Disclaimer: Writings on this page may or may not reflect my views. These writings are posted because they are interesting, not necessarily because they are correct.
Scripture never directly answers questions about the ordination of women, but it indirectly answers such questions. Why do I say that? For several reasons.
First, Francis Pieper clearly states in his Christian Dogmatics (cf. vol. III, pg. 454):
ordination to the ministry ... is not a divine ordinance, but a church custom or ceremony, for, although it is mentioned in the Holy Writ, it is not commanded (I Timothy 4:14, 5:22; II Timothy 1:6; Acts 6:6, 8:17). Hence it belongs to adiaphorous practices. A candidate for the ministry becomes a pastor not by his ordination, but by his call and its acceptance.Pieper is explaining what makes the office of public ministry so precious: the call. He supports this assertion with quotes from Luther, Walther, and the Smalcald Articles. So the first reason why Scripture gives us only indirect answers about the ordination of women is because ordination itself is an adiaphoron; in Scripture, it is the call, not the ordination, which constitutes the office of public ministry.
Second, Scripture gives us no direct answers about the ordination of women because the office is a composite and complex one, composed of many individual smaller offices. Consider merely a few of these:
preach the WordTo this list could be added many more. The single "office" is actually composed of many smaller "offices". Scripture will not directly tell us of the one large office, but tells us of the many small offices, and so Scripture's answer is indirect.
teach the Word
consecrate the Sacrament
distribute the Sacrament
pronounce absolution upon hearing confession
lead corporate prayer
counsel individuals
Consider, in addition, the confusion of terminology (which betrays an underlying confusion about the concept): one hears about the office of "pastoral ministry" or "public ministry" or "ordained ministry" or any combination of these. In casual and informal use, one hears "pastor" or "minister", but also "preacher" and "clergyman" which have crept in from outside of Lutheranism, along with "Rev." Although we avoid the word "priest", there are elements of priesthood in the pastoral ministry. This variety of words indicates that the office is not clearly defined, especially in the minds of the laity.
Before Scripture gives us an answer, we must clarify the concept and break it down into its individual offices. Note that the passages from Paul may be understood as preventing women from serving in some of these constituent offices, but not from others. Note further that throughout the Old and New Testaments, the concept of "priesthood" was exclusively male, but the concept of "prophet" was open to men and women.
I am painfully aware of my ignorance, and do not claim to be an "expert" about this question. Yet I believe that, for the reasons stated above, we will not find a direct answer to this question in Scripture, and must study the whole Scripture - not merely a few verses here and there - to find guidance about this question.
We all know the story of the prodigal son; remember the older brother? How can we describe him? He may have beeen in denial: the younger brother's actions had caused pain for the father and for the older brother, yet perhaps the older brother didn't want to admit this. Perhaps the older brother didn't want to forgive, or to repent of his self-righteousness which motivated him to unloving actions; perhaps he failed to put the interests of the younger, weaker brother ahead of his own.
It's been, give or take, around 25 years since the "Seminex" walk-out. This event will doubtless always be seen as an important one in the history of the LCMS. But it seems that, 25 years later, we are still inordinately suffering from its after-effects. Why?
Well, certainly, some things take time to fix. There were some very gifted scholars who chose, for whatever ill-founded reasons, to participate in a walk-out. To replace faculty members in an institution of higher education, when they are lost in large quantity, is not done overnight; and even when they've been replaced, it takes years for that institution to re-gain its momentum and collegiality.
And, of course, there were very real hurts on a personal level, as this split dividing families and friends. Despite the real forgiveness, made possible by the Resurrection of Jesus, the emotional scars will be carried to the grave.
Yet we should be farther along with our healing. Why are we not?
Some will think my message directed against the "conservatives" (whoever they may be): not true! In their odd way, the events of a quarter-century ago have an equally negative, if less obvious, effect on all segments within the LCMS.
One reason might be denial: indeed, some would deny that there was personal or institutional pain and injury done. Others would deny that we still have not completely healed from that event. An accurate acknowledgement of the situation will allow more healing.
Another reason is lack of repentence. "But they walked out! We remained faithful! Of what should we repent?" However, the New Testament reminds us that "if anyone says he is without sin..." On both a corporate and individual level, there were things that could have been done differently, with more love. Simply because we were correct did not give liscence. Indeed, because we were correct, the burden was on us to demonstrate Christ-like humility.
A third reason for our collective residual dysfunctions after a quarter of a century might be lack of forgiveness. "They did us wrong" as some people never tire of reminding us; true enough: what does Jesus ask us to do when we are wronged? to forgive and to love. Yet the spirit in which these wrongs are often recounted seems to be more like nursing a grudge.
Scripture reminds us to look out for "the weaker brother". The Seminex crowd formed its own short-lived obscure church body, which was then swallowed up into the ELCA. Are we praying for them? As we attempt to show them their errors, are we doing so in love?
Yes, we were and are right, and they were and are wrong. But we must "move on" and not be trapped by memories of how we were hurt in the past. Even the must innocent of victims must overcome the trauma in order to heal.It is my prayer for the LCMS that, empowered by the Holy Spirit, we can shake loose of the past and move forward in God's plan.
These are merely a few thoughts that kept coming back to me on different occasions. I've talked with ordained LCMS pastors my age and younger (!) who talk with some scorn about "that crowd who walked out". Interesting, because these people were about 5 years old when the walk-out occured, and I don't think they were discussing the historical-critical method in their highchairs.
I am also motivated by noticing the fact that this walk-out is not only discussed, but discussed with such passion, not only at conventions, but whereever you have more than 5 active LCMS members in a room for more than a few hours; it seems to make itself felt everywhere.
This has become an inherited family dysfunction within the "family" of the LCMS. We need to shake loose of it before we can move forward and serve God better.
Disclaimer: The delegate interviewed represents only his views, and not the views of the author of this web page. The author agrees with some views of delegate here interviewed, and disagrees with other view of this same delegate. The author of this web page takes not responsibility for the views of this delegate.
Question: Did you get to meet and speak with any of the candidates before voting?
Answer: YES.
Question: Were such opportunities possible?
Answer: YES.
Question:Did the candidates address the convention as a whole before the voting?
Answer: NO. THERE WERE NO SPEECHES BEFORE THE VOTING, WHICH ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO VOTE ON A "SLATE" BASIS.
Question: Over the past 75 years, the national conventions of the Democratic and Republic parties have changed from being the places where platforms were made and candidates selected to the places where platforms and candidates are merely announced with much fanfare (the real decisions having been made beforehand). Is this true of the LC-MS convention as well?
Answer: YES.
Question: Did you feel that you were really making decisions, or were you "rubber-stamping" things presented to you?
Answer: THE CONSERVATIVE VOTING BLOCK HAD MORE THAN 60% OF THE DELEGATES, SO IT DIDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT I THOUGHT. HOWEVER, THE REPRESENTATION OF THE CONSERVATIVE DELEGATES ON COMMITTEES BEFORE THE CONVENTION ASSURED THAT MANY OF THE TOUGH ISSUES WERE HANDLED BEHIND CLOSED DOORS BEFORE THE CONVENTION.
Question: Were you able to analyze various options, or was it a "done deal"?
Answer: IN ORDER TO ANALYZE ANY OTHER OPTIONS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE CREATIVE ENOUGH TO THINK OF THEM ON YOUR OWN - NONE WERE PROFFERED. THE DEBATE THAT OCCURRED WAS, IN LARGE PART, THE DISSENT OF SOME CONSTITUENCY THAT HAD NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY "HERDED" TO THE MAJORITY VIEW BEFORE THE CONVENTION BEGAN.
Question: For clarity's sake, am I reading you correctly if I say that you sound somewhat discouraged or disappointed about the way in which delegates participate (or don't participate) in the convention?
Answer: I THINK THAT'S FAIR. THERE IS A TON OF INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE DELEGATES IN ADVANCE - WITH VERY LITTLE INSTRUCTION - AND WHEN YOU SHOW UP AT THE CONVENTION, THE "PARTY" LINES ARE ALREADY DRAWN. I WAS, UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OFTEN SURPRISED BY THE LACK OF FRIENDLINESS. I ONLY MADE ONE REAL FRIEND (WHO IS A GREAT GUY), BUT I WAS THERE FOR A WHOLE WEEK.
Question: What could be done to improve the way the convention process is handled?
Answer: RATHER THAN HAVE SO MUCH ON THE TABLE, I THINK THE CONVENTION SHOULD HAVE JUST A FEW BROAD POLICIES TO VOTE ON, IN ADDITION TO THE ELECTIONS. ALSO, I THINK EACH CIRCUIT SHOULD BE REPRESENTED WITH A NUMBER OF DELEGATES THAT'S PROPORTIONATE TO THE NUMBER OF CONFIRMED MEMBERS IN THEIR CONSTITUENT CONGREGATIONS.
Question: Most delegates receive much "junk mail" about the convention, with different groups encouraging them to vote this way or that way. How much of that mail was useful to you, and how much was merely annoying?
Answer: ALMOST ALL OF IT WAS MERELY ANNOYING - "CHRISTIAN NEWS" (AN OXYMORON ON BOTH WORDS) WAS DOWNRIGHT OFFENSIVE.
Question: Did you get any "junk mail" which actually informed you about issues, overtures, and candidates, or was it all merely an attempt to "steer" your voting?
Answer: ALL THE JUNK MAIL ATTEMPTED TO BE PERSUASIVE. THE MOST HELPFUL PIECE WAS A SPREAD/GRID IN ONE OF THE NEWSPAPERS THAT HAD BIOS, Q&A AND "CLOSING STATEMENTS" WITH THE CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT AND THE FIRST-FIFTH VICE PRESIDENT.
Question: Approximately half the delegates are laypeople, and half are ordained clergy. Did you detect a difference in the way these two groups of delegates conducted the business of the convention?
Answer: THE CLERGY GENERALLY VIEWED THEMSELVES AS "SUPER" DELEGATES - ALTHOUGH THE RULES PROVIDE FOR ONE MAN, ONE VOTE. THE AFFECT OF THIS VIEW IS USUALLY SEEN IN THE DEBATES.
Question: Were the non-clergy delegates made to feel like "outsiders"?
Answer: YES.
When we as a synod look at the concept of worship, we wish to desire "to walk together" (Amos 3:3) based upon the truths which we have from the Scriptures as expressed in our Lutheran confessional documents. Yet we also wish to "become all things to all men" (I Cor 9:22) and so allow congregations freedom as they configure worship services.
I understand that a Lutheran worship service is a two-way street. To God, people confess their sins, give thanks, offer petitions, and give praise. To humans, God announces His love, His forgiveness, His written Word as Law and Gospel, His living Word in Body and Blood of His Son Jesus, and His encouragement and empowerment to live a sanctified life through the power of the gift of the indwelling of His Holy Spirit.
In this "two-way" communication, we must not hinder God from speaking to His people in the ways which they might best understand, and in whatever ways He might choose. So also we must allow His people to approach Him with that reverent fear with which one approaches the throne of the King of Kings, and with that reverently tender and trusting love with which one approaches one's "Abba" Daddy. To do this adequately, we can explore the richness of the expressive power of language and music (and visual symbols as well, e.g., vestments, banners, stained glass, etc.).
To phrase the question in more practical terms, what should the congregations of the LC- MS require of each other as "necessary" in worship, and what measure of freedom ought they to give each other in this matter?
I might suggest that we consider the matter thus: the "content" of worship is what congregations require of each other in order to "walk together", and the "form" of worship is the area of freedom for congregations.
The content which congregations ought to require of each other might be, for example, some of these:
In this connection, the "Creative Worship" series from CPH is to be commended.
It is to be hoped that the Synod will produce a hymnbook which contains a standard liturgy which many of our congregations will use frequently; this gives us continuity over time and distance. Yet it is also be to be hoped that many congregations will experiment with a wide variety of styles and settings, creating new variations on the eternal patterns of liturgical worship. We should proceed in both directions at once!
The more materials offered by Synod, the less congregations may feel the need to look elsewhere for worship materials. It is indeed desirable that congregations get worship materials from Synod, because some degree of doctrinal soundness is likely, if the materials have been reviewed by Synod. If congregations get worship materials from outside of Synod, often a non-Lutheran and un-Scriptural understanding of worship and doctrine is implicit (if not explicit) in such materials, and so mis-understandings creep into congregations.
Yet we might not absolutely forbid congregations to use non-Synodical materials, however much we might desire them to use only LC-MS materials. This would be legalism. We can place some confidence in the local congregation to do its own policing of such materials. By allowing this, we also open the door for genuinely positive innovations.
While we certainly never want to do something new merely because it is new, we can remember that innovation is necessary, inevitable, and desirable (Ps 96:1, Ps 98:1, Ps 149:1, Is 42:10). Over the last 2,000 years, worship forms have changed, and what is now "traditional" was once "new".
We can allow congregations to develop their own worship materials if they desire. Many congregations do not have the manpower and talent to do this. But other congregations have the resources and desire to do this, and it can be allowed. Indeed, allowing this can be a valuable educational experience for a congregation to understand more deeply what worship is. Allowing congregations to develop new materials may also be perhaps preferable to having them draw new materials from non-Lutheran sources.
The best of new liturgies have the qualities which made the old liturgies so good, e.g., they are drawn largely from Scripture. This wonderful feature is not limited to older liturgies.
Where, then, do I stand? My personal "favorite" is liturgical worship in the most traditional Lutheran forms. I love Reformation hymns, the pipe organ, and the chanting of the liturgy which we have chanted for centuries. Yet I have also seen how "contemporary" worship forms can reach the unchurched and those who are only "nominal" Christians, drawing them into the Word and Sacraments; how can I argue against such a vehicle, when the Holy Spirit has chosen to use it? So I say that the congregations in Synod should continue in all different directions, from the oldest to the newest, and everything in between, in order to present the Gospel to as many people as possible.
Our Synod's recent hymnbooks (The Lutheran Hymnal and Lutheran Worship, with their respective supplements) have been good, and because God has given us many gifted individuals, I suspect that another high-quality book can be assembled.
I have a suggestion about the way in which the hymns are organized within the book.
Often hymnbooks are organized by seasons within the liturgical year, or by topic (repentance, thanksgiving, God's Word, etc.).
In addition, hymns could be categorized by the tradition to which they belong.
The hymns commonly used within our Synod's congregations come from two large traditions: some are Lutheran hymns, and some are the product of Anglo-American Protestantism.
You are certainly familiar with hymns and composers of which I speak.
Examples of non-Lutheran hymns and authors/composers which have enjoyed popularity within many of our congregations are:
"Rock of Ages"Examples of hymns and authors/composers from the Lutheran tradition are:
"Our God, Our Help in Ages Past"
"I Know that my Redeemer Lives"
"The Lord's my Shepherd, I'll not Want"
"Abide with me! Fast Falls the Eventide!"
"What a Friend We have in Jesus"
"Oh, for a Faith that will not Shrink"
"Amazing Grace"
Isaac Watts
"From Heaven Above to Earth I Come"These two different traditions have distinct styles of melody, harmony, and meter. There are discernable stylistic differences between the words to these hymns, as well.
Paul Gerhardt
Nicholas Zinzendorf
"Jesus Priceless Treasure, Fount of Purest Pleasure"
"Hallelujah! Let Praises Ring"
"I come, O Savior, to Thy Table, for Weak and Weary..."
Martin Luther
I would hasten to add that the difference is not limited to history, but in our own time there are composers working within these patterns (our Synod's own Elmer Hohle is an example, as is the publication of Haugen's setting of the liturgy).
Sadly, many people are ignorant of the origins and history of our hymns. Many congregations which try to hold a "traditional Lutheran" service often unwittingly incorporate non-Lutheran hymns, and congregations which are trying to "reach out" across traditions to other Christians may not realize that some hymns are relatively unknown outside of Lutheranism.
Would it be possible to mark hymns, perhaps with an asterisk, according to their various origins? Or perhaps to include the information in the form of a table at the end of the hymnal?
I feel that knowing and understanding, even a little bit, of the background of these hymns can increase their edifying value in congregational worship, and can aid choir leaders and organists as they select hymns for different worship services.
God has richly blessed us with worship music from within our own Lutheran history, and He has allowed us to find musical gems from other traditions, as well. Let's identify and celebrate the varieties of His blessing. The educational aspect of hymns can also be unfolded in this way, giving clergy the opportunity to teach and discuss with the members about the backgrounds and meanings of various hymns.
I read that the delegates voted to "affirm the synod's practice of closed communion, but to study what the Bible says about admission to Holy communion" (The Ft. Wayne Lutheran, August 1998, vol. 29, no. 8, pg. 1).
This, of course, has been a "hot issue" for some time now.
I have several comments:
As far as I am able to understand, the differences between "close" and "closed" can be quite significant, but also can vary, depending upon how the person who's using those words chooses to define them. I will use the words interchangeably.
First, I think that most members of the LC-MS agree that we should practice "close" or "closed" communion; they would agree that we invite to the Sacrament only those who agree with us in doctrine and who live accordingly.
The question is, therefore, not "should we practice close/closed communion?" but rather, "how shall we implement the practice of close/closed communion?"
When we say that we invite only those who agree with us in doctrine, several questions are raised:
Must they agree with us in all points of doctrine, or only in most points of doctrine, and in the most important points of doctrine? If they must agree in all points of doctrine, then many members (including ordained clergy and synodical officers) of our synod may not commune with one another! Yet if we say they must agree only in "most, and in the most important" doctrine, how do we judge this, and how do we prevent the slippery slope into unionism? So the axe cuts both ways.
Although sometimes related, improper actions and improper doctrine are two separate sins, and either can exist without the other. Both points hold: we invite those to altar who both agree with our teachings and live accordingly.
Even if we can determine exactly how communicants must agree with each other and with us, how can we determine their beliefs? Is it in principle possible to question a person so thoroughly that we can pronounce upon his fitness to receive the sacrament? And as a practical matter, does a parish pastor have the time for this? And as a moral matter, does God ask us to do this?
Even if a person says the right words, that may not reflect his heart (Matt 7:21-22).
Whether we ask for partial agreement or complete agreement, in both cases we find it difficult to judge. Hence, we will always rely, on some extent, to self-examination (I Cor 11:28, II Cor 13:5, Job 5:27).
The structure of modern society, and the modern attitude which prevents people from forming a community which is as closely-knit as might be desired, can allow a member to lead a habitually, willfully, and consciously sinful life, without the congregation being aware of it.
Again, a person could lead a seemingly blameless life, even to those who would be aware of all details of the person's life, and yet not have a proper faith relationship based on the grace of God in Jesus.
Such epistemological riddles will hound us as long as we rely on the wisdom of men and not on the wisdom of God.
If we ask people to examine themselves, do we ask them to examine themselves for full agreement or partial agreement? In such matters, the third chapter of Amos is often quoted. With the oft-quoted phrase "walk together," the Lord holds the entire community responsible for certain sins, because they continued in fellowship with those who had directly committed the sins; the issue seems to be more a question of sanctified living than of correct doctrine, Amos having listed the sins of the nation in the second chapter.
When people come together to form a congregation, or when congregations come together to form a synod, they are asking God to judge them together; the tribes of Israel had been bound together by God's covenant at Sinai, and God's message through Amos holds them to that. Yet the tribes were not ultimately held together, because the Northern Kingdom was exiled before the Southern Kingdom, and only the Southern Kingdom survived. So God allows "corporate responsibility" to go only as far as the covenant dictates: the covenant at Sinai governed the nation's life in the Promised Land. Once the Northern Kingdom faced the ultimate punishment - being removed from the land - God did not hold the Southern Kingdom responsible for the idolatry practiced in the North.
A congregation writes a constitution when it forms, as does a synod; these are miniatures, patterned on Sinai. The congregation or synod is bound to God and to each other by the terms of such a constitution; but this binding goes only so far. This is the message of Amos: God holds the community responsible for the sin it tolerates and for the not breaking fellowship with those who commit this sin. God does not hold the entire community responsible for every sin committed by every member. This principle, then, should lead us to consider the nature of the bond which holds the congregation together as we invite them to the altar.
Some congregations within synod have addressed this issue by placing a statement within their hymnbooks or bulletins, explaining our understanding of the sacrament and who is invited to it. This approach has its strengths and weaknesses: the weakness is that it can easily be ignored; the strength is that it has a teaching aspect for all who worship. This approach could be amplified, perhaps by incorporating quotes from our confessions into contemporary eucharistic liturgies (the small catechism comes to mind).
As we address the question of whom we invite to the altar, perhaps the people will be best served (and it is the God's people whom we are called to serve) by stressing the "teaching" aspect, rather than the "filtering-out" aspect.
It would be a poor example of Law and Gospel if we were to inspect and examine people, and tell them whether or not they are fit to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus. Rather, we can teach people what Scripture says about the Lord's Supper, and teach people how to examine themselves, how to confess and pray, and teach them how to determine when they are fit to come to the altar.
We all sin; how do we determine who may not participate in the Eucharist because of unrepentant sin? I defer to Pieper's exposition on this matter (cf. pgs. 381-391, vol. 3, of the English translation of his Dogmatics), and to Luther's Large Catechism.
The parish pastor is often an over-worked and under-paid man who certainly doesn't have time to individually examine hundreds of adults each week.
Our synod contains congregations in a wide variety of circumstances. In a small, rural congregation, a quick glance will allow the elders and ushers to know exactly who is present. In other congregations, which worship and commune over 1,000 people each Sunday, in suburban settings in which new members move in each month and as many move to a different town, no one pastor can personally know or speak with each member.
The mobility of our society poses a challenge to the task of forming a closely-knit faith community. Similarly, the modern attitudes of privacy and autonomy also inhibit the closeness of fellowship. It is the task of the church to overcome these obstacles, empowered by the Holy Spirit and the by the sacraments and by the birth, life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Forming this "closely-knit faith community" is a necessary step for implementing close/closed communion in a way which shows the Gospel. To implement close/closed communion in any other circumstance becomes mere legalism.
Individual members, like congregations, live in a wide variety of circumstances. Consider the business man who lives out of a suitcase most days, flying from one city to another on an hour's notice; he will be unknown in the congregations he visits, and will rarely be present in his home congregation; will he be communed?
The other side of the coin is that merely being a nominal member of the LC-MS probably isn't the only criterion for which God looks as a person comes to the altar. Some members are "Biblically illiterate" and have forgotten the bits of the catechism which they long ago memorized for confirmation. One the one hand we ask, "how can they agree with doctrine if they don't even know the doctrine?", but on the other hand we must avoid gnosticism: knowledge of doctrine, like any knowledge, is, by itself, worthless. Similarly, long-time members can just as easily have habitual, unrepentant sin in their lives as non-members.
We ask all who would come to the altar to examine themselves; membership alone guarantees nothing. I suggest that the most effective way to see that worthy communicants come forward is to consistently teach and preach the pure doctrine for which our synod is so thankful. The exact form and method of that teaching and preaching can best be determined by the congregation, which best knows its members and situation.
There are circumstances under which good pastoral care practices will dictate that even a non-member of the LC-MS be invited to the altar. Exactly what those circumstances are, of course, is what we are trying to learn; but even if we learn the criteria, applying them in each individual case remains a "judgment call" for the hosting congregation. The application of abstract concepts to actual cases always calls for discretion in the form of a pastoral heart, familiarity with the Scriptures and confessions, the proper discernment of doctrine, and the distinction between Law and Gospel.
I would be hesitant about communing ELCA members, and more comfortable communing members of other Lutheran bodies. Yet I know ELCA members who are engaged in a noble battle for Scriptural and Confessional viewpoints within their organization; they may well be worthy recipients of the Body and Blood of Jesus, and under extenuating and irregular circumstances one might therefore invite them in an LC- MS congregation to the altar. Other Lutheran bodies (e.g., the Church of the Lutheran Confessions and the Apostolic Lutheran Church) may well be fine organizations, but mere membership in them counts for nothing, and each case must be judged individually.
I do not have all the answers to our synod's questions about close/closed communion. Men wiser than I wrestle with such matters. I will pray for the LC-MS and for the CTCR as they study this matter, that the Holy Spirit will guide and enlighten them. They have a difficult task.
Since you are representing our circuit to the convention, I will share some thoughts with you.
Because the fur can fly fast and furious at the convention itself, doing one's homework beforehand is essential to making wise votes. In addition to speaking to local members and studying the convention workbook, I suggest that you read the un-official newspapers published by the quasi-political groups within the Synod. I am aware of four:
I'd also like to give you my input on several topics:
[1] Worship - This topic is both dear to our congregation and a hot one at the last several conventions.
Some elements in the Synod want all congregations to be on the same page of the same hymnbook every Sunday morning; against that, I argue that our Synod has traditionally stressed the decision-making power of the congregation in such matters over the central authority (some congregations chose to worship in English while others retained German for decades), and that God directs different congregations differently.
Other elements want to remove any restrictions on worship forms; against this, I argue that the Synod should enforce certain minimum requirements which are required by Scripture: invocation, confession and absolution, Scripture readings, creeds, etc. Note that none of these minimums reflect any particular style of music or formality of language; in our congregation, the praise, contemporary, and traditional services all conform to these guidelines.
[2] Lay Leadership - This topic is touched upon not only in the overtures on which the convention votes, but also in the way in which the convention (and the Synod) does its business. Some people forget that all Christians, including ordained ministers, are 3sheep2 follow the Good Shepherd; they'll insist that any home Bible study group should have an ordained minister present, to 3make sure2 that these people read the Bible properly. 3Allowing laypeople to meet without a pastor to discuss the Bible could only lead to Armageddon!2 they say, 3surely, only a pastor can understand true doctrine!2 Lay leadership (elders, church councils, congregational officers) is important not only at the local level, but should be included at the synodical level via laity on various committees and panels; yet much of the business of the Synod is conducted only by ordained men. Against this I argue that all believers are called to be priests and ministers, and that our pastors have accumulated a knowledge-base for the very purpose of passing it on to their laypeople, not keeping it from them. The Church is Christ-centered, not clergy-centered; most of our fine clergy agree and have no wish to 3lord it over2 the laity.
[3] The Role of Women in the Church - This topic is really 3hot2, and is one with which our Synod must continue to deal. But it must, above all, be dealt with in love and according to Scripture. Sadly, both sides have often failed on both points. Snippets of text are bandied about like hammers, hoping to crush the 3other side2. This is hardly serious textual scholarship! Prayerful and patient study of the Bible is required, in which one diligently puts aside one's presuppositions. I would say 3no2 to both sides until an overture is presented to the convention which convinced me that it was the result of prayerful study and loving respect. For example, neither side has attempted to explain why, in both the Old Testament and the New, the concept of 3the prophet2 was clearly open to both men and women, while the role of 3priest2 was always restricted to the males. When such a circumstance remains unexplained, how can either side claim to have the 3final word2 in the matter? While many committees and commissions have been formed to 3study the issue2, it seems that little serious study has been done.
Well, these are merely some ideas of mine. I will be praying for you and for the convention as a whole. I hope that you find the experience productive, rewarding, educational, and enjoyable.
To the issues which I discussed in my last letter to you, I'd like to add one: "close" or "closed" communion.
Like the other topics ("the role of women in the church" and "worship styles"), the discussion of this question tends to be fraught with misunderstanding, mis-communication, and partisan oversimplification.
The conflict is often depicted as one between the "conservatives" and "liberals." The "right-wing" ("traditionalist" or "strictly confessional" or "old guard") is often caricaturized as demanding that every potential communicant be thoroughly interviewed by the pastor (including a private confession and absolution) to demonstrate the sincerity of her or his faith and the extent of her or his doctrinal faithfulness and theological knowledge. The "left-wing" ("radical" or "progressive") is often portrayed as ready to hand out the Sacrament to any stranger who happens to be strolling by the church on Sunday morning.
The question is not that simple: in addition to a congregation's tendency to be "liberal" or "traditional," there are other factors which affect a congregation's application of "closeness" in communion. Is the congregation urban or rural? Large or small? In which part of the country is it located? These all affect the way in which the congregation invites the faithful to the altar.
I think that most LC-MS members agree that communion needs to be "close", but the question is this: how is closeness established?
We cannot judge the hearts of men and women. Requiring them to register ahead of time, while it may encourage them to pause and reflect on the Sacrament, does not ensure that they will do so; but it may present a practical barrier to others who sincerely desire the Sacrament. A statement from the pulpit or pasted into a hymnbook is certainly more "user-friendly", but is it too lax?
We certainly desire to offer the Sacrament to those with whom we are in true fellowship, and we do not desire those to take who take it to their own condemnation (I Cor 11:27-29) or to "cast pearls before swine" (Matt 7:6).
LC-MS membership does not absolutely guarantee the degree, quality, or purity of a member's faith; and some people in different Lutheran bodies (CLC or WELS) outside the LC-MS may have a faith which is more in line with LC-MS standards than some who are members of our Synod. Paradoxically, one could offer the sacrament to a man who does not live our life or confess our doctrine (although he may be an LC-MS member), and yet deny to one who both lives and confesses our teaching (although he may be a nominal WELS or CLC member).
I am hesitant about any simple, "one-size-fits-all" solution, given the complex variety of situations in which congregations find themselves.
Well, these are merely a few of my thoughts on the matter. I hope that you are getting input from different people with different perspectives; there are many sides to these issues.
As we discussed, everybody has a spin to every issue at the convention. As part of the Michigan delegation, it is possible that you might receive special attention; all of last summer's district conventions lead up to this summer's national convention, but the Michigan convention in particular has attracted attention even from other districts around the nation. The fact that the Forward and Affirm newspapers could write such utterly different articles about the same event underlines the need for caution and careful understanding.
Restructuring the seminaries is a perennial favorite at the conventions. There is near-universal agreement that something should be changed: we face a perceived clergy shortage in the Synod, and too few students are entering the seminary to either fill the shortage or to keep the seminaries running on a cost- efficient basis. Is the clergy shortage merely perceived, or is it real? I don't know. The seminary in Ft. Wayne has had grave troubles over the last several years, and nearly shut down. Why? Some say that it is too conservative, others say that its administration did too much micro-managing. The few students which either seminary attracts tend to be of a lower academic calibre than the seminarians of the past. What should be done to improve the situation? One problem is the "one-size-fits-all" type education: almost all seminarians get the same basic M.Div. degree which is merely a watered-down version of what it was 100 years ago. Seminarians should be allowed to specialize more. On the theoretical side, basic Biblical knowledge should be stressed; the study of Hebrew has withered in recent years, and it is possible to graduate from the seminary without a firm grasp of the contents of the Bible. Academic theology should also be emphasized in a thoroughly Lutheran form - Luther, Melanchthon, Chemnitz, Walther, Pieper, Bonhoeffer, Barth, Tillich. On the practical side, counseling, management by delegation, marketing, small group dynamics, and other parish needs should be stressed. (We have been blessed with competent staff at our congregation, but in other congregations in our Synod there are clergy who have no grasp of these subjects.) In sum: raise academic standards, allow students to specialize, fund their studies to attract and retain quality clergy. It would be better for seminary students to learn one Biblical language well (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) than to learn all three poorly.
A common tactic at conventions is to claim that a certain candidate, party, or viewpoint is "truly in keeping with the historical Missouri viewpoint". In the bitterest debate, each side will claim that it is "really Missouri" and that the opponents are "breaking from our historical stance". Most convention delegates haven't done a Ph.D. in church history, and are bewildered. Even some who claim to be in keeping with our history don't know our history as well as they claim to know it, or are choosing to ignore what they know about it. I would imagine that you, like most delegates, don't have the time to read books about church history between now and the convention; if I am wrong, and you want to read some, I'd be happy to suggest a few and lend them to you. There are, however, a few basic facts which explain how differing sides in a debate can both claim to have the same historical tradition on their sides. The Missouri Synod was formed by merging of at least two major movements and two minor movements, and still other groups joined after it was initially formed. The two main groups were the Pietists and the Confessionalists. Pietism and Neo-Pietism were powerful among the common people in Germany in the early 1800's; when the King of Saxony forced a merger between the Lutheran and Reformed churches, the Pietist element within Lutheranism was disgruntled and formed a nucleus wishing to move to America, where they could live their Pietistic life; Pietism stressed prayer, personal experience, holiness, humility, devotion, and deeds of selfless love toward others. The Confessionalists were equally disgruntled at the merger, and joined the Pietists in leaving for America; but the Confessionalists stressed different aspects of the faith, primarily the purity of doctrine as found in the Bible, and the view that the Book of Concord contained pure doctrine because it expresses nothing else than the truths of Scripture. The marriage between Pietism and Confessionalism was arose out of their mutual opposition to the King of Saxony; yet the seeds for a dynamic tension were already in place, in so far as the Pietists left room for more personal experience, while the Confessionalists demanded that everything pass the dual test of Scripture and the Book of Concord. That our Synod should be arguing back and forth about R.I.M. and "charismatics" two hundred years later is a natural consequence; indeed it would be odd if it were otherwise. The two minor groups in the founding of the Synod were the missionary groups sent from Germany to Christianize the Indians, and the Loehe (variant spellings of this name exist) group of clergy who were sent to America in response to reports that there were many German settlers without sufficient clergy to serve them. Finally, in the decades after the Synod was founded, other groups joined: small bands of German-Lutheran settlers, and other ethnic Lutherans (Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Slovaks, and Bohemian Czechs). With such a melting-pot history, you can see how one can twist the "tradition" of the Synod into whatever one might want it to be!
In this century, the single most powerful change in the Synod was the transition to the English language; at the beginning of this century, few Lutheran Churches operated in English: at the end of this century, few don't. At fist glance, one might ask why this is important: just translate your stuff into a different language and keep going. But the changes have been huge. One example is in the Bible itself: almost all the Bibles printed in German by the Concordia Publishing House until the 1930's contained the Apocrypha; the Apocrypha was used in churches on Sunday mornings, studied by catechism children, and studied in the seminaries. When the church switched to English, CPH saved time and money by purchasing printing rights to American Bible editions, few of which contained the Apocrypha; indeed, American Protestants carried the anti-Apocryphal view which was common in England in the early 1800's. At the current time, Apocrypha study has been dropped entirely in the congregations and is very rare even at the seminary; many Lutherans are under the impression that the Apocrypha is something non-Lutheran. This is an example of how the change of language changed other elements within the church. As English became common among Lutherans, they came to be viewed as another "Protestant denomination"; earlier, Lutherans had been viewed as the group which was "neither Catholic nor Protestant". Now, many Lutherans think of themselves as "Protestants" and this view is encouraged as they use various reference books from the English-speaking Protestant world.
Please understand that I am not suggesting that we revert to speaking German or studying the Apocrypha (although the German language is a passion of mine, I freely admit); what I am saying is that the history of our Synod can only be properly understood if one realizes the huge impact which was made by changing from German to English.
One common element among the different discussions at the convention is what is the role of the Synod vis-a-vis the individual congregations? How much autonomy does the individual congregation have, and how much power to dictate should the Synod have? The Synod was instituted to unify the congregations in matters of doctrine, and to be a vehicle for common action (missionary work, colleges). Matters of practice are to be dictated by doctrine; where doctrine does not determine practice, the congregations are free to work within the limits of doctrine: these are matters of adiaphora. The sense of mission and purpose needs to focus our Synod; yet that sense can be - for some - elusive. I'd say that our mission is to preserve the pure doctrine with which we have been blessed, and to both present it and put it into practice for as many people as possible.
To what extent is the whole convention a "tempest in a tea-cup"? Does the average LCMS member know about the Affirm or Forward newspapers, or about the issues which the convention will discuss? I'm not an expert, but I'd guess that there are quite a few people who don't know (or care?) about this stuff. Why the mixture of apathy and ignorance? What can the Synod do to make itself a positive and meaningful factor in people's lives? And thereby cause people to care what's happening within the Synod?
The goal of the convention might be to move us close to the situation in which more members of Synod are aware of the fact that they are members of the Synod, and that they see that as a positive thing - to build consciousness of a national-level network which does good things.
Well, this letter is far too long! I hope I've not bored you.
The convention nears! I realize that your time is precious, so I'll try to keep this letter short. (There are so many books about the LCMS which I would recommend for you to read, but I know that there's not enough time.)
As I said in my last letter, I would not suggest that we move "backwards" through time: we can't go back to the 1941 hymnbook, we can't all start speaking German again, we can't deny women a voice in church. But I think that it is very important that we understand our history, and keep what was and is good in that history. For more than a century, we've been "neither Protestant nor Catholic" and that is a position which can be kept only with very careful balancing and attention, not to traditions, but to the concepts which those traditions embodied - and to transferring those concepts to new traditions.
Some people would like to see an absolute requirement that every congregation in Synod use the same worship materials. I don't think that there is any need for that level of centralization. I would like to see, however, a book of contemporary worship songs compiled by the Synod: a book which congregations could use, but would not be required to use. This would be an advantage because each congregation would not have to "re-invent the wheel" in terms of contemporary music, and would ensure some minimal level of quality control. It could also encourage a feeling of unity among different congregations.
The same could be true for contemporary liturgies (or "orders of service"): they could be generated at the Synod level and sent to congregations for use, but not forced upon the congregations. Again, this would save work for individual congregations and provide quality control; again, unity would be encouraged as congregations shared the same liturgy. For both contemporary music and contemporary liturgies, annual updates could provide a fresh source of new material.
Moving on to the issue of "women in the church": as I mentioned in a previous letter, any truly thoughtful response to this situation will need to take into account the mixed message which Scripture sends: one the one hand, women were admitted to the office of "prophet" on an equal basis with men; on the other hand, women were clearly denied any admission to the office of "priest". I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it does preclude any quick'n'easy black-and-white answer.
A fact worth noting is that, because of the disintegration of the family in modern and post-modern society, and because irresponsibility is quite tolerated, some congregations have few active male members; the majority of their active members are women. One rather traditional LCMS clergyman admitted that, although he was skeptical about women taking leadership roles, he was forced to allow women to be congregational leaders because there were not enough men who would make a commitment to serve the congregation. When men are not willing to commit their time and effort to the congregation, the idea of allowing women to serve becomes more practical than theoretical.
I'm enclosing a copy of some propositions from the Altenburg Debate. These theses have the advantage of being short, so there's not much to read. Produced by one of the founding fathers and first president of the Synod, and debated at a time when the future of the group was in question (most of them wanted to pack up and go back to Germany) these statements are regarded as a handy compilation of some (but not all) of the main beliefs which constitute the distinctively Missouri point of view.
Well, I promised I'd keep this short!
 |  |  |
Return to the Christianity Page