Old Lutherans

Synod in Convention, 1864

Session 5:

Friday afternoon, Nov. 2, the session was opened as usual and, after handling formal business, it was resolved to deal with Rector Schick’s submission: “On the ban and the Synod’s participation therein.” At the end, this submission was first read aloud and then it was decided to use the sequence of reasons put forth in the document as the basis for discussion.  The following remarks were made:

Christians are not held responsible for the false exercise of the ban wherever it is done without their cooperation, nor do they partake in the sins of another.  To be sure, the good works of Christians are shared, including therefore the correct use of excommunication, but a false excommunication cannot be carried out by the Church as such. But it is another question, whether it would be wise given our circumstances, if individual congregations gave the Synod [Synodalgemeinde] the authority, to advise it in cases of church discipline.  To be sure, this authority can be denied the Synod, but it is another question whether that should happen. If the only correct way were that each congregation had to seek the Synod’s counsel in matters of church discipline, then we would not have acted according to God’s Word up to now. 

The ban publicly excludes from the local congregation as well as the kingdom of God by pronouncing the public and unrepentant sinner to be like a heathen and a tax collector in the name of the Triune God. Accordingly, congregations which persist in a brotherly relationship  with one another will carefully and conscientiously guard against accepting someone as a member who has been excommunicated by a congregation before having been completely convinced as a matter of conscience and according to God’s Word that that person has been unjustly excommunicated.  However, every conscientious congregation would have to do precisely this if, after the congregation had given the Synod such a supervisory right, the Synod had rendered an advisory opinion in such a case. For even an entire Synod can err; God’s Word alone can and must decide.

The first reason why it would be desirable for the Synod to be given such a supervisory right over excommunication cannot be the one provided by the submitter, but must be Christian love.  For how could we practice love among one another more than by offering our experience to one another in order to avoid where possible the terrible sin of excommunicating even a single person unjustly.

God possesses the highest right of the keys; the Church has a delegated right and confers this right upon her stewards.  Now, if a congregation is a member of the Church, then it excludes in the name of the Church, therefore also in the name of the Triune God, if it does so justly; for doing something in the name of God means to do something upon His command and with his full power.  Therefore, if a congregation rightly excludes someone in the name of God, it does so in the name of the Church, that is with the Church’s command and full authority, in which alone the Church can act. For a congregation can do nothing right apart from the name of God.

Therefore, love should drive us to strive, as much as we can, so that none of our congregations become schismatic by unjustly excommunicating someone.  Conversely, if the entire Synod pronounced the ban, it would avail nor more, because the Synod had done it, that if it had been done by a single congregation.

The question also arises whether the Synod has the duty of love to help and advise the congregations in this sense so that no false excommunication is pronounced.  In itself, excommunication is nothing other than a display of the congregation’s love toward a poor sinner by not leaving untried the last means given to her by God for rescuing the soul of the poor man.  It would, therefore, require 1) love toward the congregation which has pronounced the excommunication and 2) love toward the person who is regarded as excluded. It would, therefore, be delightful if we let such love have free course among us so that we joyfully entitled one another to the right to practice this duty of love among one another, so that those who intend to excommunicate are kept from sin and those who are to be excommunicated are kept from great tribulation. Indeed, the exercise of such a duty of love should be received by every congregation with heartfelt thanks. For since any number of things can occur in such cases of excommunication on both sides whereby both parties are aggravated and become ill disposed and finally the excommunication can be pronounced by the congregation in undue haste whereupon the excommunicated can complain of partisanship, premature judgment, and the like, it would be a great help if we established a certain order in this respect, not one encumbered with a law, but only an ordered practice of love.

To be sure, faith is a lord over all things, but love is the servant of every man.  To be sure, every single congregation, even the smallest, originally independent, has the same authority as the largest, indeed, as the entire Church, within her limits.  But does not love command us not to seek after right and might but after that which benefits?

For the Synod it would only be a burden laid upon her to serve the congregation in this respect. For the congregation, on the other hand, it would be a work of love shown to her.  Only a preacher wise in his own eyes would regard it as a limit upon his freedom that he should and must seek the advice from the Synod in such matters. Preachers in particular have to contend with the demon of arrogance and thus it is precisely they who most need to be advised and assisted by other brothers in such cases.  For how easily can it happen that a preacher who has been treated indecently, aggravated, and after forming an opinion and admonishing, is made even more ill-disposed by the offending party—how easily can it happen that he then presses out of personal considerations that that person be placed under church discipline! While the first sin was perhaps only a sin of haste, this sin is later increased with new sins through a false treatment, which would then, as a consequence, make excommunication necessary. Haven’t many dragged even those sins, about which Dr. Luther says that they belong in the Lord’s Prayer, into the light after they have been chastised at the first and second level, and brought the sinner, aggravated thereby to desperate refusal until he was finally gotten rid of through excommunication?  

We should daily grow in knowledge, and in this matter too we are still greatly lacking.  The fear of God, conscientiousness, love, and humility should move such a preacher so that he does not wish to stand only on his own two feet or rely upon his own cleverness alone, but rather he should gladly place himself at the feet of those more experienced and seek their instruction, since God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud. Just how necessary this admonition is has been established by the facts in as much as the honorable District President explained that he had been called upon for counsel in two cases of excommunication.  In both of these cases the congregations as well as the preachers were firmly convinced that excommunication could rightly be pronounced and had to be, and in both cases he succeeded in showing the affected parties from Gods word that they would have exercised a false excommunication if it had gone that far.  Therefore, we should make a great help for ourselves and make use of the gifts and goods that God has given us for the common benefit. The reason that this has not happened sooner comes from the fact that originally our congregations were very reticent to accept any synodical fellowship because they feared the loss of their freedom as well as sacerdotal tyranny, and secondly because we had so little experience since we are all Germans who prefer to leave everything the way it had been.  

How suitable, how in keeping with Christian conscientiousness, how supportive of unity would it be if, in a case of excommunication that is called into question, not only the congregation, which can easily be regarded as a party to the matter, gave an account, but also others, who would have to be regarded as entirely unpartisan, judged the matter according to God’s Word! Finally, hereupon it was recognized as the conviction of the Synod by means of a vote that it would be beneficial to and supportive of the edification of the Church for the Synod to participate in matters of excommunication with the local congregation.

It was, however, found to be excessively difficult to decide upon the manner in which such cooperation ought to occur. Therefore, the wish was expressed that a document be composed by competent men from writings already extant, especially from the writing of older teachers of the Church on the correct use of excommunication.  The opinion was quite generally expressed that the congregations should, on the advice given, agree not to enforce excommunication without previously obtaining counsel. It is advisable to establish such an order not only for the unexperienced, frivolous, and unsound preachers, but also for the sake of inexperienced, frivolous, and unsound congregations.  Yet, it would first be necessary to convince every congregation of the benefit of such an order before one could seek to move them to adopt such an order.  Of course, it is precisely the most conscientious pastors and congregations which would do what such an order would prescribe without its introduction, but common orders are necessary precisely for the sake of those who do not have order.  

A written opinion, it was thought, would hardly suffice.  For someone who is participant in the excommunication, either actively or passively, should not always be regarded as an unpartisan reporter.  The responder, on the other hand, can only judge according to what has been placed before him.

Further discussion on the manner of this order was delayed until the next session. Adjourned with the Lord’s Prayer.