LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 104

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

104 SYNODICAL REPORTS

might be noted parenthetically that a paper by Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger entitled “Synod: Walking Together (Conserving What We Have),”
an appendix to the TF’s preliminary report, remains available on the Synod’s Web site at www.lcms.org/ taskforce/walking.pdf

During our Synod’s earliest years, theological and doctrinal unity was supported by having the synodical President visit each congre-
gation to encourage and support pastors, to supervise doctrine and its application, and to encourage congregations in the mission of the
church. When Districts were created in 1854, District Presidents were given the responsibility to visit all congregations in their respective
Districts, supplementing the ongoing visitation work of the synodical President.

Initially, the Synod divided itself into Districts so it could have District Presidents, each of whom was to assist the synodical President
in carrying out his responsibility within the Districts. In 1866 Circuit “visitors” (now called Circuit Counselors) were added to assist with
visitation responsibilities. To this day, the leading reason why our Synod has District Presidents and Circuit Counselors is to visit pastors,
teachers, and congregations for the purpose of ecclesiastical supervision, communication, and encouragement (see Constitution, Art. XII 7).

In an essay titled “Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod” presented to the 1879 Iowa District Convention, Dr. C. F. W. Walther set
forth the fundamental obligations of the Synod to its members. Walther noted that the primary duty of a truly Lutheran synod is to be
faithful to the Confessions in word and deed by accepting only pastors, teachers, and congregations that are faithful to the Confessions, by
supervising the confessional faithfulness of its members, and by practicing fellowship only with church bodies that are faithful to the Con-
fessions. A faithful synod, he added, goes on to treat its congregations in an evangelical manner and support its pastors and teachers.

Walther realized that a key to preserving the “unity of the true faith” was through visitation. In this view, Walther was only reflecting
Luther, who already in the 16th century understood the value of visitation to assure that the pure Gospel as reclaimed by the Reformation
would be preserved.

The TF has taken special cognizance of these principles set forth by Walther and has observed how these fundamentals have been in-
corporated and embedded in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Thus, the TF was led by its assignment to focus on the great her-
itage of our Synod based on unity of doctrine, dignity and spiritual growth of our congregations and their members, and care and support
of professional workers. In its preliminary report to the Synod, the TF proposed a number of recommendations directed toward these top-
ics and other matters assigned to it in connection with National/District Synod relations.

Particularly, the TF took up the subject of doctrinal supervision and congregation visitation, attempting to accomplish two objectives.
First, it tried to clarify and update current Bylaw language concerning the role of the Circuit Counselor. A second objective was to indicate
that the primary responsibility for doctrinal supervision and congregation visitation rests with the District President as the representative of
the President of the Synod.

From the responses received by the TF, there seems to be a general perception that the visitation function, including doctrinal supervi-
sion, is the chief responsibility of the Circuit Counselor. However, the Synod’s Constitution and Bylaws clearly place this charge with the
District President.

It should be noted that the responses to the preliminary report addressed themselves to doctrinal supervision and congregation visitation
more than any other subject. Such responses reflected a wide disparity of viewpoints, ranging as follows:

“Circuit counselor visits have been a great blessing.”

“| have never been visited by my Circuit Counselor in all the years of my ministry.”

“I’ve never done such a visit because there is really no direction and detailed agenda for it.”
“Please do not make us into Lutheran orthodoxy/orthopraxis cops.”

The TF believed that the recommendations in its preliminary report did not significantly alter the duties of the Circuit Counselor from
those in the current Bylaws. Unfortunately, the perception of the purpose behind congregation visits seems to have changed. Regrettably,
many of the responses received by the TF concluded that those recommendations represented a movement toward “more centralization” or
increased “hierarchical” form of church polity. This is not the intention of the TF. Instead, the TF believes that over time the caring, fra-
ternal role of the Circuit Counselor has been denigrated into that of an intrusive investigator violating the sanctity of a congregation’s in-
dependence.

It should be noted that the TF wholeheartedly believes that the concept of congregation visits should be encouraged and supported
throughout our Synod. Further, the TF endorses the belief that congregation visits should be conducted in a servant attitude retaining an
evangelical, caring, and mutually supportive character.

Thus, the TF believes that for the good of the church, the burden to define the intent and purpose of congregation visits should be
placed upon the District Presidents, who “shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of of-
fice of the ordained and commissioned ministers of their District and acquaint themselves with the religious conditions of the congregations
of their District” (Constitution, Art. XII 7).

The TF has concluded that it would be fitting and proper for the Council of Presidents to assume a leadership role in the matter of con-
gregational visitation (and doctrinal supervision) by reaffirming the intent and purpose of congregation visits and preparing a “manual” for
visitation that can be used as a model for District Presidents, District Vice-Presidents, and Circuit Counselors as they conduct official vis-
itations of pastors and congregations.

In addition, the TF recommends that the visitations to the Districts of the Synod conducted by the President of the Synod and the First
Vice-President be formalized as a requirement in the Bylaws, with each District visited at least once every three years.

Therefore the TF proposes the following overture to the Synod’s 2001 convention:

8-18

To Provide Manual for Visitation of Congregations

Resolved, Thal the Council of Presidents, with assislance from the Praesidium, seminary professors, and other appropriate persons as it
chooses, be directed to draw up a “manual” for visitation based on the Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and the Constitution and Bylaws of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, to define the intent and purpose of congregalion visits, to bring some degree of uniformity to congre-
gation visitations carried out throughout the Synod, to provide a foundation for training the visitors, and to provide guidelines to which those con-
ducting congregation visits would be accountable; and be it further

2001 Convention Workbook