# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S238
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

238

VII. 2013 RES. 4-06A TASK FORCE REPORT TO THE SYNOD

an ordained LCMS pastor, via colloquy or seminary programs, was
emphasized in nearly every district visitation.22 Lastly, proponents of
the district deacon training programs pointed out the inherent value
of the study programs in themselves and emphasized the benefit of
having specially trained laypeople available to help in various pastoral capacities in ordinary settings as well as during times of more
extraordinary needs.
With the approval of about ten districts, congregations facing such
challenges have appointed laymen to preach, baptize, and preside
at the Lord’s Table either in established congregations or in developing missions or church plants. Such districts have designed and
implemented programs for training leaders in theology and pastoral
practice in an attempt to prepare the lay workers. Deacon is the formal title for such workers, but other titles (e.g., “lay minister,” “lay
pastor,” and simply “pastor”) are also used, sometimes formally and
other times informally.
Over time, the utilization of lay deacons has sometimes gone
beyond the provisions of 1989 Res. 3-05B, which anticipated and
endorsed the practice of laymen preaching and administering the
Sacraments only in emergencies or exceptional circumstances. The
majority of deacons serve in settings where there are significant,
if not extreme, financial, geographic, or demographic challenges.
However, there are also cases in which deacons preach and administer (both occasionally and as “vacancy pastors”) even though ordained
ministers—retired and/or active—are readily available to serve. In
addition, some women graduates of deacon-training programs have
served liturgically in ways that the Synod has formally discouraged
and that has also created confusion and misunderstanding (see 1989
Res. 3-10; 1989 Res. 3-14).23
As noted above, a central assumption of LLD programs has been
the idea that the practice of a pastor supervising deacons who carry
out pastoral functions, such as preaching and sacramental administration under his (the pastor’s) authority, is a recovery of a New
Testament emphasis on exercising “oversight.” Therefore, the Task
Force on Licensed Lay Deacons believes the matter of oversight must
be addressed specifically.
The words overseer, overseeing, and oversight are translated from
the ἐπισκεπ- stem of noun and verb forms, usually in a form of the
noun ἐπίσκοπος, “overseer.” It is important to observe several things.
1. Words that are related to this ἐπισκεπ- stem are not the main descriptors of the Office of the Holy Ministry, either of the officeholder or
of his function. Holders of the office are described as ἐπίσκοποι only
four times in the entire New Testament (Acts 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim
3:2; Titus 1:7), and the verb ἐπισκέπτομαι is never used to describe
the activity of the officeholder. Words related to this stem are not
used of Jesus as He deals with His people (with the possible exception of Luke 19:44, which speaks of His “visitation” to Israel).

2.

3.

Much more frequent within this context are stems related to shepherd/
shepherding (ποιμήν/ποιμαίνω) and sheep/flock (πρόβατα/ποίμιον/
ποιμνή). These words, related to the office and its functions, occur
at least 64 times (18 for “pastors” and their people, and 46 times for
Jesus as He deals with His people—21 times in the Gospel of John
alone).
Thus, the pressure of the linguistic usage of the New Testament is
not in the direction of understanding men in the Office of the Holy
Ministry as being and functioning principally as overseers. Rather,
these men are seen as being and functioning principally as shepherds,
men who personally tend, care for, and even give their lives for their
sheep. Indeed, the people under the care of the holder of the Office
of the Holy Ministry are never called “those overseen”; they are regularly called the “sheep” or the “flock.”

2016 Convention Workbook

4.

Furthermore, what are overseen by “overseers” in the New Testament,
when the noun is used, are not other leaders. Rather, it is the sheep
themselves. This can be seen in Acts 20:28: “Take heed to yourselves
and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has placed you as
overseers, to engage in shepherding (ποιμαίνειν, present infinitive)
the church of God.” One oversees by acting as a shepherd among the
people whom God has commended to one’s charge, not by overseeing
others doing the work of shepherding. A corporate, delegation model
is not at all in view.

The members of TF 4-06A want to address several false stereotypes that are sometimes heard in the Synod’s debates about LLD
programs. To be sure, any time there is debate and controversy, one
may find “bad examples” on the “opposing side.” But, in a time of
debate, should we emphasize the worst of our opponent’s behavior
and exaggerate its significance, or should we put the best construction on those with whom we differ?
Therefore, we would first emphasize that the concerns underlying the establishment of district lay training programs are valid.
Proponents of LLD training and implementation are not, in general,
theologically cavalier or unconcerned with faithfulness to Scripture or
subscription to the Confessions. Their overriding desire is that people
in LCMS congregations would be able to hear the Gospel preached
and receive the Sacraments of Christ. They are aware that the circumstances for rightly calling ministers in past times have dictated
different approaches to the selection of pastors (Tr 70). There is little
evidence that laymen serving as deacons are seeking to usurp authority or responsibility from pastors; rather, there is ample evidence that
most simply wish to serve the church and willingly accept the need
to do so under a pastor’s supervision.
The task force also hastens to emphasize that those with theological concerns about the LLD programs are not, in general, doing
so because they think mission and ministry is unimportant or that
the congregations filling their pastoral needs with deacons have no
real challenges. There is little evidence that pastors who raise concerns about LLD programs do so to “protect their turf” or otherwise
to engage in clerical elitism. Rather, the emphasis on the part of
those who question the programs is for fidelity to our biblical and
confessional commitments and a desire to address the problems of
underserved congregations and missions without compromise to those
commitments. Those who question the LLD programs note that the
practice of laymen serving as pastors without ordination, whether or
not they are supervised by an ordained minister, is a recent innovation that has no historical substantiation.24
We pray that such false perspectives about those on either “side”
of the debates might be removed. Our Synod needs to move forward
together with deep concern for fidelity to the Word of Christ as we
confess it together and for faithfulness in the mission Christ has given
to His Church.
How Is Rite Vocatus to Be Understood? (AC XIV)
Central to the theological debate regarding LLD practices is the
understanding of AC XIV, referred to above. Since the Augsburg
Confession was written in both German and Latin, both languages
are translated in recent scholarly editions of the Book of Concord. A
comparison of translations from German and Latin shows there is no
difference in substance. The translation from German in the KolbWengert (KW) edition reads: “Concerning church government it is
taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call.” The translation from the Latin
reads: “Concerning church order they teach that no one should teach
publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless properly