I agree, Dr. Benke, that those "cross-country" complaints have dwindled. But not because the problem was dealt with (let alone solved) but simply because one group was muzzled and forbidden to voice their concerns. Let's take your case (since you again bring it up!). As I recall at least one of the men who brought charges tried to speak with you about what transpired at Yankee Stadium but was rebuffed. What recourse did he have but to pursue charges, since he was convinced you had sinned -- and that your sin was adversely affecting not just you, your congregation, or even district but the whole Synod? Even more to the point: that your actions violated the First and Second Commandments and that it thus impinged upon the proper proclamation of the Gospel? I am sure that you disagree with that view of your actions but simply stifling the voice of others does not help. An investigation (done privately, out of the public spotlight and the press) would have helped -- but you and Dr. Kieschnick (and others on your behalf) repeatedly broke the bylaw forbidding publicity during this part of the process, even after it was pointed out to you (by many, including the Board of Directors of Synod). Part of the real anger about that situation was that the only way to make their concerns heard was for those pastors and congregations to file charges. Now that venue has been taken away. So, do you think their concerns are gone? Or their anger at being ignored?
I doubt their concerns are gone, or their anger. But that wasn't the goal of the changes as far as I can tell. The intent was merely to prevent the concerns and anger from becoming overly disruptive and destructive. At some point the rule was made that the batter is not allowed to charge the mound with the bat in his hand. Such a rule does not address his concerns and anger over a fastball aimed at his head. It isn't intended to. But it does prevent the ensuing fistfight from escalating into a matter of assualt with a deadly weapon. I think we need to separate out the intent of the synod rules in the same way. Given the internet explosion, every service, event, speaker, etc. could be linked from blog to blog, giving enough material, at least on the surface, for people to make a full time job out of filing charges. This was not the case in the snail-mail days, when things had to either be local or very egregious just to make in onto the normal person's radar screen. So the change was not intended to address people's concerns or assuage their anger but simply to prevent those concerns and anger from taking over the show entirely, so to speak. But as you point out, there has to be a way for those concerns and anger to be addressed. The batter cannot charge the mound with the bat, so what can he do? That is the question. Simply take it from the head-hunter pitcher? In short, I think you're right that nothing has been done to allay the concerns of those who filed cross-country charges, but I don't think the rules changes were intended to do that or would even theoretically be capable of doing that.
The rule has been made that you can't take the bat to the mound with you. The pitcher, therefore, wants to play on as though the inside fastball never happened. The batter wants to do no such thing. The pitcher is wrong to think the new "no bat to the mound" rule (wise though it was to enact) addressed the issue of the high and tight fastball. And the batter is wrong to think the rule was supposed to. Tho only recourse, tragically, is to have your own pitcher throw at their guys, which is what happens when the synodical president gets replaced. If we want to avoid that, we do indeed have to recognize that people's valid concerns are not being addressed, that the rules changes did not address them, but that that doesn't mean the rules changes were bad but just that they addressed a different concern. I think the batter is right to demand that something be done, but is wrong to point to the new rules about cross-country filing of charges as the problem.
