R62.11 President of Synod Request for Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons and Conduct of Worship in the Absence of a Pastor (2023)

Official Workbook report source text

Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.

Report number/id

R62.11

Report title

R62.11 President of Synod Request for Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons and Conduct of Worship in the Absence of a Pastor (2023)

Workbook start page

269

Workbook end page

271

Source pages

269, 270, 271

Source status

source_checked

Committee

Not available

R62.11

2026 Convention Workbook
270 
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
 5 
(e.g,, Commissioned Minister) within that congregation or from a neighboring congregation. 
Third, the candidate should be trained and, in the event of longer durations, supervised by an 
ordained pastor, ordinarily a vacancy pastor, circuit visitor, or district president.  
It is incumbent upon both congregation and supervisory clergy to ensure that this practice be 
reserved for true emergencies, such as the illness of a pastor or the inability to secure pulpit 
supply on short notice, or other temporary situations, such as during a vacancy. Care should be 
taken, however, not to use laymen in these instances simply to avoid the difficulty or cost 
associated with procuring a pastor. In the event of a prolonged vacancy, the presence of a lay 
officiant is no replacement for the appointment of a vacancy pastor, who may be available to 
conduct services and preach occasionally and, even if that is impossible, provide pastoral care 
and oversight to the congregation in the absence of its own shepherd. In the event of 
congregations with no realistic prospect of financially supporting full-time clergy, other more 
feasible options should be sought instead of lay officiants, such as alternate routes like SMP, 
EIIT, Center for Hispanic Studies, or possibly the service of retired pastors, so that the 
congregation may have a regularly called and ordained pastor to carry out all the distinctive 
functions of the pastoral office for the spiritual benefit of its members. We also note the time-
honored practice of establishing a dual or multi-point parish with one or more similar 
congregations.  
Other practical guidelines may be suggested pertaining to the specific functions entailed by lay 
services. With respect to laymen reading sermons, they should only read sermons written by 
ordained synodical clergy, and it should be made clear—by way of a bulletin or public 
announcement—that this is the case. With respect to conducting worship services, the layman 
should not administer the Sacrament of the Altar, nor should he exercise the keys by 
pronouncing absolution. For these reasons, it is best to make use of non-communion orders of 
service, such as Matins, the Order of Morning Prayer, or the Service of Prayer and Preaching, 
which may be used by either ordained or lay officiants. (We note that LSB indicates the leader 
position in all these services with an “L” and not with a “P” as is the case in Divine Service –
Settings One through Five). The truncation of one of the five settings of the Divine Service in 
LSB to exclude Confession and Absolution and the Service of the Sacrament is possible, though 
not desirable due to the potential for incidental confusion.  
In order to facilitate a biblically and confessionally responsible use of this practice, the 
Commission urges other agencies of Synod to assist in providing resources to support it. First, 
the seminaries of Synod and the publishing arm of Synod would do well to consider establishing 
a digitally available database of full-text sermons corresponding to the appointed pericopes of 
the church year (both one-year and three-year). This would enable lay officiants to download and 
read biblically, confessionally faithful sermons from ordained clergy rather than having to rely 
upon a supervisory pastor to provide them one, especially in time-sensitive emergencies. It 
would also allow for a greater diversity of sermons from which to choose. Second, the 
responsible agencies of Synod, such as the Office of National Mission or Concordia Publishing 
House, could produce liturgical resources for use by lay officiants. These would ideally include 
other non-communion services designed for lay leadership that are based upon the current, more 
familiar settings of the Divine Service, as well as rubrics and training resources dedicated to 
 6 
assist laymen with the conduct of services, use of vestments, and other matters where confusion 
with the pastoral office should be avoided. 
While the Commission does not believe the public reading of sermons or conduct of public 
services by laymen to be contradictory with the biblical and confessional standards for the 
pastoral office, nor to cause confusion with the pastoral office (given the basic caveats and 
guidelines noted above), it ultimately holds that this practice is neither desirable nor a long-term 
solution to the problem of current and future pastoral shortages. Among the many necessary 
qualifications of the pastoral office, the aptitude to teach stands out as particularly important 
within a confessional Lutheran tradition that has long valued preaching and the right division of 
God’s Word (2 Tim. 2:15). Congregations should eagerly desire a theologically trained, rightly 
called and ordained pastor to preach and teach the Word in a way that addresses that Word to 
their context. This requires both knowledge of the people pastorally and knowledge of the 
Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions theologically. The opinion offered here and its 
guidelines apply to legitimate emergency or temporary situations, so that the Word may be 
preached and the people of God edified in conformity with the biblical and confessional 
standards for the pastoral office. Yet it must not be viewed as an adequate regular or permanent 
substitute for the examined, called, and ordained pastor serving in the office of the public 
ministry. 
By way of postscript, the Commission regrets that it is unable to provide a satisfying answer to 
the more serious challenges many of our districts face, namely, the growing number of regions 
with a high volume of small or financially strained congregations, which are simply unable to 
afford a full-time pastor. Some are in rural areas that lack geographic proximity either to more 
populous areas with active clergy that might be able to help fill needs, or to potential sister 
congregations, with whom they might enter multipoint parish service. Others are in areas with
few retired (or even active) clergy to assist vacant congregations. These chronically underserved 
regions will for the foreseeable future continue to struggle filling pulpits and providing pastoral 
care. While the Commission understands the plight such congregations face, we are reluctant to 
propose this model of lay readers and officiants as a legitimate, long-term option, for the reasons 
cited throughout this opinion (the need for theologically trained clergy who are apt to teach and 
preach, the proper administration of the Sacrament of the Altar, regular pastoral care, etc.). The 
pastoral office is not an adiaphoron. The office of the public ministry has been instituted in Holy 
Scripture for the purpose of preaching the Word and administering the sacraments. In accordance 
with Augsburg Confession XIV, Lutheran congregations are to call ordained clergy to carry out 
these distinctive functions of the pastoral office in their midst. When they can no longer obtain 
the services of such clergy, the congregation must honestly and soberly reconsider its options for 
ongoing mission and ministry, however difficult and painful that may be.  
We do believe there are plausible solutions to such dilemmas that do not necessitate the 
permanent use of lay-led services, as imperfect and unsatisfying as those solutions may be. 
Options are available, even if they require creativity and adaptability on the part of pastor and 
congregation alike. For instance, we would propose the use of lay readers/officiants in 
conjunction with semi-regular conduct of services by an ordained pastor or circuit visitor. This 
might entail, for example, three lay-led services a month without the sacrament and a fourth 
clergy-led service with the sacrament. A congregation might also adopt a different service time
 7 
to accommodate the presence of an ordained pastor from another congregation. Scripture does 
not necessitate that worship happen at a particular day or time each week. We are free to gather 
on any day and at any time for the church’s public services of Word and Sacrament. The 
Commission believes that such alternatives, while admittedly not optimal for clergy or 
congregants, are far preferable to strictly lay-led services because they provide the congregations 
with ordained clergy to meet their pastoral needs in a way that is consistent with Scripture and 
the Lutheran Confessions. This position is consistent with the assumed presupposition that 
undergirds the entire argument and conclusions of this response, namely that doctrinal fidelity to 
our Confession rather than the force of pragmatic concerns must norm our practice.  
Finally, the growing number of congregations that are not able to obtain regular pastoral care 
merits further attention and careful consideration. To this end, the Commission recommends
more formal discussions in the next triennium to address the larger issue of Lutheran theological 
foundations for mission and ministry, especially as those foundations are being challenged in a 
post-Christian culture, where religious participation is on the decline and where demographics 
are also rapidly changing. Such discussions might involve representatives of the CTCR, the 
Council of Presidents, the Pastoral Formation Committee, and the seminaries, among others. 
Conversation and collaboration between these parties could lead to the development of practical 
and educational solutions to this looming problem that are consistent with, and indeed derive 
from, those theological foundations.  
Adopted April 13, 2023

2026 Convention Workbook
271
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
 
 1 
President of Synod Request for Opinion on Lawsuits between Christians or Members and 1 
Institutions of Synod 2 
 3 
The Request of the Synod President 4 
 5 
In correspondence dated November 12, 2024, the President of Synod requested that the CTCR 6 
respond to the following questions: 7 
  8 
1) Given what the CTCR has said in its 1991 document concerning Christian lawsuits [1 9 
Corinthians 6:1-11: An Exegetical Study], is it biblically valid, and under what circumstances, 10 
for a Christian to file a lawsuit against another Christian? Or for a member or institution of 11 
Synod to file a lawsuit against another member or institution of Synod? 12 
  13 
2) What guidance might the Lutheran Confessions give concerning this issue, particularly the 14 
role of good order in the church (Augsburg Confession 15) and the church’s participation in the 15 
left-hand, civil realm (Augsburg Confession 16)? 16 
 17 
In 1991, the CTCR published 1 Corinthians 6:1-11: An Exegetical Study in response to a 1990 18 
request from the Praesidium to study “the whole matter of Christian brothers proceeding against 19 
one another in civil courts particularly in the light of 1 Corinthians 6 and other related passages.” 20 
The President of Synod has asked that the CTCR consider how that more narrowly focused 21 
exegetical study might apply in actual practice to lawsuits between individual Christians, 22 
members of Synod, and institutions of Synod (or any combination thereof), as well as what the 23 
Lutheran Confessions might add to those considerations. The opinion of the Commission 24 
follows. 25 
 26 
 27 
The Response of the CTCR 28 
 29 
The CTCR’s 1991 document, 1 Corinthians 6:1-11: An Exegetical Study, focused primarily on 30 
the meaning of the passage in question, starting with the context of the Corinthian church, the 31 
context of 1 Corinthians 6 itself, and the exegetical and practical considerations of the passage. 32 
The summary position of that brief report was that lawsuits among Christians should be urged 33 
against and avoided whenever possible on the basis of the New Testament’s strong admonition. 34 
The concern of the passage is that Christians seeking legal recourse against another Christian 35 
through the secular legal system (rather than within the fellowship of the church) run the risk of 36 
overlooking the spiritual dimensions of the conflict, thereby damaging the fellowship within the 37 
body of Christ. 38 
 39 
Disputes between Christians are always a concern for fellow Christians, who will do 40 
everything possible to resolve them and to restore broken or damaged relationships 41 
caused by them. Because of their unique position as members of the body of Christ, 42 
especially if members of the same church body, they have a responsibility to deal with 43 
these matters. In fact, when the church allows its members to run to the secular courts 44 
with problems between Christian brothers and sisters and imposes no check on such 45 
action, it is derelict in its duty. Every dispute which occurs among Christians, even the 46 
 
 2 
smallest dispute, includes aspects that are spiritual in nature. The secular law and the 1 
secular court, which are established on the basis of the wisdom of the world, are not in a 2 
position to judge the fundamental spiritual issues which are always involved. (13) 3 
 4 
The study cautions against Christians taking legal action against other Christians because of the 5 
potential for spiritual harm done in the process, largely due to sinful motivating factors (e.g., 6 
greed, anger, revenge, self-seeking defense of “rights”) that may be at work and to the scandal it 7 
may cause both within the church and in the sight of the unbelieving world (see the guidelines at 8 
16-17). Significantly, however, the report does not assert that Scripture absolutely or 9 
categorically prohibits the use of the legal system by Christians, even when suing other 10 
Christians. The Commission believes the reasons for the report’s conclusions and argumentation 11 
merit further attention and commentary in light of the present question. 12 
 13 
First, the lawsuits identified by 1 Corinthians 6 are between individual believers in a local 14 
congregation.  According to the CTCR study, Paul is “speaking of the action of one Christian 15 
against (pros) a fellow Christian” (15). In the passage, the singular “brother” (adelphos) is used 16 
to describe the parties to a dispute. “When one (singular) of you has a grievance against another 17 
(singular)” (1 Cor. 6:1). “Brother (singular) goes to law against brother (singular)” (1 Cor. 6:6). 18 
The CTCR adds: “The original context in which St. Paul addressed the Christians at Corinth 19 
involved disputes among members of the congregation and may well have been motivated, at 20 
least in part, by the scorn and ridicule cast by the non-Christians upon the body of believers who 21 
were apparently unable or unwilling to resolve their disputes among themselves” (15). These are 22 
individual Christians within a congregation who are at odds with one another and who are taking 23 
their grievances outside the fellowship of the church to be addressed by the courts, rather than 24 
seeking to resolve those disagreements within the church. The concern Paul expresses here is for 25 
the divisiveness such lawsuits may occasion within the congregation, as well as the damage it 26 
may cause to its witness in the community. What 1 Corinthians 6 does not seem to have in view 27 
are groups of Christians participating in lawsuits against other groups of Christians, let alone 28 
inside a broader denomination or church body, or between denominations or church bodies. 29 
However, this does not exempt corporate entities from the principles articulated in this passage 30 
that sternly caution Christians against entering into suit against other Christians.   31 
 32 
Second, Christians should seek to resolve potential legal conflicts with other Christians 33 
within the church. Since the passage has in mind individual Christians seeking legal recourse 34 
against other individual Christians, there should always be an attempt by representatives of the 35 
church to mediate the dispute. One would hope that reasonable Christians might be found to 36 
mediate between Christians, as St. Paul clearly has in mind in v. 5b (“Can it be that there is no 37 
one among you wise enough to settle disputes between brothers?”). Again, the CTCR study 38 
states: 39 
 40 
Because of the spiritual insights which they have and are expected to exercise, Christians 41 
are uniquely qualified to assess problems among themselves and to resolve them. This 42 
does not mean that each Christian possesses unique natural abilities for dispute resolution 43 
or that others, including non-Christians, may not be in a position to provide assistance in 44 
such matters. However, Christians have the mind of Christ. This is their uniqueness, and 45 
the church should be able to identify persons best qualified to serve to assist in resolving 46 
 
 3 
conflicts between fellow Christians. For this reason, it is “shameful” to take ecclesiastical 1 
matters to civil courts. (16) 2 
 3 
For instance, The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod has adopted bylaws that expressly govern 4 
dispute resolution within the Synod (2023 LCMS Handbook Bylaw 1.10). This process aims at 5 
reconciliation between parties and involves personal conversation, panels of reconcilers to 6 
consider a dispute case, appeals of those decisions, and review panels, among other bylaw-7 
mandated processes. In most cases, especially those not of an allegedly criminal nature, every 8 
effort should be made to resolve disputes at the congregational or church body level. Members of 9 
the Synod agree to follow the processes spelled out in the synodical bylaws that endeavor to 10 
bring about reconciliation within our shared biblical, confessional, and ecclesiastical parameters. 11 
 12 
Third, 1 Corinthians 6 does not categorically preclude Christians from filing lawsuits in 13 
civil courts against other Christians, especially in cases of clear impropriety, illegality, or 14 
criminal behavior. Not only may this be justified, but actually preferred to simply ignoring a 15 
potential wrong or an injustice. As the Commission put it in the 1 Corinthians study, 16 
 17 
The legal system by which order is maintained is a gift of God not to be despised. It may 18 
be used properly for certain purposes. The statements in 1 Corinthians 6 are not to be 19 
understood as absolute prohibitions against the use of courts by Christians. When the 20 
legal system is used and when action is motivated by reasons other than those such as 21 
identified below, the use may not only be appropriate but may be of benefit to both 22 
Christian and non-Christian. In addition and more specifically, Christians may indeed 23 
have a responsibility, if not a duty, to pursue, on behalf of any fellow human being in 24 
need of help, legal action against others (whether or not they are Christian) (e.g., in 25 
Christians’ capacity as guardians, trustees, parents or other fiduciaries on behalf of their 26 
ward, beneficiary, child or charge). (16) 27 
 28 
That is, whether a civil case or a criminal case, it may be necessary for Christians to file lawsuits, 29 
even where the suit is brought against a fellow Christian. The 1991 study poses a number of 30 
potential scenarios: a Christian banker against a Christian property owner who defaults on a loan, 31 
a church worker unjustly denied service in the church, a falling out between joint Christian 32 
business owners, among others. However, there is also a sense in which simply participating in 33 
the legal system may mean one is at odds with another Christian. Can Christians not file lawsuits 34 
of any sort on the off chance that the suit may implicate another Christian? Can Christians fight 35 
traffic tickets if the ticketing officer is a Christian? Can they protest unjust civic action or city 36 
codes in court if the city manager or mayor or councilman are also Christians? Can Christians 37 
defend themselves in a court against criminal allegations if the district attorney is a Christian? 38 
That is to say nothing of court cases involving more nefarious and objective wrongs, such as 39 
sexual assault or domestic abuse. The simple fact is that 1 Corinthians does not have in mind the 40 
prohibition of any and all use of secular courts by Christians. There are innumerable occasions 41 
when the Christian may (and, in fact, should) responsibly and virtuously use secular courts, even 42 
against fellow Christians.  43 
 44 
 45 
 
 4 
Fourth, Christians should not pursue legal action out of sinful motivation, which may come 1 
with great consequences for their own spiritual lives, the fellowship of the church, and their 2 
witness to the world. Though the use of the courts by Christians may be licit, whoever 3 
participates in the legal process—individually or corporately—should bear in mind the 4 
motivation for pursuing legal action. Just because Scripture does not prohibit an action expressly 5 
does not mean it should be done. In many even permissible cases, it may be in the best spiritual 6 
interests of the Christian not to sue. The 1991 study puts it this way: “The motive for taking legal 7 
action is more critical than the action itself. Action taken by one Christian against another, which 8 
has at its root motivations of greed, anger, revenge, the desire strictly to defend one’s own rights, 9 
or similar causes which are incompatible with the Christian faith, is always wrong” (16). 10 
Moreover, “Christians recognize that taking fellow Christians to court in a spirit of greed, 11 
revenge, etc., is a cause of offense and undermines the effect of the Christian witness to the 12 
world” (17). That is, there can be a positive use of the court and there can be a negative use of 13 
the court. A positive use, as noted above, may entail filing suit regarding something unjust, 14 
whether the party culpable for that injustice is a Christian or a non-Christian. A negative use, 15 
however, involves participating in any legal action that is cause or opportunity for sin, even 16 
against a non-Christian. It is not only the fellowship of the body that Scripture seeks to protect 17 
with moral injunctions like that of 1 Corinthians 6. It also warns against that which might inhibit 18 
the fruit of the Spirit or the exercise of Christian virtue. Christians should reflect upon their own 19 
personal motivations and the spiritual implications of appealing to the courts. It may be better to 20 
endure fiscal injury than to sully the witness of the church and to deny the selflessness compelled 21 
by our Lord when he calls us to carry our cross (Matthew 16:24). Though an action may be 22 
permissible does not necessarily mean it is right. As St. Paul reminds us elsewhere in First 23 
Corinthians, “All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all 24 
things build up” (1 Cor. 10:23). This applies as readily to corporate entities as it does to 25 
individual Christians.  26 
 27 
Fifth, Christians may in certain cases neglect their left-hand responsibilities by not utilizing 28 
secular laws and legal courts to which they are subject as citizens of the left-hand, temporal 29 
realm. We ordinarily define the left-hand realm as that which relates to the protection or defense 30 
of life and property, which are governed by civil authorities such as the courts. Any number of 31 
aspects of the church’s life exist in this left-hand realm and are subject to civil laws and 32 
regulations. In its 1995 report on church and state, the CTCR described this consideration in 33 
detail: 34 
  35 
But the church is also a social organization—in the Missouri Synod, congregations, 36 
districts, and Synod. While it is tempting to assume that these groupings are synonymous 37 
with that church defined by Word and sacrament, they actually have one new 38 
characteristic: they are also institutions of the temporal kingdom. They usually 39 
incorporate, adopt constitutions and by-laws, and conduct business according to Robert’s 40 
Rules of Order. While the church of the Word is not subject to civil law, since even in 41 
totalitarian societies that Word can still be preached or read “underground” and cherished 42 
in faith even in the isolation of a prison cell, the church as an institution of society is 43 
subject to civil law. The church as institution can be created and abolished, it can sue and 44 
be sued [italics added], and it can address other legal entities, including government, 45 
regarding its institutional interests or concerns. (Render unto Caesar, 66). 46