Territorial Bloggings

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

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

I’ve got a bunch of posts rattling around my head as a result of the recent ELCA Churchwide Assembly, my viewing of the ALPHA DVDs, the upcoming LCMS Convention, and various discussions & goings on at church (and yes, these are, actually, all relatively related…). So the good news is that, as soon as I can get enough discipline to put form to my thoughts, I’ll be generating some actual content!

The first post, then, is one regarding a lesson that gradually dawned on my as I watched events unfold at the CWA last week. Setting aside the obvious shock and dismay that I felt about the slide into apostacy by the Assembly (wrt blessing same-sex relationships & ordaining clergy in active same-sex relationships), I wondered about just how they could get to a point where their polity allowed this to happen.

As I’ve had it explained to me, the ELCA does not employ the same type of directly representative polity, especially on the national level, as we do in the LCMS. Rather, they purposefully employ a more demographically selective representational polity. Whereas the LCMS has “delegates”, the ELCA has “voters members” — and this is a distinction with a difference, for a “delegate” denotes representing someone “back home”, while the “voting member” represents no one by him/herself.

This is important, especially when taken in light of ELCA’s decision to employ, for lack of a better word, quotas, so as to ensure proper diversity within the Assembly. Thus, the Assembly doesn’t represent the makeup of the larger church body, but more so what they want the church body to be. These voting members are selected at the synodical (or district, in LCMS parlance) level, in more of a top-down way, so as to ensure the diversity goals are met.

This can, as we have seen, result in a deliberative body that is oftentimes substantially of a different mind than what’s out there “in the pews”. This tendency can be exacerbated when there is top-level leadership in place that wants to enact more radical change for the church body.

Now, as to my concern (or, if you prefer, the lesson…).

Many of the structural changes that are being proffered by the LCMS Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance (BRTFSSG) deal generally with the composition of conventions, both national and district, and more specifically with how delegates to the national convention are selected.

Currently, the practice is that each congregation belongs to a circuit within a district. For district conventions, each congregation sends a clergy and a lay delegate. For national conventions, each circuit sends a clergy and a lay delegate.

One of the proposals put forth by the BRTFSSG would have national delegates selected & determined at the district convention. Other proposals had different variations. In general, however, it seems to be an accepted article that change in how representation is determined is necessary.

My fear is this: unless we are very careful, we could easily end up with a either a top-down process (wherein the concept of every member having a truly & practically equal voice is lost), or a skewed and less-than-representational national voting body (wherein important changes could be driven by an agenda of the few, rather than by a representative consensus of the many…).

There are many more obvious (and perhaps interesting) lessons that could/should be learned from the events of the past week; however, I would argue that paying close attention to polity parallels is one that will pay us significant dividends.

-ghp

*tap* *tap* *tap*

Is this thing on?

Wow. It still works. Good to know…

Some random musings that have been floating through my mind after a nice Holy Trinity Sunday service (LSB, DS III, for those who care) this morning…

• The Athanasian Creed – we didn’t confess it today. That makes me sad. Why didn’t we? Well, the usual, I suppose – “it’s too long”, “it’s too different”, “it’s too confusing”, etc. I don’t buy that, but matters little-to-none in the grand scheme.
• On Eagle’s Wings – this (LSB 727) was sung during distribution. Can someone convince me that it’s not utter emotionalistic dreck? Anyone?
• The Nunc Dimittis – we didn’t sing it today. I think it got cut to move things along & keep the service shorter. That makes me sad, because I loves me some Song of Simeon.
• VBS Themes – this year’s VBS theme was announced/touted – “God Rocks!” *sigh* I guess I’ll cut VBS some slack, but overall, it rolls together with my confusion & annoyance over the contemporary obsession with making everything FUN!!! – as if that’s the panacea for fixing what ails the church. ‘Cause, goodness knows that Sunday School & Youth programs focused on FUN!!! for the past 35+ years has worked sooooooooo well.
• Perfect(?) Rewards – After service, awards were given out for Sunday School perfect attendance. Thing is, you can miss up to 3 times & still get “perfect” attendance. Not even the local public schools have devalued the word/concept that much (heck, in the Valpo Public Schools, if you want “perfect” attendance, you still have to be there every day – no mulligans!). I’m not agin the award, per se, just agin the misuse of the word “perfect”. Are we teaching our kids that “perfect” = messing up once or twice? And, if so, what might that subliminally be teaching them about (the need for) Jesus’ perfect life, death, and resurrection? I don’t mean to be overly pedantic here (well, maybe a little), but words have meaning, and precision in that meaning is a good thing that we ought not throw away. Especially in some misguided effort to make kids (or is it their parents? hmmmm?) feel better about themselves.

Ahh, that feels better. Back in the saddle. Gotta get ready for the upcoming district convention, and all the festivities that come along with that. I’m sure there’ll be plenty to write about…

-ghp

Just to show that I haven’t completely forgotten about things in the realm of churchly politics (and that I haven’t totally ceded that arena to others like Frank! ;^) ), here’s a little tidbit that I came across recently that might be of some interest…

One of the perennial hot topics in synodical circles is that of the (take yer pick) past/current/future “shortage of Pastors” afflicting the synod. This “shortage”, and the companion number of congregations in some sort of vacancy, has been the reason that non-Seminary training-tracks for pastors have become increasingly en-vogue in Missouri in recent years (e.g., SMP).

One of the questions that accompanies the topic is that of “CRM” pastors, or “candidate” pastors currently without a call. Over the years, CRM has become somewhat of a “scarlet letter” of sorts, where men go, and are never heard from again. Why? Well, there are stories. Unfit for ministry. Unfit to teach. Needed time away. Etc., et al… It can really be hard to pin down.

In any event, this all becomes of particular interest in light of the synodical statistic that we have 9,164 pastors… of which 5,356 are serving parishes — meaning roughly 40% are not. So, how many are CRM? And is that CRM status really being used against them? I’ve been able to come across some info (in a public forum, so it’s not secret or anything like that – goodness knows I’m not that plugged-in to any circles of power…), and I thought I’d pass it along, since I hadn’t seen it pop up in the blogosphere yet. Here’s the quote:

At long last, an update on the number of pastors on candidate status in the LCMS.

There are several types of candidate status, first of all. Some pastors, although they can be called to service, are on “non-candidate” roster status. This means that they are not seeking a Divine Call, but are in some kind of transition – maybe they’re selling Thrivent, doing something else, not able to consider a Divine Call, a myriad of things. They aren’t considered in the same way as those Pastors who are eligible and desirous of receiving a Divine Call.

The number of those pastors, as of today, is 227 in the LCMS. Inside that group there are a bundle of other descriptors – able to consider a Call but geographically limited, or wife not able to move at this time, etc. etc. But it’s a substantial number, in my opinion.

In addition, there are over 30 pastors who have completed our colloquium but have not received a divine call; they’re in the “placement pool.” Many/most of them are originally from another country – Korean, African nations, etc.

There are currently 436 parishes that are not calling a pastor. Many to most of them are served by retired pastors. The most frequent mode of providing pastoral care to congregations in the LCMS not able to provide full compensation is NOT the SMP student, but the retired pastor.

I can’t say that there’s any deep, deep meaning there, but it is interesting nonetheless.

We do not currently have a shortage of pastors in the LCMS. We do have a surplus of seminary-trained bureaucrats. We do have a broken understanding of the importance & necessity of AC XIV.

Will we have a shortage when current pastors in their 60′s+ start retiring? I don’t know. But I do know that it’s not right to use a “shortage” or a broken understanding of AC XIV as pretense to begin circumventing the OHM & create programs like SMP treat symptoms rather than underlying causes.

But, then, that’s what we do far too often in Missouri these days — attack symptoms rather than causes. It’s easier & more “effective”, isn’t it?

Feh!

-ghp

So, someone might be wondering, “What? No posts last week about AI:8? What’s going on over at Territorial Bloggings!?!”

Well, I’ll tell you — real life. That, and the fact that last week’s audition episodes were kinda boring and inoffensively uneventful. I didn’t get around to watching the episodes until Friday evening, and actually fell asleep during the second one. I had stuff going on, ranging from meetings at church, to helping the kids with homework, to having quite a bit of work to get done for the course I teach. It all ended up cutting into the AI viewing time. Strangely enough, I didn’t, and don’t, feel all that bad about it. Hopefully, this week will allow for more timely viewing & blogging, but if not, I won’t worry about it until/unless it starts to impinge upon the semi-final & final rounds…

On another, completely unrelated, front, I’m going to be Heritage Lutheran’s lay delegate to the upcoming (June 25-26) Indiana District (LCMS) convention. I was the delegate back in 2004, as well as the Valpo Circuit’s delegate to the National Synodical Convention in 2007. I can’t help but be drawn to these whoopdidos, as they are an intoxicating (albeit hugely frustrating) mix of the theological and political. There ain’t no politics like church politics! Any readers from the IN-D who are also going to the convention, please let me know so that we can arrange to meet while we’re there, Ok?

-ghp

There is so much that is both right and wrong, good and bad about this video clip, words almost fail me. I must confess that it enchants me. Not for the theology, but for the simple fact that it’s a catchy little new wave/pop ditty that is so rich with cheeze that it’s almost sinfully good. I think back to the early 80′s, and that song makes perfect sense, both musically and visually. And God help me, I love it. For some reason, whenever I see the background singers doing their little wiggly-dance-thingy, I think of the Joan Cusack character in Sixteen Candles (the girl who wore the back brace), when she was at the school dance, doing her little wiggly-move-back-and-forth dance. And I giggle.

Zap!

HT: BJS – and go there for a good outline & discussion of why this video is an object lesson against falling prey to “contemporary” worship fads.

-ghp

One of the big, controversial topics at last year’s LCMS national convention was the big push for a special convention in 2009 to deal with a massive restructuring of the synodical constitution. After encountering more resistance than initially anticipated, the special convention was tabled & will now be folded into the next regular convention in 2010.

Over at Extreme Theology, Chris Rosebrough has put out a post — Changing the LCMS — that is, I think, sadly prescient about the current, and future, state of leadership & affairs in the LCMS. In a nutshell, Chris shows that SP Kieschnick is following a large-organization change management guide almost step-by-step. And the next key step is the special convention topic of the radical constitutional restructuring.

It’s really pretty simple. And I’m not even attributing ill intent, no matter how much I disagree with the course of action. I don’t think it’s evil. I think it’s mistaken & ill-advised, but I don’t think anyone is trying to destroy synod out of nefarious intent. No, SPK believes he’s doing the right thing. He’s just wrong in that belief.

It’s all the more interesting to see this in the light of the unfolding controversy surrounding the Issues, Etc. debacle, which is spinning up again today following some new statements by SPK & the Council of Presidents, both of which were heavy on the passive voice bemoaning of conflict & calls to move on, but light on actual answers & claiming of responsibility. If you haven’t already, you’ll want to check out the usual suspects (Augsburg1530 & Weedon’s Blog for good info.

When it comes to writing in general, the passive voice is an ill-advised choice. But when it comes to a controversial situation like this, where mistakes were made & responsibility needs to be taken? It’s downright cowardly & sinful. It’s like I wrote elsewhere earlier today:

It smacks of the all-too-common use of the passive voice to minimize & make a crisis go away.

“Mistakes were made. We need to move on & get past this.”

Yes, but who made the mistakes & why? What will be done to fix these mistakes? To ensure that similar mistakes won’t happen again in the future? What about all of the other related issues & questions that have cropped up as a result of these “mistakes”?

Forgiveness can only be given once repentance has been offered. Even then, forgiveness does not obviate consequences & responsibility for actions.

What was done, and what has come to light certainly seem to be worthy of responsibility and consequences – not blind trust (for that would not be good stewardship on our part, nor does the 8th Commandment demand blind trust…)

I’m just wondering now, how in the world, if at all, a God-pleasing result can be found in all of this. I’m not sure that one can. I think that the best we can do might just be to find the least sinful endgame & play that out…

-ghp

Much has been made in the LCMS over the past, well, about as far back as I can remember, that we’re on the cusp of an impending crisis. Namely, a shortage of pastors. It’s driven the recruiting efforts of our fine Seminaries. It’s driven fundraising efforts. It’s driven theologically suspect things as far back as the 1989 Wichita Convention’s lay ministry efforts right up through the passage of SMPP at last summer’s Convention.

Here’s the thing: for a great many reasons, there’s not really a shortage. We’re churning out Sem grads who aren’t getting Calls & have seminarians who can’t get Vicarage placements. We’ve got over 800 pastors working as district and synodical bureaucrats. Pastor Beisel has a nice post on this over at One Lutheran… Ablog! (take note of the link that he has to a posting over at Priestmanship — it’s worth clicking on, too…).

Now for the absurd, ‘right-hand/left-hand’ part of all this…

Today, I just received an email from Synod, touting May as “Pastoral Education Month”. This, in and of itself, is a good thing, and not at all absurd. Let me pull out one quote, though…

With about 100 fewer seminarians than three years ago, and a growing number of retirement-age pastors, “now is the time” for the Synod to get serious about recruitment of pastors, according to Rev. Glen Thomas, executive director of the Synod’s Board for Pastoral Education.

If you haven’t read Pr. Beisel’s post yet, please go do so now & then come back & read that quote again. There’s a disconnect somewhere, don’tcha think? Why, when they can’t place all of the men they have right now, would they continue to perpetuate the fallacy that there’s an impending shortage? That’s just not right.

-ghp

So, I get home from work to day to find the April issue of the LCMS monthly house organ, The Lutheran Witness, in my mailbox. I continue to get it out of an almost morbid curiosity to keep ‘in the know’ about what synod is putting out there as the party line. So its arrival tends to be a relatively uneventful thing, as I don’t expect too much from it, and thus am rarely disappointed. Usually, I buzz through it rather quickly, checking out the letters to the editor, all the official notices, and give at least a cursory glance at the articles, at least to see how Ablaze! they are. Most months, I even get through SPK’s column of inspiration & leadership.

This month, however, as I was paging through, I noticed the graphic at the top of this post, on the bottom of page 25. I said to my self, “Self, this just ain’t right! The very first issue after Issues, Etc. gets killed off of KFUO-AM, having never (to my recollection) been touted in The Lutheran Witness, they have an advert for the COMMERCIAL SIDE of the radio station, NOT THE SIDE ENGAGED IN MISSIONAL OUTREACH, MUCH LESS THE PROGRAM THAT SPECIFICALLY ENGAGED IN CHRIST-CENTERED, CROSS-FOCUSED OUTREACH?” Really?

And, yes, I shouted at myself inside my head. I really did.

Boy, and if all this wasn’t bad enough, I just noticed something that will really make you techie gearheads shake your heads — you’ll note that the link to the Witness’ website has a .asp extension. That got me curious, so I looked up the LCMS family of websites at Netcraft, only to find that the main LCMS website is being run off of a Windows 2003 server box! Yikes!

This all just gets uglier & uglier with each passing day…

-ghp