# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S164
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

164

RESOLUTIONS

gregations…of the Evangelical Lutheran Church who confess and accept the confessional basis of Article II”; and
WHEREAS, Article VI states, “Conditions for acquiring
and holding membership in the Synod are the following: 1.
Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II”; and
WHEREAS, Bylaw 1.6.1 states, “The confessional position
of the Synod is set forth in Article II of its Constitution, to
which all who wish to be and remain members of the Synod
shall subscribe”; therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod in convention recognizes that
the words inspired, inerrant, infallible, and/or revealed with
respect to the written Word of God are in harmony with the
confessional basis of the Synod (Art. II); and be it further
Resolved, That congregations be encouraged to include
the words inspired, inerrant, infallible, and/or revealed with
respect to the written Word of God in their constitutions
and/or bylaws.
Action: Adopted (10)
(During discussion, an amendment to change may in the last
resolve to be encouraged to was agreed to by the committee. The
resolution was adopted as changed [Yes: 1,054; No: 35].)

To Encourage the Study of CTCR
Documents Relating to Public Rebuke
of Public Sin and to Amend the Synod’s
Bylaws Relating to Matthew 18
RESOLUTION 8-05A
Overtures 8-11–30 (CW, pp. 261–272)
WHEREAS, In 2004 Res. 8-01A, the Synod adopted new
procedures for ecclesiastical supervision and dispute resolution; and
WHEREAS, These newly adopted bylaws have created uncertainty for some in the church as they relate to matters of
public rebuke of public sin; and
WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) has recently approved a study document,
Public Rebuke of Public Sin (May 2006, CW, pp. 361–368),
which has been distributed to all LCMS congregations, pastors, and church workers; and
WHEREAS, Within the CTCR Response to Expressions of
Dissent (2004–2006) (CW, pp. 400–410), the CTCR has further addressed public rebuke of public sin in a section entitled “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution
(2004 Res. 8-01A; 2004 Res. 7-02A)”; and
WHEREAS, Prior to the adoption of 2004 Res. 8-01A, the
practice of face-to-face meetings included in the former adjudication process of the Synod, dispute resolution process
of the Synod, bylaws of the Synod, and CCM opinions from
1968 to the present reflected a practice and desire for fraternal and evangelical relations among members of the
Synod toward the goal of reconciliation; and
WHEREAS, The CTCR Response to Expressions of Dissent
(2004–2006) states in part (pp. 18–19),
It is clear that Matthew 18 does not directly apply to cases of
public rebuke of public sin. The Scriptures make this clear and
the Large Catechism teaches accordingly. In the opinion of the
CTCR the dissenters make a good point in this connection.
2004 Res. 8-01A could have made it more clear that Matthew
18 does not directly apply to instances of public sin. However,

2007 Convention Proceedings

when it comes to the Synod’s humanly devised procedures for
expulsion from membership in the Synod or dispute resolution,
it is legitimate for the Synod to expect a face-to-face meeting
[emphasis added]. In its May 2006 report on Public Rebuke of
Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment [p. 15] the CTCR says:
While there is no requirement to follow the steps outlined
in Matthew 18 in cases where the text does not apply, this
does not mean that steps outlined by Jesus in this text are
prohibited in any case. Following the steps of Matthew 18
in cases beyond their direct application may in fact be beneficial to the church and its administrative structures and
therefore advisable in the given case. But the church
should neither assume nor insist that Scripture requires
the procedure in every instance of public sin.

and further
Matthew 18 does not speak specifically to cases of public
sin, as Luther declares in his explanation of the Eighth
Commandment. The steps outlined in Matthew 18, therefore, are not to be considered absolute requirements mandated by Scripture nor the Confessions in cases of public
sin. These steps may, however, be part of synodical
processes that would lead to specific consequences of public
sin (e.g., removal from the clergy roster of the Synod). Public rebuke is not the same as the filing of formal charges
[emphasis added];

and
WHEREAS, The Commission on Theology and Church Relations in Public Rebuke of Public Sin formulated additional conclusions (pp. 26–28) on the public rebuke of public
sin to help the Synod in its deliberations:
• Public rebuke should not be the first response to a first
offense. A rapid rush to judgment should be avoided (cf.,
Gal. 6:1–3);
• Public rebuke should be pursued first by those who have
the office and responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision
in the Synod, but if those having that responsibility fail in
their duty public rebuke may be pursued by any Christian;
• One who offers public rebuke should be certain that
he/she properly understands the nature of the sin to be
rebuked;
• Public rebuke is not to be undertaken lightly but only
after much prayer, deliberation, and consultation “with
others who know of the sin”;
• In cases where the sin is not apparent to all and therefore perhaps not truly public, a call for discussion rather
than rebuke might best serve the needs of the church;
• Public rebuke should be rare and used primarily in dealing with notorious or scandalous teaching or conduct in
which the Gospel is at stake;
• The purposes of public rebuke are both to warn and instruct the church and to offer spiritual care to the offender;
and
WHEREAS, Paul teaches us to deal evangelically with one
another: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who
are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself,
or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens,
and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:1–2
NIV); and