LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2010, Page 63

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

SYNOD REPORTS
2. In Bylaw 2.14.2 Definition of Terms, reference is made to
Bylaw 1.2 (g) for a definition of ecclesiastical supervision.
Bylaw 1.2 (g) subjects ecclesiastical supervision “to the provisions of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions.”
In so doing, the bylaw requires, again, that ecclesiastical supervision be carried out according to the confessions that the Holy
Scriptures are “the only rule and norm of faith and of practice”
and that the Lutheran confessions are “a true and unadulterated
statement and exposition of the Word of God” (Constitution of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Article II Confession).
This reference to the confessional basis of the Synod once
more addresses the theological concern of the overtures about
favoritism or that human tradition or human ideas are being
placed above the Scriptures. That there is a danger that ecclesiastical supervision would not be properly exercised—an
obvious possibility in a sinful world where those charged with
ecclesiastical supervision in the church are always “sinnersaints”—does not prove that the procedure for ecclesiastical
supervision is itself defective. No human procedures are without fault, but if the authority of Scripture and the Confessions
is upheld, the procedure is not inherently defective.
3. Bylaws 2.15 and 2.16 allow for the expulsion of those in positions of ecclesiastical supervision (district presidents and the
President of Synod), as well as other officers of Synod under
the supervision of the President. Such procedures certainly
address the concern of partiality. Synod officers, including
district presidents, are under the ecclesiastical supervision of
the President of Synod. He, in turn, is subject to the Synod
meeting in convention should the Council of Presidents have
commenced an action for his own expulsion. It is important to
see that no partiality is shown to those in offices of authority in
the Synod. Moreover, the basis of an action of expulsion must
be that an individual has violated Synod’s confessional foundation (Article II) or its conditions of membership (Article VI) or
has engaged in persistent offensive conduct (Article XIII). The
retention of these bases means that the authority of Scripture
is not made subject to human guidelines. Moreover, rather
than encouraging partiality, it is clear that no member of the
Synod is exempt from potential expulsion if he acts contrary
to Synod’s confession of faith or its conditions of membership.
4. The third area of concern—that the opinions of the CCM abrogate a biblically given responsibility for believers to reprove
and admonish one another—is not directly addressed in the
bylaws regarding expulsion from membership in the Synod.
However, the aforementioned emphasis on the bylaws’ reaffirmation of Scriptural and confessional authority must
be understood to include the fact that Synod continues to
encourage every believer to exercise the responsibility of
godly admonition and correction according to biblical command. Lest there be any doubt in this regard, the CCM has
itself stated, in a response to “Concerns re Opinion 02-2309
(03-2338B)”: “The Commission has never opined that one
brother should be denied the right or responsibility to admonish another brother over matters of the soul. However, when it
comes to ecclesiastical supervision by the Synod, such supervision is to be provided by those whom the Synod has given that
responsibility in its Constitution and Bylaws.” (See “Opinions
of Commission on Constitutional Matters,” 2004 Convention
Workbook, 365).
5. Another concern raised was that the CCM rulings grant
“immunity” (e.g., 2007 Overture 8-50, 8-57). The suggestion of Overture 8-57, that CCM opinions may allow for
Constitutional violation “with impunity and immunity,”

63

indicates that some are interpreting the CCM ruling as allowing for some sort of blanket immunity that allows for persistent
disregard of Synod’s confessional standards and membership conditions. Perhaps the concern is that an approval of an
action at one point would now have precedential value in the
manner of case law in the secular courts. Bylaws 2.14, 2.15,
and 2.16 rule out such an understanding. There is no guarantee, first, that the decisions of any ecclesiastical supervisor
are exempt from review. Thus, while it is clear that a Synod
member who acts in accord with his ecclesiastical supervisor’s approval is not subject to discipline, it is not the case
that the ecclesiastical supervisor is also exempt from discipline. If the Synod President, for instance, determines that an
approval granted by a district president to a pastor in a questionable matter is contrary to Synod’s confessional position
or its conditions of membership, the President can and should
admonish the District President and, if necessary, initiate a process of expulsion against him. In such an instance, one would
hope that, when biblically admonished, the district president
would acknowledge his error, repudiate it, and in turn correct
his advice to the pastor in question. He would inform the pastor
that in future instances, he (the district president) would no longer approve such action. Similarly, a Synod President can be
admonished and corrected for an action he has approved, perhaps by an individual privately or by the Council of Presidents
if it commences an action of expulsion. The Synod President,
then, in turn, could correct his earlier advice and insure that
similar action not take place in the future.
6. In this same vein, one more circumstance should be considered. If an ecclesiastical supervisor’s advice is found to be
erroneous and the supervisor is admonished, changes his view,
and then gives the corrected advice to the Synod member under
his supervision, he would be warning that member who had
been granted earlier approval not to repeat the action in question. His correction would include an admonition that such
action, while not subject to discipline in the past, is also not to
be repeated in the future. In such a circumstance, if a Synod
member should stubbornly persist in similar action or practices, that member would then be subject to the discipline of
the supervisor. Such an approach toward ecclesiastical supervision, rather than being lax, is fully appropriate to human
fallibility in judgment and sinfulness and is in keeping with
Scripture’s guidance on pastoral admonition (Titus 3:10).
7. The final point of concern—the potential for an ecclesiastical
supervisor to approve an action for which he cannot be held
accountable because the approval is not made public—is difficult to evaluate theologically. It seems to the commission that
such an assertion is not a theological contention but an assertion of the possibility of immoral conduct. Surely, Christians
will sometimes act irresponsibly, including those in positions
of authority. The Law of God exists to curb such behavior ,
and human laws—under the “left hand realm”—exist under
God’s Law to exercise the same function. Synod’s procedures
for removal from office are examples of such curbing Law at
work. That said, one should grant that it is impossible to create human procedures that cannot (and will not) be violated.
That a procedure may be violated does not make it bad, or there
would be no Decalogue. Therefore, the final point seems to be
without merit as a theological criticism of the CCM rulings.
Adopted
February 12, 2010
2010 Convention Workbook

2010 Convention.indb 63

4/15/10 2:38 PM