Is the President of the LCMS a Bishop?

BigNorsk · #1 18th February 2008, 12:13 AM

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 · #2 18th February 2008, 12:28 AM

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 · #3 18th February 2008, 03:08 AM

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 · #4 18th February 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by 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

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

filosofer · #5 18th February 2008, 10:00 AM

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

BigNorsk · #6 18th February 2008, 10:12 AM

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 · #7 18th February 2008, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by BigNorsk

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 · #8 18th February 2008, 10:27 AM

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 · #9 18th February 2008, 10:56 AM

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 · #10 18th February 2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by MarkRohfrietsch

Is this LCMS?

Mark

Yeppers link for 2007 handbook: http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/...07Handbook.pdf

Marv