# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2016_S256
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

256

VII. FAQS ON TASK FORCE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

VII. FAQs on Task Force Report
and Recommendations
The Task Force on Licensed Lay Deacons (2013 Res. 4-06A)
has received feedback through a variety of sources over the past four
months since it released its report to the Synod. Individuals, deacons, supervising pastors, congregation members, district officials,
and others have communicated many different reactions: agreement,
gratitude, disagreement, dismay, and many helpful questions and suggestions. We want to express our appreciation to all those who have
shared their perspectives with us. To encourage further thoughtful
conversation about the matter of licensed lay deacons (LLDs), we
have created the following FAQs. Some of the questions are direct
quotations from correspondence; others are attempts to capture ideas
and questions with brevity and accuracy. Additional reactions may
be shared with the task force in care of its chairman, Rev. Larry M.
Vogel, associate executive director of the Commission on Theology
and Church Relations at larry.vogel@lcms.org.

Q2.

A.

General/Theological Questions
Q1. 	The report refers to the “transparochial” or “whole
church” dimension of the office of preaching (or, as we
often refer to it, the Office of the Public Ministry). Why is
this an issue with LLDs?
A.
Because the office of preaching and administering the Sacraments (the public ministry) belongs to the whole church,
it is and has always had a transparochial dimension that
should not be ignored. Whatever one thinks of ordination,
the laying on of hands by fellow pastors testifies to the fact
that the public ministry does not simply belong to a given
local congregation (or even a district since those from outside are invited to participate).
Moreover, the transparochial dimension of the office of
preaching is also seen in the training, examination, and authorizing of pastoral candidates. Thus, each seminary is an
institution of the church at large, whose board of regents
(BOR) is elected by the church at large (not simply by the
district in which that seminary resides), and whose BOR
contains representatives of the church at large (i.e., not simply from the district in which the seminary resides). The faculty is drawn from the church at large as well. Furthermore,
in the placement process, the church at large is also active.
One district president does not do all the slottings, not even
the chairman of the Council of Presidents, under the theory
that he “represents the whole church.” No, the whole set of
district presidents is involved in, and finally must approve
of, all of the placements.
Still further, the colloquy process is not under the aegis of
only one man. No district president does the colloquy interview by himself; indeed, neither does the First Vice-President of the Synod (though he is elected by the church at
large). Instead, representatives from around the church take
part.
Contrast this with the procedure for the LLDs. Here, everything is under the aegis of one man, who is elected by his
district alone. The program is under his aegis, and the placement and tenure is under his aegis. This is something fundamentally other than what is done in all other pastoral training
and placement contexts, and it raises fundamental questions
about the transparochial nature of the ministry being conducted. Such questions should be eliminated.
2016 Convention Workbook

Q3.
A.

Relatedly, the report refers to the “transparochial” recognition of calls, which is conveyed by ordination, when
the whole church affirms the validity and legitimacy of a
call, even though it is extended by a congregation. But lay
deacons are already licensed by a district in a process the
Synod approved in 1989. Isn’t that transparochial recognition?
Christ gives the Office of the Holy Ministry to the whole
Church (John 20:19–23; Eph. 4:11–12). It provides transparochial recognition in specific ways. In the rite of ordination,
the calling congregation is asked, “Will you, the faithful
of
Lutheran Church, according to the Church’s
public confession, and speaking for the whole Church, receive
as a servant of Christ and minister of Word
and Sacrament? If so, answer, We will.” (Italics and underlining added.) Though the significance of ordination can be
exaggerated and misunderstood, the congregation’s response
to this question and the laying on of hands by fellow pastors
testify to the fact that the Office of the Ministry does not
simply belong to a given local congregation, or even to a
particular district, as noted in the first question, since pastors
from other districts and even other church bodies with whom
we are in fellowship are invited to participate. Ordination,
therefore, makes clear both to the man set apart for the pastoral office and to the congregation what he is to be and to
do in their midst (by means of a serious vow). The rite also
makes clear the recognition of the wider church that the man
has legitimately been called and placed into the Office of the
Holy Ministry (by means of Scripture, prayer, and the laying
on of hands).
Such churchwide recognition does not exist for deacons.
For this reason there are questions and confusion about the
service of deacons. Because their work is not recognized
transparochially—it is also not recognized as a valid exercise of the Holy Ministry by many. Such uncertainty—this
lack of clarity about the work of deacons and its legitimacy—is tragic and unnecessary. It can be resolved if those
who serve pastorally, preaching and administering the Sacraments, are recognized transparochially through the colloquy
process proposed by the task force.
Does the report elevate tradition over theology in regard to
ordination?
By “tradition over theology,” the questioner is apparently
contrasting custom with a scripturally required practice.
The task force does not believe that ordination with the laying on of hands is something our Lord Himself mandates in
Scripture for He never commands ordination. The Lord has
given the authority and responsibility for calling pastors to
congregations, while He does not require a specific training process or training locale. The Lord also provides the
requirements for pastoral characteristics and ability to teach
in 1 Tim. 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–9 and charges local congregations with holding pastors accountable to such, even how
to properly consider accusations (1 Tim. 5:19). Ordination
(the laying on of hands) is once again not required by the
Lord but is how the whole church recognizes that the Lord
has led the local congregations to call specific men as pastors and place them into the Lord’s service for the church.
Since LLDs are currently not considered pastors, this does
not properly occur.
C. F. W. Walther calls ordination “an apostolic, churchly
order and only a solemn public confirmation of the call”