# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1998_S130
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

130 CONGREGATIONAL SERVICES

A. This formula is un-Lutheran.

1. Dr. Martin Luther reluctantly provided several liturgical “or-
dinaries” but never recommended one containing corporate abso-
lution. He always described absolution as a private act between a
penitent and the confessor.

2. The Lutheran Confessions always describe absolution as a
private assurance of remission.

3. Dr. C. F. W. Walther did provide a form of corporate absolu-
tion but clearly attached three conditions, which put the responsi-
bility for its validity on the penitents rather than on the office of
the pastor.

4. The ELCA has abandoned the un-Lutheran form that bases
authority to say “I forgive” on the pastoral office. Instead, it de-
clares its authority to proclaim Christ’s forgiveness to the penitent
according to Luke 24:47 (cf. LBW pp. 56, 77, 98, 194). (1)

B. This formula is contrary to Scripture.

1. In no Scripture does our Lord direct anyone to pronounce
corporate forgiveness “in His stead and by His command.” The
20th chapter of John on which the referenced formula is allegedly
based does not specifically apply to corporate absolution.

2. The context of John 20 is clearly our Lord’s resurrection vic-
tory (v. 19) rather than His innocent suffering and death as in our
formula. It is our Lord’s victory over sin, death, and the devil that
justifies His previous instructions to grant remission of sins pri-
vately (Matt. 6:14-15; 18:21-22, 35; et al.).

3. The context of John 20 is not of a function given to a special
class of men whom we describe as “called and ordained” clergy,
but to “the disciples” in general (v. 20). The authority obviously
included the disciples of Luke 24:33-36 and was extended to those
who received the Holy Spirit (v. 22), which includes all true be-
lievers (1 Cor. 12:3).

4. In verse 21 our Lord presents His own mission as the model
for His followers. This cannot mean that we are to die for the sins
of the world but that we are to imitate His methods in every ap-
plicable way. This makes it important to note that He never for-
gave groups (Matt. 9:2), or used the indicative active, saying, “I
forgive you.” Even on the cross where He was paying for the sins
of all, He referred absolution to His Father (Luke 23:34). It is arro-
gant for us to go Him one better and absolve in anything but the
passive voice.

5. To go beyond His example by a corporate forgiveness is con-
trary to John 20:23, where our Lord also required the alternative,
the retention of sins. This possibility is canceled by corporate ab-
solution. Prov. 17:15 calls it an abomination to absolve the guilty.
Once a sinner has been corporately forgiven “by virtue of my office
.. in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” an impenitent
sinner cannot be consistently “dealt with” for his insincerity. (cf.
Isaac’s blessing of Jacob; Joshua’s treaty with Gibeon; et al.)

C. The referenced formula puts the pastor’s office ahead of
Christ’s redemptive office.

1. Our confessions and other de jure humano traditions prop-
erly assign the public administration of God’s Word and sacra-
ments to the pastoral office, but the Scriptures do not make that as-
signment to a class that excludes other male believers as long as
“decency and good order” is preserved. Matt. 23:8 declares ours to
be a classless society (cf. v. 1). To invest the authority to absolve
exclusively in those who are “called and ordained” not only vio-
lates this great truth but infringes on the majesty of Christ.

2. The practice of corporate absolution is analogous to the
Roman claim that ordination empowers priests to perform an un-
bloody sacrifice at the altar. Dr. Luther called that version of the
mass “an horrible abomination.” He would no doubt say the same
thing of a formula that claims to forgive “by virtue of my office.”

3. We understand the power of the keys (Matt. 16:18-19) to
apply to all believers, who exercise the Lord’s discipline through
the congregation (Matt. 18:17). Our formula for the ordination or
installation of pastors makes no mention of transferring to the pas-
tor the congregation’s authority to forgive and retain sins. Claiming

to forgive sins by virtue of the pastor’s office instead of by virtue of
Christ’s office is a usurpation of our Lord’s exclusive majesty.

4. The practice of freely announcing plenary forgiveness to all
who participate in a ritual confession of sins, and then denying to
those participants who are not members of synodical congregations
the benefit of our Lord’s remission through His body and blood,
clearly implies that absolution by our ordained clergy is more po-
tent than our Lord’s sacramental remission of sins. This obviously
insults our only Lord!

D. The referenced formula of absolution employs poor syntax.

1. Subject and predicate, modifying phrases and clauses, and
parts of speech are caught up in a confused version of something
originally expressed in but not accurately translated from the Ger-
man. When we speak for God we must put clarity at a premium
(1 Cor. 14:8-9).

2. Since it is possible to construe any statement in a way that is
both true and false (Gen. 3:22), it is critically important for every
pastor to use words that lead souls to trust in the Savior and in Him
alone.

3. Other Bible-believing Christians are appalled by the LCMS
use of a liturgical form which appears to put a clergyman’s virtue
ahead of the merits of the world’s only Savior;

4. Finally, the language employed could lead some pastors to
think of themselves as a special breed, superior to other Christians,
rather than as the servants of all; therefore be it

Resolved, That The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod request
the Commission on Worship to discourage the use of the form of
absolution described above; and be it further

Resolved, That the aforementioned liturgical absolution be
omitted from all orders of worship to be authorized in the future.

Endnote

|. The LBW “Manual on Liturgy,” page 198 states, “The Brief
Order [of absolution] deliberately avoids a strong ‘I forgive you all
your sins’ as inappropriate to a general absolution of the entire con-
gregation ... The people are in various stages of penitence and im-
penitence and a strong ‘I forgive you’ may not be pastorally re-
sponsible in such a situation.”

On page 317, Maundy Thursday, it states: “Those in the con-
gregation may come forward and kneel before the altar. The pre-
siding minister lays both hands on each person’s head and ad-
dresses each in turn: ‘In obedience to the command of our Lord
Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins.” Each penitent responds,
‘Amen.’” This method is in substantial agreement with John 20.

Christ
Pleasanton, CA

2-14
To Clarify Terminology of Lutheran Worship

WHEREAS, In the preparation of our hymnal, Lutheran Worship,
great effort was given to make it useable in a variety of settings;
and

WHEREAS, In so doing, four major participant designations were
made, such as “C,” “P,” “A,” and “L,” referring to congregation,
pastor, assisting minister, and leader respectively; and

WHEREAS, Considerable confusion, and a wide variety of prac-
tices, has arisen in the church in regard to exactly who is referred to
by the designations “A” and “L”; and

WHEREAS, In many churches laymen (men and women) are
being utilized in these designated roles during Divine Service; and

WHEREAS, It has been contended by some of the original
framers of Lutheran Worship that it was never envisaged nor in-
tended that these roles normally be filled by laymen; therefore be it

Resolved, That the LCMS Commission on Worship be assigned
the task of reviewing current understanding and practice of these
terms by congregations within the Synod, and be it further