LCMS CTCR PC? WTH!?!
I’ve been no great supporter of the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR), as I’ve thought many of their recent statements/opinions/papers to be somewhat suspect wrt orthodox theology/doctrine. That said, they’re not all bad…
Yesterday, I received an LCMSNews email titled CTCR addresses video consecration. Now, I must admit that my first thought upon reading the subject line was “Uh oh, this can’t be good…” — I was, however, pleasantly surprised, especially after reading the 2 page CTCR opinion on the question (from the TX District) regarding the validity, efficacy, & propriety of using a DVD recording of a pastor speaking the words of institution as the basis for conducting the Lord’s Supper. IMO, the CTCR got it right when unequivocally (and unanimously) stating that such a practice is not good, and should be avoided! w00t! 
The 2nd half of the news release, and a subsequent visit to the CTCR website, however, didn’t yield quite that same level of confidence, and made me wonder about the motivation of some folks, especially the seeming desire to be “acceptable” and/or PC…
First,
The CTCR also approved a grant application for two consultations on the relationships of men and women to guide completion of a 1995 convention request to “coordinate a comprehensive study of the scriptural relationship of man and woman, together with the faculties of both seminaries, making use of other persons who are competent in the area of theology, including women.”The commission is proposing two consultations, involving 12 to 15 people — including parish pastors, commissioned ministers, and women who serve in and outside the home — plus CTCR members and staff. During the past 11 years, the commission has completed other assignments related to the study, including a report or opinions on inclusive language, lay teachers of theology, women in combat, service of women, and response to the meaning of the Greek word authentein (to exercise authority over).
Second,
The section of the website formerly identified as “Cults, Religions, Lodges and Movements” has been renamed “Religious Organizations and Movements” and has been updated to include twenty-five CTCR-approved evaluations of various organizations and movements.
My response to both of these is to ask, “Why?”
- Why is yet another study needed to evaluate that which Scripture (and thus Confessions) has always been crystal clear about — a clarity to which our Synod ascribed unquestioningly until 1969 (when women’s suffrage was mistakenly & unscripturally approved)? Why engage in the sadly acceptable practice of analyzing & reanalyzing something until you get the result you want? At least be honest & up front about motivations & intent (i.e., that there’s a certain element that desperately wants women’s ordination, if for no other reason than “that’s what everyone else is doing!”)
- Why legitimize cults & lodges by now referring to them as “religious organizations”? Cults & lodges are what they are, and referring to them by those names is accurate. It matters not that some take those names to be “offensive” in these postmodern times — if those names have negative connotations, it’s fully appropriate & well earned. I’m saddened that some no longer feel it necessary or appropriate to call a spade a spade.
In all, a mixed bag. At least it’s not a lost cause (yet).
-ghp
Comments
2 Responses to “LCMS CTCR PC? WTH!?!”
Leave a Reply
-
Analytics & Hosting
May I respectfully ask you to reconsider the use of WTF?
I apologize for the lapse in judgment.
I’ve adjusted the subject/title by two letters. I hope that it’s more acceptable, while still conveying the, shall we say, insouciant, tone meant by the original acronym.
In any event, I’m more comfortable with both the polite & non-polite versions (per Acronym Finder) of the edited subject/title…
Thanks for keeping me honest, Rev. McCain.
-ghp