# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S403
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—-COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 403

2. erroneously added a mandatory face-to-face meeting with those who
have committed public sin thereby misinterpreting St. Matthew 18:15
and its application to public sin;

3. ignored the proper understanding and condemnation of public sin as
confessed by the Large Catechism’s explanation of the 8th com-
mandment;

4. deviated from its own Scriptural and Confessional subscription as
stated in Article II of its constitution...

With reference to these same concerns, another dissenter argues that
“the clear implication of a procedure that, in cases of public sins,
requires private first steps in accordance with Matt. 18:15—16 be-
fore any public statement or action is that Jesus Himself is neither
Lord nor Savior but only another sinner among billions.” Because
Jesus Himself at times rebuked sin publicly without taking “private
first steps,” 2004 Res. 8-01A “implies that Jesus has broken the law
of Matt. 18 and must pay for His own sins and thus cannot pay for
ours.” Thus, “the new procedure with all that is based on it must be
declared void and of no effect.”

The second concern (membership of hearing panels) is summed
up as follows by a pastor dissenting from 2004 Res. 8-O1A:

The hearing panels established in the Bylaws adopted under 2004 Res.

8-O1A are composed entirely of district presidents. These panels have

no other members, clergy or lay, yet they hear all cases in which mem-
bers of the Synod might be expelled. This would include all cases in-
volving false doctrine. With the adoption of 2004 Res. 8-01A, for the
first time in the history of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, there
can be no lay participation in deciding cases of false doctrine at the syn-
odical level. Ironically, as recently as its 2001 convention the Synod
reaffirmed its first doctrinal statement. C.F.W. Walther’s Church and

Ministry, which says: “To the ministry of the Word, according to divine

right, belongs also the duty to judge doctrine, but laymen also possess

this right. Therefore, in the ecclesiastical courts and councils they are
accorded both a seat and vote together with the clergy” (thesis 10 on the

Ministry). Thus, 2004 Res. 8-01A contradicts the Synod’s oldest and

most recently affirmed doctrinal statement.

Echoing this concern, another dissenting pastor writes: “We have
always believed that the sheep have the right to judge their shep-
herds. Pastors, and District and Synodical Officials are accountable
to the laity. We cannot deprive the laity of their role in guarding the
doctrine and practice of the church.”

The third concern noted above (the use and status of CTCR and
CCM opinions), in the words of one dissenting congregation, is that
“the effect of 2004 Res. 8-01A removes the Word of God as the
only rule and norm of faith and practice in the LCMS (Anticle iI of
LCMS Constitution).” This is because “the District President must
follow any opinion received from either the CCM or the CTCR,
even if contradicting with the Word of God.” For the same reason,
this congregation registers its dissent from 2004 Res. 7-02A “To
Amend Synodical Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws Regarding
Officer and Board Responsibility.” In this resolution (and the by-
laws amended by it), the congregation argues, “the Word of God
does not remain the only rule and norm of faith and practice in the
LCMS.” “Instead, the opinions of the Commission on Constitu-
tional Matters (CCM) are also a rule and norm of faith and life in
the LCMS.”

CTCR Response
1. Public Rebuke and Matthew 18.

The first issue concerns the requirement for a face-to-face meet-
ing also in cases of public sin. Crucial here is the distinction be-
tween the Scripturally mandated steps of Matthew 18 in specific
situations of church discipline and humanly established procedures
involving agreed-upon requirements that make use of the wisdom
of God’s Word. The humanly established and synodically agreed-
upon procedures approved in Res. 8-01A require a face-to-face
meeting patterned after the guidelines given by Jesus in Matthew
18. They do not preclude the possibility of “public rebuke” prior to
or apart from these procedures, nor do they claim that Scripture re-

quires a face-to-face meeting in connection with such humanly es-
tablished procedures—since Scripture contains no “divine guide-
lines” for “expulsion from synodical membership” or “synodical
dispute resolution.” Over the years (and from the very beginning of
its existence), the Synod has established many different procedures,
rules, processes (etc.) as a way of structuring and maintaining its
institutional life together in the service of God’s mission. Often
these human rules and procedures draw upon and reflect the wis-
dom found in God’s Word. They remain, however, humanly insti-
tuted rules and processes which have been (and may be) changed
as the Synod sees fit and deems best.

According to the official minutes of the 2004 convention, this
issue was raised and addressed on more than one occasion at the
convention itself. The minutes report, for example, that a request
was received from a delegate that Floor Committee 8 “address the
specific issues of public sin and admonition as it applies to Reso-
lution 8-01 A” to assist some with a “Biblical dilemma that they are
finding themselves in” (Today’s Business: Issue 6, p. 409). Floor
Committee 8’s response, also recorded on page 409 of the minutes,
is worth citing here:

Perhaps...it would be helpful for the delegates once again to be reminded

that Resolution 8-01A deals with the provision for expulsion from mem-

bership in the Synod (Bylaws 2.26-2.29) and Dispute Resolution (Chap-
ter 8). Former Bylaw 2.27 and Chapter 8, in existence since 1992, have
included requiring Matthew 18:15 as procedure when addressing ex-
pulsion from membership in the Synod and dispute resolution. These
specific expulsion provisions and dispute resolution provisions do not
in any way prohibit dealing with public sin and admonition in other sit-
uations and according to the explanation of the 8th commandment in the

Large Catechism. It was the floor committee’s intent that these bylaws

simply reflect that the Synod desires face-to-face brotherly and evan-

gelical procedures be used when expulsion from membership is the is-
sue and when dispute resolution is involved. [emphasis added]

It is clear that Matthew 18 does not directly apply to cases of pub-
lic rebuke of public sin. The Scriptures make this clear and the Large
Catechism teaches accordingly. In the opinion of the CTCR the dis-
senters 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 in-
stances of public sin. However, 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. In its May 2006 report on Public Rebuke of Public Sin:
Considerations in Light of the Large Catechism Explanation of the
Eighth Commandment 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 there-
fore advisable in the given case. But the church should neither assume
nor insist that Scripture requires the procedure in every instance of pub-

lic sin. (15).

In the conclusion of the CTCR’s report, eight “summary state-
ments” are offered, the fourth of which reads as follows:

Matthew 18 does not speak specifically to cases of public sin, as Luther

declares in his explanation of the Eighth Commandment. The steps out-

lined in Matthew 18, therefore, are not to be considered absolute re-
quirements 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 for-

mal charges. (27).

This same principle—the distinction between a) humanly insti-
tuted ecclesial procedures that may draw upon scriptural wisdom
and b) divinely mandated instructions that are required by God in
specific situations pertaining to the church’s life—applies also to
the second and third concerns raised by various dissenters to Res.
8-O1A.

2007 Convention Workbook