LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 351

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

IX. 2016 RESOLUTION 13-01A TASK FORCE REPORT
Scripture does, however, enjoin the congregation to obey its
leaders (Heb. 13:17). Yet, it is an obedience to the Word that the
Preaching Office exists to proclaim—an obedience to the Good
Shepherd and His Word. So Walther also adds references to the authority of the Office: in Thesis V, he affirms the authority to preach
and administer Word and Sacraments and to exercise spiritual judgment.18 In Thesis VII, he affirms that same authority, yet emphasizes that it is not independent, but “conferred by God through the
congregation as the possessor of the priesthood and of all churchly
authority, to exercise the rights of the spiritual priesthood in public
Office.”19
It is quite clear, then, that a pastor who feels he is owed absolute obedience or resents those who question what he says or does,
misunderstands his Office. Arrogance, or a sense of superiority—
perhaps based on his training in theology and pastoral practice—is
contrary to the servanthood and humility of Christ. The apostles’
words lauding our humble Lord and encouraging a “mind” like His
apply to all of us, including pastors (Phil. 2:5–8). Therefore, when a
candidate for the Office of Public Ministry is ordained or installed,
it is appropriate that one of the appointed passages is 1 Peter 5:2–4,
which mandates that his exercise of oversight of Christ’s people be
done without “domineering over those in your charge.”20
Certain actions by pastors, contrary to the necessary humility
required by the Office, have led to divisions and disharmony with
members of the royal priesthood and bear mentioning as examples
of conduct that create a rift where God intends a common bond between pastor and people. Perhaps the most serious have been pastors who have exercised church discipline in a seemingly arbitrary
or indiscriminate manner.21 Some have questioned or even denied
that “ordinary lay people” know enough to judge doctrine. In other
cases, pastors have urged a member or member family to “find another church” when there is a conflict with a pastor’s actions or decisions. Dislike or animosity has been expressed by pastors toward
certain brothers and sisters in Christ. In still other situations, some
pastors have substituted their own priorities and policies for the duties of the call documents and chafed at lay leaders who sought to
hold them accountable for the duties enjoined by such documents.
Pastors have sometimes sought to deflect attention from their own
weaknesses, either by blaming their congregation for a variety of
problems or neglecting to recognize or encourage the laity to utilize
their gifts and abilities in leadership and service. On other occasions a pastor may assume that a congregation’s inability to provide
for all his economic needs is intentional and accuse the laity of malicious behavior without cause. In some cases, some pastors have
claimed that they alone may fulfill such responsibilities as teaching
or visitation or evangelism in the church or deny the importance
and validity of the task of royal priests to proclaim the Gospel to
others.
The task force wishes to emphasize that the preceding paragraph is not representative of the great majority of LCMS pastors.
We are richly blessed as a Synod with thousands of men who humbly preach and serve. The examples above are simply some forms
that sin sometimes takes in its threat toward the blessed partnership
God intends for pastors and people.
b.

Laity dishonoring or “lording it over” their pastor and his call.

The blessed partnership is also sometimes threatened or broken by attitudes and actions of the laity. Royal priests are called to
a life of repentance and praise, with thanksgiving that there is one
from the royal priesthood who has been called by God through the

351

congregation to administer His gifts in their midst. The scourge of
sin fights against thankful hearts and chafes at honoring the Office of Public Ministry and the exercise of its legitimate authority.
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch
over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let
them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no
advantage to you” (Heb. 13:17). The admonition from Hebrews is
easily ignored, especially in a culture that views words like “obedient” or “submissive” as examples of servility and demeaning conduct. So it is noteworthy that our worship forms support Scripture
and not contemporary attitudes as the order of ordination includes
a reading of Hebrews 13:17. The officiant then asks whether the
congregation will show “love, honor, and obedience” to their pastor.22 The duty of the pastor to serve in faithfulness to Christ rather
than in keeping with changing human opinions is also made evident
in the service of ordination when the congregation commits itself
to receive the pastor as one who serves Christ “according to the
Church’s public confession.”23
Here, too, we mention some examples of behavior and attitudes that are contrary to our calling as members of the Church,
Christ’s holy people, His royal priesthood. The most serious temptation facing Christians is to reject the truth of God’s Word. The
Office of Public Ministry exists to proclaim that truth, and to make
known the whole counsel of God faithfully (Acts 20:27). Too often, congregations assume that attitudes and practices of the secular
world are also appropriate for our life together as Christians. Thus,
a congregation may view its pastor simply as an employee of the
church—their employee who works for them to satisfy their wishes
and priorities—rather than as a “servant of Christ and steward of
the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1) given to the congregation for
their sustenance. It then seems consistent that he should be subject
to hiring and firing at will. Moreover, church members may then
fail to recognize that the pastor’s central responsibility is spiritual
in nature (see Acts 6:1–4) and they may also seek to impose on the
pastor practices and responsibilities that are inconsistent with his
call.
This same mindset may lead laity to blame their pastor for
all their church’s troubles and ills, and especially for its lack of
numerical growth. In such cases the royal priests assume that filling
the pastoral Office is a mere convenience and not a biblical requirement. When a congregation then believes that a church’s growth (or
lack of it) is simply a barometer of pastoral effectiveness, it is ignoring or forgetting several things. Scripture makes plain that while
Christ’s servants in the Office of Ministry play an important role,
their work is to “plant” and to “water,” while God alone gives the
growth (1 Cor. 3:6). Neither should a congregation forget its own
identity as a royal priesthood and that they too are called by God
to holy lives that share Christ’s love in word and deed. It is flatly
contrary to 1 Peter 2:9—to say nothing of countless other passages
such as Matthew 28:19 or Acts 1:8—to expect the pastor to fulfill all the responsibilities of evangelism, counsel, catechesis, etc.
It is also important to remember the current challenges which the
Church faces in western society, such as cultural opposition, demographic shifts, and so forth (see the next section). For such reasons,
making pastors scapegoats for congregational decline is wrong. If
lay leaders then seek to use financial means, such as lowering or
raising the pastor’s salary or his benefit package, to reward or punish him, the conflict only worsens. In extreme instances, financial
manipulation like salary cuts are used to coerce a called minister to
resign his call or seek one elsewhere.24
2019 Convention Workbook