# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S68 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) 68 SYNOD REPORTS wives; and (3) the Creator’s intended design is that a husband be the head of his wife and that his wife willingly subordinate her own will under her husband. Especially in our cultural context a con- gregation should be concerned about what its polity says and in what way its polity supports the church’s teaching. Congregational Offices of Director/President and Assistant Director/Vice President There is no “Thus saith the Lord” regarding positions such as executive director/president and assistant director/vice president. These are offices established by the church in Christian freedom. Scripture does not prohibit women who possess the requisite gifts from holding these humanly-established offices, assuming that the occupants of these offices do not “perform those functions that are distinctive to the public exercise of the ministry of Word and sacra- ments” (The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices,” Part B.3), or carry out “official functions [that] would in- volve public accountability for the function of the pastoral office” (Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Prac- tice, 46). In filling these offices the congregation should take into account, among other things, the aforementioned family structure. Further, the commission encourages men not to neglect their lead- ership responsibilities in their congregations. Since the church en- courages husbands to exercise their God-given headship in a God-pleasing way at home, the church should correspondingly en- courage men to exercise leadership in their congregation. Congre- gations are encouraged to organize themselves in ways that compliment and reinforce the family, for the church is “the house- hold of God” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Service of All The commission further recommends that congregations en- courage all their members (male and female, single or married) to exercise their God-given responsibilities of service and leadership in their congregations. Conclusion It is the prayer of the commission that these brief reflections will serve the congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod as they deliberate on issues of polity. May all of our deci- sions, even in matters of adiaphora, serve God’s will and the work of his church. Adopted April 21, 2004 2. Response to Dispute Resolution Panel Request on the Trinity and Public Admonition In August 2004, the chairman of a Dispute Resolution Panel re- quested an advisory opinion involving two pastors of the Synod and relating to the doctrine of the Trinity and the matter of public admonition. On Sept. 17, 2004, the commission adopted a response to this request, which has been forwarded to the Dispute Resolu- tion Panel. When the case before the Dispute Resolution Panel has been concluded, the CTCR’s response will be made available on- line and printed in the Convention Workbook. 3. Request for Opinion on DVD Communion The President of the Texas District requested a CTCR opinion regarding the propriety of a pastor’s use of a DVD in which he con- secrated the Communion elements for small groups meeting in var- ious places on Maundy Thursday. The commission, at its February 2006 meeting, adopted the following response: Question: In a letter dated April 21, 2005, the president of the Texas Dis- trict in April 2005 asked the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) to “give consideration to the following situa- tion that occurred in one of our congregations here in the Texas District”: 2007 Convention Workbook On Maundy Thursday, the pastors wanted the members of the con- gregation to have a better sense of the dynamics that were present in the Upper Room when Jesus first instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. They had members of their individual “care and share” groups, approximately 55, come together at the church and they were instructed concerning procedures to follow with their groups on Maundy Thurs- day. They were given a DVD, wine and hosts and an order of service to follow with their groups. At a particular time, so designated by the Pas- tor, each leader would turn on his DVD and the Pastor of the congre- gation would consecrate the elements via the DVD for the groups assembled. In turn, the leader of the group would distribute the ele- ments to those present. I understand that instructions were given to the leaders to assure that only members of the congregations or persons who are members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod would be given the Sacrament. The president specifically asks the CTCR: Did they violate any doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the Altar? Further concerns would be, should this practice be encouraged? Would it not erode the safeguarding of the Sacrament? A further ques- tion would be is the consecration of the elements by DVD valid? Response: The troubling questions raised by this novel practice go to the very heart of the nature and purpose of the Lord’s Supper as insti- tuted by Christ. The primary purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to strengthen faith in God’s grace and forgiveness. Such faith is strengthened through God’s word and promise, which assure us that this Sacrament “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink” (“The Sacrament of the Altar,” SC 1-2). As this request itself illustrates, the practice described above has raised and (if perpetuated) would surely continue to raise ques- tions and doubts about whether Christ’s Supper was being cele- brated in complete faithfulness to His own instructions and example. This practice, therefore, certainly cannot be condoned or encouraged. Among the serious concerns raised by the commission regarding this practice are the following: 1) The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus with words and ac- tions spoken and carried out by him in the direct presence of his disciples (Matt. 26:26-28). Throughout history, the church has sought to be faithful to Christ’s practice in this regard. Pastors speak the words of institution in the presence of the assembled congregation, thereby giving assurance that we are “doing this” as our Lord has instructed us to do (Luke 22:19). Whenever the actual words and actions of the celebrant in consecrating the ele- ments are intentionally separated (by time, distance, or techno- logical means) from the distribution and reception, no assurance can be given that our Lord’s instructions are being heeded and that the body and blood of Christ are actually being given and re- ceived for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of faith (cf. fn. 15 of the CTCR’s 1983 report Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper (TPLS}). . 2) This practice lends itself to the unscriptural notion that the body and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper are present by virtue of the “incantation” of the pastor in some way, shape or form, rather than by the gracious power of Christ and his Word. “Concerning the consecration,” says the Formula of Concord, “we believe, teach, and confess that no man’s work nor the recitation of the minister effect this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but it is to be ascribed solely and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (FC Ep VII, 8; quoted in TPLS, 15). While it is true that “the regularly called and or- dained pastors of the church are to officiate at the administration of Holy Communion” (TPLS, 17-18), it is only “through Christ’s word and its power’—not through the mere “sound” or “record- ing” of the voice of the pastor—‘“that Christ’s body and blood are present in the bread and wine” (7PLS, 14). 3) As emphasized above, the focus in our celebration of the Lord’s Supper must always be on the gracious word of Christ—the word that gives assurance to hearts weighed down by guilt, doubt and fear