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.
I agree, in principle, that it is problematic to attach “the opening and closing of the gates of heaven” to a democratic process. However, it appears that Scripture, Luther, Gerhard, Walther, and the other Lutheran fathers cited by Walther all maintain that a judgment by the congregation is required in cases of formal excommunication:
“The final judgment regarding excommunication lies by no means with the solitary minister of the Church but with the whole congregation, which either the consistory or some other gathering, as is the usage in each location, represents” (cf. longer quotation below).
This congregational judgment is necessary when the pastor, as the administrator of the binding key, makes use of it in barring an impenitent sinner from the Lord’s Supper and from the other communion of the Church.
At the same time, the pastor does bar individuals from the altar in the course of brotherly admonition and for other reasons that may never lead to excommunication. Yet this action is not identical with the excommunication described in the Smalcald Articles. Rather, it includes the pastoral barring of delinquent members, those living together outside of wedlock, or professing Christians who remain in fellowship with heterodox congregations and pastors, among other situations.
The role of the congregation must be clearly articulated, and it cannot be reduced to merely saying “Amen” to a decision already made by the pastor to excommunicate an individual. Such an arrangement is inadequate, because it makes no provision for a hearing, the presentation of evidence, or a judgment rendered by the congregation through its representative body (such as a consistory or voters’ assembly). It also creates the opportunity for the pastor, together with leaders aligned with him, to excommunicate individuals unilaterally, without due process and without the judgment of the Church, contrary to Christ’s mandate for the exercise of brotherly admonition and church discipline.
Walther addresses this issue directly commenting on the thesis, “The Preacher Cannot Excommunicate Unilaterally,” in Pastoral Theology, pp. 381–384:
"The preacher may not accept accusations about the private sins of others that are brought to him if these sins have not already been futilely rebuked privately and then also before witnesses; instead, he should rebuke the accuser for announcing a sin that is still hidden and unreproved and for the violation of the divine order that he committed in doing so, and he should urge him with all seriousness to observe that [order]. What Luther says with regard to every Christian in the quotation in the previous comment—"if another reports to you what this or that one has done, teach him, too, to go and admonish him personally, if he has seen it himself"—this also applies to the pastor to an even higher degree. Only those sins belong before the pastor, as a public person, of which he himself was a witness or which fall in the third stage of brotherly admonition. It brings disgrace upon the preacher if he gives an open ear to gossip.
Nevertheless, the preacher should above all keep in mind regarding the exercise of church discipline that he has no authority in any instance to carry out excommunication on any person unilaterally and without a preceding hearing (proceedings in which evidence is presented so that a verdict can be reached) and decision by the congregation. Here the well-known axiom is doubtlessly valid: 'Whatever concerns everyone—especially in matters of salvation—must also be attended to by everyone.' It is already against all reason and justice for one person to decide in what relation one member should stand to the whole and the whole to that one member, especially when this has to do with the relationship between brothers in the faith. In addition, not only the preacher but the entire congregation is explicitly rebuked in God's Word for neglecting excommunication, and they are told: "Purge the evil person from among you!" (1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 13). For something more extensive on this topic, see The Voice of Our Church, pt. 2, thesis 9C (cf. Walther, The Church and The Office of The Ministry, pp. 318-329). Of the many witnesses collected in the book about this [topic], let only the following be included here.
First, the Smalcald Articles state: 'The officials employed intolerable license with it' (excommunication), 'and either on account of greed or other capriciousness tormented the people and excommunicated them without any prior legal decision' (in the Latin text: sine ullo ordine judiciorum, that is, "without order of the courts"). 'But what kind of tyranny is this, that an official in a city should have the power to torment and compel the people in this way only according to his capriciousness without a legal decision?...Because such a charge is very weighty and serious, surely no one should be condemned in this case without a legal and well-ordered decision' (sine ordine judiciali, that is, "without a judicial order") (Appendix: On the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops). By using excommunication on his own authority, Bishop Diotrephes revealed himself to be a precursor of the antichrist already in apostolic times (3 John 9-10).
Luther therefore writes: 'You hear here' (Matthew 18) that they must be certain, public sins of a certain, known person, when a brother sees the other sinning. In addition, [they must be] sins which were reproved in a brotherly way beforehand and finally testified to publicly before the congregation. Therefore, the bulls and letters of excommunication in which it says, "We excommunicate by the fact itself, by the rendering of the verdict, but with three preceding admonitions" and "from the fullness of power"—this we call in German a crappy excommunication (called Scheißbann by Luther). I call it the devil's excommunication and not God's excommunication, when one excommunicates these people with an outrageous deed before they are publicly testified against before the congregation, contrary to Christ's ordinance. It is the same with all excommunications with which the officials and spiritual courthouses fancy that they excommunicate people ten, twenty, thirty miles away with a slip of paper in a congregation, although [the people] were never reproved, accused, and testified against in that congregation and before its pastor, but a mouse came there from an official's nook without witnesses and without God's command. You need not fear such a crappy excommunication. If a bishop or official wants to excommunicate someone, then let him go or let him send [his official] to the congregation or to the pastor where that person is to be excommunicated and let him treat [the person] as is right according to these words of Christ.
And I say all of that for this reason: because the congregation which is to regard this person as excommunicated should know and be certain how he has earned excommunication and been placed under it, as the text of Christ says here. Otherwise it may be deceived and accept a false excommunication, and thereby treat a neighbor unjustly. For that would be to blaspheme the Keys and to disgrace God and to injure love for the neighbor, which is not to be tolerated from a Christian congregation. For it also has a part in it if someone is to be excommunicated there, Christ says here, and is not obligated not to believe here, for one should not believe people in the matters of God. Thus a Christian congregation is not the serving maid of an official, nor the prison warden of a bishop, so that he could say to it, "Hey, Greta, hey, Hans, keep this or that person in excommunication for me." "Greetings, yes, you're welcome, dear official!" With temporal authorities this would perhaps have some sense, but here, where it concerns souls' (in re salutari ["with regard to being saved"], see above) 'the congregation should also be judge and wife. St. Paul was an apostle, yet' (and nevertheless) 'he would not excommunicate the one who had slept with his stepmother; he also wanted to have the congregation [take part] in doing so (1 Corinthians 5:1,5)' ([The Keys], 1530; 19:1181f.).
Finally, we also mention the following later witnesses. J. Fecht writes: 'The final judgment regarding excommunication lies by no means with the solitary minister of the Church but with the whole congregation, which either the consistory or some other gathering, as is the usage in each location, represents. This is in fact proven by the passage Matthew 18:17 and the example of Paul, who with the consent of the Corinthian congregation excommunicated the man who had committed incest (2 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 5:4). And the entire Lutheran Church is in one accord in this principle and judgment, along with all its theologians. For this reason, the minister of the Church has even less reason to arrogate something to himself alone in this matter. (Instructio pastoral., ch. 15, § 7, pp. 169ff.)'
Finally, Val. Ernst Löscher writes: 'In our churches no one has ever said that excommunication and discipline belong only to the clergy; instead, it is commended by Christ to the Church. The latter decides and decrees, and the ministers of Christ, as the mouth of the Church, proclaim this to the sinners and, in accordance with the ordinance of Christ, have the exercitium clavis ligantis,' that is, the administration or execution of the binding key (Fortgesetze Sammlung von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen, 1724, p. 476)."
I appreciate this article and what I think it’s trying to bolster. I think certain parts could perhaps be more clearly stated and warrant further exploration.
However, I’m not sure I fully agree that the *root* of the issue lies in the practice of requiring congregational consent on matters of church discipline or considering that a fatal categorical error in ecclesiology. Are we not mistaking cause for effect?
“This error occurs when the Keys are separated from the preaching office instituted by Christ and turned over to a congregational vote. A majority of LCMS congregations have embedded this critical error into their constitutions and bylaws, and it is a root cause of all manner of dysfunction.”
Instead, it sounds like the real root of the issue is an inability to subject oneself to the Word of God and a lack of shared confessional subscription.
Walther writes:
“In a Lutheran congregation, matters which are decided in God’s Word and are attested in the Confessions of the church cannot be decided by a majority, **but every member must subject himself to the Word of God as the supreme judge, and to the Confession as the witness of the orthodox church.**”
If the plot is lost upstream, there’s unsurprisingly consequences downstream.
The treatise states “Likewise, Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church when He says: Tell it unto the Church”, perhaps a follow up article further exploring the Scriptural and Confessional basis for the congregation participating in matters of due process, congregational voting, etc. is warranted.
Regarding the supposed “tension” related to the Keys, I think Dr. Roland Ziegler explains this well in a 2014 ACELC Conference paper Priesthood and Office:
It highlights how Church and Ministry are in harmony –not some mysterious and contradictory tension or power struggle. Dr. Ziegler’s paper is *well* worth the read.
Dr. Ziegler concludes with a quote from Dr. Marquart:
“Priesthood and ministry each have their own sphere and orientation. Competition between them is as pathological as conflict between lungs or feet and the rest of the body. … In sum, priestly sacrifice and evangelical-sacramental ministry are governed in principle by the most perfect symbiotic harmony. Conflicts arise solely from that wicked self-seeking with which we defile both priesthood and the ministry and all other good and precious gifts of God.”
I wonder if therein is part of the solution, to confess and teach this harmonious pure doctrine in all its fullness.
Not pitting one station against another unnecessarily, but holding both as distinct and in harmony. And, importantly, holding both minister and hearer accountable and subservient to the Word of Christ as the only rule and norm for life.
After all, if we are united in doctrine and a shared confession, the rest will fall out naturally. But if we’re *not* united in letting Scripture and the Confessions hold a normative function, all bets are off *regardless* of ecclesiological polity.
Thanks, Ryan. I don't disagree with anything you've written. If the foundation and expression of our faith and confession were coherent and true to Scripture, there would be no conflict, and a congregation, with its pastor, would be of one mind and voice. That is the intent of the Waltherian position. However, it is entirely impractical in practice - speak with any pastor who has at least a decade under his belt. That is why we have Frankenstein bylaws attempting to split a Sacerdotal vs Congregational baby.
We can still be pragmatic and Christian. Leave the closing of the gates of heaven to the pastor, and the closing of the church doors to the Pastor and congregation.
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.
I agree, in principle, that it is problematic to attach “the opening and closing of the gates of heaven” to a democratic process. However, it appears that Scripture, Luther, Gerhard, Walther, and the other Lutheran fathers cited by Walther all maintain that a judgment by the congregation is required in cases of formal excommunication:
“The final judgment regarding excommunication lies by no means with the solitary minister of the Church but with the whole congregation, which either the consistory or some other gathering, as is the usage in each location, represents” (cf. longer quotation below).
This congregational judgment is necessary when the pastor, as the administrator of the binding key, makes use of it in barring an impenitent sinner from the Lord’s Supper and from the other communion of the Church.
At the same time, the pastor does bar individuals from the altar in the course of brotherly admonition and for other reasons that may never lead to excommunication. Yet this action is not identical with the excommunication described in the Smalcald Articles. Rather, it includes the pastoral barring of delinquent members, those living together outside of wedlock, or professing Christians who remain in fellowship with heterodox congregations and pastors, among other situations.
The role of the congregation must be clearly articulated, and it cannot be reduced to merely saying “Amen” to a decision already made by the pastor to excommunicate an individual. Such an arrangement is inadequate, because it makes no provision for a hearing, the presentation of evidence, or a judgment rendered by the congregation through its representative body (such as a consistory or voters’ assembly). It also creates the opportunity for the pastor, together with leaders aligned with him, to excommunicate individuals unilaterally, without due process and without the judgment of the Church, contrary to Christ’s mandate for the exercise of brotherly admonition and church discipline.
Walther addresses this issue directly commenting on the thesis, “The Preacher Cannot Excommunicate Unilaterally,” in Pastoral Theology, pp. 381–384:
"The preacher may not accept accusations about the private sins of others that are brought to him if these sins have not already been futilely rebuked privately and then also before witnesses; instead, he should rebuke the accuser for announcing a sin that is still hidden and unreproved and for the violation of the divine order that he committed in doing so, and he should urge him with all seriousness to observe that [order]. What Luther says with regard to every Christian in the quotation in the previous comment—"if another reports to you what this or that one has done, teach him, too, to go and admonish him personally, if he has seen it himself"—this also applies to the pastor to an even higher degree. Only those sins belong before the pastor, as a public person, of which he himself was a witness or which fall in the third stage of brotherly admonition. It brings disgrace upon the preacher if he gives an open ear to gossip.
Nevertheless, the preacher should above all keep in mind regarding the exercise of church discipline that he has no authority in any instance to carry out excommunication on any person unilaterally and without a preceding hearing (proceedings in which evidence is presented so that a verdict can be reached) and decision by the congregation. Here the well-known axiom is doubtlessly valid: 'Whatever concerns everyone—especially in matters of salvation—must also be attended to by everyone.' It is already against all reason and justice for one person to decide in what relation one member should stand to the whole and the whole to that one member, especially when this has to do with the relationship between brothers in the faith. In addition, not only the preacher but the entire congregation is explicitly rebuked in God's Word for neglecting excommunication, and they are told: "Purge the evil person from among you!" (1 Corinthians 5:1-2, 13). For something more extensive on this topic, see The Voice of Our Church, pt. 2, thesis 9C (cf. Walther, The Church and The Office of The Ministry, pp. 318-329). Of the many witnesses collected in the book about this [topic], let only the following be included here.
First, the Smalcald Articles state: 'The officials employed intolerable license with it' (excommunication), 'and either on account of greed or other capriciousness tormented the people and excommunicated them without any prior legal decision' (in the Latin text: sine ullo ordine judiciorum, that is, "without order of the courts"). 'But what kind of tyranny is this, that an official in a city should have the power to torment and compel the people in this way only according to his capriciousness without a legal decision?...Because such a charge is very weighty and serious, surely no one should be condemned in this case without a legal and well-ordered decision' (sine ordine judiciali, that is, "without a judicial order") (Appendix: On the Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops). By using excommunication on his own authority, Bishop Diotrephes revealed himself to be a precursor of the antichrist already in apostolic times (3 John 9-10).
Luther therefore writes: 'You hear here' (Matthew 18) that they must be certain, public sins of a certain, known person, when a brother sees the other sinning. In addition, [they must be] sins which were reproved in a brotherly way beforehand and finally testified to publicly before the congregation. Therefore, the bulls and letters of excommunication in which it says, "We excommunicate by the fact itself, by the rendering of the verdict, but with three preceding admonitions" and "from the fullness of power"—this we call in German a crappy excommunication (called Scheißbann by Luther). I call it the devil's excommunication and not God's excommunication, when one excommunicates these people with an outrageous deed before they are publicly testified against before the congregation, contrary to Christ's ordinance. It is the same with all excommunications with which the officials and spiritual courthouses fancy that they excommunicate people ten, twenty, thirty miles away with a slip of paper in a congregation, although [the people] were never reproved, accused, and testified against in that congregation and before its pastor, but a mouse came there from an official's nook without witnesses and without God's command. You need not fear such a crappy excommunication. If a bishop or official wants to excommunicate someone, then let him go or let him send [his official] to the congregation or to the pastor where that person is to be excommunicated and let him treat [the person] as is right according to these words of Christ.
And I say all of that for this reason: because the congregation which is to regard this person as excommunicated should know and be certain how he has earned excommunication and been placed under it, as the text of Christ says here. Otherwise it may be deceived and accept a false excommunication, and thereby treat a neighbor unjustly. For that would be to blaspheme the Keys and to disgrace God and to injure love for the neighbor, which is not to be tolerated from a Christian congregation. For it also has a part in it if someone is to be excommunicated there, Christ says here, and is not obligated not to believe here, for one should not believe people in the matters of God. Thus a Christian congregation is not the serving maid of an official, nor the prison warden of a bishop, so that he could say to it, "Hey, Greta, hey, Hans, keep this or that person in excommunication for me." "Greetings, yes, you're welcome, dear official!" With temporal authorities this would perhaps have some sense, but here, where it concerns souls' (in re salutari ["with regard to being saved"], see above) 'the congregation should also be judge and wife. St. Paul was an apostle, yet' (and nevertheless) 'he would not excommunicate the one who had slept with his stepmother; he also wanted to have the congregation [take part] in doing so (1 Corinthians 5:1,5)' ([The Keys], 1530; 19:1181f.).
Finally, we also mention the following later witnesses. J. Fecht writes: 'The final judgment regarding excommunication lies by no means with the solitary minister of the Church but with the whole congregation, which either the consistory or some other gathering, as is the usage in each location, represents. This is in fact proven by the passage Matthew 18:17 and the example of Paul, who with the consent of the Corinthian congregation excommunicated the man who had committed incest (2 Corinthians 2:6; 1 Corinthians 5:4). And the entire Lutheran Church is in one accord in this principle and judgment, along with all its theologians. For this reason, the minister of the Church has even less reason to arrogate something to himself alone in this matter. (Instructio pastoral., ch. 15, § 7, pp. 169ff.)'
Finally, Val. Ernst Löscher writes: 'In our churches no one has ever said that excommunication and discipline belong only to the clergy; instead, it is commended by Christ to the Church. The latter decides and decrees, and the ministers of Christ, as the mouth of the Church, proclaim this to the sinners and, in accordance with the ordinance of Christ, have the exercitium clavis ligantis,' that is, the administration or execution of the binding key (Fortgesetze Sammlung von alten und neuen theologischen Sachen, 1724, p. 476)."
I appreciate this article and what I think it’s trying to bolster. I think certain parts could perhaps be more clearly stated and warrant further exploration.
However, I’m not sure I fully agree that the *root* of the issue lies in the practice of requiring congregational consent on matters of church discipline or considering that a fatal categorical error in ecclesiology. Are we not mistaking cause for effect?
“This error occurs when the Keys are separated from the preaching office instituted by Christ and turned over to a congregational vote. A majority of LCMS congregations have embedded this critical error into their constitutions and bylaws, and it is a root cause of all manner of dysfunction.”
Instead, it sounds like the real root of the issue is an inability to subject oneself to the Word of God and a lack of shared confessional subscription.
Walther writes:
“In a Lutheran congregation, matters which are decided in God’s Word and are attested in the Confessions of the church cannot be decided by a majority, **but every member must subject himself to the Word of God as the supreme judge, and to the Confession as the witness of the orthodox church.**”
If the plot is lost upstream, there’s unsurprisingly consequences downstream.
The treatise states “Likewise, Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church when He says: Tell it unto the Church”, perhaps a follow up article further exploring the Scriptural and Confessional basis for the congregation participating in matters of due process, congregational voting, etc. is warranted.
Regarding the supposed “tension” related to the Keys, I think Dr. Roland Ziegler explains this well in a 2014 ACELC Conference paper Priesthood and Office:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/mychurchwebsite/c2001/4_2014_free_conference_priesthood_and_office_ziegler.pdf
It highlights how Church and Ministry are in harmony –not some mysterious and contradictory tension or power struggle. Dr. Ziegler’s paper is *well* worth the read.
Dr. Ziegler concludes with a quote from Dr. Marquart:
“Priesthood and ministry each have their own sphere and orientation. Competition between them is as pathological as conflict between lungs or feet and the rest of the body. … In sum, priestly sacrifice and evangelical-sacramental ministry are governed in principle by the most perfect symbiotic harmony. Conflicts arise solely from that wicked self-seeking with which we defile both priesthood and the ministry and all other good and precious gifts of God.”
I wonder if therein is part of the solution, to confess and teach this harmonious pure doctrine in all its fullness.
Not pitting one station against another unnecessarily, but holding both as distinct and in harmony. And, importantly, holding both minister and hearer accountable and subservient to the Word of Christ as the only rule and norm for life.
After all, if we are united in doctrine and a shared confession, the rest will fall out naturally. But if we’re *not* united in letting Scripture and the Confessions hold a normative function, all bets are off *regardless* of ecclesiological polity.
Thanks, Ryan. I don't disagree with anything you've written. If the foundation and expression of our faith and confession were coherent and true to Scripture, there would be no conflict, and a congregation, with its pastor, would be of one mind and voice. That is the intent of the Waltherian position. However, it is entirely impractical in practice - speak with any pastor who has at least a decade under his belt. That is why we have Frankenstein bylaws attempting to split a Sacerdotal vs Congregational baby.
We can still be pragmatic and Christian. Leave the closing of the gates of heaven to the pastor, and the closing of the church doors to the Pastor and congregation.