Official Workbook report source text
Official Workbook source-navigation report record. No analysis has been added.
- Report number/id
- R62.3
- Report title
- R62.3 Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical Observations and Suggestions (2024)
- Workbook start page
- 210
- Workbook end page
- 212
- Source pages
- 210, 211, 212
- Source status
- source_checked
- Committee
- Not available
R62.3 2026 Convention Workbook 211 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 5 xi. Develop more robust continuing education programs and expectations for all LCMS pastors—general and SMP. c. Strengthening our commitment to high quality theological education by extension i. Continue the SMP program and emphasize the need for ongoing mentoring and intellectual/theological growth. a) Adhere rigorously to SMP criteria for admission, discouraging the temptation to make SMP a means of avoiding the residential route toward ordination. b) Ensure vigorous, ongoing mentoring for SMP candidates, vicars, and pastors with clear lines of accountability. c) Encourage SMP individuals to continue their studies toward general ministry and to pursue further theological education. d) Provide needed financial assistance for SMP candidates. e) Develop a process by which, in limited and controlled circumstances, worthy individuals may be colloquized as Specific Ministry Pastors. This may include provision for strict background checks, additional theological education as needed, strong supervision and mentoring during and beyond the colloquy process, and other steps to discourage any temptation for this to become a means of avoiding the highest possible training for ministerial candidates. ii. Continue the EIIT and Center for Hispanic Studies programs. a) This is necessary in order to increase the numbers of confessional Lutheran pastors who can serve interculturally. (We should not, however, direct qualified and capable minority students away from residential pastoral education.) b) Provide needed financial assistance for EIIT candidates. c) Ensure vigorous, ongoing mentorship for all EIIT graduates. d. Expanding immigrant ministries by working with international partner churches to provide pastors for specific immigrant groups (e.g., African Immigrant congregations). e. When over a prolonged period of time there are no available pastors to serve a congregation, mission, or ministry, the Synod may address immediate and ongoing needs for care of such congregations through auxiliary ministers and lay leaders. It should be understood that any implementation of the following suggestions is to be done while continuing to make every effort to provide pastors to serve such congregations. i. Flexibility regarding both service times and even the day of worship should be explored when there is a prolonged vacancy. Such changes as time and date may allow the development of a dual parish call or enable an ordained pastor to serve the congregation either regularly or occasionally. ii. Called male commissioned ministers may lead Sunday services without the Lord’s Supper as needed, utilizing sermons prepared by ordained ministers. iii. Male laymen who are approved by districts and trained to lead services may lead Sunday worship without the Lord’s Supper, utilizing sermons prepared by ordained ministers. iv. Congregations may utilize commissioned ministers and other members of the royal priesthood to visit the sick, evangelize, catechize, and carry out other duties which are frequently carried out by pastors (not including the Sacrament of the Altar). v. Our seminaries may be tasked with preparing sermons for use in vacant congregations and circumstances when a pastor is unavailable to lead a service, as 6 well as developing curricula for training programs to equip commissioned ministers and designated laymen to serve in the foregoing ways. vi. In such circumstances, districts and circuits could develop ways to share the time and services of pastors. For example, a congregation might be asked to share its pastor on a monthly or other regular basis with congregations that have no other access to an ordained minister. As helpful background to the preceding considerations and suggestions the reader may wish to consult some of the following documents: 1. The Ministry in Its Relation to the Christian Church (CTCR 1973) 2. Theology and Practice of the Lord’ s Supper (CTCR 1983) 3. The Ministry: Offices, Procedures, and Nomenclature (CTCR 1981) 4. Theology and Practice of the Divine Call (CTCR 2003) 5. 2013 Resolution 4-06A Task Force Report (report to 2016 Convention) 6. 2016 Resolution 13-02A To Regularize Status of Licensed Lay Deacons Involved in Word and Sacrament Ministry 7. The Royal Priesthood: Identity and Mission (CTCR 2018) 8. To Extol and Equip the Blessed Partnership between the Royal Priesthood and the Office of the Public Ministry (2016 Resolution 13-01A Task Force, report to 2019 Convention) 9. Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons and Conduct of Worship in the Absence of a Pastor (CTCR Opinion, 2023). 10. 2019 Res. 6-03A To Enhance the Specific Ministry Pastor (SMP) Program Adopted Commission on Theology and Church Relations October 4, 2024 2026 Convention Workbook 212 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 1 Response of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Commission on Theology and Church Relations to Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the Churches Associated with the International Lutheran Council and the Roman Catholic Church (International Lutheran Council and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [2021]). Introduction A bilateral working group of representatives from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the International Lutheran Council (ILC) met four times in conversations over a span of five years (2014-2019). The genesis of these conversations, or this “informal dialogue,” lies in the recognition that because prior Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues had involved interactions only between the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), significant Lutheran voices were thereby excluded from those earlier conversations. That is, most of the more theologically traditional Lutheran church bodies do not hold membership in LWF and even those that were members had no significant role to play in LWF—RCC discussions . Most of the theologically conservative Lutheran churches are, however, members of the International Lutheran Council. The ILC is a worldwide association of churches that maintain a high view of Scripture as inspired and infallible and hold strictly to the entire Book of Concord as an authoritative exposition of the teachings of Holy Scripture. In order to gain an appreciation of the teaching and priorities of these churches, discussions between the PCPCU and ILC began. The group’s Final Report of the Theological Conversations between the Churches Associated with the International Lutheran Council and the Roman Catholic Church (Final Report or Report) included two Addenda clarifying the position of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) on ordination. 1 Subsequent to the publication of the Final Report, the churches of the ILC were invited to submit responses. The LCMS was among the churches invited to respond. The request for a response was unfortunately unnoticed during the pressures and confusion brought on by COVID-19 and only recently recalled to the attention of LCMS leadership. President Matthew C. Harrison then asked the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations to prepare the response that follows. 2 I. Preamble a. Review and questions The Final Report frames the conversations around a concept of catholicity. The first “ecumenical task” is “to determine (more) precisely the intersection between a Concordia-Lutheran and a Reform-Catholic catholicity.” That is, “the Lutheran documents” are to be re-examined in light of “their original intention to confess the Catholic faith and the history of their reception in 1 The LCMS is the single largest member of the ILC. 2 President Harrison promised a CTCR response on behalf of the LCMS in a February 25, 2024 email to Bishop Juhana Pohjola, Chairman of the International Lutheran Council. In the same email Dr. Harrison expressed his thankfulness for the conversations and his support for the efforts of the participants. 2 the era of confessionalisation.”3 The intention of the Augsburg Confession (AC) is understood to be both an explanation of Wittenberg reforms and also a confirmation of “the foundational Catholic consensus” present in its opening articles. Thus the AC is viewed first in an “inner- Catholic context.”4 We note here that “Catholic” in these first paragraphs of the Preamble is exclusively upper-case. We are not certain about the significance of the capitalization, but assume that the upper case usage indicates the papal Roman Catholic Church and not what Lutherans would understand as “the church catholic.” If that is the case, then some of the initial claims of the Preamble may be questioned. Is it true that the first goal of the AC is to claim alignment of the Wittenberg reforms with the teachings of the Roman Church? On the contrary, we would hold that the claims of the AC are broader from the outset. The AC is setting forth the truth of Scripture above all else. And, with regard to catholicity, the view of catholic goes beyond the Roman church. After all, Melanchthon buttresses the AC claims based on Nicaea (AC I), rejection of Pelagius (AC II), affirmation of the Apostles’ Creed (AC III), and calls on the Fathers to support teachings on faith (AC IV , V , VI). This is not to say that the Augustana sees itself as confessing something contrary to Rome, but its chief concerns are to be faithful to Scripture and to the universal (catholic) church. Therefore Melanchthon writes: “Since, then, this teaching is clearly grounded in Holy Scripture and is, moreover, neither against nor contrary to the universal Christian church—or even the Roman church—so far as can be observed in the writings of the Fathers, we think that our opponents cannot disagree with us in the articles set forth above.” 5 Clarification of this matter would be helpful since it is obviously germane to the stated “ecumenical task” as defined in the first sentence of the Preamble. An assumption that the first goal of the Confessors at Augsburg was an alignment with Roman teaching as the ongoing standard of catholicity is simply incorrect. At the same time, the desire for maintaining unity in the whole church is explicit: “Inasmuch as we are all enlisted under one Christ, we are all to live together in one communion and one church.” 6 b. Affirmation Our question about the term “Catholic” (or “catholic”) should not be misunderstood as anything other than an encouragement to continue the kinds of discussion as reported in this document. As the CTCR stated in a 2011 statement: The first objective of the LCMS in our Constitution is to “work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy.” This objective points in two directions—“toward fellowship” and away from “schism, sectarianism, and heresy.” 3 Final Report coins the terms “Reform-Catholic” and “Concordia-Lutheran” to describe respectively “the early and late 16th-century forms of the Lutheran movement.” 4 Final Report, Preamble, 1.2, p. 1. 5 AC [Conclusion of Part One], 1, KW, 58. 6 AC, Preface, 4, German, KW, 30. 3 While conversations with a non-Lutheran church body are less likely to result in altar and pulpit fellowship than those with a like-minded Lutheran church body, they may nevertheless help to provide a defense against sectarianism since the talks can reveal and emphasize areas that the LCMS and that church body hold in common. A shared confession of the creeds, for example, stands as an important testimony against many forms of heresy, even if it does not result in the full agreement necessary for altar and pulpit fellowship. 7 We appreciate the changing circumstances of the reformers in the period after Augsburg. We therefore find helpful the distinction between “confessorial” and “confessional” catholicity. 8 It is important that the Final Report traces the increasing reality of disjunction between the theology and practice of Wittenberg and “those theologians faithful to Rome and the Pope, but also in contrast to the movements on the ‘left wing’ of the Reformation.” 9 The Report helpfully summarizes the theological movement from the earliest context of the AC to the later historical period in which the Book of Concord (1580) is published.10 Of similar value is the discussion of the distinctive “normative structures” of Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Here the claims of catholicity that are replete in the theology of the Book of Concord must be recognized. 11 Thus the Preamble concludes by emphasizing the “enduring theological significance [of] the intentional catholicity implicit in the normative structure that is decisive for both Lutherans and Catholics.”12 Consequently, we rejoice in the conversations between representatives of the ILC and the Roman Catholic Church. Even as President Harrison expressed his desire “to further the relationship between the ILC and the PCPCU,” 13 we too strongly affirm the importance of the ecumenical work represented by the Final Report and urge continuing conversations between both groups. II. Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet a. Review and questions In the section titled 1. What We Perceive, the ILC-PCPCU representatives affirm certain conclusions of previous Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogues, even though ILC member churches played no role in those dialogues. These positive acknowledgements include the joint recognition that the sacrifice of Jesus is once-for-all “and can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor 7 “Theological Dialogue with Other Christian Church Bodies,” September 17, 2011, document link is at https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/F44DF93E-1ADB-45DB-ABDC-D128581EEA15. 8 See Final Report, Preamble, 1.3 and accompanying footnote on p. 1. The footnote indicates that “confessorial” is a translation of the German konfessorisch and reflects “a strong profession of faith within the bounds of churchly communion, by way of contrast with konfessionell/ “confessional,” which carries with it the sense of a profession of faith that results from or issues in a breach of church fellowship.” Since the AC was drafted prior to Roman condemnations of Wittenberg’s theology and the subsequent excommunications, the Final Report applies “confessorial” to the AC. 9 Final Report, Preamble, 2.4, p. 3. 10 Final Report, Preamble, 2.2-2.7, pp. 2-5. 11 See especially Final Report, Preamble, 3.1-3.4, pp. 5-7. 12 Final Report, Preamble, 4., p. 9. 13 See letter from Matthew C. Harrison, in Appendix I of the Final Report, p. 23. 4 replaced, nor complemented.” However, the sacrifice “should become effective ever anew.” In addition, “the real and essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the consecrated elements” is confessed together with some common understandings of the vocabulary of the Lord’s Supper. Also, a synergeia (intertwining of human and divine action) is affirmed as a way to express “God’s action” “through created means” namely, “men who proclaim his gospel and administer his sacraments.” However, given the long history of Lutheran opposition to all theological synergism, 14 we would like to see further discussion of this particular topic in future meetings. Lastly, “the central importance of the Words of Institution” is affirmed.15 Section 2. is titled What Is Important. One may summarize the view therein in this statement from the Final Report: The interrelation between theological reflection and liturgical action helps to explain why central points of controversy were especially connected with the doctrine and the celebration of this sacrament. Conversely, this connection can lead to a resolution of the fundamental differences related to it by articulating common grounds and commonalities. 16 The identification of the relationship between doctrine and liturgy is both important and necessary. And we note with appreciation that the report’s discussion of The Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet speaks of a “relecture” or re-examination of both the Lutheran confessions and the decisions of Trent. 17 But we question § 2.2.2’s framing of the unresolved relationship between Christ’s sacrifice on the cross and the sacrifice of the Mass on page 10 as a simply disingenuous claim. Moreover, while we agree with the stress on responsible liturgical language, we are not entirely comfortable with the statement: “Dogmatic language in the abstraction of its way of speaking must not prevent legitimate varieties of liturgical expression.” 18 The concern would be in the question of “legitimate varieties of liturgical expression.” How does one define a legitimate versus an illegitimate expression? It seems to us that dogma is the critical—and indeed, the only— authoritative arbiter for such a question. We do not understand how dogmatic and liturgical language can really be equivalent. Dogma—doctrine—a church’s confession of faith—stands above liturgical expression. Given this concern, we appreciate the move of the Final Report from 2. What Is Important to a consideration of 3.1 Systematic-Theological Affirmations as it begins section 3. Commonalities. 19 We also appreciate the quotation from the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration that is added to § 3.1.1 and its emphasis on the “entire action” of the Sacrament from the consecration of the elements by the Word through distribution and reception. And we welcome the joint affirmation of the Holy Spirit’s work in and through “created, earthly means” 14 One might argue that confessional Lutherans have represented a decidedly intentional “one-sided” view, in contrast with the statement in the Final Report that “the concrete liturgical action must guard the theological thinking from becoming one-sided.” “Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 1.4, p. 10. 15 Final Report, Mass as Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 1.1-1.6, pp. 9-10. 16 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 2.1, p. 10. 17 The two previous references to the re-examination or relecture referred only to re-examination of Lutheran positions (Preamble, 1.1, p. 1; Preamble, 1.4, p. 2). 18 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 2.3.2, p. 10. 19 Final Report, Eucharistic Sacrificial Banquet, 3.1, p. 10.