LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 233

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

2. Virtual Multi-Parish Arrangements (“Video Venue”)
In part due to the growing pastoral shortage within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,
there has been conversation about whether a single pastor could service multiple
congregations virtually. That is, rather than the traditional arrangement of a multipoint
parish, where a pastor would conduct in-person services at two or more congregations at
different times, conducting services virtually means the ordained pastor would preach in one
congregation and his sermon would be streamed live at the other congregation(s). Also known
as “video venue” ministry, the rest of the service at other sites would be officiated by a layman,
with the exception of the Lord’s Supper.
The practice of multi-parish arrangements is not new to the Missouri Synod. Planting churches
and ministering to churches that cannot afford a pastor have often taken place by way of an
ordained minister serving multiple congregations at a time. In a certain sense, virtual multiparish or video-venue arrangements are a technologically mediated way of carrying out such
ministries. Rather than having a congregation or church plant hold services at odd hours or on
unconventional days, or the parish pastor traversing snow-covered roads or traveling long
distances, the use of virtually delivered services (preferably synchronously) means a
congregation otherwise unable to afford a pastor would have the benefit of doctrinally sound
preaching from a rostered, ordained and preferably called minister.
There is clearly a need for the Synod — while remaining theologically faithful to Scripture and
the Lutheran Confessions — to be adaptable in how it provides pastoral care for congregations
that cannot procure pastoral service. In its recent Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical
Observations and Suggestions, the CTCR specifically proposed extending the service of the
Synod’s ordained ministers, including the arrangement of more multipoint parish ministries.4 A
virtual multi-parish arrangement might be an example of that. As noted elsewhere in this
document, the Word itself can be faithfully and profitably communicated through virtual means.
The Spirit works through the oral Word (Rom. 10:14–17; Augsburg Confession 5) but is not
restricted to an oral Word declared in the confines of a church building. That digitally proclaimed
Word is also capable of mediating the faith-giving work of the Spirit.
Such an arrangement could obviously not include the Lord’s Supper.5 The pastor would have to
make other provisions for the administration of the Lord’s Supper under the care of an ordained
minister. Arrangements would also have to be made for pastoral care at the virtual sites —
ideally, though not necessarily in every case, by the ordained minister — including visitation of
the sick and the homebound, confirmation instruction, funerals, preparation for and officiating of
weddings, preparation for and administration of baptisms, and so on. Moreover, the conduct of
Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical Observations and
Suggestions (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2024), www.lcms.org/ctcr-observations-andsuggestions.
5
On the LCMS response to the practice of online Communion during the Covid-19 pandemic, see 2023 Resolution
5-08A (“To Affirm In-Person Communion”), as well as opinions by the CTCR, Communion and Covid-19 (2020),
www.lcms.org/ctcr-communion-and-covid, and One Little Word Can Fell Him: Addendum to Communion and
Covid-19 (2020), www.lcms.org/ctcr-communion-and-covid-addendum.
4

5

practice creates more obstacles than it removes. Under ordinary circumstances, it would urge
traditional multipoint parish ministry.
3. Online Reproof and Church Discipline
In recent decades, social media has become a new public space for conversation, debate and
the airing of concerns. This has not gone without impact on the church and how it handles
personal reproof, church discipline and other matters pertaining to the resolution of
disagreements. For Christians both inside the Missouri Synod and in other churches, it has
become common to publicly identify errors of doctrine or practice, call upon those with
administrative or oversight responsibilities to address these errors, and even interject oneself
into the process by commenting on matters of church discipline. Should members of our
congregations, and particularly church workers who are members of the Synod, use the
internet (specifically social media) to engage in accusations, reproof or other forms of church
discipline ordinarily reserved for private, congregational, district or Synod mediation?
It is inevitable that those who use social media as a primary means of communication would take
to social media to discuss matters of importance for the faith and life of their church. Concern for
right doctrine and practice has been a hallmark of the Missouri Synod since its founding. That
concern is laudable and should not be disregarded because of the particular means one may use
to express that concern. Indeed, there has long been a precedent for addressing certain sins in a
public way, provided those sins are known publicly. Martin Luther himself said that it was not a
violation of the Eighth Commandment to call attention to a public sin. In the Large Catechism,
he spoke of it this way: “But where the sin is so public that the judge and everyone else are
aware of it, you can without sin shun and avoid those who have brought disgrace upon
themselves, and you may also testify publicly against them” (LC I 284).
In an age when social media has become a “digital commons” for discussing social, political and
theological matters, we should expect that one’s opinions expressed online may be regarded as
public statements of their faith, especially in the case of pastors. It is also true that services,
sermons and other congregational acts formerly not known outside of those involved are now
broadcast online and available to anyone who wishes to find them, thus making them “public” in
a sense. Where any of the above exhibit doctrine or practices that are contrary to Scripture, the
Lutheran Confessions or the doctrinal positions of the Synod, then it is entirely understandable
for someone to take to online media to identify errors, express concern, and even solicit the
Synod and its members to condemn such errors.
That said, there are any number of problems with this practice. First, these online statements,
services and so on may not be intended for broader, public consumption. While this does not
excuse the error, it does mean that we should not assume the offending party is making a public
declaration of faith or committing a public sin. As the CTCR said concerning “public sin” in
2006: “When Luther speaks about public sins, we might better translate ‘public’ as notorious or
scandalous. In other words, it is not simply a matter of a sinful action that is known to some
other person or a few other people. All of sixteenth century life was public in that sense. The
situation Luther envisioned was a sin so widely known that it could no longer be covered without

7

233

services by a layman in place of a pastor is no intrinsic obstacle. Specific guidelines for that
practice were laid out by the CTCR in order to prevent confusion with the pastoral office.6
There are also reasonable objections to this practice. In the first place, there may be confusion
about who is responsible for oversight in the congregation. Theologically speaking, the Synod
has understood the oversight (from the Greek episkopos in the New Testament, e.g., Phil. 1:1; 1
Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7, among others) by pastors to be a ministry conferred on him by his call to a
given congregation. He exercises that ministry through his preaching of the Word, administration
of the Sacraments and pastoral care among his flock. While we have the example of vacancy
pastors, for instance, who serve a congregation without a “call” per se, a pastor exercising this
ministry of oversight through preaching, Sacraments and pastoral care ordinarily requires a call,
especially for any extended length of time.
Second, and more pertinently, the ministry of a pastor is not simply one of preaching or
communicating content or data. The pastor is charged with pastoral care, and that pastoral care
entails things such as instruction (not just in a sermon, but individually and in other groups),
private counsel and spiritual nurture of all those in his flock. Part of that pastoral care includes
chance conversations that arise in the course of routine church tasks. In an important sense, a
pastor’s faith and life in general as lived in the presence of his flock are to be an example to the
believer (1 Tim. 4:12; see also 1 Cor. 11:1; Heb. 13:7). While Lutherans have long valued the
preaching of the Word as the principal task of the pastoral office, the pastoral office must not be
reduced to congregational preaching. Nor should the called and ordained minister delegate all
other (or even most) aspects of his pastoral responsibilities besides preaching to another. If he is
called to more than one parish, the pastor must provide care as responsibly as possible to all
those entrusted to him, so far as that is within his power to do.
Finally, given these concerns, it is hard to see how virtual multipoint parishes are preferable to
the traditional model. In the case of severe weather conditions or other immediate challenges that
would preclude the presence of a pastor in other congregations he serves, a video alternative may
be possible. However, such a scenario does not necessitate the permanent arrangement of a
virtual multipoint parish ministry. Under exceptional circumstances, the CTCR has encouraged
the option of a layman reading a sermon written by the pastor.7 If the changing of service times
is considered a burden to the congregation, the CTCR has urged flexibility when it comes to
times and days in order to facilitate regular preaching, administration of the Sacrament and
pastoral care from an available ordained minister.8 Moreover, the opportunity to receive the
Lord’s Supper with some degree of regularity (not to mention corporate or individual absolution,
as well as other pastoral acts) makes the traditional model of multipoint parish ministry a less
problematic option than its virtual alternative.
While virtual video arrangements may be used in emergencies or in hybrid arrangements, such as
alternating weekly services (where one is in-person, the other not), the Commission believes the

Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons and Conduct of Worship in
the Absence of a Pastor (2023), www.lcms.org/ctcr-absence-of-a-pastor.
CTCR, Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons.
8
CTCR, Mission and Ministry Principles, and Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons, 6.
6
7

6

scandalizing the community. But the publicity would also end with that community.”9 In fact,
that report argues, making public accusations of a perceived sin not known widely may serve the
exact opposite purpose: “The rebuke has the side effect of publicizing the sin more widely, of
making it known to an audience that had no prior knowledge of it.”10 In such cases, it would be
far preferable to address these errors personally and privately rather than publicly and online,
following Matthew 18. Through personal, private reproach, one may find that the error was
unintentional and the individual repentant, or possibly that the offending issue was
misunderstood or easily explainable.
Second, in the case of legitimate error in doctrine or practice, the Synod has adopted very
specific procedures for addressing such offenses. All members of the Synod in any capacity —
elected officers, faculty, church workers, congregations — submit themselves to ecclesiastical
supervision. Concerns regarding false teaching or practice should be directed first to the
individual (in keeping with Matthew 18), then to the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. The
ecclesiastical supervisor is entrusted with the oversight of those under his care, and therefore
concerns should be raised with the supervisor privately rather than broached publicly, especially
online. The Bylaws of the Synod provide for a dispute resolution process, which covers
theological, doctrinal and ecclesiastical matters, including the appeal of excommunication or
specific call-related disputes (Bylaw 1.10). There are specific Bylaws addressing the expulsion
of congregations and individual members (ordained or commissioned), officers of the Synod, and
those guilty of sexual or criminal misconduct (2.14-2.17). The Bylaws also allow for appeals to
the certification of materials by doctrinal review (3.9.3.2). In nearly all cases, confidentiality is
required to allow time for fraternal correction and repentance without calling attention to the
dispute publicly, as well as to ensure unbiased review or the possibility of selecting unbiased
panelists to consider appeals. Likewise, “circularizing” (or attempting to sway opinion) of the
Synod on these matters may be expressly prohibited in certain cases (3.9.3.2.2[d]). By
publicizing accusations or opinions on matters mediated through one of these processes, the
confidentiality necessary may be unintentionally eroded and the ability to resolve or appeal these
cases compromised. Moreover, since the purpose of these various bylaws and procedures is to
bring about reconciliation through biblically based reproach and repentance, intervening in,
publicizing or politicizing conflicts may have the opposite effect of inhibiting such fraternal
conversations and resolution.
Finally, what may be appropriate for online debate in a secular world is not necessarily
appropriate in the church. We should not treat internal theological or ecclesiastical concerns as
reasons for public dissension that compromises our witness to the world. St. Paul makes this
point clear in 1 Corinthians, when condemning Christians who bring accusations against one
another in the civil courts of his day: “So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before
those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one
among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against

9
Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Public Rebuke of Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the
Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,
2006), 21, www.lcms.org/ctcr-public-rebuke-of-public-sin.
10
CTCR, Public Rebuke of Public Sin, 23.

8

2026 Convention Workbook