Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 499
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 499

Scan: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, It is the duty of the Synod in convention to exhort the
men who hold such offices to do their duty; and
WHEREAS, Christians are called to submit to all human
institutions (1 Peter 2:13); and
WHEREAS, Hebrews 13:17 teaches that submission to leaders is
to be done out of love and respect, with the confession that such
leaders watch over the souls of those under them and will have to
give an account to Christ at judgment day; and
WHEREAS, Pastors must therefore give an account for the souls
in their congregations (Heb. 13:17; Acts 20:28); and
WHEREAS, District presidents must therefore give an account for
the pastors in their district; and
WHEREAS, The Synod President must therefore give an account
for district presidents; and
WHEREAS, Proverbs 10:17 teaches that paternal discipline is a
blessing to the one being disciplined. This lesson is also taught in
Proverbs 23:13–14 as well as Hebrews 12:5–6, 11; and
WHEREAS, God desires that all people—including pastors—
would repent when their error is made known to them (Ezek. 33:11;
Matt.18; 2 Peter 3:9); and
WHEREAS, No one lights a lamp and then hides it (Luke 8:16);
therefore be it
Resolved, That congregational pastors and district presidents be
open and transparent with their ecclesiastical supervisors
concerning their doctrine and practice; and be it further
Resolved, That the President of the Synod be encouraged to visit
each district at least once during each triennium for the sake of
theological review, pastoral counseling, and reproof where
necessary; and be it finally
Resolved, That district presidents allow their leaders to visit them
“with joy and not with groaning” (Heb. 13:17).
Wyoming District
Ov. 10-02

To Develop Guidelines for Ecclesiastical
Supervision of Internet Accusations
Rationale
The biblical and confessional theology of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church addresses ecclesiastical supervision clearly with a focus on
Gospel-focused collegiality and accountability. A spirit of personal
interaction, trust, and restoration sets the tone for ecclesiastical
supervision efforts with congregations and pastors. “Spying on,” or
“going after” erring constituents, and playing “gotcha” with pastors,
congregations, or fellow district presidents runs counter to the clear
teaching of the Scriptures and Confessions and the spirit of
ecclesiastical oversight. The use of the internet to supplement
visitation and oversight must be consistent with the clear doctrinal
and constitutional foundations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod.
A. Constitution Article XII 7 assigns the responsibility of
ecclesiastical supervision of congregations and church
workers to district presidents as follows: “The district
presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision
over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the
ordained and commissioned ministers of their district and
acquaint themselves with the religious conditions of the

499

congregations of their district. To this end they shall visit
and, according as they deem it necessary, hold
investigations in the congregations. Their assistants in this
work are the circuit visitors, who therefore shall regularly
make their reports to the district president.”
B. Bylaw 1.2.1 (j) defines ecclesiastical supervision as
follows: “The responsibility, primarily of the President of
the Synod and district presidents, to supervise on behalf of
the Synod the doctrine, life, and administration of its
members, officers, and agencies. Such supervision, subject
to the provisions of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and
resolutions, includes visitation, evangelical encouragement
and support, care, protection, counsel, advice, admonition,
and, when necessary, appropriate disciplinary measures to
assure that the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod are followed and implemented. Thus, ecclesiastical
supervision is also the presenting, interpreting, and
applying of the collective will of the Synod’s
congregations. Ecclesiastical supervision does not include
the responsibility to observe, monitor, control, or direct the
day-to-day activities of individual members of the Synod,
whether in the conduct of their work or in their private lives
(cf. Bylaw 2.14.1 [a]). Further, those constitutional articles
and bylaws pertaining to ecclesiastical supervision shall
determine the full definition of ecclesiastical supervision.”
C. Additionally, the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations (CTCR) noted complications in dealing with
supervision issues in an internet age, noting in its 2006
report, Public Rebuke of Public Sin (adopted May 2006, pp.
22–23): “As we reflect on the meaning of the term “public”
in this present context in which we in the LCMS find
ourselves, we would do well to keep in mind the situation
in the earlier years of our Synod. We may note, for
example, that the polity of the LCMS makes all of its
members—pastors and congregations—accountable to each
other for their lives and teaching. When that polity was
adopted in the nineteenth century, communication was such
that pastors and congregations that were not in close
geographic proximity would know very little about each
other. Only the most serious cases would be found worthy
of being reported to synodical leadership, and only a very
few would ever have been considered by the Synod as a
whole. Today that is simply not the case. No deliberation at
the local level is needed, when anyone can send an e-mail
or post a rebuke on their Web site in response to a real or
perceived sin. This situation creates some profound
difficulties—not the least of which is that there is nothing
in Scripture or the Confessions that justifies a public rebuke
made unilaterally in the absence of conversation with
others who are aware of the public sin (cf. Acts 18:24–26).
In the case of Paul rebuking Peter, Paul was in conversation
with the church in Antioch. Luther, too, could and did enlist
the help and support of others who recognized that the
message of the Gospel had been obscured by the papacy.
“Even if consultation should take place, however, modern
methods of communication have added another layer of
complexity to the problem. Not only is it possible, but it is
likely that a public rebuke will receive a wider audience
than the public sin that elicited it. In other words, the
rebuke has the side effect of publicizing the sin more
2026 Convention Workbook