Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 268

2026 Convention Workbook
233
THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS  —COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
5  
2. Virtual Multi-Parish Arrangements (“Video Venue”) 
 
In part due to the growing pastoral shortage within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 
there has been conversation about whether a single pastor could service multiple 
congregations virtually. That is, rather than the traditional arrangement of a multipoint 
parish, where a pastor would conduct in-person services at two or more congregations at 
different times, conducting services virtually means the ordained pastor would preach in one 
congregation and his sermon would be streamed live at the other congregation(s). Also known 
as “video venue” ministry, the rest of the service at other sites would be officiated by a layman, 
with the exception of the Lord’s Supper. 
 
The practice of multi-parish arrangements is not new to the Missouri Synod. Planting churches 
and ministering to churches that cannot afford a pastor have often taken place by way of an 
ordained minister serving multiple congregations at a time. In a certain sense, virtual multi-
parish or video-venue arrangements are a technologically mediated way of carrying out such 
ministries. Rather than having a congregation or church plant hold services at odd hours or on 
unconventional days, or the parish pastor traversing snow-covered roads or traveling long 
distances, the use of virtually delivered services (preferably synchronously) means a 
congregation otherwise unable to afford a pastor would have the benefit of doctrinally sound 
preaching from a rostered, ordained and preferably called minister. 
 
There is clearly a need for the Synod — while remaining theologically faithful to Scripture and 
the Lutheran Confessions — to be adaptable in how it provides pastoral care for congregations 
that cannot procure pastoral service. In its recent Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical 
Observations and Suggestions, the CTCR specifically proposed extending the service of the 
Synod’s ordained ministers, including the arrangement of more multipoint parish ministries.
4 A 
virtual multi-parish arrangement might be an example of that. As noted elsewhere in this 
document, the Word itself can be faithfully and profitably communicated through virtual means. 
The Spirit works through the oral Word (Rom. 10:14–17; Augsburg Confession 5) but is not 
restricted to an oral Word declared in the confines of a church building. That digitally proclaimed 
Word is also capable of mediating the faith-giving work of the Spirit. 
 
Such an arrangement could obviously not include the Lord’s Supper.5 The pastor would have to 
make other provisions for the administration of the Lord’s Supper under the care of an ordained 
minister. Arrangements would also have to be made for pastoral care at the virtual sites — 
ideally, though not necessarily in every case, by the ordained minister — including visitation of 
the sick and the homebound, confirmation instruction, funerals, preparation for and officiating of 
weddings, preparation for and administration of baptisms, and so on. Moreover, the conduct of 
 
4 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Mission and Ministry Principles and Practical Observations and 
Suggestions (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2024), www.lcms.org/ctcr-observations-and-
suggestions. 
5 On the LCMS response to the practice of online Communion during the Covid-19 pandemic, see 2023 Resolution 
5-08A (“To Affirm In-Person Communion”), as well as opinions by the CTCR, Communion and Covid-19 (2020), 
www.lcms.org/ctcr-communion-and-covid, and One Little Word Can Fell Him: Addendum to Communion and 
Covid-19 (2020), www.lcms.org/ctcr-communion-and-covid-addendum. 
6  
services by a layman in place of a pastor is no intrinsic obstacle. Specific guidelines for that 
practice were laid out by the CTCR in order to prevent confusion with the pastoral office.6 
 
There are also reasonable objections to this practice. In the first place, there may be confusion 
about who is responsible for oversight in the congregation. Theologically speaking, the Synod 
has understood the oversight (from the Greek episkopos in the New Testament, e.g., Phil. 1:1; 1 
Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:7, among others) by pastors to be a ministry conferred on him by his call to a 
given congregation. He exercises that ministry through his preaching of the Word, administration 
of the Sacraments and pastoral care among his flock. While we have the example of vacancy 
pastors, for instance, who serve a congregation without a “call” per se, a pastor exercising this 
ministry of oversight through preaching, Sacraments and pastoral care ordinarily requires a call, 
especially for any extended length of time. 
 
Second, and more pertinently, the ministry of a pastor is not simply one of preaching or 
communicating content or data. The pastor is charged with pastoral care, and that pastoral care 
entails things such as instruction (not just in a sermon, but individually and in other groups), 
private counsel and spiritual nurture of all those in his flock. Part of that pastoral care includes 
chance conversations that arise in the course of routine church tasks. In an important sense, a 
pastor’s faith and life in general as lived in the presence of his flock are to be an example to the 
believer (1 Tim. 4:12; see also 1 Cor. 11:1; Heb. 13:7). While Lutherans have long valued the 
preaching of the Word as the principal task of the pastoral office, the pastoral office must not be 
reduced to congregational preaching. Nor should the called and ordained minister delegate all 
other (or even most) aspects of his pastoral responsibilities besides preaching to another. If he is 
called to more than one parish, the pastor must provide care as responsibly as possible to all 
those entrusted to him, so far as that is within his power to do. 
 
Finally, given these concerns, it is hard to see how virtual multipoint parishes are preferable to 
the traditional model. In the case of severe weather conditions or other immediate challenges that 
would preclude the presence of a pastor in other congregations he serves, a video alternative may 
be possible. However, such a scenario does not necessitate the permanent arrangement of a 
virtual multipoint parish ministry. Under exceptional circumstances, the CTCR has encouraged 
the option of a layman reading a sermon written by the pastor.
7 If the changing of service times 
is considered a burden to the congregation, the CTCR has urged flexibility when it comes to 
times and days in order to facilitate regular preaching, administration of the Sacrament and 
pastoral care from an available ordained minister.
8 Moreover, the opportunity to receive the 
Lord’s Supper with some degree of regularity (not to mention corporate or individual absolution, 
as well as other pastoral acts) makes the traditional model of multipoint parish ministry a less 
problematic option than its virtual alternative. 
 
While virtual video arrangements may be used in emergencies or in hybrid arrangements, such as 
alternating weekly services (where one is in-person, the other not), the Commission believes the 
 
 
6 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons and Conduct of Worship in 
the Absence of a Pastor (2023), www.lcms.org/ctcr-absence-of-a-pastor. 
7 CTCR, Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons. 
8 CTCR, Mission and Ministry Principles, and Opinion on Lay Reading of Sermons, 6. 
7  
practice creates more obstacles than it removes. Under ordinary circumstances, it would urge 
traditional multipoint parish ministry. 
 
3. Online Reproof and Church Discipline 
 
In recent decades, social media has become a new public space for conversation, debate and 
the airing of concerns. This has not gone without impact on the church and how it handles 
personal reproof, church discipline and other matters pertaining to the resolution of 
disagreements. For Christians both inside the Missouri Synod and in other churches, it has 
become common to publicly identify errors of doctrine or practice, call upon those with 
administrative or oversight responsibilities to address these errors, and even interject oneself 
into the process by commenting on matters of church discipline. Should members of our 
congregations, and particularly church workers who are members of the Synod, use the 
internet (specifically social media) to engage in accusations, reproof or other forms of church 
discipline ordinarily reserved for private, congregational, district or Synod mediation? 
 
It is inevitable that those who use social media as a primary means of communication would take 
to social media to discuss matters of importance for the faith and life of their church. Concern for 
right doctrine and practice has been a hallmark of the Missouri Synod since its founding. That 
concern is laudable and should not be disregarded because of the particular means one may use 
to express that concern. Indeed, there has long been a precedent for addressing certain sins in a 
public way, provided those sins are known publicly. Martin Luther himself said that it was not a 
violation of the Eighth Commandment to call attention to a public sin. In the Large Catechism, 
he spoke of it this way: “But where the sin is so public that the judge and everyone else are 
aware of it, you can without sin shun and avoid those who have brought disgrace upon 
themselves, and you may also testify publicly against them” (LC I 284). 
 
In an age when social media has become a “digital commons” for discussing social, political and 
theological matters, we should expect that one’s opinions expressed online may be regarded as 
public statements of their faith, especially in the case of pastors. It is also true that services, 
sermons and other congregational acts formerly not known outside of those involved are now 
broadcast online and available to anyone who wishes to find them, thus making them “public” in 
a sense. Where any of the above exhibit doctrine or practices that are contrary to Scripture, the 
Lutheran Confessions or the doctrinal positions of the Synod, then it is entirely understandable 
for someone to take to online media to identify errors, express concern, and even solicit the 
Synod and its members to condemn such errors. 
 
That said, there are any number of problems with this practice. First, these online statements, 
services and so on may not be intended for broader, public consumption. While this does not 
excuse the error, it does mean that we should not assume the offending party is making a public 
declaration of faith or committing a public sin. As the CTCR said concerning “public sin” in 
2006: “When Luther speaks about public sins, we might better translate ‘public’ as notorious or 
scandalous. In other words, it is not simply a matter of a sinful action that is known to some 
other person or a few other people. All of sixteenth century life was public in that sense. The 
situation Luther envisioned was a sin so widely known that it could no longer be covered without 
8  
scandalizing the community. But the publicity would also end with that community.”9 In fact, 
that report argues, making public accusations of a perceived sin not known widely may serve the 
exact opposite purpose: “The rebuke has the side effect of publicizing the sin more widely, of 
making it known to an audience that had no prior knowledge of it.”
10 In such cases, it would be 
far preferable to address these errors personally and privately rather than publicly and online, 
following Matthew 18. Through personal, private reproach, one may find that the error was 
unintentional and the individual repentant, or possibly that the offending issue was 
misunderstood or easily explainable. 
 
Second, in the case of legitimate error in doctrine or practice, the Synod has adopted very 
specific procedures for addressing such offenses. All members of the Synod in any capacity — 
elected officers, faculty, church workers, congregations — submit themselves to ecclesiastical 
supervision. Concerns regarding false teaching or practice should be directed first to the 
individual (in keeping with Matthew 18), then to the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor. The 
ecclesiastical supervisor is entrusted with the oversight of those under his care, and therefore 
concerns should be raised with the supervisor privately rather than broached publicly, especially 
online. The Bylaws of the Synod provide for a dispute resolution process, which covers 
theological, doctrinal and ecclesiastical matters, including the appeal of excommunication or 
specific call-related disputes (Bylaw 1.10). There are specific Bylaws addressing the expulsion 
of congregations and individual members (ordained or commissioned), officers of the Synod, and 
those guilty of sexual or criminal misconduct (2.14-2.17). The Bylaws also allow for appeals to 
the certification of materials by doctrinal review (3.9.3.2). In nearly all cases, confidentiality is 
required to allow time for fraternal correction and repentance without calling attention to the 
dispute publicly, as well as to ensure unbiased review or the possibility of selecting unbiased 
panelists to consider appeals. Likewise, “circularizing” (or attempting to sway opinion) of the 
Synod on these matters may be expressly prohibited in certain cases (3.9.3.2.2[d]). By 
publicizing accusations or opinions on matters mediated through one of these processes, the 
confidentiality necessary may be unintentionally eroded and the ability to resolve or appeal these 
cases compromised. Moreover, since the purpose of these various bylaws and procedures is to 
bring about reconciliation through biblically based reproach and repentance, intervening in, 
publicizing or politicizing conflicts may have the opposite effect of inhibiting such fraternal 
conversations and resolution. 
 
Finally, what may be appropriate for online debate in a secular world is not necessarily 
appropriate in the church. We should not treat internal theological or ecclesiastical concerns as 
reasons for public dissension that compromises our witness to the world. St. Paul makes this 
point clear in 1 Corinthians, when condemning Christians who bring accusations against one 
another in the civil courts of his day: “So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before 
those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one 
among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against 
 
 
 
9 Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Public Rebuke of Public Sin: Considerations in Light of the 
Large Catechism Explanation of the Eighth Commandment (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri  Synod, 
2006), 21, www.lcms.org/ctcr-public-rebuke-of-public-sin. 
10 CTCR, Public Rebuke of Public Sin, 23.