LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 423

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 423

But what if some minister is to be dismissed or removed from of-
fice?

Just as God properly claims for Himself the right to call, also medi-
ately, and it is accordingly necessary for it to be done according to di-
vine instruction, so also has God properly reserved to Himself alone
this power of removing someone from the ministry (1 Sam 2:30, 32;
Hos 4:6).

But since that dismissal takes place mediately, it is therefore neces-
sary that it not take place except by instruction and divine direction.
Therefore as long as God lets in the ministry His minister who teaches
rightly and lives blamelessly, the church does not have the power, with-
out divine command to remove an unwanted man, namely [if he is] a
servant of God. But when he does not build up the church by either doc-
trine or life, but rather destroys [i1], God Himself removes him (1 Sam
2:30; Hos 4:6). And then the church not only properly can but by all
means should remove such a one from the ministry. For just as God
calls ministers of the church, so He also removes them through legiti-
mate means. But as the procedure of a call is to follow the instruction of
the Lord of the harvest, so also if one is to be removed from the min-
istry, the church must show that that also is done by the command and
will of the Lord. And just as the call, so also the removal or deposition
belongs not only to some one order of the church, but lo the whole
church ... Thus also the ancient church handled cases of deposition in
the councils with diligent inquiry and careful judgment.”

Termination of a Call

The Commission’s Report lists five reasons’’ for removing a

pastor from office:

1. Teaching false doctrine

2. Offensive conduct or scandalous life.

3. Deliberate unfaithfulness in the performance of official duties.
4. Neglect of, or inability to perform, official duties.**

5. Domineering in office.

This list could easily invite abuse from those looking for an ex-
cuse to “dump” their pastor. The first two reasons have long been
established and explained in Lutheran theological writings, while
the rest appear more novel. It is suggested that the third, fourth and
fifth may be particular instances of the second (“offensive con-
duct”). Philip Melanchthon, in his Loci Theologici (1539), provides
helpful clarification in Locus 23, “On Offense,” distinguishing be-
tween “offense given” and “offense taken.” This distinction is ab-
solutely necessary to forestall a downward spiral into subjectivity.

In the sections titled “The Termination of the Call” and “Re-
moval from Office” the Commission’s Report maintains that the
Call is given by God through the congregation, and that the Call is
taken away by God through the congregation.” Yet the latter point
is lost in admonishing congregations to work in concert with ec-
clesial officials, namely, the Circuit Counselor and the District
President, in removing pastors from office.” Indeed, the “divine”
character of the Call is threatened when pastor, people, and the
church-at-large fail to appreciate that it is the Lord who gives and
takes away (Job 1:21), and when the causes for removal are not
clearly and carefully defined so as to minimize interpretation and
avoid giving offense. What does each of these reasons mean, and
what does each not mean? Without some pointed clarification, this
list remains far too open-ended and invites abuse. By way of ex-
ample, to portray insistence upon faithfulness to the Word of God
and the Lutheran Confessions as improper “domineering” could in-
dict Luther, Chemnitz, Walther, and any faithful pastor who is ful-
filling his Call to proclaim “thus saith the Lord.”

There are also occasions when a pastor must exercise his own
judgment, as for example when the congregation is divided among
itself concerning some matter that is not determined by the Scrip-
tures and the Confessions. It may serve the cause of peace and ex-
pediency for the pastor to bring an end to that division by taking
an assertive position. In so doing, he shepherds the flock by dis-
couraging them from “biting and devouring one another” (Gal.
5:15). Indeed, Walther himself notes the pastor’s responsibility to
direct, instruct, and prevent harm, even (and especially) amidst

heated disagreements over adiaphora. *' Such cannot be termed
“domineering.”

Theology and Practice of the Call Today

“Diversity” ranks among our contemporary culture’s most
highly prized virtues. For several decades now, many have ex-
plored alternative approaches to reconciling diverstty with that
unity which Christ sought for His church in earnest prayer. These
advocates of divergence in practice object (correctly) that external
measures of “conformity” cannot be imposed except by polity and
Jaw. They have nothing to fear from clear theology.

Our unity with one another comes from and through our unity
with Christ, as He unifies us with Himself through the Gospel.
Christian theologians of different persuasions can agree that the
Gospel creates, teaches, and nurtures this inner unity between and
among Christian individuals and congregations. That inner unity
may or may not become manifest in external uniformity, “for we
walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).

A crucial statement from the Commission’s Report reflects
“contemporary” (literally, “with the times’’) thinking:

Until more recent times, a high degree of uniformity in call prac-
lices no doubt has caused some to take the human dimension of the call
for granted. ... Today the increase in specialized ministries, the greatly
expanded duties of pastors, the diversity of worship styles, the variety
of administrative structures, the particularities of team ministry, and the
growing importance of specialized skills have created the need for iden-
tifying the best candidate possible. As a result, new elements in the call
process have been developed to meet these specialized needs and the
variely of processes has increased as well.”

Note well the clear recognition that “a high degree of unifor-
mity in call practices” existed “until more recent times.” Certain
words used here prove foundational to the reasoning employed
throughout the remainder of the Commission’s Report: “‘... human
dimension ... specialized ... greatly expanded duties ... diversity
of worship styles ... variety ... particularities.” There is no disput-
ing the reality of changes and declining uniformity over the past
several decades. Indeed, controversies over diverging call practices
led to the resolution requesting this study nearly 10 years ago.** Yet
the words used above begin to provide the rationale for suggesting
that these divergences might henceforth be considered acceptable
(and officially endorsed). To follow these decades of loose prac-
tice with a definitive statement that breaks with the clear theology
of the past should be recognized as an action of no small conse-
quence.

As one example, the word “need” requires closer examination.
Invoking this word serves as prima facie justification for some-
thing that satisfies. Often, however, the words “want,” “appetite,”
or “demand” may be more appropriate and accurate. Paul cautions
against those “whose end is destruction, whose god is their ap-
petite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on
earthly things” (Phil. 3:19). Where these “needs” have no biblical
warrant, a modification of the call practice in order to “identify the
best candidate” (which can easily lead to a process closely approx-
imating an audition) stands on slippery ground. The search for
“worship leaders” adept at supplying a “diversity of styles,” to cite
one instance, has mushroomed in recent years with changing mu-
sical appetites. Many would object to the inclusion of this demand
as a commonplace on par with the other differences listed by the
Commission’s Report in the paragraph quoted above. Adopting a
process that accommodates such demands would place an inappro-
priate weight or pressure upon all “candidates” to accede.

The Gospel

Some terminology in this section of the Commission's Report
requires clarification. First, the Gospel is defined as “justification
by faith alone on the basis of Christ’s radical self-giving to us in his
sufficient sacrificial death.”* It should more precisely refer to ‘“‘jus-

2004 Convention Workbook