Category: Synod

Brainstorm: Synods and Churches

Jesse4 Comments

Christian organizations in the world, such as synods and churches, are subject to order in two different ways. One way we may call God’s Word, which is the expression of God’s will for us, for all time. The other we may call bureaucracy.

Likewise, two kingdoms exist in the world by the authority of God.

The Kingdom of the Right is the Holy Christian Church. It’s not to be seen upon the earth, except in its pure marks: the preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the sacraments.

The Kingdom of the Left is civil governance and organization, which is found in every country, nation, state and province.

This division between Right and Left, authority Spiritual and authority Temporal, is carried into outward Christian organizations, notably congregations and synods. Why? Because the Holy Christian Church is ruled only by the Gospel, in which we have complete freedom. It’s not suitable to organize a group of sinners, which after all, describes every synod and congregation. Temporal authority is required.

So a congregation has articles of incorporation and bylaws. It elects officers and others to carry out its business. They do so with temporal or bureaucratic authority, not with the Gospel. The same is true for synods.

It has been asked what spiritual authority a synod has over its member congregations. There are two ways to err in answering this question. We would err by saying that the synod and its officers, as such, have been given spiritual authority over the member congregations, pastors and missionaries of the synod. Note this quotation brought up at the 2006 General Pastoral Conference, from Christian Anderson in 1927:

Much less ought the congregations assign to the general church body or its officers any power and authority by virtue of their resolutions — even when not in conflict with God’s Word — could be construed as laws binding upon the congregations by virtue of divine authority, vested in them as superiors according to the fourth commandment. Such concession on the part of the congregations would make of the synod a papacy which might become just as anti-Christian as that of Rome.

Unsurprisingly, Christian Anderson agrees with paragraph 8 of the Treatise and with holy scripture (John 13:3-17 and Luke 22:25-30).

Then what are we to make of synodical discipline? It is entirely bureaucratic in nature, proceeding only under temporal authority. The reasons for it, and the manner of its implementation may be rooted in the Gospel, but it is not to be construed or understood as Church discipline.

The other way to err in describing what spiritual authority a synod has over its member congregations is to say that it has none at all. If the Synod is a churchly organization; that is, if it is composed of and for Christians, then it has the same spiritual authority that every Christian has: it may speak and publish God’s Word.

If God’s Word rebukes a congregation or pastor, then the synod may speak that Word of God in rebuke — an element of church discipline.
If God’s Word commends, encourages or exhorts a church or pastor, then the synod may speak that Word in such a spirit. Every individual Christian, and every congregation may do exactly the same, with the same authority. The synod has no spiritual authority beyond the Word of God.

Ist klar?

Now allow me to shift the subject a bit.
What ought to happen when bureaucratic necessity conflicts with the Word of God? For example, suppose a member of my congregation notices that our mission statement contains something that seems to be false doctrine, but our bylaws require that all our members agree to the congregation’s teachings. It’s a conflict between bureaucratic necessity and the Word of God. Here are some choices:

  1. Release the member from the congregation and spend extra time on evangelism with the intent of forgetting that there could be a doctrinal problem with our mission statement. Under this option, the Word of God takes the brunt of abuse.

  2. Suspend the bureaucratic requirement for membership until the mission statement can be examined and fixed, or its doctrine explained to the satisfaction of all parties. Under this option, the human and temporal organization takes the brunt of abuse.

If such a hypothetical situation ever arose in church or synod, we can predict with some certainty that the first choice would be followed. That may surprise you. But if you read enough Luther, you’ll find that he often laments that it is God’s Word and God’s name that must suffer the worst abuse in the world. If you pay attention and live long enough, you just might see this theory tested.

The Shorter Memorial

JesseLeave a comment

The shorter memorial sent in by both of my congregations and Our Savior’s in Bagley, Minnesota, came up on the floor of the convention today. It had been assigned to the “miscellaneous” floor committee as part of their work. Their report did not contain very much in response to the memorial. Really, it was just one line: “Be it resolved that the memorial be declined.” There was no further description of the issue raised by the memorial, or reason for declining it.

When the floor committee’s resolution was read, and the chairman called for discussion, I kept an eye out over the whole floor for anyone raising their hands. There were none in the first few seconds, so I stood and raised my hand.

In my speech, I wanted to point out a reason for declining the memorial, while also telling how it had been written to address a genuine problem. I spoke in favor of declining the memorial, but said that the convention really ought to know the background behind it. Then I described the need for the memorial, and how the synod president had addressed it at the West Coast Pastoral Conference. He explained that the only floor committee not appointed by the president is given the task of reviewing his message and report. This committee has the important responsibility of reviewing his actions, and responding to them as they see fit. This was news to quite a few of us at the West Coast Conference, so we should be sure that the synod is aware of it. That was the essence of my speech. Then things got interesting. (Not because of my speech, but maybe even partly in spite of it.)

The pastor of Our Savior’s (a co-sponsor of the memorial) moved that the resolution be referred to the Synod Review Committee. Lively discussion followed in which I did not participate by speaking. In the end, this motion passed, so that instead of declining the memorial, the synod referred the issue to the Synod Review Committee, so that it might examine the issue and perhaps suggest an improvement to the synodical guidelines.

So let me recap the results of these two memorials. In each case, the issues they raised were referred to an appropriate standing board/committee, where they will be examined with the possibility of finding a solution. Wow. The congregations sponsoring these memorials have every reason to be happy with the results. I honestly expected both memorials to be declined without much explanation.

I’ll note one comment made on the floor about the shorter memorial. One of the speakers was deeply concerned about the wording of the “whereas” parts. If you read the text of that memorial (posted here first), you will see that three of the four “whereas” parts are really simple statements of fact that no reasonable person would argue against. The fourth (third in the order they were written) says something to which particular people might object. The speaker today said that it was “inflammatory,” stating that the synod president was guilty of some wrongdoing. I disagree. I think it was worded rather objectively and dispassionately. I admit that there were some provocative adverbs in it (“permanently and unilaterally”), but I do not think they were inflammatory.

Judge for yourself. If you think some of the words are too provocative, consider their accuracy. Do they describe what has been demonstrated in the ELS? You may want to refresh your understanding of their meaning, but I think they do. If something is inflammatory here, I don’t think it’s the memorial, but perhaps the synod’s experience to which it refers.

WHEREAS it has proven possible that both congregations and individuals may be permanently and unilaterally removed from membership in the synod by a single act of the synod administration, without explicit ratification by the synod, and,

Memorial Referred to Standing Doctrine Committee

JesseLeave a comment

The resolutions I reported earlier, as well as the memorials to which they respond, have been referred to the standing doctrine committee. This is a good thing, because it removes the discussion from the convention floor, where it could as easily be more divisive to our synod. It’s also good because the Doctrine Committee will now (hopefully) address the serious concerns raised by the memorials. The resolutions addressed some, but not all of the concerns.

I should note that the memorials in question came from four different congregations:

  • Bethany in The Dalles, Oregon

  • Concordia in Hood River, Oregon

  • Our Saviors in Bagley, Minnesota

  • Christ the King in Green Bay, Wisconsin (sent the other memorial)

Another Memorial that Wasn’t Sent In

JesseLeave a comment

I don’t know how well this formatting will come through, but it’s worth a try anyway. This is an educational memorial. I’ve seen several like it. A large part of the purpose is to educate the delegates and pastors at convention about various things. In this case, it’s about events beginning with the untimely adoption of the PMW. Thanks, Harry, for your permission to post your words.

Continue reading “Another Memorial that Wasn’t Sent In” →

Update on the response to our longer memorial

JesseLeave a comment

The floor committee has produced the following resolutions in response to the longer memorial from my congregations and to a similar memorial from our church in Green Bay.

WHEREAS, The synod adopted the Public Ministry of the Word (PMW) in 2005, and,

WHEREAS, The synod reaffirmed the PMW in 2006, encouraging “continued study and discussion of the doctrine of the public ministry ‘with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Ephesians 4:2, 3 NKJV), in order to bring about greater unity in the synod and greater understanding of the doctrine of the public ministry, and,

WHEREAS, The synod uses the PMW for colloquies and its official teaching for inter-church relations, and,

WHEREAS, The synod adopted, “that while the public Ministry of the Word is being clarified for these congregations, that, in the interest of promoting fraternal unity, they be encouraged to refrain from publicly teaching against or making charges opposed to the Public Ministry of the Word” (Synodical Membership, 2006, p. 83), therefore,

A. BE IT RESOLVED, That the synod reaffirm the PMW, as well as the brotherly admonitions and encouragements quoted, as the answer to the memorials on pp. 55–56, and,

B. BE IT RESOLVED, That the synod encourage the pastors and congregations who have broken fellowship with the synod to reconsider their actions with a fervent hope that fellowship may be reestablished.

This resolution has not yet been brought to the floor of the convention for discussion.

The Laity in the Church

JesseLeave a comment

Some might say that the laity are the Church, but that’s not true. The Church consists of three estates, three realms in which God rules and blesses us all. We have grown accustomed to thinking of laity and clergy in the church. The clergy are the ministers; narrow or wide sense, I do not know. The laity are the rest, and the majority by far. What we call the clergy approximates the old “ecclesiastical estate,” though our term “clergy” may be more restrictive. What we call laity encompasses both the “domestic estate” and the “political estate.”

Continue reading “The Laity in the Church” →

Unpacking Cause and Effect

JesseLeave a comment

I need to clarify some things I wrote in the Cause and Effect article. It’s a little densely written.

Stemming from the PMW document

The first problem that comes to mind is the disagreement and confusion we saw from the time it was introduced, through the time it was adopted, and even to the present. There is disagreement about what it says between those who are sure about it. There is confusion among the rest, because they’re not sure what it says. This situation could have been avoided with the right kind of public study and discourse before the adoption of the statement, but that’s now water over the dam. Instead of containing that water, our job is now to evacuate the villages downstream.

The Dalles Dam

Continue reading “Unpacking Cause and Effect” →

A Correction/Adjustment/Clarification

JesseLeave a comment

In the post about bright spots in the president’s report, I wrote about the issues addressed at the circuit visitor’s conference. These issues were reportedly related to the 2006 General Pastoral Conference. I wrote:

I can only guess exactly what those issues were. One guess relates to the paper that Pastor Jay Webber delivered on parsing the PMW in an objective way. At the time, that paper was not received with much enthusiasm. If I recall correctly, only one of the PCM (the initial drafters of the PMW document) offered an endorsement of Pastor Webber’s parsing. The president also demurred.

This might mislead one into thinking that the PCM and the president actually disapproved of Pastor Webber’s paper. They expressed no disapproval. Most also expressed no approval, at the time (as I recall — please correct me if necessary). Reportedly, the majority of the PCM members have expressed individual approval of the paper, but to my knowledge there have been no public statements to that effect.