Workbook page: 499
PDF page: 534
Section: No public section attached
Source status: source checked / public
LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 534
WHEREAS, It is the duty of the Synod in convention to exhort the men who hold such offices to do their duty; and WHEREAS, Christians are called to submit to all human institutions (1 Peter 2:13); and WHEREAS, Hebrews 13:17 teaches that submission to leaders is to be done out of love and respect, with the confession that such leaders watch over the souls of those under them and will have to give an account to Christ at judgment day; and WHEREAS, Pastors must therefore give an account for the souls in their congregations (Heb. 13:17; Acts 20:28); and WHEREAS, District presidents must therefore give an account for the pastors in their district; and WHEREAS, The Synod President must therefore give an account for district presidents; and WHEREAS, Proverbs 10:17 teaches that paternal discipline is a blessing to the one being disciplined. This lesson is also taught in Proverbs 23:13–14 as well as Hebrews 12:5–6, 11; and W HEREAS, God desires that all people —including pastors — would repent when their error is made known to them (Ezek. 33:11; Matt.18; 2 Peter 3:9); and W HEREAS, No one lights a lamp and then hides it (Luke 8:16); therefore be it Resolved, That congregational pastors and district presidents be open and transparent with their ecclesiastical supervisors concerning their doctrine and practice; and be it further Resolved, That the President of the Synod be encouraged to visit each district at least once during each triennium for the sake of theological review, pastoral counseling, and reproof where necessary; and be it finally Resolved, That district presidents allow their leaders to visit them “with joy and not with groaning” (Heb. 13:17). Wyoming District Ov. 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