Sorry for the delay, Ben - not an inactive time for the old pastor/bishop, preaching in FL tomorrow. Dialog is a pre-eminent option, as we agree. But the process of dialog, as up-front and personal as possible, is what gives me hope that "goals" can be met. One of the many griping points from those who dislike the new-ish ecclesiastical supervision modus is that face to face mandate. But it should be seen as nothing more or less than a wonderful opportunity. Please, make me sit down with you for awhile, maybe even a long while. If nothing else, inside the denominational community at least, what could well result is this little phrase "the benefit of the doubt." Or, from the documents themselves, what face to face dialog enables is that "charity must prevail."
While from the perspective you mention the issues may be doctrine, doctrine, doctrine, the way the issue of activities deleterious to the faith community comes down on the ecclesiastical supervision/parish side of the aisle is normally practice, practice, practice. As we all have inculcated it by now, orthodoxy = orthopraxy. So the doctrinally orthodox pastor who is so pastor-discretion-free in what is perceived as his high-handed renderings in the life of the parish that he loses two-thirds of his flock should in the end be judged as not orthodox. His orthodoxy lacks an evangelical and catholic pastoral spirit, so it falls short of the standard. And the way to resolve much, even most, of that problem is through dialog at the circuit, the pastor/confessor, and the district level. Some of that may and probably does feel to the involved pastor as though he's being called an "errorist" when he isn't, because he has hewed to a very pure interpretive line. But from the perspective of most others, he IS an errorist, an errorist in fundamental pastoral judgment. Not an insignificant problem that takes patience, time, and a building up of trust.
As to That They May Be One, it's good to hear that it's in quiet mode. There was much dialog back in the day about the schismatic nature of the sign-up-sheet aspect of a document that had no wider-church authorization and ended up being deemed theologically weak.
As you read Lutheran Forum and other serious Lutheran theological journals, however, it's plain that there's an abundance of variety and lively discourse on issues of importance that are not settled as well as ones that could use some unsettling - that to me is also a sign of health - the mutual consolation of the brethren.
Dave Benke