The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has invested a lot in peacemaking. I was part of their effort in the late 1990’s to train hundreds of district superintendents around the U.S. in Christian mediation, in hopes that they would be able to resolve pastor-parish conflicts internally, and well.

So it was with real sadness that I came across this case, Hillenbrand v Christ Lutheran Church, wending its way through the Michigan court system. Richard Hillenbrand was pastor of Christ Lutheran Church in Birch Run, Michigan, from 2005 until 2012, when the church let him go. He apparently requested a hearing before the LCMS Dispute Resolution panel, which was held in August 2012. The church decided not to participate in that hearing, and withdrew its membership from the LCMS. The DR panel recommended that the church review its decision to terminate the pastor, and that it award him backpay.

Presumably the church did not follow the decision of the DR panel, because Pastor Hillenbrand filed a wrongful termination action in circuit court, basically asking the court to reinstate him as pastor. The legal issue was whether the court had the jurisdiction to review a church decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision that it did not.

I can imagine Pastor Hillenbrand’s unhappiness at being terminated by his church. I suspect that the church was divided as to whether to keep him as their pastor, but the people who wanted him gone had more power. Pastor Hillenbrand no doubt felt vindicated by the DR Panel’s decision, yet frustrated that his church ignored it. He probably believed his former church leaders were in the wrong, and that this was highly unjust. His decision to file a civil suit was probably encouraged by supporters miffed by the church’s decision to withdraw from the LCMS rather than heed the Dispute Resolution panel’s advice.

So I understand the desire to seek justice in the civil court – but I can’t agree with it. As St. Paul says, “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already.” (I Corinthians 6:7) In other words, even if the pastor had won the lawsuit, he would have lost the spiritual battle, by continuing to fight with his Christian brothers instead of forgiving and loving them, and by airing internal church matters in public, tarnishing the name of Christ. But he didn’t win; many resources were devoted to years of litigation, for naught.

The court came to the right conclusion, but it had to dig deep into LCMS constitution and bylaws to do so. It’s ironic that we live in a country that allows churches to make their own decisions, yet Christians regularly ask courts to review church decisions. If courts did rule on church decisions, Christians would complain about government interference; instead, it’s the courts that are continually reminding Christians to take care of their matters in their own churches and quit bringing them to court.

The LCMS Dispute Resolution system was designed to effectuate I Corinthians 6:1-7, by providing a church-based process for resolving disputes among the brethren. This case reveals a flaw in the LCMS Dispute Resolution system: a party can thwart it by withdrawing from the LCMS. Even though the process continues to a decision, and even though the process specifically prohibits a party from terminating their membership in a manner that renders the decision inapplicable (LCMS Bylaws, Section 1.10.2), in fact there’s no way to enforce it against the party that is no longer within the LCMS.

My hope now is that the hurting people at Christ Lutheran Church — and Pastor Hillenbrand — will turn to my good friends at Ambassadors of Reconciliation, a ministry devoted to reconciliation within the LCMS, to find healing and reconciliation from this sad event.