Category: Synod

While I would be very happy if the convention adopted a resolution like the previous sample memorial, realism/pessimism sets in early. Is the ELS capable of anything resembling sorrow over anything it’s done? Can it possibly show the public humility required to admit that its own doctrinal statements are not holy scripture? We’ll see. Or at least, someone will see. (“We” may not all be around by that time.) Or maybe the Lord will return before then, rendering all of the plans within plans utterly irrelevant. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

I’ll do some gardening in the meantime. The soil is tilled, and the next seed is a badly-needed resolution. As it is now, the synod bylaws (Chapter 2) require an action by the synod convention to receive a congregation as a member of the synod. Similarly, they require an action by the synod, without using the word “convention,” to receive an individual as a member. There is no similar requirement when a membership is terminated, be it the membership of a congregation or an individual.

Compare that to the membership of your congregation. Certainly the procedure varies. But in nearly all cases, I would venture to guess that the church’s duly installed representatives (Voters, Council, etc.) have to approve membership changes. That’s only half true for the synod.

Continue reading “Another Possible Memorial: Membership Changes” →

Consider this quotation I found in Christian News (which I don’t generally read through, so I’m glad this caught my eye) from Rev. Daniel Preus about the “A Statement” or “Statement of the 44,” which was issued in the LCMS of 1945:

Completely apart from the issues involved, the fact that a statement of faith and conviction which had been made and mailed to all LCMS clergy and was contrary to official church doctrine and practice was simply withdrawn from discussion without retraction was a very bright green light to those who wished to see Missouri embrace a more open fellowship practice. But the implications do not end there. When people were permitted to publish a position statement contrary to our doctrine, and were not disciplined or required to retract, it became apparent that people would be able to publish or set forth other statements contrary to our doctrine. To many who believed Missouri too rigid, the 44 became a heroic example of a new permissiveness which would slowly invade the synod and lead eventually to the deplorable positions held by the St. Louis Seminary faculty majority in the early 1970s…. The fact remains that these men were able to flaunt the doctrinal practice of the church body to which they belonged with no significant consequences…

(Quoted from the 1999 paper The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod: Holiday from History.)

This is possibly an eye-opening revelation of the thought process behind the suspension of Pastor Rolf Preus from the ELS. It could be that the decision was based upon the notion that Preus’ paper “Clarifying the Issues” was equivalent to the “Statement of the 44.”

Let’s consider the merit of that notion. Do you think that the quote from Daniel Preus above speaks to the suspension of his brother, Rolf Preus? I don’t, and I’ll give you a reason right off the bat. First, a few supporting observations.

Observation

According to the Daniel Preus quote, the Statement of the 44 was aimed against a certain conservative rigidity of the synod, particularly on the doctrine of fellowship.

Observation

The paper “Clarifying the Issues” is not about fellowship, but about the doctrine of the ministry.

Observation

Daniel Preus points out that the LCMS president in 1945 failed to demand a full retraction of “A Statement.”

Observation

In 2006, the ELS president would accept nothing short of a full retraction of “Clarifying the Issues.”

Observation

Since the issue advanced in the Statement of the 44 was lax fellowship, the LCMS president’s failure to put that very same doctrine into practice was a virtual capitulation to “A Statement.”

Observation

However, “Clarifying the Issues,” by contrast, did not advocate laxity of any kind, but instead noted an unacceptable doctrinal laxity on the part of a synodical doctrinal statement.

Conclusion from the foregoing

In several ways, the positions in 2006 were reversed from the positions of 1945. The difference is that Pastor Preus did not soften his position as the LCMS president had done.

Another conclusion from the foregoing

Furthermore, a demand from the president to retract “Clarifying the Issues” was not needed in 2006 to avoid a capitulation to its position (as happened it 1945), because it did not advocate a permissive doctrine of fellowship. It could have remained on the table as raising some serious issues for public consideration, requiring close scrutiny and defense.

I wasn’t around in 1945. My grandfathers were still on their way back from the war. So maybe I don’t know what I’m writing about. If that’s the case, then please educate me.

The title of this article is a direct quotation from the synod announcement concerning the three churches and their pastors who have entered a state of confessional protest. See earlier posts for a description of this protest, and an analysis of the initial response.

I’m going to present the sequence of relevant events in a brief form, as I saw them occurring from my own point of view. I believe my point of view is the truth, or else it wouldn’t be my point of view. You may certainly disagree about that.

The first event relevant to this announcement was when Pastor Rolf Preus was given an ultimatum by the synod president: either recant/retract/withdraw your paper “Clarifying the Issues,” or you will be expelled from the synod. The showdown meeting began with the president asking that Pastor Preus retract his entire paper, as the only acceptable sign that he is not charging the synod with false doctrine. The request/demand was repeated throughout the meeting. Preus’ response was to ask for biblical proof that what he had written was wrong, for without such proof, he believed that his paper was correct and to retract it would be a sin. The meeting ended with no retraction, and no serious attempt to show from the Bible that the paper was wrong.

Continue reading ““Selective Fellowship” Protest” →

What brings churches together to form a synod? This is something that I’m sure everyone in the ELS would agree upon. It’s God’s Word. We agree on the doctrine, and this is the basis for our cooperation together. Without agreeing on the doctrine, we couldn’t have common missions, support a common seminary, or even figure out what our college should teach.

Because of this, the synod as a corporate body has an interest in preserving that unity of doctrine. So one of the tasks of the synod president, and other synod officials, is to help preserve it. How? The same way pastors work in the parish: by speaking and writing God’s Word. Pastors and synod officials do this publicly because they have been authorized to do it publicly, each shepherd to his own sheep in the proper context. The authorization may come in a variety of ways, but that’s how they have that authority.

Yet the authority of God’s Word is independent of the authority that pastors or synod officials have. God’s Word has it’s own authority. If pastors or synod officials speak what is not God’s Word, then their words do not have God’s authority. Yet if a layman speaks God’s Word to his pastor or to a synod official, then it must be heeded as God’s Word. To do otherwise is sinful. (cf. the Third Commandment)

What else can pastors and synod officials do to help preserve our unity in God’s Word? Individually, they can do nothing else.

Someone may say, “What about Matthew 18?” I say: the first steps of church discipline are indeed done by individuals, but they are still nothing but speaking God’s Word. The last step, excommunication, is a corporate speaking of God’s Word. It’s also not the same thing as removing (or suspending) someone from membership.

How is membership established? Corporately, mutually, and voluntarily. How is it terminated? Corporately, and when all is well, mutually and voluntarily. Neither establishing membership nor terminating membership is required by God’s Word. Neither one may be enacted by an individual. Membership is not identical with fellowship, though fellowship in doctrine is a prerequisite for membership. To combine the authority of speaking God’s Word together with the power to terminate membership unilaterally, either in the office of a parish pastor or synod president is contrary to God’s Word. It makes a ruler out of one who only has the authority to speak God’s Word. It confuses the ministry of the Gospel with the administration of temporal matters.

Synod has a churchly character, but what sort of churchly character is it? At this point, I’ve concluded (with help) that the synod exists as the cooperative efforts of its member churches to do certain things. I strongly suspect that it’s the nature of these efforts that lends the synod its whole churchly character, and not any independent characteristics that the synod may have.

But once I start something, I almost always do my best to finish it. So let’s finish our exploration of contrasts between the churchly character of synod and that of congregations, as touching their use of the means of grace, and as touching their context.

Continue reading “Churchliness of Synod: Final Chapter” →

I was going to address how synod and congregation differ regarding their use of the means of grace and regarding their context, but we need to finish something else first, namely, how they differ regarding their shepherds.

Based upon feedback, I need to clarify something. I appreciate the thoughtful email responses I receive to these posts, but since they are private communications, I don’t think I should publish who the sender is. He wanted to explain what the Treatise says in association with AC XVIII, in response to what I wrote here:

So if presiding is pastoral ministry, then the president must be a shepherd to someone else. Is it the pastors of the synod or missionaries? No, because a formal relationship like that would violate Treatise paragraphs 7 and following, with the accompanying scriptural passages.

My email responder distinguishes the authority to set up the synod president as the pastors’ pastor from his authority to act as the minister of the synod’s pastors. The first authority is acknowledged to be done by human right, and the latter by divine right. This distinction echoes what’s written in the PMW: “But it is by divine right that one exercises that work on behalf of the Christians through whom the call has come.” (That’s written about the wider sense of “public ministry.”) By making this distinction, it is supposed that having a synod president as the pastors’ pastor does not violate Treatise 7ff, because we have a synod president by human right. But when he “supervises” his “flock” by teaching them (that is, correcting their doctrine, and presumably suspending those who disagree with what he teaches), he does this by divine right.

Continue reading “Churchliness of Synod Continued” →

I apologize for not providing any earth-shaking conclusions in the last post. My conclusion about the office of synod president: “It depends.” Probably not satisfying to most readers. But if two out of the three of you can accept it, we’ll move on.

I actually received an email from a reader about this post. I won’t divulge the author without permission, but he made a good point. My question, “Just what and where is the synod?” was unfair in presenting only those two, briefly stated alternatives. In fact, it looks a lot like a false dilemma, though he was too polite to write that out loud.

After thinking a bit about this email response while working on various parts of our house this New Year’s Day, I have concluded that the question deserves a lot more attention: Just what and where is the synod?

Continue reading “Just what and where is the synod?” →

As the fit takes me, I’m going to include an explanation of my view on various part of the PMW document from time to time. “PMW” is shorthand for [the newest doctrinal statement][pmw] of the ELS, now a mere 18 months into adoption. It’s fair to say that this document is still mostly untested in “real life.” Sure, we’ve argued about the doctrine for a long time, and sure, a majority of delegates voted for it 18 months ago, but neither of those facts can be called a test of the doctrinal statement.

Unless, maybe, you’re talking about the part that touches upon the authority of a synod president. That is still in the midst of a serious test, pertinent questions being:

[pmw]: http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/believe/els/publicministry Continue reading “A closer look at part of the PMW document” →

Some appropriate questions have been asked by a reader of Norman’s Demesne about the controversy in the ELS. I’ll try to address the first one here, as briefly as I can.

What is the doctrinal point at issue? The 2005 doctrinal statement says much that is good, but some of its assertions are supported by their “proof texts” in a way that we haven’t seen or used before, to my knowledge.

Consider Martin Luther’s famous speech at Worms. He stated (from Wikipedia), “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” For Luther, the only norm of doctrine was Scripture and “plain reason.”

Sometimes our doctrine is not explicitly written out in scripture, just the way we state it in our dogmatics textbooks or catechism classes. How do we know that these statements are true? By what Luther called “plain reason.” He was speaking of deductive logic. Simply put, it allows us to make conclusions about things that scripture does not say explicitly, based upon what it does say explicitly. For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is only one God. Other places, such as Matthew 28:19, attribute divine character to three persons, while maintaining unity between them. “Plain reason” leads us to deduce that God is “trinity:” three persons in one essence.

The ELS doctrinal statement, based upon texts like Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:5 & 28, Philippians 1:1, and 1 Timothy 3:8, asserts, according to the ELS President’s explanation, that God has instituted every office that the Church may use for teaching His Word or administering His sacraments. Some ELS pastors have disagreed with this conclusion, especially when it is made on the basis of these passages. The passages do not explicitly support the conclusion of the ELS doctrinal statement.

The question at issue is this: does the doctrinal statement’s support of this assertion (and others) qualify as “plain reason?” If the assertions are supported by scripture and “plain reason,” then we must accept them. If they are not, then we must not say that they are part of God’s doctrine.

The problem with the assertions in controversy is that they do not use deductive logic. Instead, they infer what they say from the cited scripture verses using inductive logic. If the logic is in fact deductive, then those who defend the assertions will have to state their premises, defend them if necessary, and show how they inevitably lead to the controversial assertions in the doctrinal statement. Lutherans do not use inductive logic as the primary support for their doctrinal assertions. (Perhaps that statement is at the center of the controversy.)

As I understand it, the logic of the doctrinal statement (according to the explanation of the synod president) runs as follows:

• Several titles are given in scripture for those who publicly teach God’s Word and/or administer the sacraments.
• None of the titles are called “divinely instituted” in preference to others.
• It appears that the various titles refer to different aspects of the work.
• It appears that a distinction is made between some who work with God’s Word and some who do not.
• It appears that a distinction is made between two groups of titles which work with God’s Word.

There may be other observations someone might make in defense of the conclusion. The conclusion is then:

This divinely instituted Public Ministry of the Word includes both a narrower and a wider sense.

… meaning that all of the offices the Church uses to administer the Word are divinely instituted, whether they fall under the narrower or wider sense, and

The extent to which one is authorized by the call of the church to exercise the keys publicly is the extent to which one is in the Public Ministry of the Word.

… meaning that some of these offices are not entirely “in” the Public Ministry of the Word. Some are further “in” than others.

The controversy is that some people accept this doctrine and others do not. Of those who do not accept it, quite a few read the ELS doctrinal statement differently, so that the context of these assertions determines that they do not mean what the the ELS President’s explanation says they mean.

In addition to this central doctrinal question, there has also arisen a more pressing situation. The ELS president has been called upon to admit that he erred in judgment when he suspended one pastor among many who strongly opposed these assertions in the doctrinal statement. Some pastors have demonstrated that they still recognize fellowship with the suspended pastor. Others, with their churches, have entered a “state of confession” which insists that the president should not be communed as long as he does not repent of this error, which they consider to be sin. It appears that the ELS could even split, but not over the doctrinal statement itself. Rather, the split could come because of the treatment that doctrinal concerns have received since the adoption of the doctrinal statement. Instead of addressing the concerns with “Scripture and plain reason”, the prospect (and use) of synodical discipline has altered the controversy and made a breach of fellowship not only possible, but likely for many and already a reality for some.

(Or: The view from 1,669 miles.)

There are three different perspectives on the ministry controversy in the ELS. Generally speaking, they are:

1. One group professes allegiance to the doctrinal statement that was adopted in 2005. They are characterized by one thing in particular: when asked to defend or explain the doctrine, the most they will do is repeat the formulations and citations in the adopted statement itself, claiming that they are sufficiently clear and obvious.

2. A second group considers the adopted statement to be acceptable on a practical level, though it must be read in the best possible light. For many of them, this is a conditional acceptance of the document, the condition being the particular understanding that they have. Some admit that the document allows itself to be understood in several conflicting ways, while others insist that it does not. Most wish to repair the document’s deficiencies.

3. A third group considers the adopted document to be teaching things not proven by holy scripture as articles of faith. This group considers the document to be fatally flawed in those areas, though adequate in other areas. They refuse to accept the document until their rooted objections are met.

The document was adopted by 62% of delegates and pastors, most likely coming from groups one and two. Yet a number of those in groups two and three agree that the document was adopted in an immature form, not allowing the public revision process to complete. Nobody knows how long it would have taken to complete the revision process, yet most of those in groups two and three believe that process would have been preferable to the mechanical implementation and enforcement of the document that has been manifest since its adoption.

In November, 2006, there was significant agreement on nearly all points of a shorter study document that had been submitted to the 2006 synod convention. A collection of people representative of all three groups was asked to review the shorter document, to help determine where there may be disagreements. Some in group one, in keeping with their typical behavior, refused to participate, wishing to maintain the official character of the adopted statement. Some in group three expressed concern about a doctrinal point attributing a “divine” character to offices that the church creates, that it could be misconstrued as saying that those offices are divinely instituted. Except for those somewhat negative responses, all responses to the shorter statement were positive or inquisitive.

This exercise demonstrated that there is much agreement between all three groups on nearly all of those particular points of doctrine.

It demonstrated that group one does not trust the others enough to engage an open evaluation of the merits of the adopted doctrinal statement. It will neither honor nor tolerate such a discussion.

It also demonstrated that group three is suspicious of language that might possibly be understood in more than one way. The group is exacting about the quality and integrity of a doctrinal statement, both internally and in relation to the accepted Lutheran confession.

Group two is hopeful that the adopted statement might be improved through the efforts of all to examine and fairly evaluate its merits. It is trying to find common ground between the three groups. Its efforts are hindered mostly by group one’s refusal to countenance any discussion that could finally alter the adopted statement, or their point of view.

Complicating the issue is the appropriation of power to remove pastors or churches from the synod when they are deemed to be significantly opposed to the adopted doctrinal statement. This has already taken place and is apparently also still in process. It fits the priorities of group one, but not groups two or three. By all appearances, it is an unintentionally sectarian policy designed to safeguard the official status of the adopted statement.

This use of power in favor of group one shows that it would rather break fellowship and split away from group three, than work to achieve a better consensus in the synod. This may be due to a conviction that changes to the present form of the adopted statement would be sinful. That conviction alone could justify the opinion that rooted dissent should be treated as false doctrine. Therefore, group one may consider the newly adopted statement to have the same status as the confessions in the 1580 Book of Concord. If that is the case, then group one’s agenda will require group two to either accept the adopted document fully or leave the synod. There would be no possibility to change the document. It is uncertain how quickly group two would have to make their decision. Some of this paragraph is speculative.