To Develop Guidelines for Ecclesiastical Supervision of Internet Accusations

Rationale The biblical and confessional theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church addresses ecclesiastical supervision clearly with a focus on Gospel-focused collegiality and accountability. A spirit of personal interaction, trust, and restoration sets the tone for ecclesiastical supervision efforts with congregations and pastors. “Spying on,” or “going after”erring constituents, and playing“gotcha”with pastors, congregations, or fellow district presidents runs counter to the clear teaching of the Scriptures and Confessions and the spirit of ecclesiastical oversight. The use of the internet to supplement visitation and oversight must be consistent with the clear doctrinal and constitutional foundations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. A. Constitution Article XII 7 assigns the responsibility of ecclesiastical supervision of congregations and church workers to district presidents as follows: “The district presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained and commissioned ministers of their district and acquaint themselves with the religious conditions of the congregations of their district. To this end they shall visit and, according as they deem it necessary, hold investigations in the congregations. Their assistants in this work are the circuit visitors, who therefore shall regularly make their reports to the district president.” B. Bylaw 1.2.1 (j) defines ecclesiastical supervision as follows: “The responsibility, primarily of the President of the Synod and district presidents, to supervise on behalf of the Synod the doctrine, life, and administration of its members, officers, and agencies. Such supervision, subject to the provisions of the Synod’s Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions, includes visitation, evangelical encouragement and support, care, protection, counsel, advice, admonition, and, when necessary, appropriate disciplinary measures to assure that the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod are followed and implemented. Thus, ecclesiastical supervision is also the presenting, interpreting, and applying of the collective will of the Synod’s congregations. Ecclesiastical supervision does not include the responsibility to observe, monitor, control, or direct the day-to-day activities of individual members of the Synod, whether in the conduct of their work or in their private lives (cf. Bylaw 2.14.1 [a]). Further, those constitutional articles and bylaws pertaining to ecclesiastical supervision shall determine the full definition of ecclesiastical supervision.” C. Additionally, the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) noted complications in dealing with supervision issues in an internet age, noting in its 2006 report, Public Rebuke of Public Sin (adopted May 2006, pp. 22–23): “As we reflect on the meaning of the term “public” in this present context in which we in the LCMS find ourselves, we would do well to keep in mind the situation in the earlier years of our Synod. We may note, for example, that the polity of the LCMS makes all of its members—pastors and congregations—accountable to each other for their lives and teaching. When that polity was adopted in the nineteenth century, communication was such that pastors and congregations that were not in close geographic proximity would know very little about each other. Only the most serious cases would be found worthy of being reported to synodical leadership, and only a very few would ever have been considered by the Synod as a whole. Today that is simply not the case. No deliberation at the local level is needed, when anyone can send an e-mail or post a rebuke on their Web site in response to a real or perceived sin. This situation creates some profound difficulties—not the least of which is that there is nothing in Scripture or the Confessions that justifies a public rebuke made unilaterally in the absence of conversation with others who are aware of the public sin (cf. Acts 18:24–26). In the case of Paul rebuking Peter, Paul was in conversation with the church in Antioch. Luther, too, could and did enlist the help and support of others who recognized that the message of the Gospel had been obscured by the papacy. “Even if consultation should take place, however, modern methods of communication have added another layer of complexity to the problem. Not only is it possible, but it is likely that a public rebuke will receive a wider audience than the public sin that elicited it. In other words, the rebuke has the side effect of publicizing the sin more widely, of making it known to an audience that had no prior knowledge of it. We must recognize that the number of people directly affected by a public sin might be limited. Although all members of the Synod are accountable to each other, in most cases it will only be necessary to deal with public sin at the local level. Publicity beyond that level may serve to scandalize more than to instruct. This observation should lead to a careful consideration of the audience for a public rebuke. It is neither necessary nor beneficial to involve all members of the Synod in every case of public sin. Those who would undertake a rebuke should take great care, therefore, in choosing their medium of communication and in determining their audience.” D. Furthermore, this same CTCR document cites the Confessions in emphasizing the need for Christian charity in addressing wrongdoing that becomes known by others: “In the matter of ‘public sin’ it is also important to recognize that traditionally theologians have distinguished between sins committed willfully and those committed out of ignorance. This distinction is maintained, for example, in the Preface to The Book of Concord. ‘In regard to the condemnations, criticisms, and rejections of false, impure teaching (particularly in the article concerning the Lord’s Supper), which had to be expressly and distinctly set forth in this explanation and thorough settlement of the disputed articles so that all would be able to protect themselves from them, and which can in no way be avoided for many other reasons: it is likewise not our will or intention there by to mean persons who err naively and do not blaspheme the truth of the divine Word, much less whole churches, inside the Holy Empire of the German nation or out. Instead, it is our will and intention there by to condemn only the false and seductive teachings and the stiff-necked teachers and blasphemers of the same.’ (20) “The confessors’ approach here would seem to imply that not every expression of false belief is automatically a candidate for public rebuke. Repeated expressions of false belief would certainly qualify as sin that would warrant public rebuke. But in cases of human weakness and ignorance, Christian charity would require private and personal discussion rather than public rebuke. The same point could be made concerning sins of personal conduct, errors in pastoral judgment, and whatever else might broadly be considered sin. Public rebuke should never be the first response in a situation where the one rebuked has no history of erroneous belief or behavior, and has not persisted in the sin. When sin has been committed there is the need for confession and repentance, and the pronouncement of absolution.” (ibid., 25) E. Notably, the Scriptures note that God’s people need to be slow to call attention to the sins of others and that ministers of the Gospel need to exhibit humility instead of arrogance: “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matt. 7:3–5). “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain” (Titus 1:7). F. Also notably, the Confessions provide guidance regarding the active search for sinful situations: “As for the enumeration of sins in confession, we have said earlier (6– 8) that we do not believe that it is necessary by divine right. When someone objects that a judge must hear a case before pronouncing sentence, that is irrelevant because the ministry of absolution is in the area of blessing or grace, not of judgment or law. The ministers of the church, therefore, have the command to forgive sins; they do not have the command to investigate secret sins. In addition, they absolve us of those which we do not remember; therefore absolution, which is the voice of the Gospel forgiving sins and consoling consciences, does not need an investigation.” (Ap XII [ed. Tappert], 102–105) G. Finally, in his book “Pastoral Theology”, Rev. John H.C. Fritz reinforces the proper approach to hearing confession rather than searching for outstanding sins: “It is self-evident that a pastor should not use the opportunity afforded him by Communion registration to search out secret sins or family affairs or in any way to encourage gossiping and tattling.” (John H.C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology [St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1932], 133) “Says Luther, ‘If anyone comes to confession who is under suspicion, I must diligently inquire into the circumstances. If the person denies that he is guilty, I must be satisfied to believe him rather than my own conjecture in the matter’” (ibid., 133–34). Therefore be it

Resolved, That the Synod give thanks to God for the wisdom written down in Scripture, the Confessions, and elsewhere in dealing with our fellow believers when one believes that another has sinned; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod develop guidelines for ecclesiastical supervision when the internet has been used by one party to accuse another of sin; and be it further

Resolved, That such guidelines would, at minimum, address: to district presidents in their respective districts that no worker or lay person should usurp, but rather give aid to the district president in his supervision responsibilities. 2. That ecclesiastical supervision “includes visitation, evangelical encouragement, and support, care, protection, counsel, advice, admonition, and when necessary appropriate disciplinary measures,” and does not include seeking out wrongdoing, namely, “the responsibility to observe, monitor, control, or direct the day-to-day activities of individual members of the Synod, whether in the conduct of their work or in their private lives,” (Bylaw 1.2.1 [j]) by electronic or other means. wrongdoing on the internet or otherwise based on online discoveries, “not the least of which is that there is nothing in Scripture or the Confessions that justifies a public rebuke made unilaterally in the absence of conversation with others who are aware of the public sin.” (LCMS CTCR, Public Rebuke of Public Sin [adopted 2006], 22) 4. “That Christian charity would require private and personal discussion rather than public rebuke for wrongdoing or misunderstandings discovered online.” (ibid., 25) 5. That “the ministers of the Church, therefore have the command to forgive sins; they do not have the command to investigate secret sins.” (Ap XII [ed. Tappert], 104) person discovering such wrongdoing needs to follow scriptural and confessional principles regarding the offense, starting with Matthew 18. If need be, the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisor should be notified for appropriate action.

and be it finally

Resolved, That such guidelines be produced in consultation with the Councilof Presidents by the2029Synod convention sothat they may be reported upon at that meeting.