Collection › LCMS Convention Workbook (St. Louis, Missouri) › 2026 · 69th Convention, Phoenix › Page 500
LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 500

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

500

ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION

widely, of making it known to an audience that had no prior
knowledge of it. We must recognize that the number of
people directly affected by a public sin might be limited.
Although all members of the Synod are accountable to each
other, in most cases it will only be necessary to deal with
public sin at the local level. Publicity beyond that level may
serve to scandalize more than to instruct. This observation
should lead to a careful consideration of the audience for a
public rebuke. It is neither necessary nor beneficial to
involve all members of the Synod in every case of public
sin. Those who would undertake a rebuke should take great
care, therefore, in choosing their medium of
communication and in determining their audience.”
D. Furthermore, this same CTCR document cites the
Confessions in emphasizing the need for Christian charity
in addressing wrongdoing that becomes known by others:
“In the matter of ‘public sin’ it is also important to
recognize that traditionally theologians have distinguished
between sins committed 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, impure
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 divine Word, much less whole churches, inside
the Holy Empire of the German nation or out. Instead, it is
our will and intention thereby to condemn only the false
and seductive teachings and the stiff-necked teachers 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 rebuke. 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 pastoral 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.” (ibid., 25)
E. Notably, the Scriptures note that God’s people need to be
slow to call attention to the sins of others and that ministers
of the Gospel need to exhibit humility instead of arrogance:
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but
do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can
you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your
eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You
hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s
eye” (Matt. 7:3–5).

2026 Convention Workbook

“For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above
reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a
drunkard or violent or greedy for gain” (Titus 1:7).
F. Also notably, the Confessions provide guidance regarding
the active search for sinful situations: “As for the
enumeration of sins in confession, we have said earlier (6–
8) that we do not believe that it is necessary by divine right.
When someone objects that a judge must hear a case before
pronouncing sentence, that is irrelevant because the
ministry of absolution is in the area of blessing or grace,
not of judgment or law. The ministers of the church,
therefore, have the command to forgive sins; they do not
have the command to investigate secret sins. In addition,
they absolve us of those which we do not remember;
therefore absolution, which is the voice of the Gospel
forgiving sins and consoling consciences, does not need an
investigation.” (Ap XII [ed. Tappert], 102–105)
G. Finally, in his book “Pastoral Theology”, Rev. John H.C.
Fritz reinforces the proper approach to hearing confession
rather than searching for outstanding sins: “It is self-evident
that a pastor should not use the opportunity afforded him by
Communion registration to search out secret sins or family
affairs or in any way to encourage gossiping and tattling.”
(John H.C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology [St. Louis: Concordia
Publishing House, 1932], 133)
“Says Luther, ‘If anyone comes to confession who is under
suspicion, I must diligently inquire into the circumstances.
If the person denies that he is guilty, I must be satisfied to
believe him rather than my own conjecture in the matter’”
(ibid., 133–34).
Therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod give thanks to God for the wisdom
written down in Scripture, the Confessions, and elsewhere in
dealing with our fellow believers when one believes that another
has sinned; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod develop guidelines for ecclesiastical
supervision when the internet has been used by one party to accuse
another of sin; and be it further
Resolved, That such guidelines would, at minimum, address:
1. The distinct responsibility of ecclesiastical oversight given
to district presidents in their respective districts that no
worker or lay person should usurp, but rather give aid to the
district president in his supervision responsibilities.
2. That ecclesiastical supervision “includes visitation,
evangelical encouragement, and support, care, protection,
counsel, advice, admonition, and when necessary
appropriate disciplinary measures,” and does not include
seeking out wrongdoing, namely, “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,” (Bylaw
1.2.1 [j]) by electronic or other means.
3. That profound difficulties result when calling out
wrongdoing on the internet or otherwise based on online
discoveries, “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