Pastor's Message
Look! Up in the Sky!!
“Men of Galilee, why do
you stand gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven,
will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.” –
Acts 1:11
When I was a lad, there was a famous intro to a TV / movie / radio program that everyone knew: “Look! Up in the sky!! It’s a bird! It’s a plane! No! It’s Superman!!” Unbeknownst to many, “Superman’s” city of Metropolis was actually based on Cleveland, Ohio, with the “Daily Planet” being the now-defunct Cleveland Press, a daily newspaper I actually delivered house-to-house. The creator of “Superman” lived near Cleveland during the Great Depression, when airplanes were first appearing with more frequency in the skies of the Midwest. So, it was an enjoyable novelty in those days to see something flying in the sky that was not a bird or a cloud. The thought of a man going “Up, up, and away” in a plane opened up new possibilities.
This year, on Thursday, May 13th, we will again gather as a congregation to hear of Christ’s Ascension to the Right Hand of His Father. From the Right Hand of mercy, Christ now rules the whole creation, and directs the course of nations, for the sake of His beloved Bride, the Church. As St. John saw in Chapters Four and Five of the Book of Revelation, on Ascension Day our Lord took from His Father’s right hand the scroll of the Book of Life. Now He is preparing to open the Book, as His plan for these end of the ages unfolds. When He comes again “in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven,” He will read the names of those of us whom He has saved in His mercy, and read off the sins & crimes of the unbelievers as they are condemned.
Yet His Ascension raises another glorious, mind-boggling possibility: Christ ascended into the clouds in His resurrected, physical, human body! The eleven Apostles did not see a vision, nor was it a dream. Rather, the fully-human Jesus in His body defied the laws of physics literally to fly “up, up, and away!” Just as Christ is the first-born from among the dead, so also He is only the first of many to follow who shall also have resurrection bodies like His. Paul uses a unique term for what kind of bodies we shall possess after we are resurrected: “spiritual bodies.” That is, fully physical bodies which can also operate in the spiritual realm just as the angels of heaven, and Christ Himself, can now live, act, and move.
Christ is now preparing your body for this glorious future. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God and water to bathe your physical body to prepare your body to be transformed into a body like Christ’s. He feeds you His Body & Blood in the Lord’s Supper with the promise your resurrected flesh & blood will also enjoy the spiritual abilities that enabled Christ’s body to ascend into the clouds and into God’s Heaven.
When you join us for communion and for our other services, Christ will prepare you for this future. On the Last Day, at the Last Trumpet, in a twinkling of an eye, Christ will change your mortal body to be like His immortal body, and in this way we will be forever with the Lord. Then we will all look around and exclaim, “Look! Up here in the sky! Is it a bird? A plane? No! It’s me!!” Then with Christ and all His saints, you shall enjoy life with more joy and in brand new ways, because of Christ’s Ascension, now and forever. Amen! <><
Your Servant-in-Christ, Pastor Jeffrey Gross.
An Analysis of the “Walking
Together—The LCMS Future” Presentation
made at the C.I.D. Convention, July 6, 2009
I wish to preface these comments with sincere acknowledgement that the members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance have put much hard work into their presentation and this project. Many people have worked for a number of years at a cost of $500,000 (provided by a Thrivent grant). These individuals genuinely desire that our Synod grow and thrive, and that the Good News of Christ would be shared among the nations. I hope members of the committee, and those supporting its rationale and conclusions, will take the following critique as a loving, yet frankly honest, admonition with the same intentions as theirs: that Christ’s Gospel of Comfort, Hope, Mercy, and Resurrection will both be boldly shared in the world, yet not only for the growth of the Church, but also for the comfort and up-building of those already trusting in Christ for present and eternal salvation.
As I hope to demonstrate, many proposed ‘solutions’ and changes are not in harmony with the Gospel of Christ, which Good News established the historic polity of the Church, and so also the traditional Lutheran polity based upon His Word. The stated goal of the proposed LCMS re‑organization is to encourage and facilitate greater grassroots participation, rooted in a genuine congregational polity, to promote better proclamation of the Gospel and share the love of God in Jesus Christ. However, the proposals seriously undermine genuine, Biblical, Pastor-and-People congregational polity. Further, these proposals do nothing to assist mission work, but seem only to consolidate power in the hands of the District and Synodical Presidents, who under these proposals would get virtual life-long appointments. Power will also rest in the hands of those whom the D.P’s and S.P. will appoint at their pleasure. These individuals will also have undue power over the careers of new pastors, who will be forced to please their corporate supervisors in word and deed, hoping one day to be ‘rostered’ pastors. If they fail to meet unspecified tests of their “interpersonal skills,” they will be cast out of their parish, forced to find new careers after training many years to serve as ordained pastors of Christ’s Church.
After His resurrection Christ said three times to St. Peter, “Feed My lambs.” This central goal of the Gospel is paid little heed in the proposals. These proposals omit why Christ gave pastors to His Bride as gifts: “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” (Ephesians 4:12, KJV) Christ gave His under-shepherds to forgive people’s sins, to baptize them into His Death and Resurrection, and to feed them His Holy Supper, which is “the work of an evangelist,” a man who preaches and applies the Gospel to God’s children. Through His under-shepherds, Christ serves, comforts, feeds, forgives, blesses, and grants them the gifts of eternal life, for their comfort, protection against heresy and false practice, and preservation in the One, True, Apostolic Faith.
Sadly, it is a tragic feature of the modern LCMS ‘Church Growth’ mindset that current believers’ spiritual needs are generally ignored. Small parishes, whom we’re told are doomed to wither away and die if they do not abandon the Liturgy and traditional preaching and teaching, are now seen as impediments to ‘missional’ work. Yet Christ would have us esteem them as weak, struggling lambs who need the love, care, and help of richer parishes of the Synod (2 Cor 9). Instead, these little parishes are disparaged for not sending much cash into Synod’s all-important unrestricted budget, so Synod leaves them without well-trained pastors, substituting laymen upon whom hands are hastily laid (1 Tim 5:22). The Synod refuses to provide the things of this world to support shepherds to preach the Gospel to Christ’s lambs in these rural parishes, all in a quest to attract young, upwardly mobile professionals in suburbs who can drop large bags of coins into the Temple’s coffers, whereas little parishes can only place a few widows’ mites into the Temple Treasury. This is surely not in accord with Christ’s Will. These proposals just aggravate this problem, even esteeming large parishes of worthy of more representation at all levels of the proposed, new Synodical organization.
Regarding the first proposal, to “Affirm in Our Governing Documents the Mission and Purpose of Our Synod,” the identified ‘problem’ is actually not a problem at all. Our present Synodical Constitution does in fact underscore “Synod’s commitment to Christ, Scripture, the Confessions, and the mission of God.” The entire rationale of virtually all the proposals is based upon this false premise. Adding the ‘Church Growth’ buzz-word “mission” shows how the new Synodical organization would downplay soul-care and proper doctrine and practice.
At this point it is critical to identify Christ’s actual programme for true ‘Church Growth’:
“Wherever you go, therefore, make students from among all
nations
by baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit,
and by teaching them to keep watch over all things whatsoever I have
instructed them.”
Christ nurtures and grows His flock by baptism and by preserving proper doctrine. Altering the unalterable Confessional Article of our Constitution cannot possibly strengthen our doctrinal “continuity.” The Apostle warns, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” Changing doctrinal language is dangerous. Luther wisely says, “in theology, everything new is suspect.” Little changes to ‘clarify’ doctrine often overthrow sound doctrine, which puts us in danger of losing Christ, His Gospel, and His gifts of eternal life.
The Second Proposal carries with it an assumption which must be challenged: that we can establish doctrine by majority vote (whether 50%, two-thirds, 75%, etc). Later proposals assert all by-laws will be binding upon members of Synod. We must reply as Rev. Dr. Marquart once eloquently asserted from the floor of an LCMS Convention: Christians are bound only to the Word of God. No CCM, Convention, or ‘authoritative’ decree of Synodical officials is binding upon the conscience of believers unless it is purely in harmony with God’s Word. Even then, it is only binding because of God’s word, and not because it is pronounced by a human council or authority. So, in what way can we possibly “Strengthen Synod [sic] doctrinal unity by requiring stronger consensus on doctrinal resolutions and statements”? It is a false and pernicious presumption that strong pronouncements by human councils take precedence over God’s Word, or that such councils’ declarations can unite a Synod rent by doctrinal anarchy and schismatic practices. Only voluntary adherence to God’s Word can establish such unity. As Dr. Luther declared at the Diet of Worms, human councils can and have erred. We must stand firmly and solely upon the Rock of Christ, Who is God’s Word made flesh.
The Third Proposal is the most visible place where the unsupported assertion appears that these proposals “underscore” the “congregational nature of the Synod.” However, later proposals deprive congregations of direct election of delegates to Synodical convention in local circuit forums, virtually shut out the hearing of an individual parish’s overtures to Synod, deprive local parishes of direct election of their Circuit Counsellors, and rob their convention-elected heads of boards and commissions of real decision-making power. Thus, while the third proposal asserts our “congregational nature,” the remaining proposals deny and destroy this nature. Worst of all, local parishes will have foisted upon them seminary graduates who may or may not be ordained, and definitely will not be ‘certified’ as LCMS pastors until they have ingratiated themselves with their District President and Circuit Counsellor, and meet some indeterminate post-graduation “inter-personal skills” tests and courses if they are to remain ‘pastor’ of their parishes.
The Third Proposal claims to improve “participation of the laity in the life and work of the Synod.” Yet the proposed re-organization removes their effective participation in direct election of delegates and circuit counsellors, and silences their submission of overtures to conventions. Apparently the proposals envision such “participation of the laity” in carrying out at the local level programs developed in District and Synodical committees, and then by getting out their checkbooks to fund lavish new ‘Church Growth’ programs.
Also, the third proposal makes much of the supposedly crucial problem that many laymen do not fully understanding what a ‘member’ of Synod technically is. Is this misconception really such a colossal problem? Is it such an impediment to growth that we need totally to re-organize the Synod? This seems to this observer to be peeling a hard-boiled egg with a sledgehammer.
Of more concern is the subtle wording of the Recommended Solution to ‘problem’ three. Article V of the Constitution is to be reworded in part so that “Ministers of Religion (ordained and commissioned) are members of the Synod who are eligible to serve as delegates of congregations to conventions of the Synod and its districts.” Does this mean that Pastors will no longer actually be members of Synod regarding their legal standing in our not-for-profit corporation? Will pastors no longer actually be members of Synod, but just non-members who are eligible to vote in conventions?? Currently, legal members of Synod are congregations and pastors. It seems this proposal will strip pastors of actual membership in the Synod, making them simply potential delegates at conventions. Then they no longer have authority “before Caesar” as member of the corporation with appropriate legal rights toward Synod’s elected officials.
Finally, the “Rationale” of the Third Proposal claims it “Recognizes the important role of LCMS ordained and commissioned ministers.” On the surface this appears nice. However, in fact it is further degrading of the pastoral ministry of Christ. Augsburg Confession V, “Of the Ministry” properly asserts the true Biblical Doctrine:
{To obtain saving faith} the Ministry of Teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. For through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given, who works faith; where and when it pleases God, in them that hear the Gospel, to wit, that God, not for our own merits, but for Christ’s sake, justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake.
The Office of the Pastoral Ministry, the Office of Christ, does not merely have an “important role” in the Church. Indeed, the Church cannot survive and grow without this gift from Christ:
14 How then shall they call on Him
in whom they have not believed?
And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?
And how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach unless they are
sent? As it is written:
“How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of
peace,
Who bring glad tidings of good things!”…
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God. [Romans 10, NKJV]
Claiming the Holy Ministry has only an ‘important’ role, but not a crucial role as the way Christ absolves and speaks to sinners, vastly understates Biblical polity. Indeed, it totally distorts true congregational polity and any real attempt to preach the Gospel to the nations. As we will see with Proposal Nineteen, this belittling of the Ministry will take full blown form under these proposals by making it uncertain whether new seminary graduates are ordained, and makes them servants of District Officials who determine if they have proper “interpersonal skills,” which skills are apparently of more importance for the growth of the Church than teaching pure doctrine and properly administering the Sacraments.
The Third Proposal claims that, to clarify what a “Member of Synod is,” somehow “Elevates the sense of belonging, responsibility, and participation of the laity.” However, the proposals deprive the laity of local election of synodical delegates and circuit counsellors, and demeans, dismisses, and belittles overtures sent by individual parishes! How does this elevate a laymen’s “sense of belonging, responsibility, and participation”??? This contradiction runs through all the proposals. Laymen are told they will get more participation and input, whereas they are robbed of the real power. Instead they’re reassured they’re a “Priesthood of All Believers,” which is not a Biblical term or concept at all, but a Fundamentalist construct that despises the Holy Ministry, by-passing the Apostolic Office for “majority rule,” where God’s Word no longer reigns supreme for deciding conflicts, but instead whoever lines up more votes gets to decide issues.
The Fourth Proposal seeks to make teachers, principals, DCE’s, etc, voting delegates at district and national conventions. This all sounds very fair and democratic. Yet the guy or gal in the pew who’s not “a Church Work Professional” suddenly finds himself or herself in the minority when the Synod gathers in convention. Laymen now get 50% representation as delegates at district & Synodical conventions, with ordained pastors being the other 50%. We have always done this, not to be ‘unfair,’ nor to forbid tyrannically that a parish with a school not elect their teachers or principal as delegates. Rather, Biblical, congregational polity is simple: Pastor and People together. This Fourth Proposal tosses in a third wheel: Pastor, People, and “rostered ministers of religion—commissioned.” In reality, this means that the People of Christ, currently at 50-50 parity on the convention floor, would become outnumbered by “Church Work Professionals.”
We currently have representative democracy at our conventions. Not every Pastor votes. Not every layman votes. 99% of laymen have never voted at a district or synodical convention. How then is it unfair that teachers / principals don’t serve as delegates? Though they don’t vote at convention, “commissioned ministers” are still represented by their pastor and lay delegate. They can speak on the convention floor as Advisory Delegates, though the proposals would strip them of that voice. So, Proposal Four seeks to remedy yet another problem-that-is-not-a-problem. It proposes to do so by further silencing the voice of laymen and by reducing the laity’s effective participation through voting.
The Fifth Proposal seeks to make voting representation at conventions, etc., more “equitable.” Immediately the question comes to mind: “equitable to whom?” “Fair” in one man’s opinion may be “tyranny” in another man’s opinion. Has the committee raised itself up over Synod to be the arbiter of what is “fair” and “equitable”? The proposed ‘solution’ to solve this supposed inequity is for large, rich parishes with pastors influential in District & Synod to get more votes. Somehow, that will supposedly satisfy the new “equitable” standard in the proposals.
The Fifth Proposal finds four more problems-that-are-not-really-problems. 1] Vacant parishes don’t get a pastoral vote. (Simple solution: call a pastor, and don’t kick him out because he won’t tolerate Open Communion or allow Contemporary Worship) 2] “Multiple-congregation parishes are not treated equitably.” (Again, “equitable” to whom?? Each parish gets a vote. The Pastor of such multi-point parishes also gets a vote.) 3] A parish with 500 communicant members gets just as many votes as a parish with 2,000 communicants. (This of all the proposals clearly rejects Lutheran congregational polity. Fundamentalism views a congregation as collection of separate individuals. Biblical polity views the Church as Christ’s Body, with individual members united as one through and in Christ. Just because the body has ten fingers, doesn’t mean the fingers get to out-vote the one nose. The new Synodical mindset, which these proposals seek to codify as law, esteems as more important wealthy, ‘growing’ suburban mega-churches which have lots of cash flow. Medium- and small-parishes would be officially classified as only half as important as larger parishes. Such parishes will be told they don’t rate as many votes as the rich and powerful parishes in Synod.) Finally, ‘problem’ number: 4] that larger congregations are assessed higher fees, since parishes are assessed convention costs on a per-capita basis. (Christ encourages people with this world’s goods to help and support their poorer brethren. Synod now apparently rejects this fundamental principle of Christian Charity. “Whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?”)
I hope my parenthetical comments plainly show why this Fifth Proposal is not based upon God’s Word. It betrays a secular corporation’s mindset that places finances and power above Christian charity, compassion, and service of one’s neighbor. Christ shows how power is to be exercised among Christians: “Whoever desires to be first among you, must become your servant.” Rather than building up smaller parishes, these proposals will brush them aside until they can get up to speed, ablaze with a Church-Growth frenzy where numbers are everything.
The Sixth Proposal wants more “equitable” [there’s that word again!!] representation between the circuits. This would make effective the Fifth Proposal’s attempt to give larger, wealthier congregations more control over conventions. Another problem-that’s-not-really-a-problem is here identified as being in desperate need of repair: the number of parishes required to form an electoral circuit, and numerous exceptions to them. The proposed massive re-arrangement of Synod is unnecessary because there is a simpler solution: take away from the Synodical President his abused privilege of granting exceptions. Make all circuits conform to minimum requirements again. The current President has gone wild in granting exceptions. A better solution is to return to a truly grassroots polity. Allow local parishes to arrange themselves into circuits as they see fit, so long as they meet the minimum number. Then, let them simply announce the fact to District / Synod. In this way local congregations would really have a voice.
The Seventh Proposal seeks to limit how many delegates attend a convention. There may be some merit in this proposal, if any money ‘saved’ would be wisely spent, rather than by simply multiplying benefices for bureaucrats. But would 650 delegates staying in separate hotel rooms really allow more chummy interpersonal interaction than a convention with 1250 delegates staying in separate hotel rooms? This proposal would eliminate “Advisory Delegates,” thus forbidding most teachers, principals, and professors from attending conventions. ‘Commissioned minister’ delegates would replace many lay delegates at conventions. An even greater danger is that the handful of power-brokers appointed to the task of Gerry-mandering the electoral circuits will be swayed by larger, wealthier parishes, to give more priority to their circuit’s delegates, all in the name of “Funding the Mission.” Reducing the number of delegates keeps more delegates home, so fewer laymen’s voices are heard. So, since this Seventh Proposal even more diminishes an individual parish’s voice, it ought be rejected.
The Eighth Proposal among all the proposals goes furthest to silence local congregations’ voices and participation in Synodical conventions. For years, the Synodical powers-that-be have been annoyed that so many dissenting voices have come from the parishes. Now, it seems they simply want to send little parishes’ overtures to the office shredder the moment they arrive. The Eighth Proposal encourages Synod to ignore an individual congregation’s voice altogether. This rejection of congregations’ voices is startling when the proposals claim they will empower congregations. The new arrangement would filter these dissenting voices through multiple Synodical ‘mute buttons.’ First, local circuit forums must approve the overture. Then the District Convention must approve. Then the national Synodical office must approve. The icing on the cake of the proposal: it supposedly “Expands the leadership, participation, and influence of congregations and their representatives.” It proposes to do so by silencing them!
The Ninth Proposal wants us to have fewer district and national conventions. While the potential benefit of saving money is given as the rationale, it is doubtful that there will be a net gain in the Synodical treasury. Under these proposals, laymen and parishes lose real authority to direct the course of Synod. This will lead them to keep their dollars at home or send them elsewhere, rather than donate to people who’ve told them not to submit overtures, and who’ve taken away from them local election of delegates.
Back in “our grandfather’s Synod,” Pastors and delegates every two years would walk, ride horses, and take trains to attend the all-important conventions. There real theological issues were hashed out. Real proclamation of the pure Gospel was made. True growth and care of the Church was planned, then took place. Now Synod’s conventions are pep rallies. There’s little time for issues to be discussed in-depth. The Agenda hurries delegates through resolutions and infomercials seeking donations. There are apparently no pressing theological or societal problems which need our attention in every-other-year conventions. Synod’s leaders apparently want less collective deliberation on weighty topics in a four-year convention cycle.
It should be noted that fewer conventions mean fewer elections. That’s less chance for an entrenched Synodical or District President to lose re‑election. Since another proposal seeks to do away with term limits, District & Synodical officials will be even less accountable to laymen, who’d lose delegates to ‘rostered commissioned ministers.’ Fewer elections and fewer delegates equals less direct accountability to the laity and parish pastors for how mission dollars are spent.
The Tenth Proposal seeks to supplement electoral circuits with visitation circuits. First, current electoral circuits could again function as visitation circuits. Truly evangelical oversight is now functionally forbidden to Circuit Counsellors, making them powerless Synodical apparatchiks. Simply amend current by-laws to allow them again to do their jobs, as the Holy Spirit directs through the Apostle:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to
all the flock,
over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers,
to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood.
For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you,
not sparing the flock.
Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking
perverse things,
to draw away disciples after them. –Acts 20:28-30,
KJV
Further, within the Tenth Proposal lies a hidden danger—District Presidents would be given power to appoint Circuit Counsellors, just like Roman Catholic bishops! Coupled with the Nineteenth Proposal’s bizarre treatment of new seminary graduates, these proposals would give District Presidents real, tyrannical authority over new and current pastors. They achieve this coercive power over local pastors by robbing congregations of the right to elect their own Circuit Counsellors. This tenth proposal alone is enough to reject them all.
The Eleventh Proposal claims that “Decision-making on ministries assumed from the national Synod would be closer to the congregation.” Yet parishes would lose their voice and votes in other proposals. DP-controlled conventions, not local circuit forums, would chose delegates to national conventions. How does that put decision-making closer to parishes?
The Twelfth Proposal claims to “Engage congregations in the
development and attainment of Synod goals.” Other proposals have robbed
the congregations of having their overtures heard, and taken away local
election of Circuit Counsellors and delegates to Synodical Conventions.
Apparently ‘engaging congregations’ means parishes are to develop the
finances needed to attain the goals of the Synod’s bureaucracy (now
without term limits and only being up for re-election every four years).
A Power Point flow chart showed congregations at the top, but Synod will
refuse to listen to congregations unless filtered through their District
President.
Also, Proposal Twelve would spin off our seminaries
and colleges by recommending we “Transfer most BUE {Board for
University Education} and BPE {Board for Pastoral Education}
responsibilities to regents and BOD {Board of Directors}.” This further
removes our colleges, universities, and seminaries from local
congregational control. Synodical schools would have power to do as they
please, answerable not to individual pastors and congregations, but only
to their own sources of income, with earthly goals seeking to please the
giver of the donations.
The Thirteenth Proposal could have some merit. A direct-election of Synodical Presidents could be beneficial, if based upon our current Biblical polity: each pastor and congregation gets one vote. Yet since these proposals haven’t given us final details, such ‘direct’ election of Synod’s President and 1st VP (who would be a team as in secular national elections) could well degenerate into gerrymandered circuits and DP’s becoming the electors. Since everywhere else in these proposals congregations and pastors have lost their voice, it’s likely that, in the final form of the ‘direct election,’ our voices will also be muted.
The Fourteenth Proposal is not defined in the presentations, as is true of many proposals. Thus, as C.I.D. requested, these proposals should not be presented to the 2010 Synodical Convention because they have not been presented to the district conventions in their final form!
The Fifteenth Proposal promotes election of ‘regional’ Vice Presidents of Synod to ‘solve’ the ‘problem’ that not every area gets one of their 'local' reps elected. Geographic groups supposedly need the help of a Synodical V.P. nearby in order to survive. Yet Regional VP’s should be rejected simply so unity as a Synod, and not regional division, will be promoted.
The Sixteenth Proposal wants to allow the Synodical Board of Directors and President to ‘pack’ the BOD with five board-selected members with certain ‘skills.’ However, Christ often picks people who don’t meet human ideas of a ‘proper skill set,’ yet He is well-pleased to throw them into the mix. His system is better, as is our current system.
The Seventeenth Proposal would guarantee virtual life-long appointment for Synodical officials. These proposals supposedly are designed to bring new ideas, and new people with unique insights, to participate in the life of Synod. Why, then, is it proposed here to exclude those new people with new insights from ever being elected?
The Eighteenth Proposal puts tyrannical teeth into convention resolutions. In the proposed new Synodical organization, by-laws adopted by a 2/3 majority at convention, would be “binding regulations for the Synod and its conduct and governance.” This proposal does away with the Christian principle that a believer and a congregation is bound only to God’s Word. Synod would no longer be an advisory body, but a legislative body binding congregations and pastors to whatever the S.P.- / D.P.-controlled conventions can convince delegates should be the new Law of the Synod. This is the tyranny of the majority which we’ve long rejected.
The Nineteenth Proposal would create new ‘pastors’ who no longer seek to please Christ in their pastoral practice, but instead coerce them into pleasing their District President, Circuit Counsellor, and every complainer in their congregation. This proposal claims it will provide “the church with well-equipped pastors who have demonstrated their holistic fitness for ministry” and identify “interpersonal and leadership competencies or deficiencies.” Apparently their home pastor and congregation, their vicarage supervisor, and all their seminary professors have failed miserably in preparing seminary students to be nice enough. The horrible problem with newly-graduated seminarians: they are “in need of greater interpersonal and leadership skills.” Who alone can guarantee to remedy such a lack? Why, District Presidents and their hand-picked Circuit Counsellors (who won’t be elected locally by parishes and pastors anymore). The new ‘pastor’ will need to make them happy if he is to hope to be rostered someday.
The proposal would solve this ‘problem’ by making the “Specific Ministry Pastor program” the model for every pastor. The recent, hastily adopted SMP program rejects Christ’s Word that “anyone who puts his hand back to the plough is not fit for the Kingdom of God.” This SMP program produces minimally-educated pastors, who lack any serious training in the original languages of Scripture, and give them only the sketchiest of theological training. These also serve at the pleasure of District Presidents, unlike regularly called and trained pastors. The SMP program was sold to Synod for a few men as an exception to a seminary education (who demand to serve Christ in their home congregations, rather than where Christ through His Church is pleased to send them into the harvest field). Now SMP is to become the standard model for training pastors!! All new pastors would not be treated as servants of God, but as hired servants of men, who serve solely at the pleasure of their District President.
Even worse, new seminary graduates upon installation will not automatically be a pastor on the Synodical roster! He will have to jump through whatever hoops his District President may devise. D.P.-appointed Circuit Counsellors will be breathing down his neck, second-guessing his every word and deed. Any complaint from a disgruntled member of his parish could be cause for the new pastor to be terminated immediately, making every call a temporary call, contrary to Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and Apostolic practice. If the new graduate makes any of these people unhappy, he will be told he’s lacking unspecified leadership and interpersonal skills, and be told he needs to find a new career.
Worse still, the Task Force hasn’t even worked out whether these new pastors serving their new congregations will even actually be ordained! Once installed, will he be ordained but not rostered?? If he’s an ordained Pastor of the Synod, how can he not be rostered?? If he’s installed, but not ordained nor rostered, why is he consecrating the Lord’s Supper, baptizing, preaching and teaching?? The proposals have omitted to consider this all-important feature of Lutheran congregational polity! Like the SMP program, the Nineteenth Proposal would install functional vicars into parishes to consecrate the Lord’s Supper, and act as if they were ordained pastors, though they won’t be rostered for some indeterminate time period.
Augsburg Confession XIV states clearly the Biblical, Apostolic Ministry of Jesus Christ:
Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
Under this proposal, no one will be sure if the new 'pastor' even has a call, much less be "regularly called" [Latin: rite vocatus]. What began at Wichita, and was expanded with the SMP program, now will be made sacrosanct by these newest proposals. A new pastor won’t be encouraged to please Christ, but will be forced to please men, being totally at the mercy of his ‘ecclesial supervisors.’ Luther led his Reformation of the Church against just such tyrannical bishops as are here proposed.
Finally, let us speak of the real world, not the false façade presented by Synod’s current pronouncements. Our Synod is seriously divided over communion practice and using the Liturgy as the truly evangelical proclamation of the Gospel through sound, doctrinal hymns, which are used to teach the Faith and reject error. The current proposals empower District Presidents to weed out faithful new pastors who practice Closed Communion, which Christ has ordained as His Divine Fellowship practice. They will defrock young pastors who reject “Contemporary Worship,” which is based upon Fundamentalist doctrine, and so does not preach Christ, repentance, faith, and sound doctrine. This proposal will drum out such young pastors, then blatantly lie about them, claiming they just don’t have proper ‘interpersonal skills,’ giving this deception as the reason for removing them from office. This is a great evil.
The Twentieth Proposal suggests finding a new, friendlier name for the LCMS. Might I suggest that, if these proposals are adopted, be sure to do one thing: remove the word ‘Lutheran,’ for the proposed re-structuring of Synod will remove Lutheranism from our midst.
Conclusions. The radical re-organization of our Synod in these proposals do the opposite of what they are claimed to do. Rather than greater grassroots, lay participation, these proposals remove direct participation by laymen and individual parishes, even specifically silencing their right to send overtures for consideration by Synod. Pastors would lose standing before Synod. New Pastors would be under unbearable scrutiny from DP’s and DP-appointed Circuit Counsellors to demonstrate some undefined set of ‘skills’ found nowhere in God’s Word nor Apostolic tradition. Though new ideas and “new blood” are said to be urgently needed, present incumbents would be virtually guaranteed life-long hold on their current offices by the proposals.
I know those who’ve worked on these proposals only want the best for the Synod, and for the Gospel to be preached. I would urge them to go back to the proverbial drawing board. Slashing the size of the Synodical bureaucracy and the powers of District and Synodical Presidents is the direction we need to go. Return to parishes, local pastors, and Christ’s People their previous, Biblical authority to decide disputes between Synodical officials and congregations. Then we will be re-organized on a grassroots level in accord with true Biblical polity.
-- Pastor Jeffrey Gross, Pentecost 22, A.D. 2009