Kuhn - Former LCMS President - Questions Future of Synod

By: Rev. Jack Cascione
The following article is by the current LCMS Chairman of the Board of
Directors, Dr. Robert T. Kuhn, who also served as President of the LCMS
following the death of Dr. Barry in March of 2001.  He writes with the
candor of a synodical officer who has no other avenue but to speak directly
to the members of the LCMS about the grave issues now confronting the Synod.
The article was published on the front cover of "Consensus" PO Box 643,
Sheboygan, WI 53082-0643 also www.consensuslutheran.org

---------------------------------------------------------
WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
By:  Rev. Robert T. Kuhn

(Tell a friend to subscribe to Reclaim News.  Send us their email address
and we will add them to the confidential list.)
====================================

(Rev. Robert T. Kuhn is the President emeritus of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.  He served as the First Vice-President from 1995-2001.  He is currently the Chairman of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.)

I recall an old song, "What a difference a day makes."  As these words are written, we stand about midway through the 2001-2004 triennium:  a year and a half down, a year and a half to go.  What a difference a year and a half makes!  Our beloved Synod is becoming quite different from what it was during the last triennium or during its previous 151 years.  Some of these changes are quite alarming indeed.

On January 20-21, 2003 the Synod's Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) adopted [several] highly regrettable opinions.  As with all CCM opinions, each of these is "binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical convention," as the one we will have in 2004 (Bylaw 3.905d).

The CCM now says (opinion 02-2309) that charges are not to be brought against members of the Synod when they act on the advice of their ecclesiastical supervisors.  In other words, there are circumstances in which the Synod cannot hold its members responsible for their actions!  Some will point out that the powers of ecclesiastical supervisors are thus greatly broadened, especially those of the synodical President (or district presidents), and they are correct.  The synodical president can now effectively grant immunity from charges to a district president, who can grant similar immunity to a pastor or congregation.  Such centralization in ecclesiastical judgment would have been in comprehensible and unthinkable in our Synod's past.  What a difference a year and a half makes!

But I want to raise some related caution flags.  THIS NEW CCM OPINION WILL
PLACE ENORMOUS STRAIN ON ANY PRESIDENT OF THE SYNOD.  Already Presidents have to give their best advice to the people they supervise.  But now Presidents of the Synod will have to weigh their every word doubly and triply, lest they be misconstrued in passing.  The temptation will prove strong for any District President with a difficult case to take it to the synodical President for the purpose of "covering himself."  Presidents of the Synod will likely spend inordinate time with Dispute Resolution Panels as they hear the cases of people claiming to have had his "OK."  Any synodical President's overall performance will almost certainly suffer under these additional strains.

And what if the President is no longer with us?  Suppose, one week after President Barry's death in 2001, charges had been brought against a District President or synodical employee.  Had the CCM set forth its new opinion at that time, the defendant could have swept the charge aside by claiming, truly or not, "In a telephone call three weeks ago President Barry gave me permission."  Governance structures are designed partly so that matters of justice and fairness do not become dependent upon persons.  We have taken a step backward; hence, I raise another caution flag.  What a difference a year and a half makes!

Later in its opinion the CCM adds that an ecclesiastical supervisor does not necessarily become a party to a dispute by virtue of having given advice or admonition to a member of the Synod.  In my mind, this conclusion would have been questionable at any rate, but now it is downright laughable.  Or course the ecclesiastical supervisor should be a party to a case if by following his advise a member of the Synod becomes immune from charges.  Where else can legitimate complaints be taken, if not to the ecclesiastical supervisor? If a pastor acts on the advice of his District President who has in turn acted on the advice of the synodical President, the CCM is saying that no one can be held responsible except the synodical President.  Thus, any election for synodical president involving an incumbent can be regarded as a referendum on any immunities the incumbent has been granting - except that ecclesiastical supervision is almost always done confidentially.  There is no sure way for the Synod to really know the truth.

Not only is this opinion a questionable interpretation of the bylaw, it is detrimental to the welfare of the synod.

What a difference a year and a half makes!

May 6, 2003