LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 58

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

58

SYNOD REPORTS

The CTCR responded on December 18, 2007, as follows:

The CTCR sees two theological issues that come into play in this
request. First, there is the theological question about whether or not a
congregation may rescind the call of a pastor who is on disability. In
response to this question, the Commission refers you to an opinion which
it gave to the Board of Directors and Praesidium of the Pacific Southwest
District on September 12, 1990. (See the enclosed copy of this opinion,
which was reported to the Synod in the 1992 Convention Workbook, p.
67.) Although the questions which you have asked are not identical to
those posed by the 1990 request, the theological issue which these questions raised are the same.
In the second place, the Commission believes that your request
raises another theological issue that comes into play since it specifically
asks about the termination of the call of a pastor who is “on disability.”
Therefore, the Commission wants to highlight the second and subsequent
paragraph of its 1990 opinion which emphasizes that “great caution” be
exercised “lest arbitrariness and lovelessness bring the parties under the
judgment of God.” In addition to the theological issue regarding the divine
call, the circumstance of “being on disability” necessitates taking into
account the theological principle that Christians are to moderate their freedom with love as they bear each other’s burdens (Gal 5:13; 6:2) through
their mutual love. St. Paul appeals to the Thessalonians to “respect those
who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at
peace among yourselves” (1 Thes 5:12–13). Each of these theological
principles, the Commission believes, is to be taken into account as congregations proceed to work their way through the difficult and sensitive
matter involved in your question.

2. Request for an Opinion on Excommunication Procedures
Background:

In a letter dated June 29, 2007, the CCM requested “input” from
the CTCR with respect to a communication received by the CCM from
a pastor regarding the current CCM “Guidelines for Constitutions
and Bylaws of Lutheran Congregations.” In this communication, the
pastor “declares that the ‘model constitution’ [‘Guidelines’] contradicts Synod’s position” as set forth in C. F. W. Walther’s Church and
Ministry (cf. 2001 Res. 7-17A).
The CCM “Guidelines” state that “a two-thirds majority vote of
the voters assembly shall be required” for excommunication. The
pastor maintains that the Synod, in adopting Church and Ministry,
is bound to the view that “unanimity of the congregation” in cases
of excommunication “is not a ‘traditional rubric’ but rather our biblical position under Article II.” Thus, he argues, the CCM “Guidelines” need to be revised and “congregations who have constitutions
not reflecting Synod’s doctrinal position need to be revised to bring
them into compliance.”
CTCR Response

The CTCR has previously provided “input” regarding this issue
in its 1985 report Church Discipline in the Christian Congregation.
In response to the question “Does excommunication have to be unanimous?” the CTCR says:

Our synodical fathers argued in the affirmative, pointing out that since
such a verdict, reached on the basis of a clear Word of God and representing God’s own judgment on the sinner, must be accepted by every
Christian and that any who might vote against such action be dealt with
(if necessary, excommunicated themselves) before the matter in question
is resolved. Although ideally all members will see the justice of what has
been resolved (assuming that the congregation has acted on the basis of
the Word of God, and the lack of repentance on the part of the one being
dealt with is evident), we believe that excommunication may be carried
out without unanimous vote. Shall the ignorance and/or weakness of any
dissenting member invalidate either the verdict of the Lord through His
church or their own eternal salvation? In all such instances, of course,
those not in agreement should be dealt with evangelically in the hope of

persuading them that the action of the congregation was truly Scriptural.
And if it is evident that a congregation is not sufficiently instructed, with
the result that a considerable number would at the time not be ready to
favor excommunication in any case, the action should be postponed until
such instruction can have its good effect. (22)

The CTCR does not believe that the position taken in the response
quoted above (“that excommunication may be carried out without
unanimous vote”) contradicts the doctrinal position of the Synod.
As Walther himself maintained in defending an unconditional (quia)
subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, complete agreement with
the doctrinal content of the Confessions does not imply or necessitate complete agreement with every line of argumentation or every
exegetical interpretation employed in support of a specific doctrinal
position.1 This principle also applies to doctrinal statements and resolutions adopted by the Synod.
In Church and Ministry, Walther sets forth the theological principle that “the minister must not tyrannize the church. He has no
authority to introduce new laws or arbitrarily to establish adiaphora
or ceremonies. He has no right to inflict and carry out excommunication without his having first informed the whole congregation.”2
Walther goes on to share his view that, according to Matthew 18:15–
18, a verdict of excommunication is to be pronounced by the pastor
“only when the congregation has unanimously decided to excommunicate” the unrepentant sinner.3 However, Matthew 18:15–18 does not
specifically address the issue of congregational “unanimity” in matters of excommunication. Despite Walther’s personal views regarding
this matter,
A unanimous ballot does not appear to be a Biblical requirement,
though it may check impetuous action … Unanimity does not seem to
be a Biblical requirement. When the evidence of sin and impenitence
are indisputable, the congregation is not bound to that traditional rubric.4

In its report Church Discipline in the Christian Congregation, the
CTCR also responds to the question “Is it proper for the congregation
to delegate to the elders, to the church council, and/or to the pastor
the authority to excommunicate?” Whether it is wise to do this may
well depend on the circumstances, says the commission, but “it is no
doubt within the power of the congregation to ask the Board of Elders
and/or pastor to act in its behalf” (25). The CTCR notes in this connection that “a kind of delegation has already taken place when the
voters’ assembly, as is generally the case, is authorized to act in the
name of ‘the church’” (25). This principle seems relevant in view of
the pastor’s claim that “Synod’s position under Article II states that
… there must be unanimity not only of the voters but there must be
unanimity of the congregation.” In other words, the position taken
by the pastor (which he claims to be “the Synod’s position under
Article II”) would not give the congregation itself the power to delegate to others—even to the voters’ assembly—the authority to carry
out excommunication on its behalf.
The CTCR shares this input with the CCM in support of the view
that one can affirm the doctrinal position set forth by Walther in Thesis
IX of Church and Ministry regarding congregational consent in cases
of excommunication without necessarily agreeing with the view that
Matthew 18:15–18 implies or requires a “unanimous” decision on
the part of the congregation.
Adopted February 20, 2008
3. Request for an Opinion on Constitutional Issues Involving the
Service of Women in Congregational Offices
Background:

In February 2007, the South Wisconsin District Committee on
Constitutional Matters requested “the guidance and opinion of the

2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 58

4/15/10 2:38 PM