Tag: Synod

I’d been asked about this report, and what was its connection to the previous Appeal Commission report. This report relates to a second appeal from a different appellant, in a different case.

Four congregations and their pastors have publicly entered a state of confessional protest against the way the synod president handled the confrontation between himself and Pastor Rolf Preus. (If you don’t know anything about that, this might not interest you. If you are part of an ELS church, you may want to educate yourself.) All four have subsequently been deemed to be separated from the fellowship of the ELS. The fourth entered its state of confession after the other three, and upon learning of its fellowship status, appealed its suspension to the synod convention.

What follows is the text of the Appeals Commission report. I include it here for information only. My analysis will follow, later.

Continue reading “Appeal Commission Report 2” →

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,

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)

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.

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” →

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” →

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.