|
In the appeal process, both parties are entitled to appeal. Pastor Schmeling appealed on the grounds that the Disciplinary Hearing Committee violated due process. The Hearing Committee interpreted the extra-constitutional policy “precluding” pastors in same-gender relationships as “precluding” the use of constitutionally guaranteed discretion to recommend a) no penalty b) private censure c) suspension or d) removal.
Nothing in Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline suggests that “preclude” overrides the Constitution’s own requirement that a hearing committee decide whether discipline should even be imposed
No other violation of Definitions and Guidelines for Discipline is grounds for “precluding” a person from the ordained ministry. Under the provisions of the Constitution regarding ordained service, the hearing committee said they would have found no fault in Pastor Schmeling and no discipline would have been recommended.
Pastor Schmeling requested that the Committee on Appeals reverse the decision of the hearing committee and remand the matter to that committee with instruction regarding the use of discretion as guaranteed by the constitution.
Bishop Warren issued a cross-appeal stating that the hearing committee had overstepped its bounds by extending the removal date to August 15, 2007, for giving an opinion that the policy was “at least bad” and “very well may violate the Constitution and By-laws of this church,” and for suggesting the legislative means to eliminate the policy. Warren requested that the Committee on Appeals act to remove Pastor Schmeling from the clergy roster immediately.
On Monday, May 21, 2007, Pastor Schmeling responded to Bishop Warren’s cross- appeal. The constitutional guidelines for the discipline process do not set the timeline for effective dates. They do not preclude a disciplinary hearing committee from determining whether, or not, discipline should be imposed based on the facts. Furthermore, they do not preclude a disciplinary hearing committee from identifying possible conflicts between a policy outside the Constitution and the Constitution itself. The testimony offered during the hearing drew the committee to conclude that the policy was likely in conflict with the Constitution and gave two means of remedy, one appellate and one legislative.
On Monday, Bishop Warren also responded to Pastor Schmeling’s appeal. The final round of responses is due on June 1, 2007. The decision of the Committee on Appeals is “normally” rendered within 60 days, or by August 1, 2007, five days before the beginning of the Churchwide Assembly.
Phil Soucy
Director Communications
Lutherans Concerned/North America | 
