serving Communion... Can we go over this again please?

[Studeclunker]

I have a wee problem and would appreciate the LCMS pastors take on this.


This past Sunday I recieved Communion from a Lay-Pastor. He wasn't ordained and yet is still referred to with the title of Revrand. I'm confused. As far as my knowledge goes, only an ordained pastor should serve Communion. It's completely improper for a layman of any kind to preside over the distribution of the elements.

The man was listed on the bulletin as Rev. such and such and so I thought he must be ordained. WRONG!! Not being sure, I asked him after service. It really upset me when he said, quite blithely as a matter of fact, that he wasn't. He didn't even have a problem, as a layman, serving communion. I felt decieved and frankly... betrayed. At an ELCA church I would expect this kind of thing. Never at an LCMS.

[ctay]

Sounds like a church I know

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Did he also celebrate the Service of the Sacrament, or was he assisting the Pastor with the distribution?

[seajoy]

Did he also celebrate the Service of the Sacrament, or was he assisting the Pastor with the distribution?
Hmmm, Stude said "preside over". It sounds like this person did the Service of Communion. Our elders assist with the Lord's Supper at times (we have 2 pastors, so that doesn't happen very often), but I've never seen one do the institution. Ours is a WELS church.

[DaRev]

I have a wee problem and would appreciate the LCMS pastors take on this.


This past Sunday I recieved Communion from a Lay-Pastor. He wasn't ordained and yet is still referred to with the title of Revrand. I'm confused. As far as my knowledge goes, only an ordained pastor should serve Communion. It's completely improper for a layman of any kind to preside over the distribution of the elements.

The man was listed on the bulletin as Rev. such and such and so I thought he must be ordained. WRONG!! Not being sure, I asked him after service. It really upset me when he said, quite blithely as a matter of fact, that he wasn't. He didn't even have a problem, as a layman, serving communion. I felt decieved and frankly... betrayed. At an ELCA church I would expect this kind of thing. Never at an LCMS.

If he is a "DELTO" (now called SMPP) student serving at that church, he would be able to administer the Sacrament. Personally, I have a REAL problem with this whole program. It contradicts the Confessions.

And he most certainly should NOT use the title "Reverand" if he is not properly called AND ordained.

[RadMan]

I've had trouble with "sacraments" part of it also. If the church calls a pastor and passes the Keys then it would seem that the pastor has the only right to give communion. But Luther also mentions that if there is no ordained pastor available that a called person from the congregation can perform the sacraments. This seems to be upheld by comments from the BOC that the sacraments are valid no matter what the beliefs or sinful nature of the administrator is. I haven't reviewed the references in the BOC or Luther's Works for this yet so my memory might be faulty.

[Studeclunker]

This fellow has been filling in for the pastor. He presides over the entire service. The elders consistantly assist during communion in this congregation, which I have no problem with, as long as the pastor presides. The pastor usually offers the Chalice and repeats the blessings whilst the elements of bread and the small cups of wine are offered. This 'Lay-pastor-elder' fills in for the pastor during his absence.
I thought that a congregation calling anyone in to the office of pastor (in any occasion) who's outside the LCMS roster was a serious no-no.

As to the book Of Concord, I believe you're half-right, Rad. I'll have to go over it again, but I believe that even there it designates a called and ordained pastor to preside over communion. Also, the pastor is on vacation for a few weeks. That doesn't qualify, in my humble opinion, for a 'lack of pastoral care' situation. Communion isn't that essential to the service, I mean, one can wait for a few weeks...

[maylor]

My church (WELS) has an assistant, an elder, help with the distribution. He comes first with the Body, saying something along the lines of "This is the true Body of our Lord, which is given for you, take and eat". Now, I've been a member for less than a year and I had just assumed that it was always an elder who helped with this. I was recently asked by our president to take on the financial secretary job which is a council member position. I was voted in last week, and I thought my only duty was to enter contribution amounts into the computer. Now I find out that council members are required to assist with the distribution and I've been told to assist for the month of October. I really don't think I'm qualified to help with the distribution of the Sacrament. I don't know what to do about this. I'm thinking of talking with pastor about my concerns and see what he has to say on the matter.

It sounds to me like LCMS churches do not use council members in this way.

[DaRev]

I've had trouble with "sacraments" part of it also. If the church calls a pastor and passes the Keys then it would seem that the pastor has the only right to give communion. But Luther also mentions that if there is no ordained pastor available that a called person from the congregation can perform the sacraments. This seems to be upheld by comments from the BOC that the sacraments are valid no matter what the beliefs or sinful nature of the administrator is. I haven't reviewed the references in the BOC or Luther's Works for this yet so my memory might be faulty.


I thought that a congregation calling anyone in to the office of pastor (in any occasion) who's outside the LCMS roster was a serious no-no.

As to the book Of Concord, I believe you're half-right, Rad. I'll have to go over it again, but I believe that even there it designates a called and ordained pastor to preside over communion.

From the Augustana:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order. Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.



It sounds to me like LCMS churches do not use council members in this way.

No. The LCMS usually uses Elders or Deacons for this. Council members do not assist with the pastoral functions unless they are also elders or deacons.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

My church (WELS) has an assistant, an elder, help with the distribution. He comes first with the Body, saying something along the lines of "This is the true Body of our Lord, which is given for you, take and eat". Now, I've been a member for less than a year and I had just assumed that it was always an elder who helped with this. I was recently asked by our president to take on the financial secretary job which is a council member position. I was voted in last week, and I thought my only duty was to enter contribution amounts into the computer. Now I find out that council members are required to assist with the distribution and I've been told to assist for the month of October. I really don't think I'm qualified to help with the distribution of the Sacrament. I don't know what to do about this. I'm thinking of talking with pastor about my concerns and see what he has to say on the matter.

It sounds to me like LCMS churches do not use council members in this way.

In our LCC Congregation, one of us Elders (and only and Elder) always assists. It has also been our practice that only an Elder prepares the altar for Communion. The assisting Elder kneels at the rail and is communed first by the Pastor with the chalice. The Pastor and Elder switch places, and the Elder then Communes the Pastor (with the chalice also). The Pastor distributes Christ's body, and we follow along with the tray of individual cups and announce to those who take one "take and drink, the blood of Christ". Pastor then comes along after the Elder with the chalice for those who desire it, then he dismisses the table.

Having someone who is not ordained officiate in our (and I'm sure most Congregations) Congregation would not be allowed. Period.:preach:

Mark

[RadMan]

From the Augustana:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order. Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.




No. The LCMS usually uses Elders or Deacons for this. Council members do not assist with the pastoral functions unless they are also elders or deacons.

And therein lies the crux of who is "called". Even you have said that the Elders and Deacons are "called" to assist in pastoral functions. This is beyond the Hypo-Euro explanation that only the pastor is allowed to administer the sacraments. The sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism. This was the heart of the problem of the episcope that Stephans demanded and Walther fought against. Stephans lost. So being "called" is not just a right relegated to the pastor. It also includes, in this case, the Elders and Deacons since they also hold the Keys.

Formula of Concord--Epitome
OF THE POWER AND PRIMACY OF THE POPE
Treatise Compiled by the Theologians Assembled at Smalcald, in the
Year 1537.

67] For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it
is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is
a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul
also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4, 8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he
enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such
are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church,
the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. 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.
68] Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and
not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18, 20: Where two or three are gathered together in My name, etc.
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.

[DaRev]

So, why have pastors then? I guess we're all just useless, power hungry, heretics.
What a waste of 20 grand. :doh:

[RadMan]

So, why have pastors then? I guess we're all just useless, power hungry, heretics.
What a waste of 20 grand. :doh:Oh come on. You don't give up that easily. :doh:

[Studeclunker]

um... Rad? That's not giving up, it's called biting sarcasm. {here's where an OUCH smiley would work well;)}

Therein though, lies the rub. To what purpose do we call a Pastor if not to exercise the Office Of the Keys on behalf of the congregation (Church). Yes, the Office belongs to the Church, that I've never debated. The point is; whom is to exercise it? Do we not call our Pastors to this very office? Is not the Office Of the Keys not the very essence of the Pastoral call? Are we to blithely offer communion whenever or wherever the mood strikes? How about baptism, marriage, burials, or confession (God forbid!!)? These duties have traditionally been the venue of a Pastor. Surely, he doesn't just stand in front of a congregation of a Sunday and give a nice Biblically based speech.:preach::scratch:

Also one thing I almost forgot; Ordination also assures a congregation that the individual is competant and understands the requirements of the position of 'Pastor'. That he understands the Office of the Keys and will execute it with respect and due reverance. Elsewise, what's the point of a Seminary training? Not to mention the waste of considerable resources by the Church to support said Seminary.

This is my take... my understanding on the subject. I'm not trying to pontificate, just get my... head straight on this. Sunday service really shook me up.

[ctay]

That layman at the church I had been going to, they sent a letter to the district to ask if they could hire this layman parttime. Around easter time I got chewed out by his wife for something she did. A couple of people witnessed it, said it was uncalled for and one of them said it was something this lady and the youth should have did. I've been to this church once in the past 2 months now. Really hadn't been anywhere. The church my parents go to the pastor sent a card to my parents house, she lost it but she said it said something about me coming to a new members class. I thought I just had to transfer and I grew up Lutheran. I was at this other church, the pastor of this church is interim pastor of the church I had been going to, I told him I wanted to transfer, he told me I needed to stay where I was at. I am frustrated right now.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

That layman at the church I had been going to, they sent a letter to the district to ask if they could hire this layman parttime. Around easter time I got chewed out by his wife for something she did. A couple of people witnessed it, said it was uncalled for and one of them said it was something this lady and the youth should have did. I've been to this church once in the past 2 months now. Really hadn't been anywhere. The church my parents go to the pastor sent a card to my parents house, she lost it but she said it said something about me coming to a new members class. I thought I just had to transfer and I grew up Lutheran. I was at this other church, the pastor of this church is interim pastor of the church I had been going to, I told him I wanted to transfer, he told me I needed to stay where I was at. I am frustrated right now.

I attended Church of my childhood for many years, but it was the Pastor who behaved in a non confessional, heterodox manor. He told me that if I was not happy, I should leave. I did. This was one of the darkest times in my life, but after a few years I gave Lutheranism another try, and found a Confessional Congregation much closer to home. My faith has grown on account of it, and I and those around me are much happier. Pray that God will give you guidance and direction. Remember too that it is our lot as believers to suffer for the Word, but only in this life! Blessings and prayers for you, Markhttp://www3.christianforums.com/images/smilies/crossrc.gif :crossrc:

[BigNorsk]

I believe a lot of the confusion comes from the LCMS changing it's position in the 1960's.

http://pages.prodigy.net/cnehrenz/ordinationreview.html
Lays out the differences in the historic and the positions taken in the 1960'

Mueller in his Christian Dogmatics lays out the historic position quite clearly. This is still taught of course in the seminaries, but then the graduates operate under a handbook that conflicts with it.



Since the mediate call is extended through men (the Church), we must consider also the question who the men are by whom God duly calls His ministers. The Romanists claim that only the Pope has authority to create bishops and their assistants. The Episcopalians teach that ordination by the bishop confers the highest orders. Romanizing Lutherans hold that Christian ministers owe their pastoral authority to “the estate of the ministry” (der geistliche Stand), which is self-propagating. In other cases, princes or ruling bodies in the Church have claimed the right to call and ordain ministers.
However, Holy Scripture ascribes this power to call to all true believers, since to them Christ has entrusted the Office of the Keys, Matt. 18:17; 1 Cor. 5:4, 13; 3:21. Christ’s Great Commission, Matt. 28:19, 20, was meant not only for the apostles, but for all Christians; for He states expressly: “I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” By virtue of their spiritual priesthood all believers “unto the end of the world” possess the inherent right to preach the Gospel and to administer the Sacraments. Since, then, all Christian believers are entrusted with the means of grace, it is their privilege to call pastors, or ministers, who in their name publicly apply the means of grace. Cp. Luther: “That some are chosen from the multitude is done for the reason that they, as representatives of the congregation, should administer and execute the office [ministerial office], which they all have.” (St. L., IX, 1174.)
But while the communion of all believers constitutes the Church Universal, it is not to the ecclesia universalis as such that Christ has given the power to call and ordain ministers, but rather to the local churches (ecclesiae particulares), as is clear from Matt. 18:17–20; 1 Cor. 5:13; etc. The Smalcald Articles rightly say (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, § 67–69): “Wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists.” (Cp. also Luther, St. L., XVII, 1074ff.)
Individual persons or representative bodies may duly call ministers for others, but only if they, either directly or by consent, tacito consensu, have received authority to do so from those who originally possess the right to call, principaliter et immediate, that is, from local churches.
Against the exclusive right of the local congregations to call their ministers various objections have been raised, of which we may note the following:—
Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (571). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.





Yet, while this is true, it is true also that our Confessions, in accord with Scripture, Matt. 18:17–20; 1 Cor. 5:13; Rom. 16:17; 1 Pet. 2:9, expressly teach that the Office of the Keys belongs to the whole Church and that Christian ministers therefore hold their office by virtue of their call from their churches. The Smalcald Articles say (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 67–69): “Wherever the Church is, there is the authority [command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift that in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church …. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists …. Here belong the statements of Christ which testify that the keys have been given to the Church, and not merely to certain persons, Matt. 18:20. Lastly, also the statement of Peter confirms this, 1 Pet. 2:9. These words pertain to the Church, which certainly has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood.” While, then, all Christian ministers who are duly called are “fellow-elders” (συνπρεσβύτεροι) of the blessed apostles, 2 John 1; 3 John 1; 1 Cor. 3:5—9, they are elders and bishops (ministers, pastors) not through any “apostolic succession” nor through any “self-propagation of the clerical estate,” but solely by virtue of the call which they have received from their churches. In other words, it is alone the divine call extended to them mediately through the local congregation that makes them “fellow-elders” of the apostles.
Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (574). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.





The ordination of called ministers is not a divine institution, or ordinance, but a church rite; for while it is mentioned, Acts 14:23, it is not commanded in Scripture. We therefore rightly classify ordination among the adiaphora and affirm that not the ordination, but the call makes a person a minister.



Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (574). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.






It goes without saying that also the right of ordination is originally vested in the local churches, as the Smalcald Articles declare: “Wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists.”
According to Roman Catholic doctrine only those are Christian ministers (priests) who have been ordained by bishops created by the Pope, while pastors called and ordained by Christian congregations are thieves and murderers (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, Can. 4). From the viewpoint of the Papacy this antichristian doctrine is quite intelligible; for according to papistic teaching the “sacrament” of ordination confers ex opere operato upon the ordained the Holy Spirit and impresses upon him an “indelible character” (character indelebilis), which makes him a priest for all times, even though by gross sins he should render himself unworthy of the sacred office.
But this is not all. Through the ordination the priest, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, receives also the supernatural power to transubstantiate the bread and wine in the Holy Supper into Christ’s body and blood and to offer these up as a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead (Council of Trent, De Sacram. Ord., Cans. 1–8). This is a power so great that not even the holy angels or the greatest saints are said to possess it. Indeed, this power is superior even to that of the human nature of Christ, which, as they claim, must obey the command of the priest whenever he bids it appear on earth to be sacrificed for the sins of the living and the dead. The papistic doctrine of ordination and the Mass therefore involves an unspeakable blasphemy of Christ and His holy Word.
While the Episcopalians do not acknowledge the Pope as the vicar of Christ on earth, they nevertheless teach that ordination is the only means by which the apostolic succession, and with it the true ministry, can be transmitted.
Finally also the Romanizing Lutherans, who regard the ministry as a “special spiritual estate” (ein besonderer geistlicher Stand), which is self-propagating, change the church rite of ordination into a divine institution, or ordinance. These Romanizing Lutherans emphatically deny that the Christian minister receives his office through the call of the congregation, though this doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture.

[/URL] [URL="http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47589608#_ftnref1"] (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47589608#_ftn1)Mueller, J. T. (1999, c1934). Christian dogmatics (electronic ed.) (575). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

[PreachersWife2004]

That layman at the church I had been going to, they sent a letter to the district to ask if they could hire this layman parttime. Around easter time I got chewed out by his wife for something she did. A couple of people witnessed it, said it was uncalled for and one of them said it was something this lady and the youth should have did. I've been to this church once in the past 2 months now. Really hadn't been anywhere. The church my parents go to the pastor sent a card to my parents house, she lost it but she said it said something about me coming to a new members class. I thought I just had to transfer and I grew up Lutheran. I was at this other church, the pastor of this church is interim pastor of the church I had been going to, I told him I wanted to transfer, he told me I needed to stay where I was at. I am frustrated right now.

It sounds as though it is a personality difference between you and the layman's wife. To me, that's not a good enough reason to transfer churches. Round these parts, though, people transfer from church to church like they're country clubs. We've lost a lot of our own members because they switched to the church associated with the school because three churches joined together and our members wanted to be where the young kids were. :doh:It never occurred to them what they were doing to Mt Olive's youth population. We now have exactly five kids in our church. My four and one other child whose attendance is spotty at best.

But I think really transferring churches shouldn't be done regularly. If you're moving, that's fine, if there's some heretical teachings going on then of course you should transfer but someone should be notified - in our case it would be the synodical level (WELS).

As for communion, we generally allow elders to help serve. Very rarely do we encounter a situation where we don't have a pastor to preside over communion. In our church specific, we have a retired pastor who gives Matt and I communion, and who will disperse communion if Matt is ill, but Matt still does the presiding. In some churches, the church council and the elders are synonymous. That's how it is in our church. But in my old church, it was usually the president of the congregation who was called to assist first, and then it was the principal of the school on down the line through the male teachers and THEN it would be an elder.

[RadMan]

um... Rad? That's not giving up, it's called biting sarcasm. {here's where an OUCH smiley would work well;)}

Therein though, lies the rub. To what purpose do we call a Pastor if not to exercise the Office Of the Keys on behalf of the congregation (Church). Yes, the Office belongs to the Church, that I've never debated. The point is; whom is to exercise it? Do we not call our Pastors to this very office? Is not the Office Of the Keys not the very essence of the Pastoral call? Are we to blithely offer communion whenever or wherever the mood strikes? How about baptism, marriage, burials, or confession (God forbid!!)? These duties have traditionally been the venue of a Pastor. Surely, he doesn't just stand in front of a congregation of a Sunday and give a nice Biblically based speech.:preach::scratch:

Also one thing I almost forgot; Ordination also assures a congregation that the individual is competant and understands the requirements of the position of 'Pastor'. That he understands the Office of the Keys and will execute it with respect and due reverance. Elsewise, what's the point of a Seminary training? Not to mention the waste of considerable resources by the Church to support said Seminary.

This is my take... my understanding on the subject. I'm not trying to pontificate, just get my... head straight on this. Sunday service really shook me up.The reason I bring this subject up is a warning to not regress back to the problem that was addressed with our synod with CFW Walther and what brought LCMS about. This was the problem with episcopy that Stephans brought over with the Saxon Lutherans and was very abused in Germany. It is totally what could have swayed the course of the synod in the 1800s and we would be more like the RCC or EO if it hadn't been nipped at the bud.

My reaction, as many hold in the synod, is seeing this episcopy reemerging. It might be seem as an extreme reaction but it needs to be addresses. Maybe it is a rebound action to the resolution 8-01a that synod passed at the 2004 convention which states widespread changes in the “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution,” process virtually removes the right of a congregation and pastor to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings, so that this right now rests solely at the discretion of the district presidents and the synodical president. Basicly removing the right of the "CHURCH" to judge doctrine. The church is the congregation and not synod.

This resolution makes some pastors think that they are not solely responsible to the congregation but only to the synod. Hence the regression back to a hierachy of episcopy. The PLI program makes this feasible since it promotes the pastor as the head of the congregation as a CEO and the laity are just yes-men.

I'm not trying to downgrade the pastors. Notice I didn't say the Office of the Ministry. I realize that the "call" is legitimate from God but there has to be a balance between laity and pastor with the pastor not getting an upper hand. Whether there is abuses brought on by congregations is really not the point. The point is that if we are to be the church we need to do what the Bible says about the pastoral office and have the laity more educated in the Word. Then there won't be these abuses by either the pastor or the laity.

Pastors are obviously more educated in theology and need to pass this down to the laity to be able to judge doctrine. I just see that is hasn't happened much in the last century. The pastors have gone along with synod in certain aspects because it gives them more of the feeling of being in control. Look at any convention, conference or circuits and you will see pastors and synod members hob-knobing with each other like they are the ones that should have the total say so in church polity. I'm not saying this happens all the time but the "good ol boy" syndrome is very prevalent. Many of the laity convention delegates have been swayed because they haven't been taught except by only what the pastors views are. That can be one sided with an agenda.

[ctay]

It sounds as though it is a personality difference between you and the layman's wife. To me, that's not a good enough reason to transfer churches. Round these parts, though, people transfer from church to church like they're country clubs. We've lost a lot of our own members because they switched to the church associated with the school because three churches joined together and our members wanted to be where the young kids were. :doh:It never occurred to them what they were doing to Mt Olive's youth population. We now have exactly five kids in our church. My four and one other child whose attendance is spotty at best.

But I think really transferring churches shouldn't be done regularly. If you're moving, that's fine, if there's some heretical teachings going on then of course you should transfer but someone should be notified - in our case it would be the synodical level (WELS).

As for communion, we generally allow elders to help serve. Very rarely do we encounter a situation where we don't have a pastor to preside over communion. In our church specific, we have a retired pastor who gives Matt and I communion, and who will disperse communion if Matt is ill, but Matt still does the presiding. In some churches, the church council and the elders are synonymous. That's how it is in our church. But in my old church, it was usually the president of the congregation who was called to assist first, and then it was the principal of the school on down the line through the male teachers and THEN it would be an elder.

There's a clique in the church and either you fit in or you don't. Its a small church. There has been other stuff that's happened in the past year to me, its just not the one thing with her. Other people left too cause of the clique and things that happened to them. Before the pastor left average attendance was between 100 to 125, now they are lucky if they have 50 there on a sunday. Visitors come maybe once or twice, then they don't come back. I could post everything on here but it would take to long

[PreachersWife2004]

There's a clique in the church and either you fit in or you don't. Its a small church. There has been other stuff that's happened in the past year to me, its just not the one thing with her. Other people left too cause of the clique and things that happened to them. Before the pastor left average attendance was between 100 to 125, now they are lucky if they have 50 there on a sunday. Visitors come maybe once or twice, then they don't come back. I could post everything on here but it would take to long

I seem to recall that you've mentioned some of the difficulties you've been having at this church. Who is that told you you had to stay put, the pastor at your parents' church or the layguy at your own?

At this point in time, I guess I would just start going to another church and not bother with transferring your "membership". No pastor in his right mind is going to tell you not to come to church there, and if one does he's obviously wrong.

[DaRev]

The reason I bring this subject up is a warning to not regress back to the problem that was addressed with our synod with CFW Walther and what brought LCMS about. This was the problem with episcopy that Stephans brought over with the Saxon Lutherans and was very abused in Germany. It is totally what could have swayed the course of the synod in the 1800s and we would be more like the RCC or EO if it hadn't been nipped at the bud.

My reaction, as many hold in the synod, is seeing this episcopy reemerging. It might be seem as an extreme reaction but it needs to be addresses. Maybe it is a rebound action to the resolution 8-01a that synod passed at the 2004 convention which states widespread changes in the “Ecclesiastical Supervision and Dispute Resolution,” process virtually removes the right of a congregation and pastor to initiate formal disciplinary proceedings, so that this right now rests solely at the discretion of the district presidents and the synodical president. Basicly removing the right of the "CHURCH" to judge doctrine. The church is the congregation and not synod.

This resolution makes some pastors think that they are not solely responsible to the congregation but only to the synod. Hence the regression back to a hierachy of episcopy. The PLI program makes this feasible since it promotes the pastor as the head of the congregation as a CEO and the laity are just yes-men.

I'm not trying to downgrade the pastors. Notice I didn't say the Office of the Ministry. I realize that the "call" is legitimate from God but there has to be a balance between laity and pastor with the pastor not getting an upper hand. Whether there is abuses brought on by congregations is really not the point. The point is that if we are to be the church we need to do what the Bible says about the pastoral office and have the laity more educated in the Word. Then there won't be these abuses by either the pastor or the laity.

Pastors are obviously more educated in theology and need to pass this down to the laity to be able to judge doctrine. I just see that is hasn't happened much in the last century. The pastors have gone along with synod in certain aspects because it gives them more of the feeling of being in control. Look at any convention, conference or circuits and you will see pastors and synod members hob-knobing with each other like they are the ones that should have the total say so in church polity. I'm not saying this happens all the time but the "good ol boy" syndrome is very prevalent. Many of the laity convention delegates have been swayed because they haven't been taught except by only what the pastors views are. That can be one sided with an agenda.

Be careful not to throw your umbrella over everyone, as you are so in the habit of doing.

You are right that many in the laity have not been properly catechized. That is a huge problem. But until such time as we can break the hold that many of them have on false doctrine, we cannot allow the pastorate to be held captive by those who want things done their way and not the way of the Scriptures and Confessions. If that were allowed then Lutheranism as we know it would have ceased to exist long ago. There needs to be some recourse in place for clergy who are held at bay by uneducated and hostile laity. Some one has to stand for orthodoxy in the Synod and in most cases it's not the laity.

A massive re-education needs to be done within the LCMS.

[RadMan]

Be careful not to throw your umbrella over everyone, as you are so in the habit of doing.

You are right that many in the laity have not been properly catechized. That is a huge problem. But until such time as we can break the hold that many of them have on false doctrine, we cannot allow the pastorate to be held captive by those who want things done their way and not the way of the Scriptures and Confessions. If that were allowed then Lutheranism as we know it would have ceased to exist long ago. There needs to be some recourse in place for clergy who are held at bay by uneducated and hostile laity. Some one has to stand for orthodoxy in the Synod and in most cases it's not the laity.

A massive re-education needs to be done within the LCMS.Actually if you look closer I use phrases like "some, many, a few, certain". These lend more to being "non inclusive".

I honestly do see the pastors predicament and it is a catch 22 in the congregation. But then the pastor falls into the trap of seeking protection from the synod and it justifies the situation as being tenable to him. As I've said before it's a rebound reaction brought on by synod's abuses and we sometimes overshot the mark with over-statements.

[ctay]

I seem to recall that you've mentioned some of the difficulties you've been having at this church. Who is that told you you had to stay put, the pastor at your parents' church or the layguy at your own?

At this point in time, I guess I would just start going to another church and not bother with transferring your "membership". No pastor in his right mind is going to tell you not to come to church there, and if one does he's obviously wrong.

The interim pastor did, he's the pastor of another LCMS church in the area, the pastor at my parents church is trying to get me to come there, only thing he sent a card to my parents house for me wanting me to come to a new member class (My mom lost the card). I don't know why I would have to go, I used to be a member there before I transfered to the other church.
Everythings that happened has been unexpected, me standing there with my mouth dropped open.

[PreachersWife2004]

The interim pastor did, he's the pastor of another LCMS church in the area, the pastor at my parents church is trying to get me to come there, only thing he sent a card to my parents house for me wanting me to come to a new member class (My mom lost the card). I don't know why I would have to go, I used to be a member there before I transfered to the other church.
Everythings that happened has been unexpected, me standing there with my mouth dropped open.

Perhaps the pastor just doesn't understand your current situation. I would call him, ASAP. The interim "pastor" has no right to tell you where you can go to church. If nothing else, were you to start going to your parents' church, you would be a member of the other church in name only.

I've put you on my prayer list. Sounds like you and your church could use them.

[Studeclunker]

The interim pastor did, he's the pastor of another LCMS church in the area, the pastor at my parents church is trying to get me to come there, only thing he sent a card to my parents house for me wanting me to come to a new member class (My mom lost the card). I don't know why I would have to go, I used to be a member there before I transfered to the other church.
Everythings that happened has been unexpected, me standing there with my mouth dropped open.

An interim pastor's job is to be a peacemaker. He needs to get the various warring camps in a congregation all on the same page, as it were, and working together. They usually try to knit the congregation back into a whole. Sadly, the only way to deal with a wayward congregation, for a member, if one isn't part of the 'good ol boy's club' is to leave. Have a talk with the pastor of the church you wish to attend, Ctay. He wants you to take the class to ensure you remember what Rad and the Revrand have been discussing here. It's highly likely that it's the congregation's policy that all new members take the class. If you can demonstrate your knowledge of scripture, doctrine, and (Lutheran) theology, he will exempt you from the class.

So what you're saying, Rad, is that the congregation in Redding is acting properly in allowing this layman to distribute and preside in the communion service?

I must admit that the episcopalian (form not denom.) system has it's advantages. Such as if a Pastor is out of line the congregation has someone to dicipline him. Yet, in the absence of an episcopy, is it not the congregation that can call a Pastor back into line? There is a serious risk, though, in our modern, ignorant, times with a liberal, ignorant, congregation. Such as the one in Redding. They seem to want to move more in a... reformed direction. ie: creative liturgy, laymen presiding over and distributing communion, etc... I have seen what this kind of liberalism can do to an LCMS congregation. They deteriorate to a 'community-type' church. All vestiges of the Lutheran service and doctrines slowly evaporate. It's very disconcerting to me, when visiting churches to find a home, to see such an attitude of indifference in the history, doctrines and theology of the Lutheran denomination. The whys and wherefores if you will. Hence, many congregations attempt to re-package our denomination to the greater population in such a way that we're beginning to evaporate the Lutheran core of our belief system.

I'm also between a rock and a hard place here. This is the only LMCS church in the area. I can't just go to another church. There isn't any. I do have the option of a WELS church in Anderson (an additional ten miles on top of a thirty-five mile commute). I however, find the WELS to be a bit too conservative for me. Also, I don't want to change denominations. Yet, I would find it much easier to live with over-conservativism than liberalism. Ah, the 'isms, they get-cha every time.:sigh:

[PreachersWife2004]

In our experience in the WELS, the synod has done a very good job of "modding" pastors and congregations. Yes, they've made some bad judgment calls, but then so have congregations. Not too long ago a congregation tried in vain for over a year to get its pastor to teach the correct doctrine. They finally had to involve the synod, and the synod had to counsel the church to rescind the pastor's call. The church then took a vote, and the majority voted to rescind. So it was still in the church's hands...but the synod needed to know that this guy wasn't preaching true doctrine.

[Studeclunker]

<snip>You are right that many in the laity have not been properly catechized. That is a huge problem. But until such time as we can break the hold that many of them have on false doctrine, we cannot allow the pastorate to be held captive by those who want things done their way and not the way of the Scriptures and Confessions. If that were allowed then Lutheranism as we know it would have ceased to exist long ago. There needs to be some recourse in place for clergy who are held at bay by uneducated and hostile laity. Some one has to stand for orthodoxy in the Synod and in most cases it's not the laity.

A massive re-education needs to be done within the LCMS.

<snip>I honestly do see the pastors predicament and it is a catch 22 in the congregation. But then the pastor falls into the trap of seeking protection from the synod and it justifies the situation as being tenable to him. As I've said before it's a rebound reaction brought on by synod's abuses and we sometimes overshot the mark with over-statements.

You know, it seems to me that there are programmes in place in the Concordia University system that provide for Elder education. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the church to provide this to their elders. These people are the leaders of the congregation and if they're ignorant, where's the leadership going to go? We have an excellent pair of seminaries and a woeful lack of education for the laity.

So, back to the original subject: Revrand, Pastors, et. all, should laymen, even Elders, preside over and serve Communion?

From what I've seen so far, the answer is a qualified yes. What say you?

[dinkime]

to me there is a difference in presiding and serving -- to me, the person who presides is the one at the altar saying the Words of communion -- that is a Pastor's job


at our church the Pastor says everything and the president of the congregation assists with the distribution (saying no words) -- the Pastor distributes the bread, then the president follows with the tray of individual cups, if you take the small cup you wait for the Pastor to step by while distributing the common cup for those who choose it...

[PreachersWife2004]

to me there is a difference in presiding and serving -- to me, the person who presides is the one at the altar saying the Words of communion -- that is a Pastor's job


at our church the Pastor says everything and the president of the congregation assists with the distribution (saying no words) -- the Pastor distributes the bread, then the president follows with the tray of individual cups, if you take the small cup you wait for the Pastor to step by while distributing the common cup for those who choose it...

:thumbsup: Yep, that's how it goes at our church, too. It really only comes into play at my old church, where there are two pastors and over 200 taking communion on any given Sunday.

[DaRev]

So, back to the original subject: Revrand, Pastors, et. all, should laymen, even Elders, preside over and serve Communion?

From what I've seen so far, the answer is a qualified yes. What say you?

I would say no. The confessions say that one should not teach in the church nor administer the sacraments unless he be rightly called. Laymen (which elders are) are not rightly called into the Office of the Public Ministry and therefore should not be presiding over the Service of the Sacrament.

Elders or Deacons (lay assistants) may assist the Pastor in the distribution. While distributing the elements of the Sacrament are indeed part of the administration of the Sacrament, it does not constitute "presiding". The authority to distribute comes from the authority given the pastor as the one who is called into that office to carry out that function. And since the distribution is a function of the pastoral office, only men should assist the pastor with the distribution.

[RadMan]

In our experience in the WELS, the synod has done a very good job of "modding" pastors and congregations. Yes, they've made some bad judgment calls, but then so have congregations. Not too long ago a congregation tried in vain for over a year to get its pastor to teach the correct doctrine. They finally had to involve the synod, and the synod had to counsel the church to rescind the pastor's call. The church then took a vote, and the majority voted to rescind. So it was still in the church's hands...but the synod needed to know that this guy wasn't preaching true doctrine.I know that is the standard procedure in WELS but is that the rule or the exception? Maybe you could ask seajoy what happened in a previous WELS congregation. Seems the the local district catered to a totally heterodox congregation and even apologized to them for interfering when they fired the pastor. Who, from heresay, was a totally confessional/conservative pastor who never violated his call.

[PreachersWife2004]

I know it happens from time to time. One of our member's son-in-law got dealt a raw deal from his district president. He and his senior pastor basically did not get along...the older guy was practically heretical in his teachings, and the congregation ended up being split between the two pastors. Rather than punishing the heretical pastor and making him quit, the district president allowed him to an early retirement while forcing "Paul" to resign. The wife of the heretical preacher made the life of Paul's wife practically unbearable. And that's just scratching the surface. One example of this church's rudeness is that they gave Paul six months to live in the parsonage, and then 30 days into the 6months told him he had a week to move, because the new pastor was coming and he needed a house. Let's see...the new pastor was a single guy coming from seminary, and Paul had a wife and three kids. Who needed the house? Anyway...

The synod, in an effort to "fix" what the DP had done, allowed Paul's CRM* status to remain intact even though he had resigned (policy usually dictates that you can't get your CRM status back for a year when you resign). That way, Paul was able to get a call quicker than he would've. In the end, Paul was glad that he wasn't forced to stay at that congregation, where the majority didn't care for him, but his family is STILL paying the financial and mental toll of that crap.

This is the exception, though. Most of the time when the synod comes to help, even at the district level, it is for the good.


*CRM status is just a pastor's ability to preach from the pulpit, and his ability to receive a call. When CRM status is revoked, a pastor cannot receive a call until it is reinstated.

[ctay]

I had a problem with the layperson, he went through the Delto program serving communion, I never went up and took it from him when its been his turn to preach. I just feel a pastor should do it.

[WildStrawberry]

I have to say that my congregation is VERY VERY lucky to have, not only our current Pastor, but also our Pastor Emeritus and a retired Pastor as part of the congregation. If Pastor F. can't be there, either Pastor Emeritus D. or Pastor R. (ret) preaches and all that's involved.

Kae

[Studeclunker]

Revrand, you mentioned that the Confessions say, "one should no teach in the church nor administer the sacraments unless he be rightly called." Which confessions are you speaking of? Is this the small confession? If so, I need to get another copy. See, the whole reason for this thread is that I wish to speak to the pastor of this congregation and ask why they are doing this.:scratch: He is the appointed shepherd. Therefore he should have an answer for me. Still, I don't want to go before this man looking like an ignorant dolt.:tutu: Very embarrasing that. :o

So, I need to find the source of the information needed to confront the situation. Which books should I request to see and or argue from? Confronting these people is going to be difficult enough let alone without the tools necessary. I suspect this fellow (that is presiding in the Pastor's absence) has impressed the congregation with his knowledge and godliness. Therefore, if I'm going to challenge him in any way I need to have my ducks all in a line. After all, I'm not yet a member of the congregation. That's the reason for this thread.

[BigNorsk]

It's in the Augsburg Confession, Stude.

See the thing is, the guy you are questioning has been called. He was called by the church. The church is the congregation in the LCMS, not the synod, or at least it's supposed to be.

There is no biblical command for a minister to have a college degree. Yet, he should be apt to teach which does certainly imply that he is not clueless but knows his doctrine. Of course one isn't expected to be perfect, seminary graduates certainly aren't, but the good ones continue to learn throughout their lives.

Anyway, the LCMS has their nonseminary route to the office of ministry. They've been revising that some and working with it.

One thing that confuses people is that the way they do it, they have the person perform in the office of public ministry for quite a long time before they undergo the rite of ordination. It seems like be a pastor for years and if you stick to it, then we will recognize you. I don't like that, it confuses people.

But there are other things. For instance, that person can only serve in the office of public ministry in that one particular situation. They are enrolled differently and so on.

It sets up a dynamic where these guys are ministers, but not real ministers.

Anyway, the fellow is called by a congregation, the congregation has not violated their agreement with the synod and so on.

On what basis would you deny him the use of a title "Reverend"? That the bishops haven't shown up and conducted the rite of ordination? The rite which is an adiaphoron that simply ratifies the call?

The call is the important thing, the rite of ordination no so. I think your difficulty in understanding is that you have somehow flipped that or at least made the rite of ordination more important than it is.

Marv

[RadMan]

LCMS link on ordination. I'm not sure if this is up to date since the Delto program seems to have gone by the wayside.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/print.asp?print=1&NavID=11593&path=%2Fpages%2Finternal.asp


Also your comment of "licensing" is interesting Marv, or is that what you were referring to?

[RadMan]

http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=m&word=MINISTERIALOFFICE

Ministerial Office. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=m&word=MINISTERIALOFFICE)
1. The office of the ministry is a divine institution. Scripture distinguishes bet. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.BET) the office of the ministry and the royal priesthood* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=p&word=PRIESTHOOD). All Christians are priests (1 Ptr 2:9; Rv 1:6), but only some hold the office of the ministry. The Bible speaks of the latter in various terms (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.EG), overseers, ministers, pastors, teachers, deacons, elders), indicating the scope of the office (Acts 20:28; 1 Co 4:1; 12:29; Eph 4:11–12; 1 Ti 3:1–2, 8–13; Tts 1:5). The office of a minister is not a continuation of the priesthood of the OT (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.OT), nor does it consist in certain rights and powers vested in the Apostles which only they and their successors could and can confer on others, nor is it conferred indelibly on any individual by ordination (see Character indelebilis (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=c&word=CHARACTERINDELEBILIS)). Christ continues His prophetic office through the work of the ministry; those who are called by Christian congs. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CONG) or groups of congs. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CONG) are Christ's undershepherds, Christ Himself being the one Lord and Master (Mt 23:8; 1 Ptr 5:4). The means of grace (see Grace, Means of (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=g&word=GRACE.MEANSOF)) were given by God to the ch. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CH) God calls certain men through his Church to administer them for the cong. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CONG), thus making them ministrantes inter Christianos (“those who minister among Christians”). The ch. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CH) has the obligation to carry out the commission of Mt 28:19–20 and may create whatever other offices are necessary.
2. Some distinguish bet. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.BET) the ministerial office in abstracto (Predigtamt; ministry) and in concreto (Pfarramt; pastorate). Some Lutherans influenced by the 17th century fathers and the pietism of Philipp Jacob Spener* (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=s&word=SPENER.PHILIPPJACOB) maintain that AC (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.AC) V speaks of the ministry in abstracto: “In order that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments was instituted.… Our churches condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that the Holy Spirit comes to men without the external Word, through their own preparations and works.” These same theologians maintain that AC (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.AC) XIV speaks of the ministerial office in concreto: “It is taught among us that nobody should publicly teach or preach or administer the sacraments in the church without a regular call.”
Luther, with Scripture, distinguishes between the priesthood of all the baptized (royal priesthood) and the ministers who, according to Matthew 28 and John 20, not seen as opposing Matthew 20, serve the Church in the Stead of Christ by His mandate for the blessing and benefit of God's people. If the ministers do not serve the Church by proclaiming the Word in purity and the Sacraments according to Christ's mandate they are to be deposed as antichrists and God's people, as priests, are given to call another minister.
3. Pastors properly called by congs. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CONG) are shepherds of their flock acc. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.ACC) to God's will (Acts 20:28; Tts 1:5).
4. God provided that His work be done through chs. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CH) (e.g. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.EG), Acts 2:41–42, 47; 20:28). The apostles were inspired; ministers are not; but the apostles made no distinction bet. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.BET) themselves and pastors as far as the work of the ministry is concerned, but spoke of pastors as having the same duties (2 Ti 2:2; 1 Ptr 5:2), the same authority (Heb 13:17), performing the same service (1 Co 3:5); and regarded them fully as their fellow ministers (1 Co 3:22; 4:1; Cl 1:7; 1 Ptr 5:l).

Comment added from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church_-_Missouri_Synod
This should clear up whether the Office of the ministry is a divine right. Ordination is seen as a public ceremony of recognition that a man has received and accepted a divine call, and hence is considered to be in the office of the ministry. The LCMS does not believe ordination is an extension of an episcopal form of apostolic succession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_succession) but sees the office grounded in the word and sacrament ministry of the Gospel, arguing that Scripture makes no distinction between a presbyter (priest) and a bishop (see Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise_on_the_Power_and_Primacy_of_the_Pope), paragraphs 63,64, citing St. Jerome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome)). The Apology of the Augsburg Confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_of_the_Augsburg_Confession) (Article XIII) explicitly grants that ordination can be considered a sacrament, only if interpreted in relation to the ministry of the Word. The Augsburg Confession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg_Confession) (Article XIV) holds that no one is to preach, teach, or administer the sacraments without a regular call.

5. Two elements have been distinguished in the call to the ministry. One is the inward conviction urging the individual to enter the ministry. The other is the call, the invitation from God through the ch. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CH) to specific pub. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.PUB) ministry in the ch. (http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/abbrev.asp?abbrev=ABBR.CH) Ordination usually follows the 1st call received and accepted.

[DaRev]

The point is that the LCMS has guidelines that member congregations are to follow. These guidelines are in conformity with the Scriptures and Confessions even though congregations sometimes operate outside of them. One thing that is required of member congregations is that their pastors be certified by the synod to be called into the pastoral office of a member congregation. A layman may be "called" by the congregation (it is their right to do that) but it is being done outside the guidelines of the synod. If a congregationdoesn't want to follow the guidelines of synod then they should leave the synod membership, or be removed by synod.

This is one of the BIG problems I have with DELTO/SMPP or whatever it's being called these days. It puts men into pastoral roles with no training or formation whatsoever. I have seen first hand what is happening in some of these congregations where men are placed as "pastors" but haven't the aptitude for the office. They are teaching false doctrines and are confusing people. It is truly a sad situation for the synod.

[Studeclunker]

Ok Rad and Marv, you have succeeded in utterly confusing me for the first time. So, a congregation has the right to call anyone they choose to perform the office of Pastor even if that individual isn't on the roster of the LCMS? Then please explain to me why the charter for Redeemer church in Michigan was revoked because they kept Rev. Cassiogne(sp?) as their Pastor? The excuse of the Synodical leadership was that they had called a Pastor that wasn't on the roster and therefore violated their charter with the LCMS.

I understand what you are trying to get across, Rad, it's just that it's inconsistant with the behaviour of the Synod. Or is that the point; that the Synodical behaviour is inconsistant?

Folks, please keep in mind that we're dealing with the LCMS solely here. Not the Lutheran church in general. Therefore, what is done in WELS, whilst helpful, is irrelevent.

[ctay]

I'm curious about if the church I've been to, I hadn't been in awhile so I don't know much was going on, last time I was there it was told that they were going to write a letter, I don't know if its to the district or the main LCMS office about hiring the layperson as pastor part time. I called this lady yesterday cause I have to get the braille stuff over to her. She said they were having a voter's meeting July 13 I think.

[RadMan]

The point is that the LCMS has guidelines that member congregations are to follow. These guidelines are in conformity with the Scriptures and Confessions even though congregations sometimes operate outside of them. One thing that is required of member congregations is that their pastors be certified by the synod to be called into the pastoral office of a member congregation. A layman may be "called" by the congregation (it is their right to do that) but it is being done outside the guidelines of the synod. If a congregationdoesn't want to follow the guidelines of synod then they should leave the synod membership, or be removed by synod.

This is one of the BIG problems I have with DELTO/SMPP or whatever it's being called these days. It puts men into pastoral roles with no training or formation whatsoever. I have seen first hand what is happening in some of these congregations where men are placed as "pastors" but haven't the aptitude for the office. They are teaching false doctrines and are confusing people. It is truly a sad situation for the synod.So you're saying that even the DELTO/SMTP program would never qualify a person for the pastoral call? That everyone that goes through these programs will be suspect in their preaching/teaching? Your site certain examples. Would you elaborate?

[ctay]

I don't think the program does

[DaRev]

Ok Rad and Marv, you have succeeded in utterly confusing me for the first time. So, a congregation has the right to call anyone they choose to perform the office of Pastor even if that individual isn't on the roster of the LCMS? Then please explain to me why the charter for Redeemer church in Michigan was revoked because they kept Rev. Cassiogne(sp?) as their Pastor? The excuse of the Synodical leadership was that they had called a Pastor that wasn't on the roster and therefore violated their charter with the LCMS.
.

A congregation has the right to call whomever they wish, but if they call someone who is not a rostered LCMS member (one who has been deemed by the Synod as qualified and fit for the office in the LCMS and certified by Synod), then the congregation is acting outside of the guidelines of the Synod and should be removed from Synod membership. The Church in Michigan was rightfully removed from Synod membership for having an unrostered pastor.

[DaRev]

So you're saying that even the DELTO/SMTP program would never qualify a person for the pastoral call? That everyone that goes through these programs will be suspect in their preaching/teaching? Your site certain examples. Would you elaborate?

He may qualify AFTER he has completed the pastoral formation (considering whether or not he is deemed fit and qualified and received certification from the Synod). It is much more advisable for a man to go to seminary and go through the regular program than for one to do "on-the-job" training. He is put into situations that he is simply unprepared and unqualified to handle. It is an unfair situation to both the congregation and to the student.

For what some of these congregations are paying for the SMPP student (salary, benefits, schooling costs, etc.) they could certainly afford to call a regular ordained pastor.

[Studeclunker]

The fellow in question is a junior Pastor. The senior Pastor is ordained and rostered (as far as I know). Also, the junior Pastor is an unpaid position, I think. At least that's what they seemed to tell me when I asked two weeks ago. They said that he is one of the elders. Nobody introduced him as Rev. Soandso, it was Elder Soandso.

Another thing that's driving me nutso about this is doubt about my own motives and prejudices. The fellow wears high collars and long sleeves because he has tatoos all over his body, including his hands. His ears have been pierced, though he does'nt wear ear-rings. I keep saying to myself, "so... he has a history... Who doesn't?" Still, I have to avoid looking at his hands as they make me shudder in revulsion when I see them.

His sermons are excellent, though he reads them. Because of this, his delivery is a bit... dry. I can't fault him on Doctrine or Theology. His comments during Sunday School, and his teaching from the pulpit are spot on and sound. He's a likeable fellow with a saucy, cheeky, personality. It's just the fact that he's not a... how do I say it? Um... I guess the lack of ordination leaves me seeing a wild card. An unpredictable element. Not that ordination seems to keep a lot of Pastors from going over the pales!

I just don't know what to do.:confused:

[RadMan]

Ok Rad and Marv, you have succeeded in utterly confusing me for the first time. So, a congregation has the right to call anyone they choose to perform the office of Pastor even if that individual isn't on the roster of the LCMS? Then please explain to me why the charter for Redeemer church in Michigan was revoked because they kept Rev. Cassiogne(sp?) as their Pastor? The excuse of the Synodical leadership was that they had called a Pastor that wasn't on the roster and therefore violated their charter with the LCMS.

I understand what you are trying to get across, Rad, it's just that it's inconsistant with the behaviour of the Synod. Or is that the point; that the Synodical behaviour is inconsistant?

Folks, please keep in mind that we're dealing with the LCMS solely here. Not the Lutheran church in general. Therefore, what is done in WELS, whilst helpful, is irrelevent.LCMS is not consistent. Example---Pastor Otten has never been rostered in the LCMS but he has been pastor of Trinity church in MO for over 40 years. Even though LCMS has tried to revoke Trinity's charter in LCMS they have been unsuccessful and not for the lack of trying.

The latest attempt was done subversively through members at our church. At the last voters meeting several members started regurgitating buzz words from LCMS ABLAZE "PR". "Church growth", "not relevant to this day and age", "archaic image in the community", "get rid of TLH hymnal", "Otten is getting too old and needs to retire" etc. Somebody from district or synod got to them. I blasted them (not going into details). Many people that were timid rallied to Otten's cause then. The initiators crawled into the woodwork and one of them never came back. That happened one month ago and I haven't heard a word about it again.

[BigNorsk]

LCMS link on ordination. I'm not sure if this is up to date since the Delto program seems to have gone by the wayside.
http://www.lcms.org/pages/print.asp?print=1&NavID=11593&path=%2Fpages%2Finternal.asp


Also your comment of "licensing" is interesting Marv, or is that what you were referring to?

Sorry Rad, I don't know which comment you mean as far as licensing.

I wasn't specifically referring to DELTO though that has been one of the versions of providing for the education of individuals called to ministry who are not seminary graduates.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

Ok Rad and Marv, you have succeeded in utterly confusing me for the first time. So, a congregation has the right to call anyone they choose to perform the office of Pastor even if that individual isn't on the roster of the LCMS? Then please explain to me why the charter for Redeemer church in Michigan was revoked because they kept Rev. Cassiogne(sp?) as their Pastor? The excuse of the Synodical leadership was that they had called a Pastor that wasn't on the roster and therefore violated their charter with the LCMS.

I understand what you are trying to get across, Rad, it's just that it's inconsistant with the behaviour of the Synod. Or is that the point; that the Synodical behaviour is inconsistant?

Folks, please keep in mind that we're dealing with the LCMS solely here. Not the Lutheran church in general. Therefore, what is done in WELS, whilst helpful, is irrelevent.

I'm not surprised Stude, because on this topic, the LCMS is very confused in general.

First what is the church? The LCMS has general held historically that the congregation and not the synod is the church.

Who extends a call? The church. So it is the congregation which can call a pastor.

What is ordiantion. Ordination is an adiaphoran rite. It is done in recognition of a call, but is not necessary for a valid call to exist. In an ideal world the churches and the ecclesia would be in harmony, but if, as happened with Catholic Bishops in Luther's time, the ecclesia withold ordination, it does not make the call invalid.

Now it gets even more confusing. It has been generally held that the church once the call is extended does not have the right to rescind the call, exept in rather limited circumstance like the pastor is living in open sin.

Is the church free to call anyone. Not quite. First there are the biblical guidelines, the called person should fall within them. Secondly there are earthly restrictions. The churches have voluntarily agreed, as a condition of membership in the LCMS to only call those people for pastor who are rostered by the synod.

This is what gets really dicey. The synods position is since the congregation has agreed to only call rostered people as pastors, if the pastor is removed from the roster, the church must rescind the call. Now in the case where the pastor was removed from the roster as a result of living in sin, there would be no real conflict. But lets say the reason for removal is not apparently sin? You get the synod demanding the church rescind the call for a situation that would generally be taught is not a reason that the church can rescind the call.

Now back to lay ministers. They are not lay ministers. They are ministers. Calling them lay ministers makes them a second class minister. They aren't, they are called by the church as a minister. They are no longer a layperson, they are a minister.

Congregations are not in violation of their agreement in calling a person if the person is a part of the education program for nonseminary route ministers.

I don't know what the real situation is concerning the specific individual. Maybe he's in the synod program, maybe he's not. And I don't think the synod generally approves of calling ministers to unpaid positions. That throws another curve ball too.

So yes, it's all rather confusing because things really don't seem to be consistent. But in any case, I think you've wrapped some things up into the rite of ordination that aren't LCMS positions on ordination. The question really isn't this man ordained but is this man regularly called. If he is regularly called, then he should be recognized through the rite of ordination but if you say he must be ordained, then you have taken the keys away from the church and given them to the ecclesia. Certainly a position of some groups but not of the LCMS.

We could speculate a lot, but I really would suggest you talk to the man and the head pastor about this. Details can be quite important and we are unlikely to get them right through speculation.

Marv

[NordicLutheran]

So, why have pastors then? I guess we're all just useless, power hungry, heretics.
What a waste of 20 grand. :doh:

20 grand....lucky. I'll have to pay that a year. Say goodbye to early retirement:wave:lol!

[BigNorsk]

I thought the 20 grand must be the fuel surcharge for visitations.

[DaRev]

20 grand....lucky. I'll have to pay that a year. Say goodbye to early retirement:wave:lol!

Well, our tuition was fully covered when I went to sem.

[Studeclunker]

Twenty grand for tuition per year?:eek: Nothing quite like shakling our pastorate with debit to guarentee poverty.:ebil: Not to mention limiting the ability for a seminary education to the wealthy.:doh:

But I digress from the original subject.

[DaRev]

Seminary tuition isn't anywhere near that much.

[Studeclunker]

Seminary tuition isn't anywhere near that much.

One hopes.

I could go further on this, but that's not the subject here... <need a smilie that has hands over mouth>;)

[Studeclunker]

It appears the fellow was enrolled in the DELTO programme. He has not, however, ever been a paid member of the staff.


I'm a little embarrased to admit I found this out several weeks ago and forgot to post it. Sorry.:sorry: