Territorial Bloggings

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

Some thoughts in the form of statements/theses…

1. Facts are objective
2. Human intellect observes & interprets facts
3. Facts were not corrupted at/by the Fall
4. Human intellect was corrupted at/by the Fall
5. Christianity is a fact-based religion
6. Biblical Faith is not an absence of facts
7. Biblical Faith is an active trust in facts
8. Sinful/Corrupt intellect can/does misinterpret objective facts
9. When in conflict, Biblical Faith trumps Intellectual observation & interpretation
10. This does not make Christianity a-factual, or faith something opposed to reality

-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

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

Now that I’ve finally finished watching & taking notes on all 15 talks in the ALPHA DVD set, the next step is processing those notes into a more cogent & thoughtful format for your consumption. As I continue to do that, I thought I’d put a little teaser out, particularly after I listened to the first hour of Issues, Etc. on 9/11 (Listener Email & Issues, Etc. Comment Line)

Starting at 38:04, emailer Joshua from Tuscon, AZ brought up a great point, related to an earlier discussion about Gospel Reductionism, that dovetailed amazingly well with something that I observed in ALPHA. He posited that, in Evangelical circles, Gospel Reductionism takes the form of “Relational” or “Relationship” Theology.

“Jesus wants to have a relationship with you, and that relationship is the first and most important need in people.” “This is a potent form of Gospel Reductionism.”

(Paraphrasing…) Further, under a “Gospel of Relationships,” the need to differentiate from others (key to the Puritan heritage of Evangelicalism) manifests itself in lifestyle – i.e., the desire to look and act like a Christian, complete with all the markers brought down from Puritanism (no drinking, no questioning authority, no condemnation of non-sanctioned things, etc…) so as to be able to tell who’s in & who’s out.

Recently, however, among 2nd Generation, “Relational” Evangelicals (Rick Warren, the Emergent/Emerging crowd, etc…) there is a tendency to rail against legalism, such that judgments & strong statements/stances (against, say, homosexual marriage/clergy, etc…) are no longer held in as much favor as differentiating markers. (End Paraphrasing)

The linkage to ALPHA is this: This type of “Relational Theology” and “Gospel of Relationships” is very much in line with ALPHA and what it teaches. IOW, ALPHA is quite consistent, both in how it confesses the “Relationship Gospel”, and how it applies & espouses it throughout the whole course.

More details will, of course, be forthcoming, but I can (perhaps too) succinctly summarize ALPHA in the following PRO & CON statements…

PRO: It is internally consistent in hewing to it’s core principles throughout the course.

CON: It is of a different spirit/gospel than Sacramental, Christocentric, Christianity.

-ghp

Some people might be wondering just what the big deal was/is about what the ELCA did at their Churchwide Assembly (CWA).

Is it that it was about homosexuality? Same-sex unions? Homosexual clergy?

While those are all sinful things, they are actually just symptoms, side issues if you will, of what the real problem is.

The real apostacy is this: ELCA has knowingly broken with Scripture (and secondarily with Confessions & Tradition) as the sole authoritative normative measure. IOW, God’s Word has been knowingly set aside.

Witness this quote from a write-up on the CWA, describing an amendment to the Social Statement on Human Sexuality that was adopted (both the amendment and then the amended Statement were adopted):

“The next amendment came from Bp. Kurt Kusserow, SW PA:

It must be noted that some, though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships. The proposed amendment would change this to Recognizing that this conclusion differs from the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions, some people though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships.

On this there was no speaking other than that of Bp. Kusserow. The amendment was approved 677-276.”

The Assembly knew what it was doing. They wanted to do this, and nothing was going to stop them from doing it, so that sin could be called good. The Revisionist agenda was not to be denied, no matter the cost.

I pray for the faithful remnant that is left in ELCA, that God may comfort them and strengthen them during this time, leading them to a place where they can once again rest in his Word purely preached and his Sacrament rightly administered, where the fellowship is not perverted. I also pray that those who have done this are brought to repentance, so that they might be led to that very same place of rest.

-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

Theological insight, courtesy of Pearls Before Swine…

-ghp

Gracious, it’s been almost three weeks since I posted anything here. I’ve been feeling oddly disquieted of late, but now I feel downright guilty about it.

Back just before the start of the year, I started getting more involved in Facebook, and that siphoned no small amount of my time & attention away from writing things in longer form here.

Now, within the past month or so, I’ve started to get more into Twitter (@glenpiper). This has, much to my surprise I must admit, siphoned off even more time & attention away from blogging. Frankly, Twitter has even siphoned time & attention away from FB.

I didn’t think that Twitter would turn out to be as interesting to me as it has. Nor did I think it would actually end up being useful, as evidenced by my late & somewhat reluctant entry into the arena. That said, I’m actually very surprised at how useful Twitter has turned out to be for me. I’ve had to wrestle with how to use it productively (something that I’m still doing, btw), but as a tool for social, personal, and professional interaction, as well as for entertainment and information, Twitter has proven to be far more useful than I ever thought possible.

What I’m struggling with the most now, though, is this: How do I strike the proper balance between the (for me) purely social space that is FB, the social/informational/whatever microblogging space that is Twitter, and the still useful and necessary longer form thinking space that is traditional blogging?

The biggest downcheck I’ve found in FB & Twitter (again, for me) is this: it is so approachable in its immediacy that it’s all too tempting & easy to fall into shallow patterns of thinking & reacting, while giving short shrift to more contemplative & thoroughly considered, longer form, thinking & writing.

The grind of daily life is such that the reactive forms of interaction are more gratifying, at least instantly, and thus more (for lack of a better word) doable. The downside, though, is that they bring with them the accumulation of a not-insignificant latent angst, as one is exposed to the unrelentingly high-paced, yet shallow-in-presentation, Twitter stream.

Aside from the micro- vs. regular blogging question, another issue that’s crossed my mind is that of audience. For the most part, I think there’s a majority of my audience that follows me in two or all three of the spaces. If I had to guess, however, I’d wager that more folks will see what I blurt out via Twitter. Then again, I also know that there are some folks who only see what I do if it shows up on FB. The good thing is that I’ve figured out how to get what I do here, in the long-form “regular” blog” to show up in the other two spaces, either as a “note” (FB), or as an announcement w/a link (Twitter). I could very well be over-, and thus out-, thinking myself on this particular question/issue…

Ultimately, I guess, it’s about finding the right balance for me. It doesn’t help, in some ways, to see that there are some folks out there who are doing a far better job of pumping out content in all three spaces, particularly in the long-form space (’cause *that’s* where reps are made, don’cha know, along with Issues, Etc. Blog of the Week selections, right Frank? Besides, I fancy myself as erudite and able to churn out well-turned phrases as any in the Lutheran blogosphere — A man can have his conceits, can’t he? As the great bard Axl Rose opined, “I’ve worked to hard for my illusions just to throw them all away.” But I digress…). I guess I’ll just keep grinding away as best I can – not everyone can be as prolific as McCain…

-ghp