To Develop Guidelines for Ecclesiastical Supervision of Internet Accusations

Official Workbook overture source text

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 i nternet 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 
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—pas tors 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
499ECCLESIASTICAL SUPERVISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION