I’ve been reading off and on the “Walking Together – The LCMS Future” report compiled by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance that was assembled by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Becoming more well versed and knowing what’s going on in the Synod is, after all, one of the goals of the Brothers of John the Steadfast and so I’ve tried to take some time recently to really check out this report since it has the potential to greatly impact the future of the LCMS and the congregations it’s made up of.
The proposals contained in the report are meant to be discussion points and nothing, to my knowledge, has been formally presented as an official recommendation to the full board. Thank goodness for that.
A full point-by-point enumeration of my problems with some of the documents points is something that I’ll have to put off for another time when I have the bandwidth to really get into is. But there are two major problems I have with what’s presented that can be easily summed up:
First, there’s far too much talk in the document of ways that existing processes can be streamlined by simply cutting out congregations, both pastors and laymen. In too many instances is power ceded to District Presidents and other political appointees while shutting out the voices of others. The danger here is that groupthink will emerge and decisions impacting the entire Synod with little to no oversight by either the clergy on the ground or the rank and file members. I’m sure all those people in appointed roles are Godly men, but if they can’t be held accountable by congregations the possibility of negative changes being enacted rises significantly.
Second, the proposals are filled with talk of the Synod and its employees “encouraging” and “supporting” congregations.
This is actually the biggest problem I have with what’s laid out and winds up, ironically, providing the clearest reason not to enact the structural and procedural changes laid out in the document.
Congregations might be in need of encouragement, but I’m fearful that this encouragement will come in the form of being reassured that trying new ways to water down the Gospel in order to appear more pleasing to “seekers” is just fine. “No, you don’t need a cross in the sanctuary. And by the way, have you thought of changing ’sanctuary’ to ‘meeting room?’”
I highly doubt that, given the other programs in the Synod that are focusing on outward evangilism that are meant to be all-inclusive and non-offensive to either non-religious individuals or members of other religions, this support and encouragement will be offered in the form of encouraging congregations to hold true to traditional creeds and confessions. I might be wrong but I’m guessing I’m not.
Too many congregations are falling away from those traditional confessions. Too many are replacing historic liturgy with popular music. Too many are looking for moves of the spirit instead of focusing on the promise of the Sacraments are our connection with God and points where our faith can be strengthened.
These congregations need to be encouraged to come back to the confessional, liturgical fold and, failing that, reprimanded. As Scripture says, first go to your brother with your grievance against him in love and if he fails to repent bring a witness and, failing that, bring him to the authorities. The Synod needs to be the resource to which congregations that are discarding an adherance to the true, revealed Word are brought and not a source of encouragement to those congregations as long as they continue to increase the number of “spiritual moments” that are tallied up.
While the Blue Ribbon Panel’s document is titled “Walking Together” there’s very little in it that’s meant to bring well-intentioned people together in unity of doctrine and practice, unity that should be based on a common confession of the faith. There might be value in logistical changes being made, but I think those that cut out systems of checks and balances aren’t the ones to be looking at.
And if the Synod is actually interested in bringing people together, it would do well to first look back at the Augsburg Confession, one of the foundational documents of the Lutheran Church, and make sure it was adhering to the points made there and correct congregations and thinkers who would deviate from that. If they feel that AC doesn’t offer an up-to-date list of points to agree upon they can always include The Lutheran Manifesto written by Dr. Baue last year and find that it addresses points not made in the AC, points that are relevant to today’s church.
That’s all for now. As I said, if I have the time I’ll make a point-by-point refutation of the problems I have with items in the proposed document later on.
OneMan 6:08 pm on April 24, 2009 Permalink |
Wow to LCMS posts in one day…
As I understand it part of this is going to be presented to us at the district convention in a couple of weeks…
One specific part jumps out at me,
Establish at least two voting representatives—one who is the called pastor and the other who is a non-ordained person—for each congregation.
Umm no, if you want to add a class of representation for called workers (teachers, DCEs, etc) fine. But don’t lump them in with laymen. The tradition of the LCMS is that laymen have a significant voice, if a majority of convention delegates (district or synodical) have a vested interest in financial issues related to pensions, etc. you will end up a with a different convention.
Half of the delegates should be people who if they chose to vote against the recommendation of any sort of synodical leadership, will not face negative work impacts.
Period.