LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 68

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

68 SYNOD REPORTS

wives; and (3) the Creator’s intended design is that a husband be
the head of his wife and that his wife willingly subordinate her own
will under her husband. Especially in our cultural context a con-
gregation should be concerned about what its polity says and in
what way its polity supports the church’s teaching.

Congregational Offices of Director/President and Assistant
Director/Vice President

There is no “Thus saith the Lord” regarding positions such as
executive director/president and assistant director/vice president.
These are offices established by the church in Christian freedom.
Scripture does not prohibit women who possess the requisite gifts
from holding these humanly-established offices, assuming that the
occupants of these offices do not “perform those functions that are
distinctive to the public exercise of the ministry of Word and sacra-
ments” (The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical
Offices,” Part B.3), or carry out “official functions [that] would in-
volve public accountability for the function of the pastoral office”
(Women in the Church: Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Prac-
tice, 46). In filling these offices the congregation should take into
account, among other things, the aforementioned family structure.
Further, the commission encourages men not to neglect their lead-
ership responsibilities in their congregations. Since the church en-
courages husbands to exercise their God-given headship in a
God-pleasing way at home, the church should correspondingly en-
courage men to exercise leadership in their congregation. Congre-
gations are encouraged to organize themselves in ways that
compliment and reinforce the family, for the church is “the house-
hold of God” (1 Tim. 3:15).

The Service of All

The commission further recommends that congregations en-
courage all their members (male and female, single or married) to
exercise their God-given responsibilities of service and leadership
in their congregations.

Conclusion

It is the prayer of the commission that these brief reflections
will serve the congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod as they deliberate on issues of polity. May all of our deci-
sions, even in matters of adiaphora, serve God’s will and the work

of his church.
Adopted April 21, 2004

2. Response to Dispute Resolution Panel Request on the Trinity and
Public Admonition

In August 2004, the chairman of a Dispute Resolution Panel re-
quested an advisory opinion involving two pastors of the Synod
and relating to the doctrine of the Trinity and the matter of public
admonition. On Sept. 17, 2004, the commission adopted a response
to this request, which has been forwarded to the Dispute Resolu-
tion Panel. When the case before the Dispute Resolution Panel has
been concluded, the CTCR’s response will be made available on-
line and printed in the Convention Workbook.

3. Request for Opinion on DVD Communion

The President of the Texas District requested a CTCR opinion
regarding the propriety of a pastor’s use of a DVD in which he con-
secrated the Communion elements for small groups meeting in var-
ious places on Maundy Thursday. The commission, at its February
2006 meeting, adopted the following response:

Question:

In a letter dated April 21, 2005, the president of the Texas Dis-
trict in April 2005 asked the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (CTCR) to “give consideration to the following situa-
tion that occurred in one of our congregations here in the Texas
District”:

2007 Convention Workbook

On Maundy Thursday, the pastors wanted the members of the con-
gregation to have a better sense of the dynamics that were present in
the Upper Room when Jesus first instituted the Sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper. They had members of their individual “care and share” groups,
approximately 55, come together at the church and they were instructed
concerning procedures to follow with their groups on Maundy Thurs-
day. They were given a DVD, wine and hosts and an order of service to
follow with their groups. At a particular time, so designated by the Pas-
tor, each leader would turn on his DVD and the Pastor of the congre-
gation would consecrate the elements via the DVD for the groups
assembled. In turn, the leader of the group would distribute the ele-
ments to those present.

I understand that instructions were given to the leaders to assure
that only members of the congregations or persons who are members of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod would be given the Sacrament.

The president specifically asks the CTCR:

Did they violate any doctrine concerning the Sacrament of the
Altar? Further concerns would be, should this practice be encouraged?
Would it not erode the safeguarding of the Sacrament? A further ques-
tion would be is the consecration of the elements by DVD valid?

Response:

The troubling questions raised by this novel practice go to the
very heart of the nature and purpose of the Lord’s Supper as insti-
tuted by Christ. The primary purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to
strengthen faith in God’s grace and forgiveness. Such faith is
strengthened through God’s word and promise, which assure us
that this Sacrament “is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us
Christians to eat and to drink” (“The Sacrament of the Altar,” SC
1-2). As this request itself illustrates, the practice described above
has raised and (if perpetuated) would surely continue to raise ques-
tions and doubts about whether Christ’s Supper was being cele-
brated in complete faithfulness to His own instructions and
example. This practice, therefore, certainly cannot be condoned or
encouraged. Among the serious concerns raised by the commission
regarding this practice are the following:

1) The Lord’s Supper was instituted by Jesus with words and ac-
tions spoken and carried out by him in the direct presence of his
disciples (Matt. 26:26-28). Throughout history, the church has
sought to be faithful to Christ’s practice in this regard. Pastors
speak the words of institution in the presence of the assembled
congregation, thereby giving assurance that we are “doing this”
as our Lord has instructed us to do (Luke 22:19). Whenever the
actual words and actions of the celebrant in consecrating the ele-
ments are intentionally separated (by time, distance, or techno-
logical means) from the distribution and reception, no assurance
can be given that our Lord’s instructions are being heeded and
that the body and blood of Christ are actually being given and re-
ceived for the forgiveness of sins and the strengthening of faith
(cf. fn. 15 of the CTCR’s 1983 report Theology and Practice of
the Lord’s Supper (TPLS}). .

2) This practice lends itself to the unscriptural notion that the body
and blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper are present by virtue of
the “incantation” of the pastor in some way, shape or form, rather
than by the gracious power of Christ and his Word. “Concerning
the consecration,” says the Formula of Concord, “we believe,
teach, and confess that no man’s work nor the recitation of the
minister effect this presence of the body and blood of Christ in
the Holy Supper, but it is to be ascribed solely and alone to the
almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ” (FC Ep VII, 8; quoted
in TPLS, 15). While it is true that “the regularly called and or-
dained pastors of the church are to officiate at the administration
of Holy Communion” (TPLS, 17-18), it is only “through Christ’s
word and its power’—not through the mere “sound” or “record-
ing” of the voice of the pastor—‘“that Christ’s body and blood
are present in the bread and wine” (7PLS, 14).

3) As emphasized above, the focus in our celebration of the Lord’s
Supper must always be on the gracious word of Christ—the word
that gives assurance to hearts weighed down by guilt, doubt and fear