Four Directors Write Explanation for Suing LCMS President Kieschnick

[C.F.W. Walther]

To: Members of the Board of Directors of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

From: Rev. Edward Balfour, Elizabeth Fluegel, David Hawk and Christian
Preus.

This letter assumes that all members of the Board of Directors of the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are aware that we four Directors have sought
to intervene in the litigation that is pending in St. Louis County, Missouri
Circuit Court. The case, Anderson v. Kieschnick, has been pending for almost
a year and involves claims by a group of members and pastors relating to the
elections at the 2004 voting convention secondarily, relating to the power
of the Commission on Constitutional Matters. The purpose of this letter is
to explain why we, as Directors, have taken the step of seeking to intervene
in that litigation.

Over a period of years, we four, and many other thoughtful pastors and
members of the Church have been troubled by efforts to relocate power within
the corporate structure of LCMS. We have witnessed the expansion of the
CCM's authority at the expense of the authority of the Board of Directors.
The consolidation of power in the CCM has, in our opinion, worked a
fundamental change in the governance of the LCMS. The change has, in fact,
removed power from the hands of individual directors, who are directly
responsible to the members, and put that power in the hands of appointees of
executives who do not answer directly to the membership. This unhealthy
development has made the management of the LCMS less responsive to the will
of its members. Unchecked, this wrong accretion of power in the executives,
de-legitimizes the authority of LCMS in the eyes of the faithful.

In the past, despite our deepening concerns, we were content to work within
the LCMS structure to correct what we knew was an imbalance. We believed and
continue to believe that persons of good will, particularly those who share
our faith, ought to be able to resolve their differences without the aid of
the courts and without appeal to civil authority. We did not join in the
Anderson litigation for that reason, although we welcomed the attempt by the
Anderson plaintiffs to garner clarification from the court on the scope of
the Board's secular authority. Of course, that changed when we learned that
the Anderson case was about to be resolved without a full airing of the
issues raised in Count II of the Anderson petition the issues bearing on the
power of the Board versus CCM. Concerned that the termination of the
Anderson Case could be viewed as a settlement of the question and an
affirmation of the power of the CCM, we sought legal advice on our options.
We were advised, while the settlement of the Anderson Case might not
foreclose consideration of the question by another court, safety lay in
seeking intervention in the pending litigation and resolution of the
question there.

In our view, concern and uncertainty over the power of the CCM had lingered
too long. That serious issue, combined with the unknown effects of the
termination of the Anderson Case, compelled us to initiate intervention to
bring the question to a head and to obtain a resolution of the issue which,
despite patient work, was obviously not going to come from within the LCMS.


The truth is: We did not want to take this action; it was thrust upon us by
the termination of the Anderson Case without a clear and certain resolution
of the CCM issue. Our action does not threaten the amicable settlement of
the Anderson claims by Plaintiffs who wish to exit the litigation. Those who
wish to drop their claims can do so, just as easily as they had planned to
do, after our entry into the case. Our pursuit of clarification cannot
affect the incentive for either side to compromise their differences. The
parties have reached accord for practical reasons - the financial resources
and time demanded by litigation probably being foremost. The fact, however,
remains: Neither side settled perceiving that they had resolved an issue,
which our intervention will rekindle. In a word, Plaintiffs and Defendants
put the issue in play and then quit the field. We are finishing a contest
that we did not start - but a contest of the greatest urgency to the Church.

We hope this explains our reasons for taking the action that we have. Some
of you will not agree with the reasons we have cited, but, as Christians, we
must respect our differences and continue to work side-by-side with civility
as we attempt to heal the division that exists. If you have any questions
about our actions, please feel free to contact any one of us.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Just some questions...


Didn't Jesus have some things to say about taking other Christians to court (Matthew 5:25-26)?

Don't Lutherans stress that doctrinal issues are to be according to the norm of Scripture (not secular law) as arbitrated by Christians (not a secular judge)?

Who pays for all these legal fees? What ministry will not be done because this money (whom God's people presented to the Lord) is being used to feed the attorneys in a process the Lord counseled us to avoid? What child will not be taught or nonchristian will not hear or foreign soul will not be brought to faith?

Doesn't the LCMS have a convention every 3 years, at which they elect these persons? Wasn't the president re-elected? I realize some probably weren't too happy about that (such is the way it always is with elections) but isn't there another convention next year?


Just questions...


BTW, I have a growing awareness that secular courts often don't have great insight into theological issues, and often move at a snails pace. I wonder if all these issues would be better taken to the next convention and placed before God's people under Scripture and the Confessions? It certainly would be quicker and cheaper, if not more likely to be resolved by those with a greater awareness of God's Holy Word than the secular judge in this matter. But that's just how I see it.


- Josiah

[filosofer]

Just some questions...


Didn't Jesus have some things to say about taking other Christians to court (Matthew 5:25-26)?

Don't Lutherans stress that doctrinal issues are to be according to the norm of Scripture (not secular law) as arbitrated by Christians (not a secular judge)?

Who pays for all these legal fees? What ministry will not be done because this money (whom God's people presented to the Lord) is being used to feed the attorneys in a process the Lord counseled us to avoid? What child will not be taught or nonchristian will not hear or foreign soul will not be brought to faith?

Doesn't the LCMS have a convention every 3 years, at which they elect these persons? Wasn't the president re-elected? I realize some probably weren't too happy about that (such is the way it always is with elections) but isn't there another convention next year?


Just questions...


- Josiah


Good questions. Regarding the last paragraph, the dissenting BOD members are concerned about that very issue. Because the power is now in the hands of the CCM, who are appointed by the Synod President, not elected by the convention. The CCM members are left unaccountable to anyone (and certainly not to the Convention delegates). That has changed what the LCMS has historically practiced.

In Christ's love,
filo

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good questions. Regarding the last paragraph, the dissenting BOD members are concerned about that very issue. Because the power is now in the hands of the CCM, who are appointed by the Synod President, not elected by the convention. The CCM members are left unaccountable to anyone (and certainly not to the Convention delegates). That has changed what the LCMS has historically practiced.

In Christ's love,
filo



Thank you.

Then the CCM is accountable to the President, at least to the extent that he can appoint and excuse them? And the President is accountable to the membership as a whole in convention?

Don't all the members of the Council of Presidents have an equal vote? Including those who find themselves on the minority side of a vote?

I'm pretty sure the Synodical President comes up for election next year. If people disagree with his leadership, isn't the electorial process one whereby he and his ministry are either affirmed or not by a vote of the people (lead, we pray, by the Holy Spirit)?


Just wondering...


- Josiah

[LutherNut]

Thank you.

Then the CCM is accountable to the President, at least to the extent that he can appoint and excuse them? And the President is accountable to the membership as a whole in convention?

Don't all the members of the Council of Presidents have an equal vote? Including those who find themselves on the minority side of a vote?

I'm pretty sure the Synodical President comes up for election next year. If people disagree with his leadership, isn't the electorial process one whereby he and his ministry are either affirmed or not by a vote of the people (lead, we pray, by the Holy Spirit)?


Just wondering...


- Josiah

The issue isn't about the president of synod, but rather the legal operation of a non-profit corporation operating according to the laws of the state of Missouri where it's located. It's not a theological issue or a doctrinal issue, but a legal matter. While it's true that Christians should abide by the Word of God in all matters, it's rather difficult when one side of the argument refuses to listen to or abide by the Word of God and instead relies on by-laws and resolutions. If that's the only language that they understand, then that's the language that needs to be spoken.

The concern isn't even tied to the election to a new president, but the setting of a presidence that is not so easily undone. The synod BoD is the legal entity of the synod. That's according to Missouri law. The question that is being raised is whether or not the appointed CCM has legal authority over the elected BoD. According to the BoD, Missouri state law says "no." According to the CCM, the CCM says "yes."

...and to correct your earlier statement, according to the CCM, the Synod President is accountable ONLY to the Synod in convention, which meets for about 5 days every three years. All the time inbetween, he's an untouchable "pope."

[Lacko]

this is a little off topic but i was just curious as to where you get this information about what is going on in the synod?

[C.F.W. Walther]

"LCMS Lawyer Criticizes Four Members of BOD: Hearing Set for 8/29/06"

Four members of the LCMS Board of Directors (BOD) will ask the St. Louis
County Circuit Court for permission to intervene in the class action lawsuit
filed against the LCMS at a hearing scheduled for Friday, August 29, 2006.
The date for the hearing was changed from August 18, to August 29th.

The four members of the Board of Directors are Rev. Edward Balfour,
Elizabeth Fluegel, David Hawk, and Christian Preus.

The follow is an excerpt from a lengthy letter by Eugene D. Mossner, Past
President, State Bar of Michigan, Past Chairman, Grievance Commission, State
Bar of Michigan. For all his partisan objections, Mr. Mossner has ignored one very important
point, namely, the merits of the case. Being unable to argue the merits, he
argues against the character, motives, and procedures of the four board
members, but he doesn't say a word about the intervention itself, which can
be found at: http://www.concordtx.org/msnews/suitII.htm (http://www.concordtx.org/msnews/suitII.htm))

In short, Mossner is not able to argue the facts so he argues the
personalities.

Mossner writes: "What these four minority Board members seem to be saying is
that the worldly law of the State of Missouri ought to prevail over the Word
of God and Christian love."

Why is Missouri Corporate law bad for the LCMS? Why did the LCMS want to
register itself as a corporation in the State of Missouri and then claim
immunity from Missouri Corporate law on the basis of the Bible?

The LCMS doesn't even claim to be a church. By what right does it claim
allegiance to the higher law of God's Word when it has not even said what
part of the Missouri Corporate law is against LCMS religion?

Mossener is presenting all the arguments to protect President Kieschnick as
if Kieschnick were a cult leader, rather than a theologian, who agrees with
Luther's understanding of the three estates: first family, then state, and
lastly church.

Paul clearly presents the right of the State to exercise its just laws in
Romans Chapter 13.

We can only conclude the four members of the Board of Directors have an
outstanding case that even their harshest critics are not able to attack.

Mr Mossener:
"The whole thrust of their effort seems to revolve around 'power' and
'authority.' The words are used several times in the so-called letter of
explanation. Instead of attempting to resolve any legitimate differences in
a brotherly fashion, by the Word of God, in accordance with the legitimate
mechanisms set up by Synod, as approved by its members in Convention, they
seek to have a secular judge, unfamiliar with our history and our teachings,
determine our church structure and polity. What these four minority Board
members seem to be saying is that the worldly law of the State of Missouri
ought to prevail over the Word of God and Christian love. To me this is
unconscionable.

While I am not familiar with the practices and procedures in the courts of
Missouri, as one who has dealt with interventions many times in his career,
I can say that in most jurisdictions, intervening parties are usually
allowed by the courts to enter litigation in support of one side or the
other. But it seems totally ludicrous that once the parties to the
litigation have resolved the dispute between themselves, that intervenors
(outsiders to the litigation), should be allowed to carry on such litigation
for their own personal benefit. I am sure that the defendants and their
attorneys are wholly capable of pointing this out to the Court, but I find
such intervention as is attempted here to be highly unusual.

The letter by the four minority Board members goes on to state that 'Our
action does not threaten the amicable settlement of the Anderson claims.' It
seems perfectly obvious that the settlement of the Anderson claims cannot be
achieved if these intervenors are successful, since one of the issues in the
original lawsuit concerned itself with the authority of the CCM. If that
dispute is allowed to continue, the so-called 'Anderson claims' cannot be
settled.

The letter further states: 'It is also important to emphasize that the
intervention is not an action against the Synod,' and also says that the
proposed intervention petition is brought 'for the benefit and in the right
of' the Synod. In another publicized Email, one of the Directors, Christian
Preus, adds, 'The intervenors are representing the corporate rights and
interests of the Synod.' In my opinion these statements are patently false
on their face.

In the first place, a continuation of the Anderson lawsuit would certainly
be an action against the Synod simply because the Synod is one of the named
defendants in the lawsuit. No plaintiff can sue a defendant without that
proceeding being an action by a plaintiff against a defendant.

Secondly, it is certainly not to the benefit of the Synod that this
litigation continue indefinitely, when the Synod itself desires that the
litigation cease.

Thirdly, to say that four minority members of the Board represent the
corporate rights and interests of the Synod, simply is not so. The Board of
Directors of Synod acts as a Board, not through actions of individual
members. The four minority members do not themselves represent the corporate
rights and interests of the Synod. The Board as a whole does this.

Other statements in this letter of explanation are also very troubling. The
minority four state: 'In the past.we were content to work within the LCMS
structure.' This strongly implies that we have four duly elected members of
the Board who are no longer willing to work within our established
structure. If this is so, then it seems that letters of resignation might
well be in order. When convention delegates elect people to high positions
of church governance, it goes without say that they are always expected to
operate within our established synodical structure. Those who are unwilling
to do this, it seems to me, forfeit their right to be a part of the
governing structure.

They also say that persons of good will '.ought to be able to resolve their
differences without the aid of the courts and without appeal to civil
authority.' Having said this, however, they proceed to do the exact
opposite, and seek to invoke the aid of the secular courts and civil
authority in pursuit of their power struggle. Those who speak out of both
sides of their mouths, it also seems to me, should not continue in places of
responsibility within the church."
. . . .

[C.F.W. Walther]

August 24, 2006


"LCMS and BOD Minority File Motions against Each Other"


Millions of LCMS Lutherans will soon discover that their church body is
desperately fighting to keep the courts from examining the legality of how
the LCMS does business.

The LCMS Attorney and the four members of the LCMS Board of Directors (BOD)
will appear in court against each other on August 29, 2006.

Both sides filed new motions against each other over the BOD Minority's
attempt to intervene in the class action lawsuit filed against LCMS
President Kieschnick.

LCMS attorney Sherri Strand filed a motion to disqualify Edwin Fryer,
attorney for the four LCMS Board members who are asking the court to allow
them to intervene in the class action lawsuit against LCMS President Gerald
Kieschnick.

Strand claims that Edwin Fryer has a conflict of interest because he wrote
the opinion for the LCMS which the four board members are now pleading in
court.

Strand is claiming that the Board minority doesn't represent the Synod. In
essence, she is claiming there are now two Boards of Directors in the LCMS,
the BOD majority and the BOD minority, and the Minority can't use the
Majority's attorney against them.


Fryer filed a motion for a Change of Judge.

Strand then filed a motion to oppose the application for a Change of Judge.

Stand argues that those filing the intervention are not parties to the suit
and have no right to make such a request.

On August 29th, Strand will also argue that the BOD Minority not be given
the opportunity to intervene in the suit. Strand doesn't want the court to
examine the legality of LCMS corporate structure under Missouri law.

Why doesn't the LCMS welcome a judicial review of LCMS corporate structure?

Why is Missouri Corporate law bad for the LCMS?

Why does the LCMS want to be registered as a corporation in the State of
Missouri and yet claim immunity from Missouri Corporate law on the basis of
the Bible?

Where does Missouri Corporate law interfere with the Bible and LCMS
religion?

The LCMS doesn't even claim to be a church. By what right does it claim
allegiance to the higher law of God's Word when it has not even said what
part of the Missouri Corporate law is against LCMS religion?

-----------------------------------------------------------

[tschenks]

It's been withdrawn.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=10487

[C.F.W. Walther]

It's been withdrawn.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=10487

If you took these from the May 2006 minutes of the BOD then I think you are refering to the original Anderson suit. It was resurected again by another gorup of four who are listed above.

[tschenks]

That's new. It was advertised yesterday on the Synodical President's Monthly Email to Pastors (you can subscribe to it on the LCMS E-News page). It's also on the main LCMS page, a new "Breaking News" Link they've just added in the last day or two.

[LutherNut]

If you took these from the May 2006 minutes of the BOD then I think you are refering to the original Anderson suit. It was resurected again by another gorup of four who are listed above.

This from the LCMS website today:


BOARD MEMBERS WITHDRAW MOTION TO INTERVENE

In a spirit of Christian love, mutual repentance, and forgiveness and with concern for peace and unity in the Synod, the Board of Directors rejoices that the four members of the Board who filed the Motion to Intervene in the Anderson Lawsuit have agreed to withdraw their motion.

The Board will instruct its legal counsel to take all necessary steps to conclude this matter and to move forward with the Agreement to terminate the lawsuit approved by the Board at its meeting May 24.

We thank God for this action and pray for His blessings on these decisions.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Oh sorry

[Lacko]

it's very disappointing that the lawsuit was withdrawn

[tschenks]

Why do you say that?

[Lacko]

i said that because i full heartedly believe in the following:



Over a period of years, we four, and many other thoughtful pastors and
members of the Church have been troubled by efforts to relocate power within
the corporate structure of LCMS. We have witnessed the expansion of the
CCM's authority at the expense of the authority of the Board of Directors.
The consolidation of power in the CCM has, in our opinion, worked a
fundamental change in the governance of the LCMS. The change has, in fact,
removed power from the hands of individual directors, who are directly
responsible to the members, and put that power in the hands of appointees of
executives who do not answer directly to the membership. This unhealthy
development has made the management of the LCMS less responsive to the will
of its members. Unchecked, this wrong accretion of power in the executives,
de-legitimizes the authority of LCMS in the eyes of the faithful.

[C.F.W. Walther]

E-mail sent to all four directors in the BOD at LCMS.

"Why was the litigation against Gerald B. Kieschnick and the CCM rescinded? All our hopes were centered in the suit initiated by Edward Balfour and Elizabeth Fluegel, David Hawk and Christian Preus and now this groups action has only given credibility to Kieschnick's cause célèbre .

What a sad day for Christianity and the confessions."

[C.F.W. Walther]

No Judge has actually ruled on anything in this case. The Bryan-Cave
opinion makes a strong case showing that the LCMS is not operating according
the laws governing not-for-profit corporations in the State of Missouri.

The LCMS put forth a great deal of effort to prevent the courts from
reviewing LCMS corporate structure.

The four board members remain convinced that the LCMS is in violation of
Missouri Corporate Law.

Each time the suit is withdrawn, Kieschnick gains more support in the LCMS.
At this time, he is headed for a land slide reelection at the 2007
Convention. Being threatened with a third court action may be more joy than
pain.

If the four Board members actually plan to sue President Kieschnick, they
had better get some kind of a response from a Judge or their suit will
appear as nothing more than legal harassment.

The merits of this case have the support of one the largest and most
prestigious law firms in the United States.

[C.F.W. Walther]

The Anderson Lawsuit

In November 2005 the Anderson lawsuit was brought.
About 90 members of Synod joined as plaintiffs in this lawsuit.
Named as defendants were Gerald Kieschnick and William Dieckelman.
The LCMS was designated as a “nominal defendant.” This lawsuit
challenged the questionable and large number of exceptions granted by
Kieschnick to allow extra delegates to attend the 2004 convention
(Count I) and the actions of the CCM that attempted to undermine the
legal authority of the Board of Directors (Count II).

After motions to dismiss were filed by the defendants,
the Board of Directors adopted a resolution that set in motion
settlement discussions with the plaintiffs. Four members of the
Board of Directors were appointed to a committee and four plaintiffs
were designated. There were multiple meetings between the board
committee and the four plaintiffs, some of which were attended by
Kieschnick and Dieckleman.

Ultimately the board committee, the four plaintiffs,
Kieschnick and Dieckleman reached a proposed settlement. The
settlement was subject to the approval of the Board of Directors and
the individual plaintiff members. An integral understanding of the
agreement, although not expressly stated, was that there would be no
more vacancies filled at the Board of Directors that would improperly
deprive Board members of the right to make floor nominations.
However, at the same meeting that the Board of Directors voted to
approve the settlement, the Board, under very dubious circumstances,
filled several vacancies, including two on the Board of Directors,
one of which had already been filled and thus was not even vacant.
Kieschnick apparently was adamant that the Board of Directors must
fill the vacancies and that the Board must follow the CCM opinion
instead of following the Bylaws and convention resolution, Robert’s
Rules, and Missouri law. Kieschnick also, as he has done in other
situations, threatened to take action if the Board of Directors did
not succumb to his demands.

Last minute changes to the proposed settlement agreement
and other events made it apparent that the settlement was going to be
used to deprive Board members of the right they otherwise have under
the law to seek redress in the courts in order to correct illegal or
wrongful activity. The argument was also being made that the
settlement meant that the Board of Directors was placed under the
authority of the CCM, even though Missouri law makes it clear that
“all corporate powers shall be exercised by and under the authority
of, and the affairs of a corporation managed under the direction of,
its board.”


Motion to Intervene

The consequence of the settlement and how it was going
to be used thus forced four members of the Board of Directors to
intervene in the Anderson lawsuit in order to prevent the settlement
from being used as a means of depriving the Board of Directors of its
legal authority. Every Board member has an obligation to act
according to the law and to protect the legal integrity of the
organization. The Motion to Intervene and Petition did not attempt
to set aside or undermine the settlement in any way. It was only an
effort to prevent the settlement from being used in a fashion to
promote further illegal deterioration of the Board of Directors
authority.

The Motion to Intervene and Petition also was not a
“suit against the Synod” as some have wrongly characterized it.
Instead, the interveners were bringing what is called a “derivative”
claim in which they were acting “for the benefit and in the right of”
the Synod. Missouri law specifically allows directors to go to court
to protect the rights and interests of the corporation. The ability
of a board member to protect the legal rights of the corporation can
be found in corporate laws across the country and is very important
because it helps keep the officers and management in check, and
protects the integrity of the corporation. Otherwise, there could be
little or no ability to stop conduct that did not follow the law.

The Petition in intervention only asked the court for a
“declaration” of the law. The four board members were not asking for
damages and were not in any way acting on behalf of themselves.
Their action was purely to defend the legal integrity of the Synod.

Kieschnick and Dieckleman, along with a majority of the
Board of Directors’ members opposed the motion to intervene. They
also moved to disqualify the lawyer selected by the four board members.


Withdrawal of Motion to Intervene - Board of Directors Agreement

The hearing on the Motion to Intervene was scheduled for
August 29, 2006, a few days after the Board of Directors’ regular
meeting held on August 25-26, 2006. At this Board meeting an
agreement was reached between the four Board members intervening in
the lawsuit and the rest of the Board members. This agreement
included withdrawing the motion to intervene. It also included two
extremely important provisions. First, it preserved the rights of
Board members to proceed in a separate lawsuit to ensure that the
Board and others within the Synod were complying with Missouri law.
Thus the agreement prevented the attempts to use the settlement to
deprive Board members of this important right and to prevent the
efforts to officially place the CCM above the Board of Directors.
Second, the agreement allowed for a 30-day period of time in which a
committee of the board would meet to discuss openly and honestly the
issues concerning board authority. Thus the motion to intervene
accomplished exactly what it was intended to do. It put a stop to
the efforts to use the settlement to deprive Board members of their
legitimate legal rights and the efforts to use the settlement to
place the CCM above the Board of Directors. It also appears that the
Board of Directors may finally squarely address the legal and
authority issues.





__________________________________________________ ______________________
The Rev. Eric J. Stefanski
Holy Trinity Ev.-Luth. Church (Unaltered Augsburg Confession)
P.O. Box 2612 - Harrison, Arkansas 72601

[C.F.W. Walther]

Answer I received to the above email sent to 4 of the BOD in reference to the resinding of the Anderson suit. My assumption was that is was rescinded but have since noted that it was a "Withdrawal of Motion to Intervene".


Dear John,

The legal action was not rescinded, but rather "dismissed without prejudice, " placing (the 4) us exactly where we intended to be (at this juncture) from the beginning of our intervention. There are now 30 days during which we will meet and talk with those who we believe to have violated the law and its spirit. What is now going on now not only gives hope, but will also reveal the Truth. Again, I tell you, "We have attained the position we sought." Please give the process a chance.

Rev Edward J. Balfour

[CaliforniaJosiah]

There's a Holy Scripture that proclaims, "How wonderful it is when brothers walk together in peace" (that's off the top of my head, sorry I don't recall the reference at 6:25 AM as my coffee is still in process...)


That Christians find reconciliation as brothers in Christ, rather than submitting themselves to a secular judge seems to be exactly what both Jesus and Paul talked about?


Seems this is something to celebrate! Sometimes (not oft times) we get it right. I'm pleased, too, for the testimony this sends to the world around us.


My $0.00...


- Josiah

[tschenks]

We're still hearing about people being upset "because somebody is suing the church." The reasons for the lawsuit in the first place have been pushed so far into the background that no one talks about them anymore. The lawsuit is settled but the issues behind it aren't. The National Convention can't solve it because the President appoints and controls the floor committees that decide which issues get addressed.

From a 2005 Analysis of LCMS Polity by Pastor Tim Pauls at http://scholia.net :

The LCMS is moving toward a rebuff of Missouri State law on the justification that it doesn't have to obey state law.

The LCMS is seeking to remove power from the Board of Directors, elected by the Synod, and place it in the hands of the Commission on Constitutional Matters, appointed by the President of Synod.

The LCMS allows an individual member of Synod to avoid accountability if he has the permission of his ecclesiastical supervisor.

The LCMS authorizes the President of Synod to add extra delegates to the synodical convention.

The LCMS permits a commission appointed by the President of Synod to set aside the votes of congregations.

The LCMS prohibits a layman from filing charges against a member of Synod for false doctrine or practice.

The LCMS gives final legal authority in the LCMS to the CCM, a commission appointed by the President of Synod.

[C.F.W. Walther]

MOTION TO INTERVENE

The consequence of the settlement and how it was going to be used thus
forced four members of the Board of Directors to intervene in the Anderson
lawsuit in order to prevent the settlement from being used as a means of
depriving the Board of Directors of its legal authority. Every Board member
has an obligation to act according to the law and to protect the legal
integrity of the organization. The Motion to Intervene and Petition did not
attempt to set aside or undermine the settlement in any way. It was only an
effort to prevent the settlement from being used in a fashion to promote
further illegal deterioration of the Board of Directors authority.

The Motion to Intervene and Petition also was not a "suit against the Synod"
as some have wrongly characterized it. Instead, the interveners were
bringing what is called a "derivative" claim in which they were acting "for
the benefit and in the right of" the Synod. Missouri law specifically
allows directors to go to court to protect the rights and interests of the
corporation. The ability of a board member to protect the legal rights of
the corporation can be found in corporate laws across the country and is
very important because it helps keep the officers and management in check,
and protects the integrity of the corporation. Otherwise, there could be
little or no ability to stop conduct that did not follow the law.

The Petition in intervention only asked the court for a "declaration" of the
law. The four board members were not asking for damages and were not in any
way acting on behalf of themselves. Their action was purely to defend the
legal integrity of the Synod.

Kieschnick and Dieckleman, along with a majority of the Board of Directors'
members opposed the motion to intervene. They also moved to disqualify the
lawyer selected by the four board members.

WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO INTERVENE - BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGREEMENT

The hearing on the Motion to Intervene was scheduled for August 29, 2006, a
few days after the Board of Directors' regular meeting held on August 25-26,
2006. At this Board meeting an agreement was reached between the four Board
members intervening in the lawsuit and the rest of the Board members. This
agreement included withdrawing the motion to intervene. It also included
two extremely important provisions. First, it preserved the rights of Board
members to proceed in a separate lawsuit to ensure that the Board and others
within the Synod were complying with Missouri law. Thus the agreement
prevented the attempts to use the settlement to deprive Board members of
this important right and to prevent the efforts to officially place the CCM
above the Board of Directors. Second, the agreement allowed for a 30-day
period of time in which a committee of the board would meet to discuss
openly and honestly the issues concerning board authority. Thus the motion
to intervene accomplished exactly what it was intended to do. It put a stop
to the efforts to use the settlement to deprive Board members of their
legitimate legal rights and the efforts to use the settlement to place the
CCM above the Board of Directors. It also appears that the Board of
Directors may finally squarely address the legal and authority issues.
http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The National Convention can't solve it because the President appoints and controls the floor committees that decide which issues get addressed.


I respectfully disagree.

Because the President of the LCMS is not appointed for life. He is completely, totally, absolutely accountable to the convention as a whole every 3 years.

If the delegates (duly, democratically chosen by each circuit) conclude that the President is not well suited to the office or acted inappropriately, they can elect someone else. Others will be nominated, an election will be held, the President will be re-elected or not. We believe that God guides such choices in the church.


My $0.01


Pax


- Josiah



.

[tschenks]

I wouldn't associate democratically choosing someone with God's stamp of approval, especially in cases when the synod is not in harmony with Holy Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions.