Territorial Bloggings

Convention season is definitely ramping up, with only 5 weeks to go until it’s wheels down in Houston for “Humidity Fest 2010″, aka “Let’s Blow this Pop Stand Up!”

• Herm Otten has the CN war machine in full-on battle mode, spewing venom (along with the odd interesting nugget of info once in a while) in all directions…
• The JF PAC is up to issue #3 in their series of 10, oh-so-helpful “guides” to delegates, wherein spinning & passive-agressivity are brought to unbelievably high sheen… (I do, however, think I’ll avoid being called a schismatic by their leadership this triennium!)
• The Floor Committees have committed their usual atrocities against reason & intent, in their grinding up & forming of overtures into resolutions — most particularly FC8, wherein NONE of the overtures against restructuring ended up making it into resolution form, even those put forth by circuits and/or districts; well played, FC8! That’s just the way to show us how important it is that circuit/district overtures are given preferential consideration, as recommended by the BRTFSSG…
• The Indiana District delegation is once again in the hotel that’s 10 blocks away from the convention hall — BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I had hoped against hope, even as I fatalistically knew that we’d end up there again…
• I’m feeling equal amounts of anticipation, dread, excitement, annoyance, anger, hope, and fear as I consider what’s coming up…
• I hope that I get a chance to meet up with some of the many folks that I know are going to be delegates this go-around, and that my anti-social tendencies don’t get the better of me…

In many ways, it’s really quite amazing that it’s almost/finally here. So similar in many ways to 3 years ago, but yet so very, very different in most ways. Familiar, yet not. Feared/Dreaded, yet I wouldn’t want to entrust it to anyone else, even as I’ve got so many other things going on this summer.

I’ll stop with this observation about a line from JF’s Delegate Letter #3. The line?

“As I spoke with a number of veteran LCMS lay leaders, they told me that they sense a new peace in the LCMS.”

Quite frankly, this stuns me. This semi-veteran LCMS lay leader (8 years cong. Bd of Elders) could describe his sense of things (locally, regionally, and/or nationally) in many ways; “a new sense of peace in the LCMS” would not be one of them.

They belong to a different synod, or want to, than I do. They perceive and sense things differently than I do with regard to “peace” and “unity” in the Church.

That is why this upcoming convention is important and significant.

-ghp

Once in a while, amongst all the frustrations of congregational life, you get a win. This past Sunday, I got one when the Voters Assembly approved spending $1000 to become a member of the Issues, Etc. 300!

It wasn’t unanimous, and it took our pastor giving a strong endorsement to help overcome some sentiment that “not everyone has access to computers and/or iPods…”, but a year+ of talking the show up & including weekly blurbs in the bulletin paid off.

Now that it has official buy-in the fun starts, because we can start to more openly use IE material (e.g., Dcs. Nielson’s series w/our SS staff, or some of the Confessions Roundtables when I lead a class on the Confessions starting this Fall…). It’ll also be good reason for us to get to work on refreshing & updating our web site so that any traffic we get isn’t lost/wasted.

I’m just thankful that it finally came to pass. I know Todd & Jeff will make good and proper use of the money. Now we just need to hold up our end of the bargain (’cause I want to make sure this happens again next year!).

-ghp

I’m slowly catching up on stuff over at BJS, and Pr. Rossow wrote a gem of post about a week-and-a-half ago – Which do you Elevate Higher, the Offering Plates or the Body of Christ?

It’s a great little post on the importance of & symbolism of proper orthodox practice, as well as a reminder of why we must also pay attention to what we do & why — i.e., be ever vigilant, lest we fall into poor practice that allows doubt to seep in around the edges.

Even better than the post, though, was the first comment, left by Pr. Charlie Henrickson, wherein he wryly observed,

“How many churches would consider having the offering only on the first and third Sundays of the month, so it won’t become “too common”?”

Love. It.

As one who has been trying (working with a sympathetic Pastor…) to get every Sunday Communion introduced for years now into my old-school “Missourian” congregation, this quip skewers one of the more prevalent arguments against the introduction of Confessional Lutheran Communion practice on its very own petard.

Well played.

-ghp

A thought occurred to me as I was listening to the podcast of Todd Wilken’s address to the recent BJS annual gathering (he was speaking on the topic of the Myth of LCMS Exceptionalism in general, and on church fellowship in particular). The thought was this:

What if our congregations didn’t have the crutch of denominational affiliation to fall back on any more?

What if – in order to get a realistic handle on fellowship & what we believe, teach, confess, and practice – congregations took measures to ensure that all new members (heck, all *current* members!) actually believed what Lutherans believe, and want to practice as Lutherans practice?

I posit that we’d see a radical reshaping of our congregations — along with an unbelievable hue and cry as to how unloving and/or unfair the whole practice is. Even in my own congregation, I can only imagine the fallout if we began hewing to a Confessions-based standard of Lutheranism, over against synodical or culturally based understandings.

After what I’ve been living through lately, though, I’d really like to give it try…

-ghp

I’m pleased to report that, at this morning’s regular Voters Meeting, the Voters of Heritage Lutheran Church (Valparaiso, IN) approved the following slate of candidates for Synodical President & Vice Presidents…

President: Rev. Matt Harrison & Rev. Herb Mueller
1st VP: Rev. Herb Mueller & Rev. Matt Harrison
2nd VP: Rev. John Wohlrabe
3rd VP: Rev. Daniel Preus
4th VP: Rev. David Adams
5th VP: Rev. Scott Murray

May it come to pass that God blesses us this July, and this slate is elected and installed!

-ghp

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.

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

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

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

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