|
LCMS Commission
Exonerates Benke
By: Rev. Jack Cascione |
|
|
|
|
|
In its latest ruling (http://lcms.org/ccm/min012003.pdf)
the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters, (CCM) has exonerated Atlantic
District President David Benke. Benke was suspended for participating
in a prayer service with pagans (Sikhs, Hindus, etc.) in Yankee Stadium the
week after 911.
The Commission simply ruled that a member of Synod cannot be charged if he
is acting with the permission of his supervisor. The CCM also repeated
its new interpretation of the LCMS Constitution that a President of the LCMS
cannot be charged under By-Law 2.27 while he is in office.
In other words, because Benke acted with Kieschnick's permission he is
innocent and Kieschnick can't be charged.
The LCMS is now given a clear understanding of how much authority is in the
LCMS President's Office. President Kieschnick has the authority to
appoint those who sit on the CCM in order to gain favorable rulings.
He also has the authority to appoint all Floor Committee chairmen.
The concentration of power in the LCMS Presidency means that virtually
everything is decided directly or indirectly at the Convention by the
election of the President.
The following is a quotation from the lengthy 18 pages of rulings on this
and related subjects.
MINUTES
COMMISSION ON CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS
January 20-21, 2003
St. Louis, Missouri
114. Consequences of Action Taken Upon Approval of Ecclesiastical Supervisor
(02-2296; 02-2320)
"A Dispute Resolution Panel in a letter dated December 20, 2002,
forwarded the following question to the Commission from a party to a
dispute. The question is identical to a question submitted by a
Vice-President of a District in an August 16, 2002 letter.
Question: Do the Constitution and/or Bylaws of Synod allow or contemplate
the discipline of any pastor or contemplate the discipline of any pastor of
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod who has taken an action with the full
knowledge and approval of his superior, where the superior's approval is
based upon the superior's interpretation of a synodically approved document,
where the interpretation is not plainly or knowingly erroneous, especially
where the superior himself has not been formally found in error and
disciplined?
Opinion: 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. For a thorough treatment of this issue, see Opinion
02-2309."
Additional opinion
"Opinion: The Commission notes that Bylaw 2.27 cannot be invoked in the
case of the President of the Synod (see CCM Opinion 01-2240). Whereas there
may be occasions when the use of Chapter VIII of the Bylaws may be
appropriate (see Opinion 03-2325), implementation of the dispute resolution
process should never be intended or allowed to disrupt, hamper, or harass
the President as he carries out the duties and responsibilities of his
office, including those of ecclesiastical supervision. It is never
appropriate to assume rights and duties that have been conferred upon
another by the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod."
|
|
February 3, 2003 |