extra ordinary nature, especially in matters of tragedy and emotional distress when and where there is no intention to belittle or defy the positions of Synod Until the Synod adopts further resolutions for further clarity and direction in such matters, the CCM has responsibility in interpreting what Resolution 3-07A and all others mean, To that end, in response to the question, "What does Resolution 3-07A mean and how should it be applied in the church?" the Commission on Constitutional Matters has determined in Opinion 02-2294 that Resolution 3-07A is a doctrinal resolution of the Synod which all members of the Synod are to honor and uphold, and in Opinion 02-2309 that the Synod is precluded from taking any action to terminate the membership of a member who, when performing his/her official duties, follows the advice and counsel of the ecclesiastical supervisor designated by the Synod.
Decision On the basis of the testimony and evidence received, the Panel concludes that there is not sufficient reason or evidence according to the Synod's Constitution and Bylaws for suspending Rev. Benke. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the decision of Rev. Schulz for expulsion of Rev. Benke under Article XIII of the Constitution of the Synod is not substantiated. The suspension of Rev. Benke is lifted and his LCMS membership in good standing is continued.
APPEALS PROCESS: In accordance with Bylaw 8.09 c 4, this decision of this Panel is binding upon the parties of the dispute subject to request for review. Within 30 days after receiving the decision of the Dispute Resolution Panel, any party to the dispute [rule 40, b, i-iii, Rules of Procedures for' the Synodical Reconciliation Process], or the President of the Synod if a question of doctrine or practice is involved [Constitution Art Xl B 1-3], may request a decision regarding reconsideration. .A request for reconsideration, which simply asks for a review of the evidence and a change of the decision, will not be considered. A request for reconsideration can be made if a possibility exists that the Dispute Resolution Panel
Such requests for reconsideration should be mailed to the Secretary of the Synod, each member of the Dispute Resolution Panel and the other parties to the dispute and shall be accompanied by a written memorandum stating the basis far the request. This concludes the decision of this panel. Respectfully Submitted, |
|
|
Home | Who We Are | Calendar | Our School | Prayer for America | Directions | Contact Us | Links |
|