Is the President of the LCMS a Bishop?

[BigNorsk]

I always get a bit confused about that. For one, the synod seems very strong in their assertion that the synod is not a church, that synod offices are not in the office of public ministry. So if say the President is to be in the office of public ministry, he needs a position with a congregation.

Okay, that seems clear.

But then, there's the calls for the President or District Presidents to exert church discipline.

I can't get my head wrapped around that. Because if the local congregations are the church, then they do not exert church discipline outside their church.

How can a synod do church discipline when it isn't a church?

Does the synod actually do church discipline or is it actually corporate discipline? In the first, one would be a Bishop or at least a minister or elder. In the second, one would just be acting in the capacity of an officer of the corporation.

If the President is specifically not a church office, it would seem to me to specifically not be a Bishop.

Marv

[RadMan]

That's the catch. Some synod board members are also pastors. We have no designation for bishop. The term bishop is a spiritual head of an episcopy or papist church. Since our synod is a corporate structure and has some board members that are also pastors in a local congregation and have a tendency to drag along their "title" all the way to synod offices. Some people like DP Benke fancy themselves a bishop.

[BigNorsk]

What does fancying himself a bishop mean? I don't imagine it means he receives 5,000 acres in upper New York State to support himself.

Does it mean he disciplines others? Is disciplining others part of his job?

Marv

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I always get a bit confused about that. For one, the synod seems very strong in their assertion that the synod is not a church, that synod offices are not in the office of public ministry. So if say the President is to be in the office of public ministry, he needs a position with a congregation.

Okay, that seems clear.

But then, there's the calls for the President or District Presidents to exert church discipline.

I can't get my head wrapped around that. Because if the local congregations are the church, then they do not exert church discipline outside their church.

How can a synod do church discipline when it isn't a church?

Does the synod actually do church discipline or is it actually corporate discipline? In the first, one would be a Bishop or at least a minister or elder. In the second, one would just be acting in the capacity of an officer of the corporation.

If the President is specifically not a church office, it would seem to me to specifically not be a Bishop.

Marv

Good question Marv.

In my experience I would have to say that they are not Bishops. I'm LCC (formerly LCMS), and I am aware of five situations where Congregations have turned away from Scripture and turned against very confessional Pastors. In all of these situations the inability of DP's (and their unwillingness to get involved) have left these Congregations and Clergy to fend for themselves. In some situations where a DP acted as a Bishop all be it outside their authority the results were often somewhat better, but not always. The way the office of President and District President are set up such intervention could be construed as "Interference", since these Synods are basically Congregationalist in structure. Our Synods are made up of only Congregations. Individuals are members of the "autonomous" Congregation, not the Synod. The only time an individual has entitlement as a member of Synod is when they have been excommunicated, at which time they may appeal to Synod.

In my opinion this is not working very well. Since we elect presidents only from rostered Clergy, it would stand to reason that we should expect them to exercise the Office of the Keys with regard to individual Congregations. At this time their authority would only extend to the removal of a Pastor or Congregation from the roster, with very little authority to admonish and correct.

What do you think?

Mark:scratch:

[filosofer]

Just a note: Pres. K is listed as an assistant pastor of the congregation in Kirkwood.

[BigNorsk]

I would note that according to the 2007 Handbook. He clearly would be a Bishop.

3.3.1 The President of the Synod shall be a full-time executive and shall
serve as a voting member of the Board of Directors of the Synod.
(a) He shall not be in charge of a congregation or hold a chair at any
educational institution but may be called as an assistant pastor, provided
such services do not interfere with his official duties as
President.
(b) He shall, with the approval of the Board of Directors of the Synod,
be empowered to engage sufficient staff to carry out the duties of his
office.

Powers and Duties—Ecclesiastical

3.3.1.1 As the chief ecclesiastical officer of the Synod, the President shall
supervise the doctrine taught and practiced in the Synod, including all
synodwide corporate entities.
3.3.1.1.1 The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all officers
of the Synod and its agencies, the individual districts of the Synod, and
all district presidents.

(a) In the districts of the Synod, he shall carry out his ecclesiastical
duties through the district’s president.
(b) He shall at regular intervals officially visit or cause to be visited
all the educational institutions of the Synod to exercise supervision
over the doctrine taught and practiced in those institutions.
(c) He shall meet regularly with the Council of Presidents and, as
deemed necessary, with individual district presidents or small groups
of district presidents to see to it that they are in accordance with
Article II of the Constitution, adopted doctrinal statements of the
Synod, and doctrinal resolutions of the Synod. He shall receive regular
reports on this subject from the district presidents. In cases of doctrinal
dissent, Bylaw section 1.8 shall be followed.


I note that the only requirement for being a minister or in the office of public ministry in a congregation is basically negative, he may be part time if it doesn't interfere with his duties as President. His ecclesiatical duties as President. He is responsible for church discipline on the institutions of the synod.

So according to this, the Presidency itself is clearly an office of public ministry. Because if it wasn't, he couldn't perform the required duties. If he was required to be in a congregational ministry, it would be a requirement, not a permitted as long as deal.

So according to the Handbook, the President is a Bishop. Real clear, at least until I read something else that is going to tell me that he's not. Which I suspect I can find probably in the same Handbooks.

Marv

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would note that according to the 2007 Handbook. He clearly would be a Bishop.

I note that the only requirement for being a minister or in the office of public ministry in a congregation is basically negative, he may be part time if it doesn't interfere with his duties as President. His ecclesiatical duties as President. He is responsible for church discipline on the institutions of the synod.

So according to this, the Presidency itself is clearly an office of public ministry. Because if it wasn't, he couldn't perform the required duties. If he was required to be in a congregational ministry, it would be a requirement, not a permitted as long as deal.

So according to the Handbook, the President is a Bishop. Real clear, at least until I read something else that is going to tell me that he's not. Which I suspect I can find probably in the same Handbooks.

Marv


Is this LCMS?

Mark

[BigNorsk]

Here, appears to me to be one conflict.


1. The President, the vice-presidents in line of succession, and the
Secretary must be ordained ministers of The Lutheran Church—
Missouri Synod and, like the Vice-President–Finance—Treasurer,
other officers, and the members of the Board of Directors, members
of voting congregations.


The reason being that I believe that officially, the LCMS holds that ordination is not a permanent thing. That is you can't be ordained, and then leave and just continue on being ordained. So technically, if you aren't called by a congregation, you aren't ordained. But, as already shown, being called by a congregation was optional, indeed subservient to the synod office and only permitted if it did not interfere.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

This is interesting. According to the Commission on Theology and Chruch Relations report on the Ministry.

Clearly, the synod again is a church. Because it says:


Furthermore, in a synodical form of church fellowship and congregational
interdependence, those who are "called" must be under the supervision of the
whole church. Thus, they differ from Sunday school teachers, for example, who
are chosen and assigned by and are accountable to a single congregation.


The synod is clearly referred to as the "whole church" whereas a local congregation is not the "whole church" but is a "single congregation"

The document also says the same thing again concerning ordination.


We stress the fact that ordination is the declaration of the whole confessional
fellowship. In the end, a single congregation or an agency representing larger
segments of the church does issue the call. Nevertheless, in a synod of
congregations bound by a common confession and loyalty, good order demands
that admission into the pastoral of office or into its closely allied auxiliary offices
is not the act of a single congregation or agency. Various ways can be found to
establish this approval of the whole church.


and


This concern for the involvement of the whole church in the calling and placing of
its servants is evidenced by the fact that the church maintains an extensive
system of higher education to prepare its pastors, teachers, and other leaders.

6. Not only a local congregation but also larger structures of the church may
legitimately extend valid calls upon proper delegation.


It actually attacks the idea of a second call at the same time, calling the practice "questionable".


For this
reason some take refuge in obtaining a second call as "assistant" in a
congregation, feeling that such a call, although it involves few or no duties, is
valid, while a call from an agency is not. The legitimacy of such a "second" call is
questionable. [14]


It continues on to clearly say that the District Presidency is an office of public ministry.


2. Are elected District or synodical officials "in the ministry"?

That depends upon the call of the church. If the office is such that it is an
exercise of the office of the public ministry by virtue of its functions, or if the



functions are definable as directly auxiliary to the pastoral ministry, then a person
accepting such a call retains ministerial status in the church. No rule can be
given to cover all offices. We have previously mentioned that a District president
remains in the pastoral ministry by virtue of his being called to oversee the
pastors and churches, and a theological professor or a professor in one of the
colleges of the Synod may be called as an "overseer", in the sense of assuming
responsibility for what will be taught in the churches for years to come.


That said:


The question is also asked: is it possible to exercise the office of shepherd and overseer
in the church only in a typical parish situation? In the case of "administrative officials,"
for instance, is the church calling as an "elder of the church" a man qualified to exercise
oversight when it calls him to be a District president? Or a seminary professor? Or a
campus pastor? The answer may be yes or no. It depends on the call. If a man is asked
merely to perform a necessary but only secular function for the church but is not caller
to public accountability as an overseer in the church, he is not in the office of the public
ministry. However, District presidents who are charged with the oversight of the
overseers of the flock, or professors who are charged with the oversight of the men who
are preparing to be the shepherds of the church, or men who are charged with the
oversight of the faith and life of the church's youth on a college campus or in the military
can be properly said to be serving in the office of the public ministry of the church.
This paper cannot delineate all of the possible ways in which the church may need to
assign her spiritual leaders. Good order requires, however, that the church itself
carefully define the offices and their functions to which it summons its spiritual leaders.
It should exercise good stewardship in not thoughtlessly drawing men from the office of
the public ministry to tasks that are necessary but that do not require one of the pastors
of the church. Or, if a man agrees to accept a position that is not within the scope of the
pastoral ministry, he should no longer function as a holder of the office of the public
ministry but as a lay member of the church. Confusion occurs when men "resign from
the ministry" but continue to appear as holders of the office of the public ministry doing
such things as accepting occasional preaching engagements, performing marriages, or
setting up business as ministerial marriage counselors. Since by such behavior a man
holds himself forth as a pastor and performs pastoral functions without a call and
without the authorization of the church-indeed having removed himself from the
ministry-his actions must be declared wrong. [8]

A man who has been called by the church to serve as an elder who labors in Word and
sacrament other than as a parish pastor is available to the whole confessional
fellowship of the church to preach the Word, administer the sacraments, or perform any
of the functions of the office of the public ministry at the invitation of any segment of the
church. He does not need to be "called" each time he accepts an invitation to preach.
The common usage of the church seems to sense this. Confusion arises when we
assume that the church can function only as one congregation at a time, or that the
ministry of Word and sacrament must be defined only in terms of the activities of a
parish pastor. Worse confusion arises when a man who once held the office of the
public ministry continues to function as such after he has publicly disavowed his call
from the church.


So it would seem that the LCMS has the official position that District Presidents and anyone else required to do ecclesiatical supervision is in the office of public ministry and that second calls are actually not required but rather are questionable.

Strange, that's a lot different than I've been told by people I assumed knew. I always thought the LCMS taught that synod offices were not offices of public ministry and the synod was not the church. But it appears here to be exactly the opposite of that.

edited to add: I don't know why the quoting function is splitting the quotes like that. Any quotes without my text between are one quote with nothing between them.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

Is this LCMS?

Mark

Yeppers link for 2007 handbook: http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/2007Handbook.pdf

Marv

[RadMan]

The president and council can only exercise there ecclesiastical supervision over synodical matters and not local congregations. Their jurisdiction only extends to the synod offices , seminaries and missions. Being a pastor at a local congregation does not allow them anymore jurisdiction in the synod as it does in a local congregation where the voters make the decision. The congregations are autonomous.

Unfortunately there is a power play within synod to take away the voting privileges of the laity and to have the congregations totally under the jurisdiction of the synod according to their assumption of episcopal polity. This takes away from the original statements of CFW Walther where the congregation has the right to call a pastor and judge doctrine.

As the possessor of all church power, the local congregation must be divinely instituted by God. Walther would quote the Lutheran Confessions to prove that:

1. The full authority of the Gospel belongs to the lay people:

Smalcald Articles Par. 67, Trig. p. 523"For wherever the Church [local congregation] is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel . . . Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another; as Augustine narrates the story of two Christians in a ship, one of whom baptized the catechumen, who after baptism then absolved the baptizer.")




2. Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the local congregation:

Treatise, Concordia Triglotta, p. 511 par. 24-25"...the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18, 19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. THEREFORE HE GRANTS THE KEYS PRINCIPALLY AND IMMEDIATELY TO THE CHURCH, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to everyone who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words:Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise CHRIST GIVES SUPREME AND FINAL JURISDICTION TO THE CHURCH, WHEN HE SAYS: TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH.] Therefore it is necessary that in these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship [which he had, or was to have had, in preference to the other apostles.


3. The Confessions teach that the congregation elects its own pastor.

Treatise, Concordia Tiglotta “69] Lastly, the statement of Peter also confirms this, 1 Pet. 2, 9: Ye are a royal priesthood. These words pertain to the true Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood.” “72] From all these things it is clear that the Church retains the right to elect and ordain ministers.” also Eph. 4:8, 1Pet. 2:9; Acts 6-7, 14:23, Titus 1:7, 1Tim. 3:10)

4. The congregation is above the ministers.:


Treatise, Concordia Triglotta, p. 507, par. 11 “In 1 Cor. 3, 6, Paul makes ministers equal, and teaches that THE CHURCH IS ABOVE THE MINISTERS. Hence superiority or lordship over the Church or the rest of the ministers is not ascribed to Peter [in preference to other apostles]. For he says thus: All things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, i.e., let neither the other ministers nor Peter assume for themselves lordship or superiority over the Church; let them not burden the Church with traditions; let not the authority of any avail more than the Word [of God]; let not the authority of Cephas be opposed to the authority of the other apostles, as they reasoned at that time: 'Cephas, who is an apostle of higher rank, observes this; therefore, both Paul and the rest ought to observe this.' Paul removes this pretext from Peter, and denies [Not so, says Paul, and makes Peter doff his little hat, namely, the claim] that his authority is to be preferred to the rest or to the Church." see also Matt. 18:17, Col. 4:17, 1Peter 5:1-3, 2Cor. 8:8


5. The Confessions teach that the congregation is the final tribunal in church discipline.


Trig. 511 Par. 24-25 "Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the church…" also Matt. 18:17-18; Acts 1:15, 23-26; 15:5, 12-13, 22-23; 1Cor. 5:2, 6:2, 10:15, 12:7, 2Cor. 2:6-8, 2Thess: 3:15)

6. The Confessions teach that the sheep judge their shepherd in all doctrine.
Trig. 525 par.72 “… the churches are in duty bound before God, … because Paul, Gal. 1: 7f , enjoins that bishops who teach and defend a godless doctrine and godless services should be regarded as accursed,” also Matt. 7:15-23, 1John 4:1, 1Cor. 10:15, Matt. 23:10, 1Thess. 5:1, Mark 10: 42-44, Acts 17:11, 2Pet. 2:1, 1Cor.14: 29, Rev. 2:2)


7. The Confessions teach that the congregation and not the Synod is “church,” hence synods are human organizations.:

Augsburg Confessions VII & VIII p. 47 “Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: ‘Tell it unto the Church.’” Trig. 511 par. 24, also “The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.”, also Pieper, Vol. III, 421; also Preamble, LCMS Constitution, p. 8, “Reason for the Forming of a Synodical Union: 1. The example of the apostolic church, Acts 15:1-31”)

[DaRev]

The Church is indeed the body of believers, which exists within the congregations, thus the LCMS does not use eccesiatical titles such as Bishop for its leaders. But their ecclesiastical roles and functions within the synod are that of "overseer" which is what the word "bishop" means.

What the LCMS desparately needs is more control of their member congregations in terms of doctrine and practice, keeping its member congregations in line with the Scriptures and Confessions. So many congregations over the years have strayed so far from the Biblical and Confessional basis of the Lutheran Church that there is very little "fellowship" even within the synod anymore, despite the attempts of the clergy to teach and practice according to them. For example, I have had numerous discussions here as to why they cannot have a woman as council president or vice president because of the way the council is set up and their function as overseers of some aspects of the functions of the pastoral office. And I am sure that if they had an election during a vacancy, they would do just that, and the synod has no say in the matter. If a congregation wishes to set its own doctrinal polity which is at odds with Scripture and the Confessions, they need to either be corrected or removed from synodical membership.

[BigNorsk]

I think the English District routinely uses Bishop for it's District President.

Marv

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Again TC is a font of infinite knowledge! Thanks everyone.:thumbsup:

So... a SP and/or DP is a Bishop, excepth when he isn't a Bishop?

That sound about right?:scratch:

Or... a SP and/or DP is a Bishop when they want to be, but not when they don't?:scratch:

Apart from the Bible and the BOC which are themselves clear and concise it appears that our constitutions in the interest of clarity, are rather ambiguous depending on where you are reading, and how you are interpereting.:confused:

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The Church is indeed the body of believers, which exists within the congregations, thus the LCMS does not use eccesiatical titles such as Bishop for its leaders. But their ecclesiastical roles and functions within the synod are that of "overseer" which is what the word "bishop" means.

What the LCMS desparately needs is more control of their member congregations in terms of doctrine and practice, keeping its member congregations in line with the Scriptures and Confessions. So many congregations over the years have strayed so far from the Biblical and Confessional basis of the Lutheran Church that there is very little "fellowship" even within the synod anymore, despite the attempts of the clergy to teach and practice according to them. For example, I have had numerous discussions here as to why they cannot have a woman as council president or vice president because of the way the council is set up and their function as overseers of some aspects of the functions of the pastoral office. And I am sure that if they had an election during a vacancy, they would do just that, and the synod has no say in the matter. If a congregation wishes to set its own doctrinal polity which is at odds with Scripture and the Confessions, they need to either be corrected or removed from synodical membership.

I agree 100%. :thumbsup:

But yet again I ask my self; if Scripture and the Confessions are so clear, they why do these issues always turn into such a cluster fudge?:confused:

Mark

[RadMan]

I've been busy all day and will read what has been written here tomorrow, From what I've seen previously and I'm not totally sure is that the Handbook has been revised in the last few years largely in favor of the polity. The Handbook is, or can be, revised in constitutional amendments. I'll have to read up on it.

[BigNorsk]

Again TC is a font of infinite knowledge! Thanks everyone.:thumbsup:

So... a SP and/or DP is a Bishop, excepth when he isn't a Bishop?

That sound about right?:scratch:

Or... a SP and/or DP is a Bishop when they want to be, but not when they don't?:scratch:

Apart from the Bible and the BOC which are themselves clear and concise it appears that our constitutions in the interest of clarity, are rather ambiguous depending on where you are reading, and how you are interpereting.:confused:

A pretty good summary.

You forgot the other side, the SP and DP's are Bishops and responsible for discipline if there is someone you disagree with, but are not, if they discipline someone you like. Then they are power hungry manipulators of the system.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

I agree 100%. :thumbsup:

But yet again I ask my self; if Scripture and the Confessions are so clear, they why do these issues always turn into such a cluster fudge?:confused:

Mark

Well I'm still working on the scripture but you know what's really kind of a shame? The clearest, easiest to read and understand Augsburg Confession is the Variata.

When Melanchthon wasn't trying to keep out of getting executed he wrote clearer than when his desire was to avoid execution. I don't know where it became the folk legend that the Augsburg Confession was some perfect exposition of exactly what the reformers wanted to say. Melanchthon gave up much, matter of fact, Luther said he gave up too much, quit and come home, and then Melanchthon gave up a bit more and that's the Augsburg Confession.

One guy that was probably responsible for saving everyone at Augsburg doesn't get any credit. Zwingli gave about the most miserable excuse for a confession you ever saw, even the other reformed people there diavowed it. After listening to that, the Lutherans probably sounded like the fountain of truth and wisdom.

I read that and the thing I can't get out of my head is how very many people there are who follow that guy.

At least the Tetrapolitan Confession of Bucer, Hedio and Capito doesn't sound like they were on a week long drunk. If you cut out a couple of sections like the Lord's Supper, it could be Lutheran. After reading Zwingli's confession, I'm surprised Luther even met with him.

History is really a twisted thing.

Marv

[RadMan]

Just a quick check of the 2001 Handbook. This preliminary check shows that the synod is not considered as an ecclesiastical governing body.

Handbook 2001

Duties of the President
1. The President has the supervision regarding the doctrine and
the administration of
a. All officers of the Synod;
b. All such as are employed by the Synod;
c. The individual Districts of the Synod;
d. All District Presidents.

Article VII Relation of the Synod to Its Members
*[1.] In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical
government exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with
respect to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but
an advisory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything
upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is not in
accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far
as the condition of a congregation is concerned.

3.101 Powers and Duties
A. Ecclesiastical
The President shall
1. supervise the doctrine taught and practiced in the Synod, including
all synodwide corporate entities. In the Districts of the Synod, he
shall carry out his ecclesiastical duties through the District’s President.
The President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all officers
of the Synod and its agencies, the individual Districts of the Synod, and
all District Presidents;

[MarkRohfrietsch]

A pretty good summary.

You forgot the other side, the SP and DP's are Bishops and responsible for discipline if there is someone you disagree with, but are not, if they discipline someone you like. Then they are power hungry manipulators of the system.

Marv

Marv, you and I could have written the hand-book, and look at the paper we would have saved!^_^:D

[RadMan]

Article VII is still in the 2007 Handbook

Article VII Relation of the Synod to Its Members
1. In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical government
exercising legislative or coercive powers, and with respect
to the individual congregation’s right of self-government it is but an
advisory body. Accordingly, no resolution of the Synod imposing anything
upon the individual congregation is of binding force if it is not
in accordance with the Word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient
as far as the condition of a congregation is concerned

I think the confusion comes in synod's explanation of "ecclesiastical supervision" They state that they have supervision over the synod all the way to the district presidents and employees. Some ordained ministers in the synod that are not called to a church are just employees of the synod like any other employee. So I guess they have there own little "church" within the synod since they have no ecclesiastical power over the congregations. Within their "church" they then can call themselves anything they want. Like bishop. Not our bishop but a synod bishop. That's why Benke is calling himself bishop, I guess.

DaRev I notice your focus is always on errant congregations and that the synod should have more "control" over them. You seem to think that synod's problem comes more from the congregation. Since the pastor is part of the congregation are you saying it's just the laymen that are the problem or are you including the pastor since he is part of the congregation?

[BigNorsk]

But that's confusing. For instance concerning ministers is obvious under the District Presidents that the DPs do indeed have ecclesiatical supervisionary duties. Interestingly, the President is not said to have those responsibilities concerning ministers. His is on synod positions.

And then while they don't have ecclesiatical powers over the congregations, the Handbooks also says that congregations can be removed for persistent disagreement.

I felt kind of sorry for the President when reading it. The Handbook gives an out to any congregation that doesn't want to follow a synod resolution because they can simply say in their local situation it is not expedient, I think was the word, to do so. While the President has as his responsibility they implementation of any synod resolutions.

I can see why there is conflict. The guy has a position with responsibilities, and the synod has things set up where he has little power to do so. I think it would be easier to have meetings and socialize and drink coffee and have some cookies.

If he doesn't implement resolutions, he isn't doing his job, if he tries he's open to being complained about trying to set himself up with power he really isn't given. No wonder the synod has so many long standing fights. There really isn't a way to resolve them if people don't want to resolve them.

I don't think our synod really has any way to do that either. But personal relationships tend to fix a lot of things in a small synod. As one grows and has diversity, that style of working tends to break down. Looks to me the LCMS tried to retain that with the DPs like the mega congregation that tries to get everyone in a smaller group.

I guess it's like any other "law enforcement" we want the law to come down hard on all those criminals but we want to be left alone to do a little speeding and illegal parking and whatever else because we of course are good people and so anything law enforcement does with us is just a waste of time.

And all law enforcement that has to get elected has a problem, will the criminals vote for you if you arrest them? Usually not. And there is a very human tendency in law enforecement to overlook your friends and relatives and those in positions of power when they break the law.

All we have to do is get rid of people and this would all be so easy.

Marv

[RadMan]

It's all checks and balances. Sometime the balance goes too far in one direction. Having a synod and then autonomous congregations is actually like having negotiations between 2 separate factions where one can't have too much sway over the other. In theory it sounds good but in reality the synod is on a power play to shift the balance in their favor. For instance a local congregation cannot "fire" a pastor without synod "ok" now. In the past it was totally up to the congregation. As I said in theory it sounds good and it may seem to be a good idea since, like DaRev said, some congregations have gone so far off the beaten confessional past.

Then on the other hand it could benefit synod to "force" their agenda on the congregation . Especially if the synod has liberal leanings. Notice that Jesus First and Daystar were instrumental in getting Kieshnick elected. Even though Kieshnick says he is confessional Lutheran then why does he allow the liberals to have headquarters in his home church's office complex and why support Ablaze and PLI and......etc etc.?

I am curious about this statement. Maybe I missed it in reading the Handbook. Where does it say that the DP has ecclesiastical supervision over a minister in a congregation?

For instance concerning ministers is obvious under the District Presidents that the DPs do indeed have ecclesiatical supervisionary duties.

[BigNorsk]

Article XII Districts of the Synod and Their Regulation

7. 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 counselors, who therefore
shall regularly make their reports to the district president.
8. District presidents are empowered to suspend from membership
ordained and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to
false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in accordance
with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the
Synod.
17

Reads to me like ecclesiatical authority over the ministers.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

From the by-laws. 2.14.1


(b) The action to commence expulsion of a congregation or individual
from membership in the Synod is the sole responsibility of the district
president who has the responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision of
such member. This Bylaw section 2.14, among others, provides the
procedures to carry out Article XIII of the Constitution, “Expulsion
from the Synod.” However, it does not provide the procedure for the
expulsion of the district presidents and the officers of the Synod
(Bylaw section 2.15), the President of the Synod (Bylaw section 2.16),
or individual members in cases involving sexual misconduct or criminal behavior (Bylaw section 2.17).


Sounds like DP has ecclesiatical supervisory duties over both ministers, and congregtions.

Marv

[DaRev]

DaRev I notice your focus is always on errant congregations and that the synod should have more "control" over them. You seem to think that synod's problem comes more from the congregation. Since the pastor is part of the congregation are you saying it's just the laymen that are the problem or are you including the pastor since he is part of the congregation?

Both. There are instances where the congregation is errant because the pastor has taught or practiced errantly. There are situations where congregations are errant because they have decided they "know better" than the pastor and act according to their own whims instead of what the pastor preaches and practices. There are also situations where a previous pastor has taught and practiced errantly and a new pastor comes along and tries to teach and practice according to Scripture and Confessions, but the congregation resists because "they've never done it that way before."
There are a plethora of scenarios, but the synod lacks the ability to maintain "good order" and fellowship within the synod membership. This is why we have such extreme examples within the synod.

[RadMan]

Article XII Districts of the Synod and Their Regulation

7. 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 counselors, who therefore
shall regularly make their reports to the district president.
8. District presidents are empowered to suspend from membership
ordained and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to
false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in accordance
with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the
Synod.
17

Reads to me like ecclesiatical authority over the ministers.

Marv
That's sound more administrative than ecclesiastical since it doesn't say ecclestical. DP's have to support the CCM's decision of theological matters and then enforce them but only on an administrative stance. The CCM is supposed to interpret Lutheran theology and past down an interpretation like the Supreme Court was "supposed" to function as. Now CCM has taken on the same mantel as the SC and not only interprets but enforces it.

[DaRev]

The CCM is supposed to interpret Lutheran theology and past down an interpretation like the Supreme Court was "supposed" to function as. Now CCM has taken on the same mantel as the SC and not only interprets but enforces it.

The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) doesn't deal with theology. That's handled by the Commission of Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) who do make 'opinions' and hand them down. The CCM deals with applying the constitution and bylaws of the synod. They are supposed to be the explanitory body that rules on certain subjects by applying the constitution and bylaws. What they say is deemed the official position of the synod on whatever matter is being ruled upon.

The problem is that such an important body with such a definitive task should by all means be elected by the synod in convention, instead of appointed by the SP in office. This is where much of the trouble currently facing the synod resides. An SP with an agenda can sway what the CCM rules upon, which becomes "law" within the synod. There doesn't seem to be any checks and balances in place at all. Perhaps the task force on synodical structure and governance will come up with a viable solution (but I ain't holding my breath!).

[RadMan]

The Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) doesn't deal with theology. That's handled by the Commission of Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) who do make 'opinions' and hand them down. The CCM deals with applying the constitution and bylaws of the synod. They are supposed to be the explanitory body that rules on certain subjects by applying the constitution and bylaws. What they say is deemed the official position of the synod on whatever matter is being ruled upon.

.For some reason I always get those 2 mixed up.

Apparently Kieshnick thinks that the pastors are under direct ecclesiastical supervision of the synod and deals with the errant clergy.

June 26, 2006


"Kieschnick, Ohio, California, BOD Election Fraud, Balfour for President"


LCMS President Kieschnick to Ohio District Convention:

In discussion in response to a query at the Ohio District Convention about
possibly revisiting the '04 Synod Convention (and CTCR) position on the role
of women in the church, President Kieschnick made this pronouncement:

"You are free to disagree, everyone is free to disagree, but let me say
this: You, pastors, are NOT free to publicly teach or preach that Synod is
wrong on ANY given issue. I'll say it again, you are NOT free to teach in a
bible class or preach from the pulpit that Synod is wrong on any issue."

[DaRev]

For some reason I always get those 2 mixed up.

Apparently Kieshnick thinks that the pastors are under direct ecclesiastical supervision of the synod and deals with the errant clergy.

June 26, 2006


"Kieschnick, Ohio, California, BOD Election Fraud, Balfour for President"


LCMS President Kieschnick to Ohio District Convention:

In discussion in response to a query at the Ohio District Convention about
possibly revisiting the '04 Synod Convention (and CTCR) position on the role
of women in the church, President Kieschnick made this pronouncement:

"You are free to disagree, everyone is free to disagree, but let me say
this: You, pastors, are NOT free to publicly teach or preach that Synod is
wrong on ANY given issue. I'll say it again, you are NOT free to teach in a
bible class or preach from the pulpit that Synod is wrong on any issue."

I'd like to see someone try and stop me, especially when I have the Scriptures and Confessions on my side.

[seajoy]

I'd like to see someone try and stop me, especially when I have the Scriptures and Confessions on my side.
Indeed!

[seajoy]

President Kieschnick made this pronouncement:

"You are free to disagree, everyone is free to disagree, but let me say
this: You, pastors, are NOT free to publicly teach or preach that Synod is
wrong on ANY given issue. I'll say it again, you are NOT free to teach in a
bible class or preach from the pulpit that Synod is wrong on any issue."
Wow Rad, interesting stuff. :eek:

[BigNorsk]

I beleive that is probably a paraphrase of this:


1.6 Confessional Position of the Synod

1.6.1 The confessional position of the Synod is set forth in Article II of its
Constitution, to which all who wish to be and remain members of the
Synod shall subscribe.

Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements

1.6.2 The Synod, in seeking to clarify its witness or to settle doctrinal controversy,
so that all who seek to participate in the relationships that
exist within and through the Synod may benefit and may act to benefit
others, shall have the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions and statements
which are in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions.
(a) Doctrinal resolutions may be adopted for the information, counsel,
and guidance of the membership. They shall conform to the confessional
position of the Synod as set forth in Article II of its
Constitution and shall ordinarily cite the pertinent passages of the
Scriptures, the Lutheran Confessions, and any previously adopted
official doctrinal statements and resolutions of the Synod. Such resolutions
come into being in the same manner as any other resolutions
of a convention of the Synod and are to be honored and upheld until
such time as the Synod amends or repeals them.
(b) Doctrinal statements set forth in greater detail the position of the
Synod especially in controverted matters. A proposed statement or a
proposal for the development of such a statement shall be
(1) submitted by the Commission on Theology and Church
Relations or submitted to the Commission on Theology and
Church Relations by a convention of the Synod (including that of
a district), a faculty of the Synod, or an official district conference
of ordained and/or commissioned ministers for evaluation, refinement,
development, or recommendation, as the case may be;
(2) submitted by the commission, if it acts favorably, to the colleges,
universities, seminaries, congregations, and other members
of the Synod for study and suggestions for no more than one year
(failure by the commission to submit a proposed doctrinal statement
within a year may be appealed to the Synod in convention
through a proper overture);
(3) refined further by the commission on the basis of suggestions
received;
(4) submitted by the commission to the Synod in convention for
further consideration and possible adoption by majority vote;
amendments shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote of those
present and voting;
(5) resubmitted to the congregations for ratification in its final
existing form;
(6) ratified and operative if a two-thirds majority of the member
congregations which respond within six months registers an affirmative
vote on a ballot supplied by the Secretary of the Synod for
that purpose. Failure to ratify makes the statement inoperative,
and this fact shall be reported by the Secretary to the members of
the Synod through an announcement in an official periodical;
(7) Such adopted and ratified doctrinal statements shall be
regarded as the position of the Synod and shall be “accepted and
used as helpful expositions and explanations” (FC SD Rules and
Norm 10). They shall be honored and upheld (“to abide by, act, and
teach in accordance with” [1971 Res. 2-21]) until such time as the
Synod amends or repeals them;
(8) An overture to amend such an adopted ratified doctrinal statement
shall follow the same procedure as listed in (1–6) above;
(9) An overture to repeal such an adopted and ratified doctrinal
statement shall require a majority vote of the Synod in convention
in answer to an overture properly submitted and be subject to the
procedure of congregational approval set forth in paragraph (6)
above;
(10) In the interim, those who submit overtures to amend or to
repeal shall, while retaining their right to dissent, continue to
honor and uphold publicly the statement as the position of the
Synod, notwithstanding further study and action by the Synod in
convention


You could pretty well just read that last clause, while retaining your right to dissent, you shall honor and publically uphold the statement.

Seems pretty clear that according to the Constitution of the synod, you do not have the right to publically dispute or teach contrary to a synodical doctrinal resolution.

I would have thought you agreed to be bound by that when you joined.

Marv

[RadMan]

I beleive that is probably a paraphrase of this:



You could pretty well just read that last clause, while retaining your right to dissent, you shall honor and publically uphold the statement.

Seems pretty clear that according to the Constitution of the synod, you do not have the right to publically dispute or teach contrary to a synodical doctrinal resolution.

I would have thought you agreed to be bound by that when you joined.

Marv
I was born Lutheran and didn't agree to anything except my confirmation vows. If I agreeded then I don't remember. That was 50+ years ago.

Besides that the polity and Constitution has changed since I was a kid. Synodical doctrines can change over years to and be wrong. Errant changes does not justify someones allegiance or not being able to dissent.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I beleive that is probably a paraphrase of this:



You could pretty well just read that last clause, while retaining your right to dissent, you shall honor and publically uphold the statement.

Seems pretty clear that according to the Constitution of the synod, you do not have the right to publically dispute or teach contrary to a synodical doctrinal resolution.

I would have thought you agreed to be bound by that when you joined.

Marv

The last clause is wise and good, and certainly promotes order, but we must also remember that Martin Luther probably would have taken issue with such a clause. If, as Da Rev stated something goes against Scripture, I think one is obligated to hold the Lord and His word over and above Synod. Every time.

Mark

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I was born Lutheran and didn't agree to anything except my confirmation vows. If I agreeded then I don't remember.

Did you ever sign the Churches Constitution when you became a voting member??????? I did.

I was 16, they elected me to the Cemetery Committee, and then realized I was not a voting member. :confused: Two Elders escorted me up to the Vestry where I signed the Constitution.:preach: It was in an old leather bound book, and was hand written in German. I could not read it, neither could the Elders. :scratch: There was no english translation available. Years later I was involved in drafting the new constitution when we became LCC. Likewise at my present congregation I signed, then received a copy about two weeks later. Chairman jokingly said after I read it, if I don't like it I could opt out.:D

Yup, you probably signed/agreed to something you weren't even aware of. I think it's a Lutheran thing?^_^

Mark

[DaRev]

There is a major difference between the "official" doctrine and practice of the synod and what the synod currently allows. I have no problem with the current "offical" doctrinal stance of the synod, but it's apparent that the current synodical leadership does.

[RadMan]

Did you ever sign the Churches Constitution when you became a voting member??????? I did.

I was 16, they elected me to the Cemetery Committee, and then realized I was not a voting member. :confused: Two Elders escorted me up to the Vestry where I signed the Constitution. It was in an old leather bound book, and was hand written in German. I could not read it, neither could the Elders. :scratch: There was no english translation available. Years later I was involved in drafting the new constitution when we became LCC. Likewise at my present congregation I signed, then received a copy about two weeks later. Chairman jokingly said after I read it, if I don't like it I could opt out.:D

Yup, you probably signed/agreed to something you weren't even aware of. I think it's a Lutheran thing?^_^

MarkYer talking ancient history here :) No actually every Lutheran church I ever belonged to never asked me to sign the constitution. Even when I transfer to other congregations I wasn't asked.

[DaRev]

Yer talking ancient history here :) No actually every Lutheran church I ever belonged to never asked me to sign the constitution. Even when I transfer to other congregations I wasn't asked.

Our congregation requires all voter's to sign in before they can vote. If they are not present for two consecutive Voter's meetings, their names are removed, and then they are required to sign in again at the next meeting they attend. The Voter's role is taken at every Voter's meeting, and those eligible to vote (Communicant members age 18 and over) who's names are not called are asked to sign in. That way we know the number that constitutes the quorum and what number constitutes a clear majority.