LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 366

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

366 | THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

recognition that some, perhaps even most, members of the Synod
need to be convinced that a particular public statement or action is
in fact sinful. Moreover, rebuke should be distinguished from an ac-
tivity such as removal from the clergy roster of the LCMS. Such ac-
tion is governed by the policies established by the Synod by
common agreement, for the sake of good order and for ecclesiasti-
cal supervision. But these procedures belong in the category of adi-
aphora, not biblical command.

Finally, a rebuke has no specific consequences attached. The one
offering a rebuke has only the moral force of bearing witness to the
church concerning the truths of Scripture. Again, rebuke must be
distinguished from other proceedings and consequences that might
arise as a result of the sin that has been committed and subsequent
censure by appropriate authorities.

C. Sin

As we consider how Luther’s comments in the Large Catechism
might be put into practice in the current context, we must address the
sin in “public sin.” A fundamental problem connected with the issue
of public rebuke is disagreement concerning what might qualify as sin,
at least sin that would require public censure.

We recognize from Luther’s writings that by “sin’-—whether se-
cret or known to all, and therefore “‘public’”—he meant offenses that
are clearly contrary to the will of God as revealed in His Word, and
not human traditions or matters that lie in the area of Christian free-
dom (though, of course, this freedom can be compromised and of-
fense caused). While certainly there may be disagreements on
whether a given action is in fact a matter of Christian liberty, the
principle must be upheld that the clear teaching of Scripture, not hu-
man opinion or judgment, determines right doctrine and practice.
This principle requires that restraint be exercised by all, especially
when it comes to ecclesiastical policies, decisions, and positions.
The conduct of an individual must not be elevated to the level of
“sin” without clear biblical warrant. Moreover, while a given ac-
tion may be a violation of our synodical covenant and of the prin-
ciple of Christian love, this does not automatically mean that such
action falls into the category of public sin requiring public rebuke.

In the matter of “public sin” it is also important to recognize that
traditionally theologians have distinguished between sins commit-
ted willfully and those committed out of ignorance. This distinction
is maintained, for example, in the Preface to The Book of Concord.

In regard to the condemnations, criticisms, and rejections of false, im-

pure teaching (particularly in the article concerning the Lord’s Supper),

which had to be expressly and distinctly set forth in this explanation and
thorough settlement of the disputed articles so that all would be able to
protect themselves from them, and which can in no way be avoided for
many other reasons: it is likewise not our will or intention thereby to

mean persons who err naively and do not blaspheme the truth of the di-

vine Word, much less whole churches, inside the Holy Empire of the

German nation or out. instead, it is our will and intention thereby to con-

demn only the false and seductive teachings and the stiff-necked teach-

ers and blasphemers of the same.... (20).*!

The confessors’ approach here would seem to imply that not every
expression of false belief is automatically a candidate for public re-
buke. Repeated expressions of false belief would certainly qualify
as sin that would warrant public rebuke. But in cases of human
weakness and ignorance, Christian charity would require private
and personal discussion rather than public rebuke. The same point
could be made concerning sins of personal conduct, errors in pas-
toral judgment, and whatever else might broadly be considered sin.
Public rebuke should never be the first response in a situation where
the one rebuked has no history of erroneous belief or behavior, and
has not persisted in the sin. When sin has been committed there is
the need for confession and repentance, and the pronouncement of
absolution.

2007 Convention Workbook

V. Conclusion

As we in the LCMS have sought to be faithful to the apostle’s
admonition, two errors seem to have beset us with regard to the un-
derstanding of public rebuke of public sin. The first, and perhaps
the most obvious, is the proliferation of public rebuke. In print, e-
mail, and chat rooms, many LCMS clergy do not hesitate to name
names and make public what they deem to be the sins of fellow pas-
tors and congregations. The second error, however, is that of re-
fusing on principle to consider or sanction public rebuke of public
sin in any case. While this position may cite the procedure outlined
in Matthew 18 as its justification, such a view owes far more to mod-
ern America’s therapeutic culture in which there is no sin, only per-
sonal conflict.” To treat every instance of disagreement among
members of the Synod as a clash of personalities is, ultimately, to
downplay what the Scriptures teach concerning Law and Gospel
and unity in doctrine that has been the foundation of the LCMS.
Properly understood, public rebuke of public sin must have a place
in a church that values the clear teachings of Scripture. At the same
time such rebuke ought to maintain its evangelical purpose, namely,
the restoration of the sinner through confession and absolution.

Public rebuke of public sin must be carefully considered and
properly applied so that it conforms to the principles articulated in
Scripture that have guided the practice of the.church. On the basis
of the foregoing discussion in this document, we offer the follow-
ing statements as guidance and counsel:*

1. Public rebuke should not be the first response to a first
offense. A rapid rush to judgment should be avoided. The
response to a first offense should certainly be one of pastoral
concern for the erring brother or sister (cf. Gal. 6:1—3). “Public
sin” suggests a pattern of behavior or lack of appropriate
recognition of sin and repentance when correction takes place.

2. Public rebuke should be pursued first by those who have the
office of correction in the church in their assigned areas of
responsibility. In the case of public sin, those affected should
consult with each other and with those having responsibility
for ecclesiastical supervision (cf. 1 Pet. 5:2).

3. If those charged with ecclesiastical supervision fail to carry
out their duties and responsibilities, public rebuke may be
pursued by any Christian.

4. Matthew 18 does not speak specifically to cases of public sin,
as Luther declares in his explanation of the Eighth
Commandment. The steps outlined in Matthew 18, therefore,
are not to be considered absolute requirements mandated by
Scripture or the Confessions in cases of public sin. These steps
may, however, be part of synodical processes that would lead
to specific consequences of public sin (e.g., removal from the
clergy roster of the Synod). Public rebuke is not the same as
the filing of formal charges.

5. One who decides to offer a public rebuke should be certain
that he himself properly understands the nature of the sin so
that the rebuke offered may have the appropriate effect.

6. Public rebuke should not be undertaken lightly but only after
much prayer, deliberation, and consultation with others who
know of the sin.

7. In cases where sin is not apparent to all (and perhaps, for that
reason, not truly public), a call for discussion rather than a
rebuke might best serve the needs of the church. Debate (in
forums that may be provided for this purpose), rather than
rebuke, may well be a more appropriate initial response in
some cases.

8. Public rebuke, if it is to be effective, should be rare and used
primarily in cases of notorious or scandalous teaching or
conduct in which the Gospel is at stake.