Is the President of the LCMS a Bishop?

[RadMan]

Article VII is still in the 2007 Handbook

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

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

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

 

[BigNorsk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marv

 

[RadMan]

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

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

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

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

 

[BigNorsk]

Article XII Districts of the Synod and Their Regulation

7. The district presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision
over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the
ordained and commissioned ministers of their district and acquaint
themselves with the religious conditions of the congregations of
their district. To this end they shall visit and, according as they
deem it necessary, hold investigations in the congregations. Their
assistants in this work are the circuit counselors, who therefore
shall regularly make their reports to the district president.
8. District presidents are empowered to suspend from membership
ordained and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to
false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in accordance
with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the
Synod.​

17

Reads to me like ecclesiatical authority over the ministers.

Marv

 

[BigNorsk]

From the by-laws. 2.14.1

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

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

Marv​

​

 

[DaRev]

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

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

 

[RadMan]

Article XII Districts of the Synod and Their Regulation

7. The district presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision
over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the
ordained and commissioned ministers of their district and acquaint
themselves with the religious conditions of the congregations of
their district. To this end they shall visit and, according as they
deem it necessary, hold investigations in the congregations. Their
assistants in this work are the circuit counselors, who therefore
shall regularly make their reports to the district president.
8. District presidents are empowered to suspend from membership
ordained and commissioned ministers for persistently adhering to
false doctrine or for having given offense by an ungodly life, in accordance
with such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the
Synod.​

17

Reads to me like ecclesiatical authority over the ministers.

Marv

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

 

[DaRev]

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

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

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

 

[RadMan]

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

.

For some reason I always get those 2 mixed up.

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

June 26, 2006


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


LCMS President Kieschnick to Ohio District Convention:

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

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

 

[DaRev]

For some reason I always get those 2 mixed up.

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

June 26, 2006


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


LCMS President Kieschnick to Ohio District Convention:

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

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

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

 

[seajoy]

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

Indeed!

 

[seajoy]

President Kieschnick made this pronouncement:

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

Wow Rad, interesting stuff.

 

[BigNorsk]

I beleive that is probably a paraphrase of this:

1.6 Confessional Position of the Synod

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

Doctrinal Resolutions and Statements

1.6.2 The Synod, in seeking to clarify its witness or to settle doctrinal controversy,
so that all who seek to participate in the relationships that
exist within and through the Synod may benefit and may act to benefit
others, shall have the right to adopt doctrinal resolutions and statements
which are in harmony with Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions.
(a) Doctrinal resolutions may be adopted for the information, counsel,
and guidance of the membership. They shall conform to the confessional
position of the Synod as set forth in Article II of its

​

Constitution and shall ordinarily cite the pertinent passages of the

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

repeal shall, while retaining their right to dissent, continue to

honor and uphold publicly the statement as the position of the
Synod, notwithstanding further study and action by the Synod in​

convention

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

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

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

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

Marv​

​

​

​

 

[RadMan]

I beleive that is probably a paraphrase of this:

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

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

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

Marv​

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

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

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I beleive that is probably a paraphrase of this:



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

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

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

Marv

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

Mark

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

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

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

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

Mark

 

[DaRev]

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

 

[RadMan]

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

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

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

Mark

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

 

[DaRev]

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

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