LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2007, Page 407

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 407

of specific Scriptural directives to the contrary, congregations may
arrange for the performance of these distinctive functions by qualified
individuals, lest God’s people be deprived of the opportunity for corpo-
rate worship and the celebration of the sacraments. The following guide-
lines are presented in order to assist congregations in providing for an
orderly way of carrying out distinctive functions of the pastoral office
in the absence of an ordained clergyman.
The title “deacon” is offered by this resolution as a way of officially
identifying “a layman...while he is temporarily serving in Word
and Sacrament ministry ‘in exceptional circumstances or in emer-
gencies’” by the approval of the district president and under the
guidance of a supervising pastor.

Much discussion and action has taken place in the Synod with
regard to this issue since the adoption of 1989 Res. 3-OSB. In 1995,
for example, the Synod adopted Res. 3-07A, which required that
“any layman who is licensed to perform pastoral functions under
the guidelines of Res. 3-O5B (if he wishes to continue preaching and
leading public worship) to apply for admission into the pastoral
ministry in the Synod,” and that the District President grant a “grace
period of no longer than two years” which could be extended in “ex-
treme and unusual circumstances.” Six years later, at its 2001 con-
vention, the Synod adopted Res. 3-08A which rescinded 1995 Res.
3-07A and authorized the Synod “to continue training lay deacons
as directed by the spirit of 1989 Wichita Res. 3-05B in which trained
lay ministers serve under the supervision of an ordained pastor.” It
also called for the appointment of an Oversight Committee to re-
vise DELTO (Distance Education Leading to Ordination) “in order
to help address the need to recruit and train more ordained pastors.”
This committee, which includes representatives from both semi-
naries and from the Council of Presidents (along with the executive
directors of the Board for Pastoral Education and the CTCR), con-
tinues to discuss pertinent questions concerning admission into the
DELTO program. It is also involved in discussions of various pro-
posals that seek to address the needs identified by 1989 Res. 3-05B
as well as the concerns that have been raised about its adoption and
implementation.

Resolution 5-09 “To Affirm District Programs that Equip Laity
for Ministry,” adopted at the 2004 convention, contains no mention
of 1989 Res. 3-05B or of other resolutions or programs directly re-
lated to it. It recognizes, affirms, and encourages “the work of the
Districts in developing ministry-equipping programs for the laity
suchas the Lay Leader Institute, Missionary Training Center, Train-
ing Leaders for Ministry, and the Alaskan Project.” It also directs
that, “for the sake of good order,” the Council of Presidents and the
Board for Pastoral Education, “with the guidance of the seminary
faculties develop a standardized core curriculum for District lay-
training programs and coordinate a national listing of participants.”

Concerns and Arguments of Dissenters

A congregation and its pastor jointly expressing their dissent
from 1989 Res. 3-05B state simply and straightforwardly: “[{This
resolution] is contrary [to] the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran
Confessions, which require a pastor with a regular call for the
preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments
(Jeremiah 23:21, Romans 10:15, Hebrews 5:4, and Article XIV of
the Augsburg Confession).” The same reason is given for express-
ing their dissent from 2004 Res. 5-09.

Another dissenting pastor writes:

The unscriptural office of “lay minister,” which was approved by the
Wichita convention (1989), Res. 3-O5B...is a violation of our Scriptural
Ger. 23:21, Romans 10:15, Hebrews 5:4, Eph. 4:11, Acts 20:28, 2 Tim.
2:2, Titus 1:5, 1 Cor. 4:1, 1 Ptr. 5:14, Acts 6:4, etc.) and Confessional
(AC XIV; AC XXIII, 8; Apol. XIII, 11-12; Treatise 60 & 67, etc.) un-
derstanding of the Office of the Gospel Ministry. It has always been our
Lutheran confession that no one should preach or administer the Sacra-
ments in the Church unless he is rightly Called to the Office... And now,
with the passage of 2004 Res. 5-09 (to affirm district programs that equip

laity for ministry), the Convention directs “the Synod in convention to
recognize, affirm, and encourage the work of Districts in developing
ministry-equipping programs for laity.” Examples are the Lay Leader
Institute, Missionary Training Center, Training Leaders for Ministry,
and Alaska Project programs. Seemingly forgotten are the reasons a le-
gitimate Call is important for Gospel Ministers...I must dissent from
this position of the Synod.

CTCR Response

The CTCR has responded previously to formal dissent relating
to the position of the Synod as set forth in 1989 Res. 3-OSB. In Jan-
uary 2002, for example, a pastor submitted his dissent from 2001
Res. 3-08B “To Address Needs and Opportunities for Pastoral Min-
istry in Specialized Situations.” He indicated that “my dissent con-
cerns the continued endorsement by the Synod of so-called ‘lay
ministers’ or ‘lay deacons’ preaching, teaching, and administering
the sacraments without a ‘regular call’ (AC XIV).” “Article XIV of
the Augsburg Confession,” stated the pastor, “seems quite clear and
leaves no room for exceptions to this doctrine of the whole Chris-
tian Church of all ages and places...No exceptions or ‘specialized
situations’ are allowed by AC XIV...what passing the Resolution
did was to ignore Holy Scripture as correctly taught in the Lutheran
Confessions and return to the heresy of 1989 Res. 3-O5SB.”

The CTCR’s response to this letter of dissent reads as follows:

The LCMS has understood that the Lutheran Confessions (Treatise 67-
68, Tappert 331) recognize that there may be situations where those who
are not called and ordained may carry out pastoral functions. The Com-
mission is aware that discussion will and needs to continue regarding
the nature of these exceptions.

After declining a later request by this pastor to reconsider its re~
sponse to his dissent, the CTCR reaffirmed its original response.
But the Commission also adopted a resolution that it place on its
own agenda consideration and discussion of 1989 Res. 3-OSB. At
its December 2005 meeting, the CTCR approved a proposed plan
for the discussion of 1989 Res. 3-OSB. This plan calls for the Com-
mission to invite “competent individuals both within and outside
the Commission” at “‘a series of CTCR meetings” to make presen-
tations on various “topics or facets” of this issue. The purpose of
these discussions is summarized in an appendix to the Commis-
sion’s minutes as follows:

It should be noted first of all that the issues underlying 1989 Res. 3-
05B—issues pertaining to the relationship between the office of the pub-
lic ministry and the priesthood of all believers—have been debated
within the LCMS since the earliest days of its history, and even through-
out the entire history of Lutheranism. It seems unlikely that discussion
within the CTCR will bring full and final closure to these debates. Such
discussions may be very helpful, however, in placing these issues in
proper historical context, clarifying the precise points of controversy,
identifying areas of past and present agreement and disagreement, pro-
viding the opportunity for the fraternal exchange of viewpoints, and
making progress toward greater consensus.

In light of the above, the Commission responds to these most re-
cent expressions of dissent from 1989 Res. 3-05B by reaffirming
both elements of its response to previous dissent regarding this is-
sue. It emphasizes, first of all, that “the LCMS has understood that
the Lutheran Confessions (Treatise 67-68, Tappert 331) recognize
that there may be situations where those who are not called and or-
dained may carry out pastoral functions.” The Lay Worker Study
Committee that brought recommendations to the 1989 convention
noted, for example, the provision of the bylaws even at that time
“for the training of certain ethnic men through the colloquy pro-
gram,” and the fact that the colloquy committee was “authorized to
license such men for special Word and Sacrament ministry, under
the supervision of ordained pastors.” It also observed that “in a
sense, the vicarage and field-worker programs may be construed as
licensing of laymen to carry out Word and Sacrament ministry un-
der specifically designated conditions and supervision.” It pointed
out that the Synod throughout its history had met “critical needs in

2007 Convention Workbook