The Scripture itself lead us to hold to congregational participation in excommunication. Such was the case in I Corinthians 5. Even here, where Paul is using his apostolic authority, he still throws it to the assembly as part of the process of excommunication. It was to their collective shame that they had not already addressed the issue but embraced the man having sex with his father's wife. Jesus also brings the church in the process in Matthew 18:17 which is more than the congregations hearing and oberying the pastor.
Yes, the congregation must have a role, but it must have no power over the excommunication itself, which is a spiritual matter. Subsequently, voting to remove from membership would be proper, but we should divorce congregational decision-making from the pastor's excommunication.
I recall Rev Dr Kenneth Korby’s teaching on this subject from a class I took under him on Confession and Absolution. While Dr. Korby would agree that is the duty of the office of the holy ministry to exercise the authority of the keys in the church, this action is both a pastoral action and a congregational action. Korby advocated that all excommunications be pronounced in public before the assembled congregation (not the Voters Assembly) and with the congregation’s “Amen.” An excommunication is a temporal judgment that requires the full assent and cooperation of the congregation. Similarly,, restoration to fellowship should be made public before the whole assembly of believers and not simply a pro forma reinstatement to the roles. In this way, as in the early church in Acts, the people are taught rightly to fear the Lord and consider the consequences of their sins. Far too much of this is carried on in secret meetings behind closed doors.
To your questions, I would ask what the role of the congregation would be? I think of Revelation 2 in finding some basis that the church has some obligation, either through or despite the called and ordained shepherd there, to cast out the unrepentant sinners among them. Wouldn't it be improper for a congregation to simply tolerate unrepentant sinners among them even when the pastor has either negligently or willfully to use the Keys? Doesn't this also imply then that admittance to Holy Communion is to some extent subject to the congregation?
On the question of baptism and corporate consensus, the rite does involve the congregation, and particularly for infants, so do our rites also confuse this issue?
Isn't preaching of the Word conditional on the congregation giving a thumbs up or down since it is the congregation that calls and dismisses a pastor? Whether they do that properly and in line with Scripture is another thing, but they are to judge the preaching and act accordingly based on whether the Word is preached or not.
Thanks, Justin. I think the easiest way to understand this is as follows: every excommunication requires being put out of the congregation, but not every expulsion requires excommunication. We have become confused about the right of a congregation to maintain good order. If you have a gadfly member disrupting things, then remove them. Yes, congregations absolutely have a role in keeping watch over their pastor lest he fall into some great temptation and sin, or stop doing his job well. But we don’t address those matters with a majority or supermarjority decision. The point I’m driving at is that we have created a process for excommunication that inevitably touches the other areas.
Agree in part, but I don't think expulsion by the congregation is limited to maintaining good order. Expelling Jezebel may bring about good order, but it is certainly more than that.
I'm certainly critical of the majority/supermajority democratic church polity, especially given what it is today from what it was throughout the history of the LCMS, but I'm still not convinced there is as clean a line between the pastor and the other Christians who make up the church. There may be some nuances depending on a particular church constitution. Either way, I will have to revisit some sources related to this to clarify for myself. Best.
In addition to Thesis 7 on the Ministry, C.F.W. Walther also states in Thesis 9:
“The preaching office deserves reverence and unconditional obedience when the preacher proclaims God's word, but the preacher has no lordship [“Herrschaft”] over the church; he therefore has no right to make new laws, to arbitrarily establish customs and ceremonies in the church, or to impose and exercise excommunication without the prior knowledge [“vorhergehendes Erkenntniss”] of the entire congregation.”
This article does not take into consideration the "kleiner ban," which a pastor exercises when he finds that a Christian is not repentant. As Walther and Franz Pieper point out, the pastor would be willing to be deposed from his call rather than to commune the unrepentant. Normally, a voters' assembly would heed the judgment of their pastor. Christ gave the right to exclude from the fellowship of the congregation to the church, which is the "grosser ban."
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the bible, Luther and the Old Missouri: Since all Christians are the inhabitants of the keys, also the congregation has the keys. By calling a pastor, a congregation does not loose them, but is acting together with the pastor. And according to Matt. 18 excommunication is something the whole congregation has to decide, not only the pastor. He can suspend from the Lord's Supper, but not excommunicate from the congregation, as also the congregation has to vote someone for membership.
Excommunication is a spiritual function that closes the gates of heaven. It has nothing to do with membership. Membership can certainly be terminated as a result of excommunication, but we should not be mixing the temporal and eternal by twinning excommunication with congregational membership.
So far the discussion of LCMS ecclesiology about excommunication has been largely in abstracto.
It might be of interest to discuss LCMS ecclesiology about excommunication in concreto, particularly concerning two recent cases, the excommunication of Corey Mahler by First Lutheran Church in Knoxville, TN, and the excommunication of Ryan Turnipseed by First Lutheran Church in Ponca City, OK. These could be compared to the lack of excommunication, as evident in a 2003 Reporter article (https://reporter.lcms.org/2003/congregation-will-miss-simon-pastor-says/).
The Simon report is incredible to read. Lutheran Reporter straightfacedly says abortion "rights". Simon is forgiven as an enthusiastic infanticide enjoyer because he did helpful things for others who were not vacuumed out of the womb by their mothers. Unreal.
And to make matters worse, since 1969 through the error of woman suffrage at convention, women are voting as overseers in such matters at the voters assembly (sometimes as the majority present). Paul and those who made up the assembly in Scripture (men) is not even considered. The Lord has not overlooked that as shown by the decline of Synod that continues to this day.
The lesser excommunication mentioned in the Smalcald Articles isn't just barring an unrepentant sinner from Holy Communion. It says, "manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament *and other communion of the Church.*" This excommunication isn't just about whether or not the pastor gives the Body and Blood of Christ to the person in question. It involves the entire congregation treating this person like heathen or tax collector. They can come hear the Service of the Word, but the congregation must avoid them otherwise, "not even eating with such a person," until they repent. Because it involves, "the Sacrament and other communion of the Church" this needs to be brought to the Church. Wouldn't it be better for us to speak of the minor ban (refusing Communion to the unrepentant sinner) exercised by the pastor in consultation with his lay elders, and the excommunication involving due process and consent of the congregation? They will need to know who they must avoid and why. Gerhard says (and I think that Walther quotes this in his Pastoral Theology as well): "With respect to degrees, excommunication is said to be twofold, viz., the less and the greater. The former is exclusion or suspension from the use of the Lord’s Supper; the latter is expulsion from the communion of the Church; the former is called καθαίρεσις [purifying], the latter, ἀφορισμός [excommunication in the proper sense]. To the latter extreme degree of ecclesiastical censure we dare not progress hastily, without serious deliberation, and without the consent of the Church, and especially of the Christian magistrate, but the order prescribed by Christ, Matt. 18:15, must be carefully observed” (Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Verified from the Original Sources, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, Second English Edition, Revised according to the Sixth German Edition (Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society, 1889), 614).
Remember, the focus of the article is the invalidity of attaching the closing and opening of the gates of heaven to a democratic process, not of preventing the congregation from having a role.
The Scripture itself lead us to hold to congregational participation in excommunication. Such was the case in I Corinthians 5. Even here, where Paul is using his apostolic authority, he still throws it to the assembly as part of the process of excommunication. It was to their collective shame that they had not already addressed the issue but embraced the man having sex with his father's wife. Jesus also brings the church in the process in Matthew 18:17 which is more than the congregations hearing and oberying the pastor.
Yes, the congregation must have a role, but it must have no power over the excommunication itself, which is a spiritual matter. Subsequently, voting to remove from membership would be proper, but we should divorce congregational decision-making from the pastor's excommunication.
I think there is a practical issue for people bringing in new members that they sign the consitution and understand that such a process exists
I recall Rev Dr Kenneth Korby’s teaching on this subject from a class I took under him on Confession and Absolution. While Dr. Korby would agree that is the duty of the office of the holy ministry to exercise the authority of the keys in the church, this action is both a pastoral action and a congregational action. Korby advocated that all excommunications be pronounced in public before the assembled congregation (not the Voters Assembly) and with the congregation’s “Amen.” An excommunication is a temporal judgment that requires the full assent and cooperation of the congregation. Similarly,, restoration to fellowship should be made public before the whole assembly of believers and not simply a pro forma reinstatement to the roles. In this way, as in the early church in Acts, the people are taught rightly to fear the Lord and consider the consequences of their sins. Far too much of this is carried on in secret meetings behind closed doors.
That is surely the best way to do it. The member was part of the body, and the body must be aware of the sending away and return.
To your questions, I would ask what the role of the congregation would be? I think of Revelation 2 in finding some basis that the church has some obligation, either through or despite the called and ordained shepherd there, to cast out the unrepentant sinners among them. Wouldn't it be improper for a congregation to simply tolerate unrepentant sinners among them even when the pastor has either negligently or willfully to use the Keys? Doesn't this also imply then that admittance to Holy Communion is to some extent subject to the congregation?
On the question of baptism and corporate consensus, the rite does involve the congregation, and particularly for infants, so do our rites also confuse this issue?
Isn't preaching of the Word conditional on the congregation giving a thumbs up or down since it is the congregation that calls and dismisses a pastor? Whether they do that properly and in line with Scripture is another thing, but they are to judge the preaching and act accordingly based on whether the Word is preached or not.
Thanks, Justin. I think the easiest way to understand this is as follows: every excommunication requires being put out of the congregation, but not every expulsion requires excommunication. We have become confused about the right of a congregation to maintain good order. If you have a gadfly member disrupting things, then remove them. Yes, congregations absolutely have a role in keeping watch over their pastor lest he fall into some great temptation and sin, or stop doing his job well. But we don’t address those matters with a majority or supermarjority decision. The point I’m driving at is that we have created a process for excommunication that inevitably touches the other areas.
Agree in part, but I don't think expulsion by the congregation is limited to maintaining good order. Expelling Jezebel may bring about good order, but it is certainly more than that.
I'm certainly critical of the majority/supermajority democratic church polity, especially given what it is today from what it was throughout the history of the LCMS, but I'm still not convinced there is as clean a line between the pastor and the other Christians who make up the church. There may be some nuances depending on a particular church constitution. Either way, I will have to revisit some sources related to this to clarify for myself. Best.
In addition to Thesis 7 on the Ministry, C.F.W. Walther also states in Thesis 9:
“The preaching office deserves reverence and unconditional obedience when the preacher proclaims God's word, but the preacher has no lordship [“Herrschaft”] over the church; he therefore has no right to make new laws, to arbitrarily establish customs and ceremonies in the church, or to impose and exercise excommunication without the prior knowledge [“vorhergehendes Erkenntniss”] of the entire congregation.”
This article does not take into consideration the "kleiner ban," which a pastor exercises when he finds that a Christian is not repentant. As Walther and Franz Pieper point out, the pastor would be willing to be deposed from his call rather than to commune the unrepentant. Normally, a voters' assembly would heed the judgment of their pastor. Christ gave the right to exclude from the fellowship of the congregation to the church, which is the "grosser ban."
There seems to be a misunderstanding of the bible, Luther and the Old Missouri: Since all Christians are the inhabitants of the keys, also the congregation has the keys. By calling a pastor, a congregation does not loose them, but is acting together with the pastor. And according to Matt. 18 excommunication is something the whole congregation has to decide, not only the pastor. He can suspend from the Lord's Supper, but not excommunicate from the congregation, as also the congregation has to vote someone for membership.
Excommunication is a spiritual function that closes the gates of heaven. It has nothing to do with membership. Membership can certainly be terminated as a result of excommunication, but we should not be mixing the temporal and eternal by twinning excommunication with congregational membership.
So far the discussion of LCMS ecclesiology about excommunication has been largely in abstracto.
It might be of interest to discuss LCMS ecclesiology about excommunication in concreto, particularly concerning two recent cases, the excommunication of Corey Mahler by First Lutheran Church in Knoxville, TN, and the excommunication of Ryan Turnipseed by First Lutheran Church in Ponca City, OK. These could be compared to the lack of excommunication, as evident in a 2003 Reporter article (https://reporter.lcms.org/2003/congregation-will-miss-simon-pastor-says/).
The Simon report is incredible to read. Lutheran Reporter straightfacedly says abortion "rights". Simon is forgiven as an enthusiastic infanticide enjoyer because he did helpful things for others who were not vacuumed out of the womb by their mothers. Unreal.
And to make matters worse, since 1969 through the error of woman suffrage at convention, women are voting as overseers in such matters at the voters assembly (sometimes as the majority present). Paul and those who made up the assembly in Scripture (men) is not even considered. The Lord has not overlooked that as shown by the decline of Synod that continues to this day.
The lesser excommunication mentioned in the Smalcald Articles isn't just barring an unrepentant sinner from Holy Communion. It says, "manifest and obstinate sinners are not admitted to the Sacrament *and other communion of the Church.*" This excommunication isn't just about whether or not the pastor gives the Body and Blood of Christ to the person in question. It involves the entire congregation treating this person like heathen or tax collector. They can come hear the Service of the Word, but the congregation must avoid them otherwise, "not even eating with such a person," until they repent. Because it involves, "the Sacrament and other communion of the Church" this needs to be brought to the Church. Wouldn't it be better for us to speak of the minor ban (refusing Communion to the unrepentant sinner) exercised by the pastor in consultation with his lay elders, and the excommunication involving due process and consent of the congregation? They will need to know who they must avoid and why. Gerhard says (and I think that Walther quotes this in his Pastoral Theology as well): "With respect to degrees, excommunication is said to be twofold, viz., the less and the greater. The former is exclusion or suspension from the use of the Lord’s Supper; the latter is expulsion from the communion of the Church; the former is called καθαίρεσις [purifying], the latter, ἀφορισμός [excommunication in the proper sense]. To the latter extreme degree of ecclesiastical censure we dare not progress hastily, without serious deliberation, and without the consent of the Church, and especially of the Christian magistrate, but the order prescribed by Christ, Matt. 18:15, must be carefully observed” (Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Verified from the Original Sources, trans. Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, Second English Edition, Revised according to the Sixth German Edition (Philadelphia, PA: Lutheran Publication Society, 1889), 614).
Remember, the focus of the article is the invalidity of attaching the closing and opening of the gates of heaven to a democratic process, not of preventing the congregation from having a role.