Gathering the Force in Dearborn (2 of 2)
Let the gathering breakdown continue!
If you haven’t already, you can check out Part 1 to get an idea about the nuts & bolts of how the BRTFSSG Gathering of the IN, OH, MI, & northern circuits of the EN Districts worked.
In Part 2 my goal is to lay out what was discussed & presented during the 25 hours of the gathering, i.e., the 21 TF Recommendations, their underpinnings, and also their defense (at times) by the TF.
This report will follow the flow of the gathering’s meetings, rather than a concise summary of each section of 6 recommendation groupings or of all 21 recommendations individually. I’ve chosen to do the report in this way for two reasons: 1) to give delegates at the 7 remaining gatherings an idea of what they will be encountering, and 2) to give non-delegates an idea of just how this restructuring process is being presented and “sold”.
I will endeavor to keep my commentary to an appropriate amount/minimum, and (at the very least) to clearly mark the difference between what was said by someone, and my comments. With all that said, let’s get on with it…
DAY 1
BRTFSSG Background & Overview (SP Kieschnick):
- Total, aggregated, Synodical budgets are pushing $2 Billion/year
- Change should not be feared
- There are no hidden agendas
- We are not enemies; we are all on the same team
- No particular polity is proscribed by Scripture or Synodical founders – i.e., things can change to be updated & flexible…
- “Growth often comes through disagreement.”
Comments:
The final bullet point struck me as very Hegelian. I was, and am, troubled by the way in which the dialectic (often through it’s “softer” counterpart, consensus) has seeped into our midst. When dealing with the absolute truth of the saving Gospel, I fail to see how the relativism-producing dialectic of “thesis->antithesis->synthesis” can move us forward.
- It’s all about congregations
- LCMS has been unable to come to consensus on seamless changes throughout its entire history, and this has hurt congregations.
- We have the future in our hands, to do something proactive… Finally.
- “Our congregations are too important not to.”
Comment: This is where the constant drumbeat of “Congregations! It’s all about congregations! Congregational bias!” began, and it didn’t let up throughout the rest of the gathering.
Comment: I heard this 10 minute spiel at the district convention this past July, and nothing had changed. I didn’t take any notes, because nothing jumped out at me as being worth noting…
- Overall context/format that emerged for the TF was one of a Doxological nature
- The 1847 & 1854 (6 theological) Constitutional reasons for forming synod (see p. 3 of the BRTFSSG Final Report) were covered in detail, and linked forward into today’s context
- “Being Confessional and being Missional cannot be separated…”
- The Divinely instituted body is the local congregation
- Synodical polity manifests this (immediately preceding point) theological underpinning through the “participation, voice, and support of the congregations.”
Comments: This was an interesting section. Dr. Sohns is a smart man, formidably so. A good choice to have on the TF, let the reader understand, because of his knowledge and his bearing. My tastes, though, run more to the sainted Kurt Marquart, who I think would’ve brought just as much knowledge, intellect, and passion to bear, but without being quite as intimidating as Dr. Sohns was a few times when he was challenged/pushed on some points.
This section was a pretty straightforward reading of all 21 Recommendations put forth by the TF in the BRTFSSG Final Report. Nothing new really jumped out at me, except for one — #4 — that didn’t really register with me when I read through the report prior to the gathering.
In other words, re: changing the number of districts, the TF punted! Their recommendation is to have the 2010 Convention form another TF to deal with this issue, such that the earliest it’ll get resolved is 2013/14. Nifty…
Not too much happened here. We had some ice-breaker type discussions, as well as some good chats about the overall tenor & direction of the gathering. I had the good fortune to be at a table with some good folks, none of whom were wearing mauve-colored glasses.
Good buffet. The beef was choice. Absence of Lutheran beverage was quite unfortunate.
Respondents: Rev. Greene, Dr. Sohns, & SVP David Buegler
Question Readers: Rev. Braunersreuther & DP Larry Stoterau
Format: 60 min, written questions & 30 min, questions from mics
NOTE 1: Written questions came from cards filled out & submitted by delegates/participants during the first 4 hours of the gathering. Additional questions could be written & submitted throughout the gathering, and would be incorporated into the next day’s Q & A session. 135 questions were submitted prior to this first Q & A session.
NOTE 2: I didn’t write down each and every Q & A; rather, I took note of the ones that struck me as noteworthy. Therefore, please don’t consider the following list to be canonical.
- The most questions were asked about Recommendation #18
- Q: Re: 2 Mission Commissions; what about the role of LCMS WR & HC and the potential for overlap? A: No clear answer was given.
- Q: Re: Fiscal savings, what about Treasurer Kuchta’s comments? A: Because no resolutions exist yet, purposely no specific projections on savings were made. This will need to wait until July.
- Q: What happens if none of the recommendations are adopted? A: 1) Economic impact – the BOD will need to make VERY tough choices & cuts, and some ministries will not get funded (NOTE: SPK jumped in to answer this first part of the question), 2) Congregations will not be properly or fully engaged, and 3) We’ll go back to the status quo, facing the bullet points on p. 2 of the TF’s Final Report.
- The choice is: Proactive Lean & Mean (Do what the TF says) vs. Reactive Lean & Mean (BOD cuts)
- The resolutions put forth by FC8 will not be all-or-nothing; rather, each recommendation/resolution will be considered separately on its own merit
- Q: (paraphrasing) What’s up with the Regional layer? A: Currently, the BOD already has ad hoc regional groupings. This would just formalize that, as it has proven to be useful. There would not, necessarily, be equal numbers of people/congregations in each region
- Q: (paraphrasing) What’s up with VI.2 vs. VI.B.3 wording changes? A: The TF feels that the new wording is “stronger” than the old
- Q: (paraphrasing) What’s up with extra District Convention votes for big congregations? A: COMMENT: As I recall, it was along the lines of, “congregational bias”, “equal representation”, “fairness”, etc… I must admit that all my notes say are: “The rationale of the TF is INFURIATING in its bad theology… Pig-headed & just ignorant…”
- Q: (paraphrasing) Isn’t this all just a raw power grab by SPK & his cronies, to give him what he wanted? A: Of course not. It was/is “a spiritual exercise for the TF, and SPK didn’t ask for anything.” Also, a 1981 bylaw was read (at SPK’s request, re: “power grab” part of the question) as an example that Synod Presidents had more power in the past. COMMENT: I really wonder(ed) if this wasn’t a planted question. I mean, really, are any anti-SPK folks dumb enough to actually write down & submit a question like that? Using the words “power grab” & “cronyism”? Really?
At this point, the 60 minutes of read questions ended, and we moved into the 30 minutes of open mic, follow up, questions. Before I get to those Q & A’s, let me offer this comment on a potential contradiction in reasoning on the part of the TF…
- All changes listed in Final Report Appendix 1.1 – 1.11 will need 2/3 ratification from both the 2010 Convention and LCMS Congregations in order to pass & go into effect.
- Q: Follow-up on LCMS WR & HC duplication from earlier – would there be coordination & clarification, perhaps under the proposed CMO? A: Short answer, they don’t know yet
- Q: Circuit Activities: w/Circuits’ new importance, how to deal with current dysfunction if these recommendations are adopted? A: The DP is responsible & has ecclesiastical oversight, in conjunction with the Circuit Counselor (CC – who is an Officer of the District)
- Q: Would the CMO (need to) be ordained? A: This is not specified, and would be left to the SP/BOD to find the best qualified person. Also, the CMO would not have oversight of the seminaries
- Q: Re: Confessional subscription & addition/elevation of Synodical Constitution to subscription status. A: (Dr. Sohns gave this answer) When joining Synod, signing the constitution = subscribing to it; i.e., this is the way it’s always been, and now we’re just putting it into the constitution, where it should have been all along.
- Q: A mixed message re: CC as district officer and cohesion-builder in circuit? A: Perhaps, but more of a necessary balancing act. The CC is rightly the “arm of the DP in ecclesiastical supervision”
- Q: What about implementation of all this? A: It’s not easy. 6+ months for Constitutional changes. FC8 will draft resolutions for convention; this will give more clarity. COMMENT: They basically don’t know yet…
- Q: What’s the theological backing/basis for Commissioned Ministers not being Laity? A: TF Final Report, p. 27. CTCR, The Ministry (1981). IRS Code. Walther’s Church & Ministry. NOTE: Since the congregation has “the vote”, it’s not a problem for them to give the clergy vote to a Commissioned Minister of the congregation instead of an Ordained Minister. COMMENT: Huh?!?
District Caucus:
TF Rep in our midst: SVP Buegler
Closing out the 8+ hours of Day 1 was a caucusing of each district. Each district got to discuss the events of the day, delegates chatting with their DP, as well has having a rep from the TF in their midst to answer any questions that might crop up needing clarification. For the IN District, we got TF member & FC8 Vice Chair, SVP Buegler. We had a good caucus. The discussion was good. Our DP Dan May was great (as always – he’s a good man). I do, however, think that SVP Buegler was more than a little frustrated with us, as we were quite persistent in hammering on a few subjects like the proposed extra votes for big congregations & the removal of the electoral nature of circuits, and how those proposals really actually eroded the concept of “congregational basis”.
Q & A w/Panel Respondents #2:
NOTE: All information re: format & participants is the same as Q & A #1
- Q: If SP can be elected by all congregations, why can’t more/all business be done by all congregations? A: This could be too complicated. COMMENT: This was one of the 7 questions I submitted (thumbnails at the very end of this post…)
- Q: SP/Synod will have too much authority over individual congregations – fact or fiction? A: Fiction. This is a tough perception management issue/problem. This is NOT about power; it’s about congregational bias, and it’s why “congregation” was used so much in the TF Report. There is no agenda to gather power centrally. COMMENT: Another planted question? I have to wonder…
- Q: Why is #3 so critical? A: Because of our theology & polity, where the “power” is at the grassroots; therefore, circuits MUST be restored for everything else to hang together properly
- COMMENT: Much was said about the Word of God being the only “power” we have to convince others; however, what if there is no common agreement on what the Word of God says/means???
- Q: Re: Regional VPs – why regional nominations but synodical elections? A: This is following the model & practice of many/most districts; also, the VPs are Officers of Synod.
- Q: Re: the Franchise; What about categories of Licensed Deacons & SMP? A: Deacons are laity, not Commissioned Ministers, and are not rostered – no vote/franchise. SMP are ordained, but as currently constituted are not able to vote at Synodical Conventions; this could prove a sticky wicket if the changes wrt Commissioned Minister franchise are passed.
- Q: How will questions & feedback from all the BRTFSSG Gatherings be incorporated by FC8? A: They’ll be considered just as they were all throughout the whole TF process, esp. via getting surveys at the gatherings.
- Q: Re: Restructuring of Non-Geographic Districts. A: They’ll want to have a say, but it isn’t yet known how that whole district restructuring process will work
- Q: Re: “Exclusive use…” vs. “In harmony with Confessional Basis…” — Doesn’t this seem to foster disunity? A: (Dr. Sohns answered) The TF feeling was/is that “In harmony with…” is “about as exclusive as it can get.” Also, (per Sohns) part of the thinking & justification for this is that much of the hue & cry over “exclusive” is sinfully binding over a rite/form, and thus a hindering of the Gospel (NOTE: linkage was made to the COP Theses on Worship, Thesis #7 here…).
Round Table Discussion & Feedback:
During this time, each table was charged with discussing what we had learned up to this point, and developing two lists: 1) The 3 Most Important Topics for the 2010 Convention (i.e., the TF recommendations that needed to be discussed in Houston), and 2) The 2-3 Least Important Topics (i.e., “Don’t Go There!”).
- The name change is DOA. 19 listed it as “LEAST”; only 1 (a table with some District apparatchiks) as “MOST”
- Circuit Reengagement strongly resonated. 13 listed it as “MOST”; 0 as “LEAST”
- Delegates want to discuss the “omnibus” #18 (the 2 missions boards drove a lot of it) in Houston. 19 listed it as “MOST”; 2 as “LEAST”
- No other recommendation got into double digits
- The only recommendations that were evenly “matched” with more than two or three total votes were #1 (7 “MOST” vs. 6 “LEAST”), #4 (4 “MOST” vs. 3 “LEAST”), #5 (3 “MOST” vs. 6 “LEAST”).
COMMENT: As I alluded to above, I found/find the “MOST”/”LEAST” important way of voting & giving feedback to be very frustrating and fuzzy. First, it’s not a great way to give feedback, because it doesn’t really allow for the necessary nuance. Second, and perhaps most important, it lends itself to some misuse if it allowed to veer into the “good/bad” or “agree/disagree” realm. My prayer is that FC8 stands strong against the temptation to equate the feedback it receives via these “votes” (as well as the gathering surveys) with (dis)agreement/(dis)approval. Instead, it is my hope that they view this feedback as an indicator & reminder of the need to produced objectively neutral resolutions.
After some closing remarks, and some housekeeping type business looking ahead towards Houston next summer, we closed with another devotion (there had been several throughout, I just didn’t show them in the timeline of this post…).
Faith ?vs? Facts?
Some thoughts in the form of statements/theses…
- Facts are objective
- Human intellect observes & interprets facts
- Facts were not corrupted at/by the Fall
- Human intellect was corrupted at/by the Fall
- Christianity is a fact-based religion
- Biblical Faith is not an absence of facts
- Biblical Faith is an active trust in facts
- Sinful/Corrupt intellect can/does misinterpret objective facts
- When in conflict, Biblical Faith trumps Intellectual observation & interpretation
- This does not make Christianity a-factual, or faith something opposed to reality
-ghp
Gathering the Force in Dearborn (1 of 2)
I have been gathered in by the BRTFSSG!
I’m going to break my report into two parts, mainly to keep the posts shorter & more easily readable. Part 1 will briefly describe the nuts & bolts about the gathering itself, while Part 2 will deal more with the actual content & issues discussed at the gathering.
Over the course of 25 hours at the Dearborn Hyatt, voting delegates to the 2010 Synodical Convention (along with select invited guests from District Boards of Directors) from the Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and English (Northern Circuits) Districts enjoyed a tightly scripted & controlled opportunity to interact with a few members of the BRTFSSG, as those members gave a briefing on their final report.
Additionally, the Chair & Vice-Chair of Convention Floor Committee 8 (Structure & Governance) were at the gathering, collecting input to assist in the process of turning the TF’s 21 recommendations into the resolutions that will be debated & voted upon on the Convention floor. It should be noted that the FC8 reps (DP Stoterau, Chair & SVP Buegler, Vice-Chair) were also members of the BRTFSSG.
Organizationally/Practically, the delegates were assigned seats at one of 31 tables that were set up in the hall, such that clergy, lay, and districts were all mixed together. The tables had a capacity of about 9, but I didn’t notice that any table had more than 6; so, I’d estimate that there were about 200 people there.
As anyone who has been to a meeting/session/convention run by SP Kieschnick will readily admit, it was no surprise to find that this event was well-run from an organizational/process standpoint. The agenda had us scheduled for 8 hours on Friday — 6.5 in session & 1.5 in break/dinner. Saturday saw us in session for 4 hours, minus a 20 min break.
While the larger question re: the stewardship aspects of these events still hangs out there, it can be said that they got a great deal on the rooms/facilities at the Hyatt. For $97/night, they got stuff covered; that’s a darned good deal. So, good on them for good negotiating skills. (Still doesn’t fix the problems on the macro level wrt stewardship, though…).
The final two interesting process/procedure-related data points that I have are these:
1) The next BRTFSSG Gathering, in Madison, WI, will be videotaped so that it can be made available on the web by the end of February (along with some other info, like sample feedback questionnaires, feedback summaries, etc…). You Madison attendees might want to dress appropriately for camera time! 
2) At the Convention next July, the order of business will see us take care of BRTFSSG/Structure & Governance (FC8) issues BEFORE we tackle the business of electing officers. (I’m not sure just what that means, yet, but I’ve got a gut feeling that it will probably end up meaning something…)
That’s about it for Part 1. Go here to read Part 2…
-ghp
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:
“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.
-ghp
"As God is my witness, I thought Turkeys could fly…"
Happy Thanksgiving, y’all!
-ghp
Is the Congregation a Volunteer Organization?
Is the congregation a volunteer organization?
This is an interesting question. It’s also a pertinent one, that many congregations, and congregational leaders, have to deal with this time of year as voters assemblies deliberate & vote on officers & administrative boards for next year.
On the face of it, the question seems like a simple one with a simple answer. Of course, it’s a volunteer organization. Right? After all, we are a congregational polity, with supreme voters assemblies – i.e., we’re not led by professional church workers.
I contend, however, that our local congregations ARE NOT volunteer organizations, not as we have come to commonly understand the term/word “volunteer”.
I posit that the currently held understandings of “volunteer” and “volunteer organization” are such that the individual volunteering holds the position of power. IOW, they get to call the shots because they are ponying up their time.
This means that, if volunteers want to do task “X”, then they get to do task “X”. Volunteer organizations, then, are built on, and couldn’t exist without, these individuals; therefore, they are indebted to them to such an extent that they can’t/shouldn’t question the skills or suitability of the volunteer to task “X”.
I further posit that local congregations have fallen into the trap of viewing “volunteerism”, as it applies to congregational service & leadership, in this way. This is a very dangerous and detrimental thing.
Why dangerous & detrimental? Because it creates an environment wherein folks feel entitled to do what they want, and only what they want, without question or check. If Bobbi Sue wants to join Parish Ed, then who has the right to tell her she can’t? After all, she’s volunteering! She doesn’t understand teaching or curriculum? Has a beef with the current Sunday School Superintendent & the DCE? Doesn’t matter – she’s a volunteer! Bubba Joe wants to get on the Board of Elders? He’s been feuding with the Pastor? Or openly shacking up with the girlfriend that he left his wife for? Doesn’t matter — he’s volunteering!
Unfettered volunteering, and the uncritical acceptance of it, puts the local congregation at greater risk of conflict, unrest, and discontent. It’s not good practice. Worst of all, it’s not Biblical. 1 Corinthians is rife with examples of how congregational life should work. Of particular relevance is 1 Cor. 10:23-24 — while ostensibly dealing with eating meat, it also applies to the general topics of Christian freedom, love for one another, and submission to one another in the Gospel.
When we offer to serve in the congregation, it should be gladly and willingly, in full knowledge and submission to our brothers and sisters in the congregation. We may very well think we have gifts in a certain area (and, indeed, we may); however, we must submit to those congregational leaders who have a knowledge of what is needed & where, so that the proper mix can be found to best serve the congregation. If our “volunteering” would cause a weaker brother offense, then we ought not serve. And we ought not take offense ourselves when such is lovingly pointed out to us.
Leadership in a congregation is an arduous task, even in the best of circumstances. Rewarding and necessary, to be sure, but always arduous, and far too often stressful, difficult, and even painful. In this respect it’s a vocation just like any other on this side of heaven. That all said, it’s still necessary.
As such, it would behoove us to always remember that we need to carry out that vocation faithfully, even at its most difficult. Taking the path of least resistance is not an option. Neither is capitulating to societal definitions, understandings, or practices in how we go about executing those vocations.
-ghp
Troubled (in a good way) Musings
I’ve been troubled lately. Not troubled in a bad way, like we are wont to assume when someone says they are “troubled”; rather, I’ve been more deeply contemplative and cogitative, resulting from something nagging at me. A pebble in my figurative shoe. A tiny itch in the back of my brain that just. Won’t. Go. Away.
I hate it when that happens…
I’ve been on the Board of Elders at my church for 7 years now. This year, I’ve been serving as the head elder. I like me my Synodical politics, having twice served as a voting delegate to a district convention & twice (if I make it through to next July in one piece) to the synodical convention. I’ve stood for election to boards at both levels (and hopefully will again next July). I strongly considered going to the Seminary six years ago (if it had been my decision alone, and/or I was single, I’d have done it. Frankly, even now I’m still envious, on several levels, of the men who have received the pastoral vocation.
I love theology. Discussing it. Studying it. Arguing about it. I’ve even grown more comfortable speaking about it. Surprisingly, as I’ve gotten more comfortable with doing that, I’ve also gotten more comfortable with dealing with people one-on-one in the theological context. I don’t know how good I am at it, mind you, but I feel more comfortable with it. Which is no small potatoes, given my well-known anti-social proclivities.
Being involved in the more senior leadership level this year, along with some of the issues that we’ve had to deal with, at church, I’ve started to realize that I want to do more than I’m currently doing.
This is the tug that I’m feeling.
This is the disquieting nag that has been troubling me.
Why disquieting?
Why troubling?
Because I want to do it in the right way. I want to do it in a way that fully respects and honors Confessional Lutheranism. I fear that too much of current congregational practice (writ large) is flawed, having been tainted by the bad theology of Theological Liberalism and Pop American Evangelicalism. “Every Member A Minister” is not the answer. A proper understanding of the Doctrine of Vocation is much closer to the mark. The past 50-100 years of church history is a far less reliable guide than the traditions passed down from the first 1900 years of church history. And I care much more about what the Lutheran Confessions say than I do the Bylaws and “Approved Programs List” of LCMS, Inc.
First and foremost, it seems to me, the pastoral office is not to be usurped. AC XIV must be respected (no matter what the LCMS pronounced at Wichita in 1989). Thus, plain old, oxymoronic, “lay ministry” is no real option.
What then?
How about looking to church history? Perhaps there’s something to be learned there… A term bandied about every so often is the “three-fold office”. Going back to the Apostolic church, up through to about the Medieval church, there were quite a few more orders, based on the three-fold, “Bishop – Overseer(Pastor) – Deacon”, model. Post-Medieval Church, down through the Reformation & beyond, things seemed to consolidate around the Overseer/Pastor, and the three-fold character of the office was lost (and even the Roman church lost touch with the Deacon/”Third”-fold, when keeping the first two…).
Seeing this, then, led me to dig in a little more into this idea of that “third-fold” — the Historic Diaconate. While most folks only think of it in terms of Deaconesses, there is also a place, it would seem, for men to be Deacons (and not just in the volunteer sense that we think of these days with boards of elders/deacons).
I’m currently doing more research (and a whole lot of praying!), but I’ve also consulted a couple of pastors (including my own), and it seems that a viable option may very well be one like this: Congregation willing, I could pursue being consecrated on the local level as a Deacon. This would satisfy my conscience-driven understanding of the proper vocational roles & limits, that the position should be something beyond the normal volunteer positions (e.g., for doing things like leading a Bible Study) as well as my desire to contribute more.
I’d really be interested to hear what anyone has to say/think about this. Really. I want to know, so that we can discuss it and hopefully help lead me to a clearly understanding of what’s going on & where I need to be.
-ghp
Same word, different meaning…
It’s funny how two people/groups can both use a particular word, even one with a simple meaning, yet end up meaning very different things by it.
Take “growth” for example. Everybody wants growth. Everybody agrees that growth is a good thing. We like it when our congregations get more members. We like it when our church bodies get bigger. And why shouldn’t we? Even when we don’t fall into the “effectiveness” trap, wherein numbers = faithfulness/blessings, growth makes us feel good.
What’s interesting, though, is when you get a congregation where there are two groups that “agree” on growth as a goal, but where they really don’t mean the same thing by that word.
For example, in a congregation I’m more than a little familiar with (let the reader understand), there is a general agreement that missions & growth are good. There are, however, two general groups:
Group One is quite happy with the internal status quo of the congregation. Doesn’t want a second service added (that would “splinter the congregation”) on Sundays, has come to terms with the land-locked nature of the current building, etc… This group is more “Old Line” Missourian in its understanding of certain theological concepts (as opposed to gnesio-Lutheran/BoC-1580 Confessional). This group is, thus, more change resistant/averse, even as it recognizes on a certain level that mission is good & necessary. They’re just not sure how to best go about doing it.
Group Two is more aggressive in its understanding of growth. It is willing to push boundaries, add programs/services/etc… It has been more effected by American Evangelicalism. Some have been thoroughly inculcated in foundational Lutheranism, some not so much. Some in this group tip a bit too easily over into the “effectiveness” trap in their zeal to get numerical growth.
Both groups mean well. Both groups love each other. This is, let there be no doubt, a good congregation with a good, faithful, undershepherd who properly divides Law and Gospel. The Divine Service is conducted liturgically with reverence. The Word is proclaimed, and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
But, yet, these two groups still talk past each other re: growth. There has, as of yet, been no move towards a truly open conversation about realistic feelings, opinions, and goals (wouldn’t want to offend anyone, don’tcha know…). Which is too bad, ’cause if you can’t do it at church, where can you do it?
For example, if the current building is land-locked, and there is a defensible desire to have only one Sunday service, then both groups need to come to terms with the results of those realities, re: congregation size, available resources, staff size, etc… Mayhaps, the best course of action, then is a concerted effort at getting a daughter church plant up & running nearby (you know, the way Missouri grew back in the day…).
I certainly don’t have the answers (if I did, I would’ve, you know, fixed it by now…). I do think, however, that identifying the issue is an important first step. Maybe it’ll help someone else out, too. Here’s hoping…
-ghp
Once More Unto The Breach…
Well, I just got my ticket punched for a return trip to Humidity Fest 2010!
At this evening’s Valparaiso Circuit Forum, I was again elected as the lay delegate to next Summer’s Synodical Convention in Houston. This pleases me, as I wanted to be able to finish the work that was started at the Houston convention in 2007, most particularly working to defeat the misguided attempts at restructuring the Synod via the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance (BRTFSSG).
The full slate for the Valpo Circuit is:
Pastoral Delegate: Pr. Dan Eggold – Immanuel, Valpo
Lay Delegate: Me – Heritage, Valpo
Pastoral Alternate: Pr. Erich Fickel – St. Paul, Chesterton
Lay Alternate: Alan Kent – Prince of Peace, Valpo
Let the stack o’ mail begin accumulating, and the planning for the BRTFSSG regional session in December in Michigan begin as well.
w00t!
-ghp
17" MacBook Pro thus far
So, I’ve had the new 17″ MacBook Pro for a couple of days now, using it enough to form more than just the cursory first impressions ( pretty, big, fast, cool, etc… ). Here’s a quick rundown on what’s struck me as the most significant & impressive elements of this beast so far.
The Screen: It’s not just that it’s big (which it is), it’s also that it’s so clear & bright. Frankly, the reason I pushed to make the jump from the 15″ to the 17″ was in the hopes that the extra workspace on 17′s 1900×1200 display (as compared to the the 15′s 1440×900) would be more than worth the extra 1.1 lbs. It is. It would be worth another pound. The extra screen real estate is useful, empowering, and gorgeous. WIN
The Body: I’ve watched the videos on the new MBP unibody design. I’ve even handled my mom & dad’s 13″ & 15″ MBP’s a few times. I knew they were solid. But I didn’t know just how solid, and now (and I use this word advisedly) sensual, the unibody design was until I got the chance to live with this 17″ MBP. It’s solid, supple, and just plain nice to touch. It feels good, and that translates into a computer that’s nicer & easier to use. The tolerances to which it is engineered are simply amazing. Everything fits. Everything works. My old 15″ MBP was solid, but this one makes it look/feel creaky & flimsy by comparison. WIN
The Keyboard: I’ve long been a fan of the new style (sleek, low-profile) Mac keyboards. I use one on my PC at work, and have one as the external keyboard for when I have the MBP “docked” & connected to a second monitor at my desk. The 17″ MBP has one of these keyboards (the old 15″ MBP didn’t), and in combination with the unibody engineering, typing on this is simply a joy. No stress, no strain, & great tactile feedback. Granted, it’s no IBM Model M – but what has ever matched that? No, pair the MBP keyboard with the fabulous multi-touch trackpad, and you’ve got a big WIN
The Battery: This MBP has one of the new Apple-designed, lithium-polymer, long-life batteries that is hardwired into the laptop. I.e., you can’t swap it out on the fly. I don’t care, as it doesn’t really impact me. I never had that come up with the old MBP, as I’m not a road-warrior type user. This new battery is rated for 1000 full discharge/recharge cycles, and up to 8 hrs of (theoretical) life per charge. Thus far, out of curiosity, I’ve done two cycles just to see what I could get using as I normally would if I had it plugged into the power. And I’ve gotten right at 4 hours each time. WIN
The other stuff is expected, really, in that it’s not surprising that a C2D 3.06 is fast, that 4GB of RAM is roomy & fast, that a 500GB 7200RPM HD is big & fast, and that the whole package is perfectly integrated with Snow Leopard.
All in all, I’m pleased as punch, and about as happy as a Mac fanboy can be…
-ghp
5 Recent Comments: