# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S365
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 365

IV. Application in the Present Context

Application of what the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions
say concerning public rebuke of public sin is no easy task, espe-
cially when we take into account the complexity of establishing
workable definitions and understandings of such terms as “public,”
“rebuke,” and “sin” in the contemporary context. While we are able
to say some things with certainty at the level of principle, great care
should be exercised in the church’s approach to this issue today.

A. Public
1. Sixteenth Century Context

In his commentary on the Eighth Commandment in the Large
Catechism Luther spoke within the context of a relatively small
community where people lived in close proximity to each other and
routinely knew each other’s business. And in most cases, the com-
munity was identical to the local congregation.” As often as such
local familiarity might have led to more upright moral behavior, it
also led people to endure their neighbors’ moral failings rather than
risk division in the community. Luther suggested as much in his ex-
planation to the Commandment: “Rather, we should use our tongue
to speak only the best about all people, to cover the sins and infir-
mities of our neighbors, to justify their actions, and to cloak and veil
them with our own honor” (LC I, 285; cf. Ap IV, 232).”8

When Luther speaks about public sins, we might better translate
“public” as notorious or scandalous. In other words, it is not sim-
ply a matter of a sinful action that is known to some other person
or a few other people. All of sixteenth century life was public in that
sense. The situation Luther envisioned was a sin so widely known
that it could no longer be covered without scandalizing the com-
munity. But the publicity would also end with that community. Con-
gregations were parochial in their concern and it was only for the
Elector himself to take an interest in what happened in every town
and parish in Saxony. Luther suggests that the papal teaching was
a rare exception in that it had been “shouted throughout the world.”

2. Contemporary Context

The situation of the twenty-first century is very different. Peo-
ple in western societies in our day jealously guard their private lives.
Much less of life is public now than it was in the sixteenth century,
and most often members of acommunity know very little about each
other. Therefore, any rebuke for sin, public or private, tends to be
seen as an invasion of a person’s privacy. Even in LCMS congre-
gations, we may hear that sin is a matter between God and the sin-
ner only. Accordingly, the idea that an individual’ s sin affects others
in the community seems to have become increasingly foreign to
many. The general failure to consider rebuke for any specific sin
has led to the near obliteration of the distinction between public and
private sin. In fact, we rarely need to consider this distinction be-
cause we seldom rebuke sin either publicly or privately. The end re-
sult is that most personal conduct tends to be regarded today as
somehow private, a matter of concern only to the individual and to
be judged only by God and his or her own conscience. The paradox
of modernity is that the realm of the private has encroached even
upon what is clearly public. :

Modern communications media have also compounded the
problem of what is public. Although we have enlarged the circle of
what is considered private, we also have the ability instantly to make
public whatever we wish through print, and especially through elec-
tronic media. E-mail lists, Internet chat rooms, and Web sites cre-
ate possibilities for spreading reports that could not have been
fathomed by Luther.

As we reflect on the meaning of the term “public” in this pre-
sent context in which we in the LCMS find ourselves, we would do
well to keep in mind the situation in the earlier years of our Synod.
We may note, for example, that the polity of the LCMS makes all
of its members—pastors and congregations—accountable to each

other for their lives and teaching. When that polity was adopted in
the nineteenth century, communication was such that pastors and
congregations that were not in close geographic proximity would
know very little about each other. Only the most serious cases would
be found worthy of being reported to synodical leadership, and only
a very few would ever have been considered by the Synod as a
whole. Today that is simply not the case. No deliberation at the lo-
cal level is needed, when anyone can send an e-mail or post a re-
buke on their Web site in response to a real or perceived sin. This
situation creates some profound difficulties—not the least of which
is that there is nothing in Scripture or the Confessions that justifies
a public rebuke made unilaterally in the absence of conversation
with others who are aware of the public sin (cf. Acts 18:24—26). In
the case of Paul rebuking Peter, Paul was in conversation with the
church in Antioch. Luther, too, could and did enlist the help and
support of others who recognized that the message of the Gospel
had been obscured by the papacy.

Even if consultation should take place, however, modern meth-
ods of communication have added another layer of complexity to
the problem. Not only is it possible, but it is likely that a public re-
buke will receive a wider audience than the public sin that elicited
it. In other words, the rebuke has the side effect of publicizing the
sin more widely, of making it known to an audience that had no
prior knowledge of it. We must recognize that the number of peo-
ple directly affected by a public sin might be limited. Although all
members of the Synod are accountable to each other, in most cases
it will only be necessary to deal with public sin at the local level.
Publicity beyond that level may serve to scandalize more than to in-
struct. This observation should lead to a careful consideration of the
audience for a public rebuke. It is neither necessary nor beneficial
to involve all members of the Synod in every case of public sin.
Those who would undertake a rebuke should take great care, there-
fore, in choosing their medium of communication and in determin-
ing their audience.

B. Rebuke

In his “public rebuke” paragraph in the Large Catechism, Luther
used the verb strafen and the corresponding noun Strafe to describe
his opposition to the pope: “We now censure [strafen] the pope and
his teaching....Where the sin is public, appropriate public punish-
ment [Strafe] should follow....” (284). In English translations of the
Large Catechism, the verb (which can be translated as either rebuke
or punish) is rendered as “censure” (Tappert, Kolb/Wengert) or “re-
prove” (Triglot). In Galatians 2 Paul used a word that means “set
oneself against, oppose” (avtéotnv)”” when describing his public
confrontation with Peter. As New Testament scholar Ben Wither-
ington III has noted, the word was used “broadly of any delibera-
tive situation where opposition to actions or beliefs was involved.”

As we review the usage of the term “rebuke” up to this point in
the document, three important considerations need to be taken into
account for the contemporary application of Luther’s provision in
the Large Catechism.

First, rebuke has the force of a corrective admonition. It is not
merely an accusation that would then lead to investigating the facts of
a case followed by determination of guilt or innocence. True rebuke
requires that the facts of the case and the guilt of the one being rebuked
be known beforehand. A positive response to a public rebuke would
include admission of guilt, repentance, and absolution.

Second, we should be careful to distinguish between rebuke and
other activities that might result from a public sin. The initial re-
sponse to a public sin might well be debate that engages the whole
church rather than rebuke. We may legitimately assume that Paul
would likely have responded differently to Peter if the church had
not already debated and decided the issues surrounding fellowship
with Gentile believers. With reference to our present -situation to-
day, the decision to debate rather than rebuke could result from the

2007 Convention Workbook