Procrastination being what it is (a powerful force in my life), I’m just now getting around to closely reading the Final Report of the BRTFSSG today. Less than a week before I’ll journey to the Dearborn (MI) Hyatt Regency for my region’s sales pitch, er, convocation to better understand and consider the 21 proposals contained within the Final Report.
Pr. Rossow & the good folks over at the Brothers of John the Steadfast have already done a more thorough job of dissecting & discussing the report than I’ll ever do here. So, if that’s what you’re craving, you’ll want to go over there & check that out.
What I want to do is just offer a few thoughts as I begin to work through the report. These will probably end up being questions/observations, without any real answers, but if I can’t vent a little here, where can I, right?
The first thing jumped out at me as I read the section on “The Theological Foundations” of the whole BRTFSSG undertaking. “22 basic theological principles… upon which the task force would build its recommendations.” (BRTFSSG Final Report, p. 13) They’re largely innocuous (if not ironically contradictory with their eventual recommendations), but I can’t argue with them. So I won’t mention them here. Except for #20 — that one I need to mention. It states, “The Synod’s churchly functions”
Huh?
The synod isn’t a/the Church. It’s a man-made entity, incorporated to deal with certain things in service of those entities that actually are churches — the local congregations. It just strikes me as odd, and sounds, you know, off to hear it phrased like the task force phrases it.
This is immediately followed up by four summary paragraphs of the 22 foundational principles (pp. 13-14). Key in this section is the phraseology in paragraph three:
“The structure and governance of the Synod, together with their underlying organizational and theological principles, ought to be tested regularly for functionality, relevance, and proper application. They should also be revised when the Synod’s members determine that changes are necessary for the sake of carrying out its God-given mission and purpose more effectively and more efficiently.” (p. 14, emphasis mine)
This jumped out at me, and I think it’s quite significant in the big picture of what we’re dealing with in this report.
Does the Synod have a God-given mission?
OR
Is the Synod merely a convenient (man-made) structure by which congregations can better carry out THEIR God-given missions?
There is a difference. A very significant difference. And it has everything to do with how a centralized, national church body’s leadership cadre views its role, and to what lengths a bureaucracy will go to protect and perpetuate itself. Even cloaking itself in fine, albeit oddly contradictory, language while it restructures.
Building on this theme, Section One of the recommendations (p. 21ff) (“The Confessional Mission and Purpose”) continues the justification of the “Institutional Synod” as the primary entity (even while language touting the congregations is employed).
Synod, going back to its founding, has always had a “purpose”, a reason for being. That’s never been in question. What’s different now, it seems, is that there’s a need to formally endow Synod with its own “mission” and “confession”, and enshrine those innovations in the governing documents.
Why?
I’ve already asked the question (above) about where the God-given mission truly sits (i.e., the local congregation). But, what about this need to have the governing documents contain a formal “confession of faith”? The Task Force indicates (p. 21) that for over 150 years, our governing documents have been deficient, as there was no Synodical confession of faith contained therein.
Balderdash!
This strikes me as just as ridiculous as the Task Force’s contention (p. 21) that language can be “updated”, “revised”, and “made more relevant” (e.g., by eliminating “cumbersome and unnecessary wording”) without impacting meaning. Words have meaning, and changes aren’t made in a vacuum!
Finally, if the congregation is at the center of everything (and these recommendations have the much touted “congregational bias” that we heard so much about at the District Conventions earlier this year…), and the “Institutional/Centralized” Synod structure isn’t about consolidating power, then why is there the seemingly strong need/institutional imperative to make sure that the structural/organizational hierarchy is injected so clearly into the definitional mix? (p. 22)
Odd, no?
That’s all I’ve got for now. Frankly, even just based on these few points, there’s enough to be skeptical of the whole slate of recommendations; for, if the foundation is faulty, then whatever is built upon it will be suspect as well.
Initial Restructuring Thoughts
Procrastination being what it is (a powerful force in my life), I’m just now getting around to closely reading the Final Report of the BRTFSSG today. Less than a week before I’ll journey to the Dearborn (MI) Hyatt Regency for my region’s sales pitch, er, convocation to better understand and consider the 21 proposals contained within the Final Report.
Pr. Rossow & the good folks over at the Brothers of John the Steadfast have already done a more thorough job of dissecting & discussing the report than I’ll ever do here. So, if that’s what you’re craving, you’ll want to go over there & check that out.
What I want to do is just offer a few thoughts as I begin to work through the report. These will probably end up being questions/observations, without any real answers, but if I can’t vent a little here, where can I, right?
The first thing jumped out at me as I read the section on “The Theological Foundations” of the whole BRTFSSG undertaking. “22 basic theological principles… upon which the task force would build its recommendations.” (BRTFSSG Final Report, p. 13) They’re largely innocuous (if not ironically contradictory with their eventual recommendations), but I can’t argue with them. So I won’t mention them here. Except for #20 — that one I need to mention. It states, “The Synod’s churchly functions”
Huh?
The synod isn’t a/the Church. It’s a man-made entity, incorporated to deal with certain things in service of those entities that actually are churches — the local congregations. It just strikes me as odd, and sounds, you know, off to hear it phrased like the task force phrases it.
This is immediately followed up by four summary paragraphs of the 22 foundational principles (pp. 13-14). Key in this section is the phraseology in paragraph three:
This jumped out at me, and I think it’s quite significant in the big picture of what we’re dealing with in this report.
Does the Synod have a God-given mission?
OR
Is the Synod merely a convenient (man-made) structure by which congregations can better carry out THEIR God-given missions?
There is a difference. A very significant difference. And it has everything to do with how a centralized, national church body’s leadership cadre views its role, and to what lengths a bureaucracy will go to protect and perpetuate itself. Even cloaking itself in fine, albeit oddly contradictory, language while it restructures.
Building on this theme, Section One of the recommendations (p. 21ff) (“The Confessional Mission and Purpose”) continues the justification of the “Institutional Synod” as the primary entity (even while language touting the congregations is employed).
Synod, going back to its founding, has always had a “purpose”, a reason for being. That’s never been in question. What’s different now, it seems, is that there’s a need to formally endow Synod with its own “mission” and “confession”, and enshrine those innovations in the governing documents.
Why?
I’ve already asked the question (above) about where the God-given mission truly sits (i.e., the local congregation). But, what about this need to have the governing documents contain a formal “confession of faith”? The Task Force indicates (p. 21) that for over 150 years, our governing documents have been deficient, as there was no Synodical confession of faith contained therein.
Balderdash!
This strikes me as just as ridiculous as the Task Force’s contention (p. 21) that language can be “updated”, “revised”, and “made more relevant” (e.g., by eliminating “cumbersome and unnecessary wording”) without impacting meaning. Words have meaning, and changes aren’t made in a vacuum!
Finally, if the congregation is at the center of everything (and these recommendations have the much touted “congregational bias” that we heard so much about at the District Conventions earlier this year…), and the “Institutional/Centralized” Synod structure isn’t about consolidating power, then why is there the seemingly strong need/institutional imperative to make sure that the structural/organizational hierarchy is injected so clearly into the definitional mix? (p. 22)
Odd, no?
That’s all I’ve got for now. Frankly, even just based on these few points, there’s enough to be skeptical of the whole slate of recommendations; for, if the foundation is faulty, then whatever is built upon it will be suspect as well.
-ghp