Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 535

widely, of making it known to an audience that had no prior 
knowledge of it. We must recognize that the number of 
people directly affected by a public sin might be limited. 
Although all members of the Synod are accountable to each 
other, in most cases it will only be necessary to deal with 
public sin at the local level. Publicity beyond that level may 
serve to scandalize more than to instruct. This observation 
should lead to a careful consideration of the audience for a 
public rebuke. It is neither necessary nor beneficial to 
involve all members of the Synod in every case of public 
sin. Those who would undertake a rebuke should take great 
care, therefore, in choosing their medium of 
communication and in determining their audience.”  
D. Furthermore, this same CTCR document cites the 
Confessions in emphasizing the need for Christian charity 
in addressing wrongdoing that becomes known by others: 
“In the matter of ‘public sin’ it is also important to 
recognize that traditionally theologians have distinguished 
between sins committed willfully and those committed out 
of ignorance. This distinction is maintained, for example, in 
the Preface to The Book of Concord. ‘In regard to the 
condemnations, criticisms, and rejections of false, impure 
teaching (particularly in the article concerning the Lord’s 
Supper), which had to be expressly and distinctly set forth 
in this explanation and thorough settlement of the disputed 
articles so that all would be able to protect themselves from 
them, and which can in no way be avoided for many other 
reasons: it is likewise not our will or intention thereby to 
mean persons who err naively and do not blaspheme the 
truth of the divine Word, much less whole churches, inside 
the Holy Empire of the German nation or out. Instead, it is 
our will and intention thereby to condemn only the false 
and seductive teachings and the stiff-necked teachers and 
blasphemers of the same.’ (20) 
 “The confessors’ approach here would seem to imply that 
not every expression of false belief is automatically a 
candidate for public rebuke. Repeated expressions of false 
belief would certainly qualify as sin that would warrant 
public rebuke. But in cases of human weakness and 
ignorance, Christian charity would require private and 
personal discussion rather than public rebuke. The same 
point could be made concerning sins of personal conduct, 
errors in pastoral judgment, and whatever else might 
broadly be considered sin. Public rebuke should never be 
the first response in a situation where the one rebuked has 
no history of erroneous belief or behavior, and has not 
persisted in the sin. When sin has been committed there is 
the need for confession and repentance, and the 
pronouncement of absolution.” (ibid., 25) 
E. Notably, the Scriptures note that God’s people need to be 
slow to call attention to the sins of others and that ministers 
of the Gospel need to exhibit humility instead of arrogance: 
“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but 
do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can 
you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your 
eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You 
hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then 
you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s 
eye” (Matt. 7:3–5). 
 “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above 
reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a 
drunkard or violent or greedy for gain” (Titus 1:7). 
F. Also notably, the Confessions provide guidance regarding 
the active search for sinful situations: “As for the 
enumeration of sins in confession, we have said earlier (6–
8) that we do not believe that it is necessary by divine right. 
When someone objects that a judge must hear a case before 
pronouncing sentence, that is irrelevant because the 
ministry of absolution is in the area of blessing or grace, 
not of judgment or law. The ministers of the church, 
therefore, have the command to forgive sins; they do not 
have the command to investigate secret sins. In addition, 
they absolve us of those which we do not remember; 
therefore absolution, which is the voice of the Gospel 
forgiving sins and consoling consciences, does not need an 
investigation.” (Ap XII [ed. Tappert], 102–105) 
G. Finally, in his book “Pastoral Theology”, Rev. John H.C. 
Fritz reinforces the proper approach to hearing confession 
rather than searching for outstanding sins: “It is self-evident 
that a pastor should not use the opportunity afforded him by 
Communion registration to search out secret sins or family 
affairs or in any way to encourage gossiping and tattling.” 
(John H.C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology [St. Louis: Concordia 
Publishing House, 1932], 133) 
 “Says Luther, ‘If anyone comes to confession who is under 
suspicion, I must diligently inquire into the circumstances. 
If the person denies that he is guilty, I must be satisfied to 
believe him rather than my own conjecture in the matter’” 
(ibid., 133–34). 
Therefore be it 
Resolved, 
That the Synod give thanks to God for the wisdom 
written down in Scripture, the Confessions, and elsewhere in 
dealing with our fellow believers when one believes that another 
has sinned; and be it further 
Resolved, That the Synod develop guidelines for ecclesiastical 
supervision when the internet has been used by one party to accuse 
another of sin; and be it further 
Resolved, That such guidelines would, at minimum, address: 
1. The distinct responsibility of ecclesiastical oversight given 
to district presidents in their respective districts that no 
worker or lay person should usurp, but rather give aid to the 
district president in his supervision responsibilities. 
2. That ecclesiastical supervision “includes visitation, 
evangelical encouragement, and support, care, protection, 
counsel, advice, admonition, and when necessary 
appropriate disciplinary measures,” and does not include 
seeking out wrongdoing, namely, “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,” (Bylaw 
1.2.1 [j]) by electronic or other means. 
3. That profound difficulties result when calling out 
wrongdoing on the internet or otherwise based on online 
discoveries, “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 
2026 Convention Workbook
500 ECCLESIASTICAL SUPER VISION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION