The Synod insists its discipline binds across church-body lines, yet when asked to honor one of its own congregations' discipline, every officer looked away.
If excommunication is to be enforced Church wide. Perhaps we need to reserve excommunication for the Church as a whole. Perhaps the COP ratified at a trienial convention. I think the recent excommunications of very right wing young men has not been honored Church wide either. Do we really want to let one congregation bind the whole Church on such a grave matter?
I have to ask a serious question, what purpose does this article serve? Does it cause division? Does it make us grumble against our God ordained servants? Does it cause us to stop and pray for our leaders and forgive them for their shortcomings? We are not a perfect sinless people. Not one of us is worthy, we have all sinned and fallen short. Thankfully we are saved by grace through faith.
Thank you, deaconess. Would you mind answering some questions to help me better answer you?
1. What is being divided by reporting the situation?
2. Are God's ordained servants held to a higher standard and required to do their jobs?
3. Are the shortcomings systemic or personal foibles?
4. Are imperfect and sinful sheep seeking pastoral care not to expect the help they have been promised, and based on procedures that are written in black and white?
5. If it just boils down to saved by grace through faith, should we not just eliminate all church discipline, but especially excommunication?
Answering your questions in the order, you ask them:
(1) The article serves several purposes, including addressing serious “issues, etc.”/problems in our church body which require resolution. (2) The article does not cause division; unbiblical divorce, and the refusal of ecclesiastical supervisors to apply appropriate discipline even-handedly are examples of events that cause division. (3) The article does not make us grumble… if you slap me in the face without substantial cause for doing so, and I dare to complain about it to appropriate authorities, I am not the one at fault for grumbling; you are the one at fault for slapping me in the face, and my complaint to the authorities is necessary and God-pleasing. (4) Prayer and forgiveness are not meant to be used as tools for avoiding duties and responsibilities for ecclesiastical supervision and discipline, or for ignoring serious problems in the church that need to be addressed. (5) No one said we are a perfect, sinless people; that is a an overused strawman to avoid dealing with real problems. (6) Worthy of what? This is not an article on the Doctrine of Justification. The issue is not whether we are worthy of salvation, or what God owes us, as He owes us nothing. We are “worthy“ of basic decency between one another in the church.
Excellent points. Experience has shown me that the "we are all sinners" argument nearly always means someone is unwilling to deal with a particular sin.
Having trouble identifying the spouses without a scorecard.
•" One spouse... filed for divorce."
•" The filing spouse [placed] under minor ban."
•" The other spouse... filed for divorce"
•" the spouse who allegedly abandoned the marriage [excommunicated]."
•" The disciplined spouse... relocated"
•" [LCMS] pastor... never once claimed to the disciplining congregation that any grounds for the divorce existed. "
•" [there was a]meeting between that [LCMS] pastor and the appealing spouse’s current pastor"
•" [Is this the current pastor of the non-LCMS congregation that had a previous vacancy, the pastor of a nearby LCMS congregation who had been delegated bu the non-LCMS congregation to counsel the twospouses, or someone else?]"
•" the LCMS pastor had allegedly been admitting the disciplined spouse to the altar"
•" [the LCMS pastor] had privately concluded that the divorce was justified"
•" regarded the sister [?} congregation’s exercise of the keys as carrying no weight"
•" The other spouse, meanwhile, followed the Synod’s instructions for a wronged party."
•" That [wronged party] spouse appealed, in writing, up the entire chain of ecclesiastical supervision"
•" The district president [of the disciplined spouse's pastor of a previously noted "non-LCMS Lutheran congregation"?]... responded... the appealing spouse’s congregation was no longer a member of the Synod."
•" The third appeal was a formal complaint against the receiving pastor [of the previously excommunicated spouse?], alleging specific misconduct in the earliest days of the marriage crisis [by the rostered LCMS pastor delegated by the non-LCMS congregation?]"
•" The fourth appeal was... by the disciplined spouse reportedly coming under the care of a second LCMS congregation [wasn't the initial congregation a non-LCMS congregation with a pastoral vacancy who delegated a LCMS pastor to counsel the spouses?]"
•" The appealing spouse wrote to the district president again"
•" The pastor concerned... granted only one in-person conversation,... [and] promised only to speak with the disciplined spouse."
•" The sixth appeal, sent as the divorce neared finalization [indicating that all appeals occurred before the divorce was finalized, and the spouses were simply separated]."
Can't the terms "husband" and "wife" be used in the appropriate places instead of "spouse" attached with various adjectives? It would make reading this column a lot easier.
Didn't both husband and wife file for divorce? Did the spouse who initially filed for divorce change his/her mind when his/her spouse later decided to file for divorce and he/she then oppose the divorce in the court hearing?
Yes, it is confusing, but the anonymization is deliberate and necessary to focus attention on the ecclesiastical failures rather than the minutiae of the case. This is bread and butter for every pastor given the huge casuistry resources available on this topic.
It was challenging to follow the sequence of events with the wording. Perhaps "Spouse A" and "Spouse B" could be used to preserve anonymity but keep the spouses straight.
“... the receiving pastor disclose[d] his position, again according to the account of that meeting preserved in the file: that he had determined the appealing spouse guilty of malicious desertion, that this determination justified the divorce, and that since no LCMS congregation had ever disciplined the party he received, his private judgment was binding and true.”
This sounds like the “disciplined spouse” was excommunicated by the non-LCMS congregation, possibly after he had left that church, and that, from a later evaluation, his LCMS “receiving pastor” had determined that the divorce was justified.
This evaluation was contrary to the earlier determination that “neither spouse had biblical grounds for divorce or for continued separation” by an LCMS pastor who had been “delegated” by the couple’s non-LCMS congregation to care for the family.
Thus, one question is how do LCMS officials deal with two different LCMS pastors who come to the opposite conclusions concerning the justification of a couple's divorce?
BTW, this question sounds analogous to what has been asked (and answered by more than 85 LCMS pastors) about the excommunication of Ryan Turnipseed by an Oklahoma LCMS congregation after he resigned from membership and subsequently became a communicant member in a Kansas LCMS congregation.
Overall point and my takeaway is, we have 'rules' in our Synod but at times they are not applied, up and down the ecclesial chain-of-influence [from DP to individual members]. When a report of a legitimate wrong or error is actually ignored and the reporter pushes for the appropriate authority to address that ignored sin, the proper authority either takes appropriate action, OR makes minimal incomplete action, OR the 'reporter' is told to back off. But purposefully delaying, burying, and or ignoring a needed address of error or sin is always wrong.
It's rare these days to see our pastors and congregations even attempt to evaluate whether or not a party in a divorce should be disciplined. Far too often, it seems that pastors and congregations turn a blind eye to the divorce and then celebrate when each party finds a new spouse...
Just focus on the fact that a marriage collapsed with one person at original fault who abandoned the marriage and was excommunicated. The LCMS welcomes that spouse with open arms and ignores the other spouse's pleas to the Synod bosses to do what they pledged to do.
A Three Ring Circus directed by the Three Stooges.
Excommunication is hard bro, don’t you know.
If excommunication is to be enforced Church wide. Perhaps we need to reserve excommunication for the Church as a whole. Perhaps the COP ratified at a trienial convention. I think the recent excommunications of very right wing young men has not been honored Church wide either. Do we really want to let one congregation bind the whole Church on such a grave matter?
Does the Christian congregation have the right to judge matters or not? St. Paul certainly thought so.
Yes but should they have the right to bind other congregationd?
I have to ask a serious question, what purpose does this article serve? Does it cause division? Does it make us grumble against our God ordained servants? Does it cause us to stop and pray for our leaders and forgive them for their shortcomings? We are not a perfect sinless people. Not one of us is worthy, we have all sinned and fallen short. Thankfully we are saved by grace through faith.
Thank you, deaconess. Would you mind answering some questions to help me better answer you?
1. What is being divided by reporting the situation?
2. Are God's ordained servants held to a higher standard and required to do their jobs?
3. Are the shortcomings systemic or personal foibles?
4. Are imperfect and sinful sheep seeking pastoral care not to expect the help they have been promised, and based on procedures that are written in black and white?
5. If it just boils down to saved by grace through faith, should we not just eliminate all church discipline, but especially excommunication?
Answering your questions in the order, you ask them:
(1) The article serves several purposes, including addressing serious “issues, etc.”/problems in our church body which require resolution. (2) The article does not cause division; unbiblical divorce, and the refusal of ecclesiastical supervisors to apply appropriate discipline even-handedly are examples of events that cause division. (3) The article does not make us grumble… if you slap me in the face without substantial cause for doing so, and I dare to complain about it to appropriate authorities, I am not the one at fault for grumbling; you are the one at fault for slapping me in the face, and my complaint to the authorities is necessary and God-pleasing. (4) Prayer and forgiveness are not meant to be used as tools for avoiding duties and responsibilities for ecclesiastical supervision and discipline, or for ignoring serious problems in the church that need to be addressed. (5) No one said we are a perfect, sinless people; that is a an overused strawman to avoid dealing with real problems. (6) Worthy of what? This is not an article on the Doctrine of Justification. The issue is not whether we are worthy of salvation, or what God owes us, as He owes us nothing. We are “worthy“ of basic decency between one another in the church.
Excellent points. Experience has shown me that the "we are all sinners" argument nearly always means someone is unwilling to deal with a particular sin.
Having trouble identifying the spouses without a scorecard.
•" One spouse... filed for divorce."
•" The filing spouse [placed] under minor ban."
•" The other spouse... filed for divorce"
•" the spouse who allegedly abandoned the marriage [excommunicated]."
•" The disciplined spouse... relocated"
•" [LCMS] pastor... never once claimed to the disciplining congregation that any grounds for the divorce existed. "
•" [there was a]meeting between that [LCMS] pastor and the appealing spouse’s current pastor"
•" [Is this the current pastor of the non-LCMS congregation that had a previous vacancy, the pastor of a nearby LCMS congregation who had been delegated bu the non-LCMS congregation to counsel the twospouses, or someone else?]"
•" the LCMS pastor had allegedly been admitting the disciplined spouse to the altar"
•" [the LCMS pastor] had privately concluded that the divorce was justified"
•" regarded the sister [?} congregation’s exercise of the keys as carrying no weight"
•" The other spouse, meanwhile, followed the Synod’s instructions for a wronged party."
•" That [wronged party] spouse appealed, in writing, up the entire chain of ecclesiastical supervision"
•" The district president [of the disciplined spouse's pastor of a previously noted "non-LCMS Lutheran congregation"?]... responded... the appealing spouse’s congregation was no longer a member of the Synod."
•" The third appeal was a formal complaint against the receiving pastor [of the previously excommunicated spouse?], alleging specific misconduct in the earliest days of the marriage crisis [by the rostered LCMS pastor delegated by the non-LCMS congregation?]"
•" The fourth appeal was... by the disciplined spouse reportedly coming under the care of a second LCMS congregation [wasn't the initial congregation a non-LCMS congregation with a pastoral vacancy who delegated a LCMS pastor to counsel the spouses?]"
•" The appealing spouse wrote to the district president again"
•" The pastor concerned... granted only one in-person conversation,... [and] promised only to speak with the disciplined spouse."
•" The sixth appeal, sent as the divorce neared finalization [indicating that all appeals occurred before the divorce was finalized, and the spouses were simply separated]."
Can't the terms "husband" and "wife" be used in the appropriate places instead of "spouse" attached with various adjectives? It would make reading this column a lot easier.
Didn't both husband and wife file for divorce? Did the spouse who initially filed for divorce change his/her mind when his/her spouse later decided to file for divorce and he/she then oppose the divorce in the court hearing?
Yes, it is confusing, but the anonymization is deliberate and necessary to focus attention on the ecclesiastical failures rather than the minutiae of the case. This is bread and butter for every pastor given the huge casuistry resources available on this topic.
It was challenging to follow the sequence of events with the wording. Perhaps "Spouse A" and "Spouse B" could be used to preserve anonymity but keep the spouses straight.
“... the receiving pastor disclose[d] his position, again according to the account of that meeting preserved in the file: that he had determined the appealing spouse guilty of malicious desertion, that this determination justified the divorce, and that since no LCMS congregation had ever disciplined the party he received, his private judgment was binding and true.”
This sounds like the “disciplined spouse” was excommunicated by the non-LCMS congregation, possibly after he had left that church, and that, from a later evaluation, his LCMS “receiving pastor” had determined that the divorce was justified.
This evaluation was contrary to the earlier determination that “neither spouse had biblical grounds for divorce or for continued separation” by an LCMS pastor who had been “delegated” by the couple’s non-LCMS congregation to care for the family.
Thus, one question is how do LCMS officials deal with two different LCMS pastors who come to the opposite conclusions concerning the justification of a couple's divorce?
BTW, this question sounds analogous to what has been asked (and answered by more than 85 LCMS pastors) about the excommunication of Ryan Turnipseed by an Oklahoma LCMS congregation after he resigned from membership and subsequently became a communicant member in a Kansas LCMS congregation.
Overall point and my takeaway is, we have 'rules' in our Synod but at times they are not applied, up and down the ecclesial chain-of-influence [from DP to individual members]. When a report of a legitimate wrong or error is actually ignored and the reporter pushes for the appropriate authority to address that ignored sin, the proper authority either takes appropriate action, OR makes minimal incomplete action, OR the 'reporter' is told to back off. But purposefully delaying, burying, and or ignoring a needed address of error or sin is always wrong.
It's rare these days to see our pastors and congregations even attempt to evaluate whether or not a party in a divorce should be disciplined. Far too often, it seems that pastors and congregations turn a blind eye to the divorce and then celebrate when each party finds a new spouse...
Yes! This is so sad (and confusing) to me.
This was very difficult to follow.....
Just focus on the fact that a marriage collapsed with one person at original fault who abandoned the marriage and was excommunicated. The LCMS welcomes that spouse with open arms and ignores the other spouse's pleas to the Synod bosses to do what they pledged to do.