# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S52
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

52 SYNODICAL REPORTS

2. Opinion on Sexual Misconduct Guidelines

In December 1994 the President of the Nebraska District for-
warded to the CTCR a resolution adopted by the 1994 Nebraska
District convention asking the CTCR to review a document pre-
sented to, though not adopted by, the Council of Presidents titled
“Guidelines for Ecclesiastical Supervision of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod Investigating Allegations Regarding
Sexual Misconduct of Professional Church Workers.” Following
an inquiry to the Nebraska District President regarding the theo-
logical questions at issue in this request, the commission completed
this assignment at its February 1996 session and soon thereafter
shared its response with the appropriate Nebraska District officials.
The response reads as follows:

Background

On December 27, 1994. a letter was addressed to the commission
through its executive director from Rev. Eugene Gierke, President of
the Nebraska District, relative to a resolution adopted by the Nebraska

District at its convention the previous summer. This resolution called

upon the commission to “review the Guidelines [for Sexual Miscon-

duct] adopted by the Council of Presidents.”

After an initial consideration of the Tequest the commission re-
sponded that the request was too vague and asked for further clarifica-
tion of the question being submitted. On Sept. 7, 1995, President Gierke
responded with background information concerning the request, as wel]
as the presentation of two questions.

The first question asked the commission to review the theological
affirmations of the Council of Presidents’ document, “Guidelines for
Ecclesiastical Supervision of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Investigating Allegations Regarding Sexual Misconduct of Professional
Church Workers.” The second question inquired about the applicability
of Matt. 18:15-18 to the procedures to be followed by a district presi-
dent when dealing with a church worker against whom charges of sex-
ual misconduct have been brought, and specifically, whether this pas-
Sage gives the accused the right to face his or her accuser.

Response

In response to the first question, the commission notes that the af-
firmations in a general way outline basic understandings of human sex-
uality, marriage, the Gospel, the ministry, the committing of adultery,
and the harm inflicted when sexual misconduct of any kind occurs. If a
Specific question concerning any portion of the Guidelines would be
posed, the commission would be willing to comment on this.

It is the second question that appears to be an issue. The question as
we understand it is:

Question: In a case where a church worker is accused of sexual mis-
conduct, does Matthew 18 require that the alleged victim(s) confront
the church worker personally before the District President can suspend
(including CRM-Restricted) the church worker?

Answer: No.

1. The question deals specifically and precisely with the actions of
the district president through the time of a suspension only.

2. Matthew 18 addresses the function of the office of the keys in the
congregational setting.

3. Therefore, Matthew 18 applies to the restoration of a sinner to
the church and the reconciliation of the estranged parties in the congre-
gational setting, within the context of normal pastoral care (if possible).

4. The CTCR is not saying that due process can be ignored. How-
ever, Matthew 18 itself does not speak to the issue of “due Process” in
the context of a district president’s Tesponsibility to deal with a question
of “fitness for ministry.”

5. The CTCR is of the opinion that the district president should seek
to ensure that Matthew 18 is followed, where applicable, throughout the
whole process of dealing with the church worker.

In giving this response, the commission wishes to make clear that:
(1) it is not rendering an opinion on the interpretation of the synodical
Handbook, which is the task of the CCM; (2) it is not rendering a deci-
sion on the correctness of the District President’s actions or decisions;
and (3) it is not passing judgment on the guilt or innocence of an ac-
cused church worker.

Adopted Feb. 14, 1996

3. Opinion on Administration of Holy Communion in Campus
Ministry Situations

In June 1995 the administrative assistant for missions of the
South Wisconsin District forwarded a request from the District
President for clarification on matters pertaining to the administra-
tion of the Lord’s Supper in campus ministry situations. Since the
1995 convention of the Synod asked the Board for Higher Educa-
tion to develop guidelines in this area, the CTCR asked whether
the South Wisconsin District President continued to desire a re-
sponse from the commission. The request was renewed that the
commission provide “a statement or ruling concerning celebration
of the Lord’s Supper at campus ministries associated with non-
Lutheran schools, where the campus ministry is not a chartered
congregation of schools.” At its December 1996 meeting the Com-
mission adopted the following response:

The Request

A request was forwarded to the CTCR from the President of the
South Wisconsin District, the South Wisconsin Board of Directors, and
the District's Department of Missions asking for a response to the fol-
lowing questions:

1. Is it appropriate for a campus ministry to administer the sacra-
ments with or without the sponsorship of a local congregation?

2. If so, under what rubric is this done?

3. Do the marks of a Christian congregation make a worshiping
body a congregation regardless of our Synod’s polity concerning char-
ter?

The Response

A ministry of Word and sacrament performed outside of a regular.
chartered congregation is not necessarily inappropriate. Such a ministry
is appropriate when a pastor is called to this position by the congrega-
tions of the judicatory collectively, whether it be the congregations of
the District or of the Synod. Examples might include institutional chap-
lains, military chaplains, campus pastors, and mission developers.

In the circumstances where a campus pastor administers the sacra-
ments in the absence of a congregation charter, he is administering them
on behalf of the congregations that called him through (in this case) the
mission board of the District and is under the supervision of the district
president. The ministry is as valid as the ministry of the congregations
that called him to a Word and sacrament ministry on their behalf.

In response to Question 3, it is true that the church is present wher-
ever and whenever the Word of God is taught in its truth and purity and
the sacraments are administered according to their institution by Christ.
However, it must be kept in mind that the Synod has set up certain re-
quirements that must be met before a group that regularly gathers
around Word and sacrament can become a recognized congregation of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. This is a matter of observing
the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod.

Adopted Dec. 6, 1996

Note

] It is also taught among us that one holy Christian church will
be and remain forever. This is the assembly of all believers
among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy
sacraments are administered according to the Gospel. ...” (AC
VII,1).

“The church is not merely an association of outward ties and
rites like other civic governments, however, but it is mainly an as-
sociation of faith and of the Holy Spirit in men’s hearts. To make it
recognizable, this association has outward marks, the pure teach-
ing of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments in har-
mony with the Gospel of Christ” (Ap VII and VIII, 5).

4. Opinion on Joint Participation in Leading Public Worship Services

In December 1995 the executive director of the Board for Mis-
sion Services requested an opinion from the CTCR as to whether it
is appropriate for LCMS pastors to participate in leading worship
services with pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ingria
in Russia. Following consultation with President Barry, the com-
mission at its February 1996 meeting adopted the following re-
sponse:

P Resolved, That the Commission on Theology and Church Relations
is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for LCMS pastors