# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2007_S404
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

404 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

2. The Composition of Synodical Hearing Panels.

With regard to this second concern, the dissenters are certainly
right to affirm Walther’s Scripture-based conviction that laypersons
also possess the divine right to judge doctrine. This is, in fact, the
official position of the Synod (cf. 2001 Res. 7-17A “To Affirm
Synod’s Official Position on Church and Ministry.”) It is not
Walther’s (or the Synod’s) position, however, that every single
panel, process, or procedure established by the Synod that bears
some responsibility for “judging doctrine” must, according to God’s
Word, contain a certain number or percentage of laypersons.

In his discussion of Thesis X in Kirche und Amt, Walther does
not elaborate on what he has in mind by “ecclesiastical courts (or
consistories) and councils” (den Kirchengerichten und Concilien),
nor does he offer information about whether (or in what specific
form) such “courts and councils” existed in the formal polity of the
Synod in 1852 (just five years after the Synod’s founding in 1847).
The central concern in Walther’s discussion is the theological prin-
ciple that, “according to God’s Word, the right to judge doctrine has
not been taken away from the laymen by the establishment of the
ministry.”* Walther quotes Luther to support the thesis that Christ
Himself has established “the church to be the supreme judge” in
matters of doctrine (343; emphasis added). The account in Acts 15
is cited as evidence that (in the words of Calov), “the resolution of
the council [in Acts 15] came not merely from the apostles or from
the elders with the apostles, but from the apostles, the elders, the
whole congregation and the rest of the multitude” (350). “Neither
the elders nor the laymen were excluded from the synod” (349).

From the time of its founding in 1847, the official position of
the Synod on matters of doctrine and practice has been determined
not by pastors alone or professors alone or synodical officials alone
or laypeople alone, but by the entire Synod meeting together
through its representatives in convention. Both pastors and layper-
sons, in equal number, are “‘accorded both a seat and a vote” in de-
termining the official doctrine and practice of the Synod. The Synod
as a whole is “the supreme judge” (under Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions) in matters of doctrine and practice.

The Synod also has the right and freedom—for better or for
worse—to delegate certain “‘doctrine-judging” tasks to particular
groups within the Synod (or even to qualified individuals). Not
every group entrusted by the Synod with doctrine-judging respon-
sibilities must, as a matter of doctrine, include a certain number or
percentage of laypeople. The Synod has long entrusted certain doc-
trine-judging tasks to groups that do not necessarily include laypeo-
ple. Laypersons are not “accorded a seat and a vote together with
the clergy” on the Synod’s Council of Presidents, or on the Prae-
sidium of the Synod. This is a matter of synodical polity, and does
not conflict with the theological principle set forth by Walther in
Thesis X on the Ministry. Over the years, seminary faculties and/or
departments that do not necessarily include laypeople have issued
theological opinions and statements on matters of doctrine. This im-
portant and time-honored practice does not violate either the letter
or the spirit of Walther’s theses on the ministry.

One could argue that it would be wise, helpful, beneficial (etc.)
for the Synod to adopt a provision requiring that laypersons be di-
rectly involved in every single panel, process or procedure in the
Synod that involves the task or responsibility of “judging doctrine.”
The Synod is certainly free to do this. But it is not accurate to say
that, because laypersons also have the right and responsibility to
judge doctrine, Scripture requires that any and every “doctrine-
judging” group and/or task in the Synod must directly involve a cer-
tain number of laypeople. All Christians—pastors, laypersons,
other rostered church workers—retain the right and responsibility
of “judging doctrine” whether or not they serve on a specific panel
or committee, and they carry out this responsibility in a wide vari-
ety of ways.

2007 Convention Workbook

2004 Res. 8-01 A—which approved the composition of the hear-
ing panels in cases of ecclesiastical supervision—was adopted at a
synodical convention which was composed (as always) of 50%
laypersons. By participating in the adoption of this resolution, these
laypeople exercised their right and responsibility to ensure that the
sheep participate in “judging their shepherds.” They did so by ap-
proving a procedure that they apparently believed would best con-
tribute toward this goal.

At the same time, in the opinion of the CTCR, the dissenters
make a valid point regarding the composition of the hearing pan-
els. It may indeed be wise for the Synod to include a certain num-
ber of laypersons on synodical hearing panels. This would be an
effective way to support and apply the Scriptural teaching that the
shepherds are accountable to the sheep. It would also be in conti-
nuity with Walther’s position that laypersons are accorded both a
seat and a vote together with clergy on ecclesiastical courts and
councils. But to argue that Scripture requires that the Synod struc-
ture itself in this way is going beyond what the Scriptures (and the
Lutheran Confessions and Walther’s Theses on the Ministry) actu-
ally teach.

3. The Role and Status of CTCR and CCM Opinions.

This same principle applies to the third concern of the dissenters
regarding the role and status of CTCR and CCM opinions rendered
in the context of decisions made about ecclesiastical supervision
and dispute resolution. Procedures (such as those outlined in 2004
Resolutions 7-02A and 8-01A) that call for and make use of such
opinions do not, in and of themselves, impinge upon the authority
of Scripture as “the only rule and norm of faith and of practice in
the Synod” (LCMS Constitution, Article II, 1).

In this connection, it may be helpful to keep in mind (by way of
example) that when members of the Synod agree to honor and up-
hold the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws, they are not thereby el-
evating these documents to the level of Scripture as a “competing”
rule and norm for Christian faith and life. Similarly, when the Synod
meets in convention and adopts doctrinal resolutions, it is not
thereby affirming these resolutions as a “new” doctrinal standard
alongside (or in addition to) God’s Word. It is simply stating pub-
licly its collective understanding of what the Bible teaches regard-
ing a given issue of common concern. In cases of dispute resolution
and ecclesiastical supervision, questions sometimes arise about the
Synod’s doctrinal position on a given issue or about the official
polity of the Synod. Some person or group has to answer these ques-
tions in order for the Synod to carry out its own procedures. Theo-
retically, the Synod could assign these responsibilities to any
number of persons or groups. Presently, the Synod has assigned
these tasks to the CTCR (for theological questions) and to the CCM
(for questions of polity). This too could be changed. But in any con-
ceivable structure, some person or entity would have to be entrusted
with the responsibility of answering questions of this nature in
processes such as this. To entrust this responsibility to a person or
entity as a part of such procedures is not to create a new “rule and
norm of faith and practice in the LCMS.” It is rather a reflection of
the need for “good order” in the church.

To summarize: the CTCR agrees with the dissenters that there
is no scriptural or confessional requirement to follow the steps of
Jesus in Matthew 18 where these words of Jesus do not properly or
necessarily apply. The CTCR believes that the Synod’s polity
should make it clear that Matthew 18 does not directly apply to cases
of public sin. The CTCR also agrees with the dissenters that layper-
sons have the God-given right and responsibility to judge on the ba-
sis of Scripture the doctrine taught by their shepherds. As one way
to support this truth, it may be wise for the Synod to include laity
on synodical hearing panels in cases of expulsion from membership
in the Synod and dispute resolution. Finally, the CTCR agrees with
the dissenters that official opinions of the CCM and/or CTCR (or