Selective use of Luther. He taught that charity in personal and public life should be the rule in our speech. Yet the same Luther harshly lambasted those whom he believed misrepresented God and His Word, and used the Church for the promotion of an agenda foreign to the Christ of Scriptures. You need to understand that this is precisely what many of us believe is happening in the ELCA. In that case, one could say that the blog doesn't go far enough. Anyone care to draw one of our beloved bishops with an ass for a face, like Luther did? I myself would find it inappropriate for now, though.
1. Public rebuke should not be a first response to a first offense. A rapid rush to judgment should be avoided. "Public sin" suggests a pattern of behavior or a lack of recognition of sin and repentance when correction takes place.
2. Public rebuke should be pursued first by those who have the office of correction in the church in their assigned areas of responsibility. In the case of public sin, those affected should consult with each other and with those having responsibility for ecclesiastical supervision.
3. If those charged with ecclesiastical supervision fail to carry out their duties, public rebuke may be pursued by any Christian.
4. Matthew 18 does not speak specifically to cases of public sin, as Luther declares in his explanation of the Eighth Commandment. The steps outlined in Matthew 18, therefore, are not absolute requirements mandated by Scripture or the Confessions in cases of public sin. However, these steps may be part of synodical processes that lead to specific consequences for public sin. Public rebuke is not the same as filing formal charges.
5. One who decides on public rebuke should be certain that he himself properly understands the nature of the sin so that the rebuke offered may have the appropriate effect.
6. Public rebuke should not be undertaken lightly, but only after much prayer, deliberation and consultation with others who know of the sin.
7. In cases where the sin is not apparent to all (and perhaps for that reason, not truly public), a call for discussion rather than a rebuke might best serve the needs of the church. Debate (in forums that may be provided for this purpose), rather than rebuke, may be a more appropriate initial response in some cases.
8. Public rebuke, if it is to be effective, should be rare and used primarily in cases of notorious or scandalous teaching or conduct in which the Gospel is at stake.
9. The purposes of public rebuke are both to warn and instruct the church and to offer spiritual care to the offender. Public rebuke is intended to enlist the aid of fellow Christians in correcting offenders and, upon repentance, to assure them of God's absolving and restorative grace in Word and Sacrament.
From
http://www.lcms.org/pages/print.asp?print=1&NavID=9998&path=%2Fpages%2Frpage.asp