Tag: Synod

Here are a few thoughts about the ongoing suspension controversy in the ELS.

(For those who have not heard, we now have two controversies: one on the doctrine of the ministry, and one about the irregular suspension of a pastor. They follow the same pattern: an inadvisable decision is made on some official level, and other people are chastised or even threatened for taking firm opposition. Either controversy has a reasonable probability of bringing permanent division to the ELS.)

Before the suspension, Pastor Preus was told that the only way to avoid it was to retract his paper, Clarifying the Issues. (Mirrored on christfor.us.)

Continue reading “Revoco, Retraction, and Withdrawal” →

This is another speech from the ELS convention, made by one of our pastors from the convention floor. I will leave him nameless for now. Though he only spoke for himself, many other pastors seem to share his thoughts and position. The good thing about this is that he was not suspended for saying this. His speech has several comments from the chairman embedded within it.

I should say that I sympathize with this approach, but it is not the approach I have taken with the PMW statement. Instead of saying that I can’t figure out what it means, I have interpreted it in a specific way that agrees with the Lutheran Confessions. I have published this interpretation here, with a more comprehensive explanation linked from the end of that page. While this is the only interpretation of the PMW that I can accept, I am still open to adjustments, if they are well-founded. Continue reading “Another ELS Bright Spot, sort of.” →

Now, for a little good news. It’s actually quite good, for everyone to whom it was meant to apply. Unfortunately, I don’t think that includes the pastor currently under suspension, and whose suspension is under appeal. Yet if we could make this speech and the included pledge retroactive to January 1 of this year, then I don’t think there would be a suspension, either.

The following is transcripted from the Thursday morning, a speech from President Moldstad after the convention voted to give him the floor. He was speaking about a motion I may post later, which attempted to make the PMW descriptive, rather than prescriptive for the synod in the interest of creating a setting where the merits and problems of PMW could be discussed openly, without fear of reprisal. Continue reading “ELS Bright Spot: A Speech at Convention” →

The synod convention this year was filled with controversy. It began on Monday when I presented a resolution crafted at (and adopted by) the West Coast pastoral conference of the ELS about a month earlier. The resolution was aimed at the convention session itself, that we would be as patient as possible with each other, and not say or do anything that would be irreversible later on. With extreme irony, several people spoke against this resolution as though it were divisive or a threat to the unity of the synod. It was even said that the words “refrain from finality in words and actions” would effectively rescind our synod’s adoption of the Public Ministry of the Word doctrinal statement from last year. As I told someone later that day, I used to enjoy irony, but could not enjoy this at all. It becomes very hard not to question motives.

The convention also approved a slate of nominees for the Appeals Commission that will irrevocably decide upon the Moldstad-Preus situation. Unfortunately, most of those voting to approve the slate had a misperception of what they were doing and the applicable rules. Much like the PMW document itself, this lamentable situation contributed nothing positive toward the unity of our synod. Our division of minds was well reflected in the reelection of our synod president by only two votes out of 273. Another unfortunate situation cast a pall over that vote, too. We voted on the final slate of three candidates twice, due to a reported surplus of votes the first time around. Normally, this might have passed by without comment, because we trust our Christian brothers not to manipulate the situation. However, the present controversy influences all of us significantly.

More to come later, as opportunity permits. Kyrie eleison.

This question has been asked on LutherQuest. It deserves an answer, since it is rather evident that I spent some time on the interpretation, particularly on the longer, original explanation.

It has aptly been pointed out that some parts of my interpretation don’t hold water very well. That’s because the parts of the PMW that I am explaining are somewhat deficient in their expression, in my opinion. Still, I sometimes read a poorly-worded sentence in the newspaper or elsewhere from time to time, and though I may mock it, I can usually understand the intent. Thus, my interpretation is not a defense of the PMW per se, but an explanation of the understanding under which I can tolerate the PMW, for the moment.
Continue reading “Why spend the time interpreting the PMW?” →

As far as I know, only Lutherans use the word “synod” to describe their larger church bodies.
It seems likely that this includes only English-speaking Lutherans. So I will take this opportunity to describe what I mean by the word. I think that most of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod would agree with me.

A synod is a collection of churches. If it had no churches, but only Christian day schools, it would not be a synod. If it had no churches, but only exploratory missions, it would not be a synod. A synod is a collection of churches.

Furthermore, churches become part of a synod voluntarily. No church can be forced to join a synod. Three factors determine whether a congregation will be part of a given synod:

1. Whether the doctrine of the synod is the same as the doctrine of the church. This is the basis for membership in a synod.
2. Whether the purpose of the synod is compatible with the congregation.
3. Whether the culture of the synod is compatible with the congregation.

Churches belong to no more than one synod, though they might recognize a bond of fellowship with churches of other synods. So if a congregation already belongs to one synod, it will not join another without leaving the first.

When a synod acts, it does so as a cooperative collection of churches. It has no existence beyond its member churches. Acting together, the churches can support schools and missions. The synod can research and declare formal relationships with other synods. It can issue statements in response to events or needs. It can provide assistance to congregations and people. But the purpose of a synod is really an extension of the purpose of its churches, so all of its activities should be directed toward the tasks that God has given Christians to carry out together. The most fundamental purpose and use of a synod is therefore to provide ministers for its churches who will preach and teach God’s Word and administer the sacraments.

God did not say anywhere that we should have synods, but He did say that Christians should assemble to hear His Word (1 Cor. 14:26, Heb. 10:24-25) and to receive His sacraments (especially the Lord’s Supper — “do this in remembrance of Me.”). Such a regular assembly has the essence of a Christian congregation, so it is safe to say that God wants us to have congregations. He does not say that we should have synods or that we should not have synods.

Congregations have the freedom to make synods, but it is not a requirement. So a church does not sin when it leaves a synod, nor when it declines to join one. Likewise, a minister has the freedom to join a synod, and to remain a member, or not. For its part, a synod has the freedom to determine the particular grounds for membership. It can not tell its churches or ministers what to do, but it can remove them from its membership when the basis for membership has been destroyed. A synod’s role in the business of its churches and ministers is merely advisory.

When is the basis for membership in a synod destroyed? When the doctrine that is persistently taught or accepted by the synod contradicts the doctrine persistently taught or accepted by a member congregation. This leaves room for temporary errors, admonishments, and corrections on both sides, but not for permanent contradictions. It is assumed that any human being except Christ himself, and any human organization is subject to errors and mistakes (Psalm 19:12).

The interesting thing about a synod is that it fully exists only when its member churches are actively collaborating. So in the ELS, we have annual conventions of delegates from every congregation to carry out the business of the synod and decide all matters of importance. This convention must follow the rules that define the synod (that is, the articles of incorporation), but in every other respect, it is the highest human authority in the synod. It is the convention that defines the constitution of the synod, and alters it when appropriate. It is the convention that defines offices and chooses individuals to carry out its will between conventions. It is the convention that reviews the performance of its standing officers and organizations, and makes corrections when needed. The synod convention follows its own rules, but can also change any of them except the particular rules that define the synod (that is, the articles of incorporation).

So if the synod in convention takes special interest in a matter that is being handled another way according to its rules, there is nothing to prevent the synod convention from bypassing those rules and handling the matter directly. In some cases, this may even be preferable because of the urgency or expediency involved. It seems likely that this should apply in this case.

I look forward to any comments, corrections, or corroborations that might be offered to this posting.

Like other Lutheran church organizations, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod has been embroiled in controversy about the doctrine of the ministry. An attempt to summarize this controversy, and an archive of important documents, has begun at www.christfor.us. Already, quite a bit of material has been gathered. Those who wish to learn about the controversy should be careful to give all sides a fair hearing before reaching any conclusions.