Delegate Dialog: What is unity?
Unity, it would seem is something that is hard to argue against, like mom & apple pie.
Unity is the focus of the latest “Delegate to Delegate” newsletter that was sent out as part of the organized politicking efforts of TBNJFPAC (aka The Blasphemously Named Jesus First Political Action Committee ), this time signed by one Jon Krause.
Unity in the LCMS is touted as something that (and I’m paraphrasing here) feels so good that it must be right. It’s an obvious “good thing”. It’s so important that it can (nay must) exist even when/where differences exist, for “Differences always exist among people in any organization, but where the mission is important, a mission focus unites.”
Unity based on agreement in doctrine and practice is not good, we are told, because “In this approach to unity, any difference I consider important is a reason to ‘mark and avoid’ you.” “Error” prohibits unity, and that of course, is bad.
The writer then trots out the usual canard/obfuscation: “Worse, this approach to unity undermines the core Gospel message that Christ came for all, including those whose understandings are not ‘pure’.” As if Gospel Reductionism, in all it’s minimalist & error-ridden glory, can stand any honest Scripturally based scrutiny.
The writer then bemoans that this “exclusionary approach to unity has been ascendant in the LCMS for far too long. It’s [sic] core support has been among some clergy, though many lay people have also been persuaded by its siren call to ‘truth and purity’. Who could ever be opposed to either truth or purity?”
Who, indeed? Perhaps those who rail against “incessant internal purification“? Hmmm?
The writer then informs his fellow delegates that a casualty of this ascendant exclusionary narrowness is the “discussion of important issues in the church. Already knowing the one ‘true and pure’ position on an issue, considering what others think can only debase that pure understanding. The sure way to avoid debasement is to eliminate discussion.”
And, without incessant discussion & revisiting of our “understanding” of issues, how could we ever move closer to things like ordaining women, right? After all, without discussion, how can we gain full benefit of the whole Hegelian dialectic? Why take God at His inspired, inerrant Word, when we can more fully “understand” it…
The writer then moves into the endgame. “Look at the resolutions coming before the convention this time. How many of them deal with really important issues in the church and society we are called to serve with the Gospel? A corollary effect has been an ‘ends justify means’ approach to disputes within the church.” Let me break in here by stating that the synod is not a church, and it is certainly not the church. It is a body that exists more within the Kingdom of the Left (i.e., secular) than of the Right. That distinction seems to have been lost by a great many folks.
The writer continues: “One unfortunate example is the recent lawsuit and its diversion of a half million dollars from mission to attorney fees. Ask yourself - was mission core to this dispute? If mission were core, would the lawsuit have ever been filed?”
Ah, the lawsuit, Somehow I just knew that it was going to be mentioned. Was mission “core” to the dispute? In a sense, yes it was. For folks to whom the true mission was/is important, they knew that violating the laws of the State of Missouri put the true mission at great risk. So they did the right thing and took legal action (as did Paul, no?). I find a great irony in the Kieschniks hurling the “ends justify the means” slur at folks, as if stacking the voting deck with statistically significant numbers of circuit exceptions (aka “friendly voters”) is either “core” or not crassly pragmatic.
Finally, the writer sums up the broadside with the friendly reminder to keep all that he has mentioned in mind when the time comes to vote. He even gives a nice little series of litmus test questions:
- Ask whether the candidate puts mission at the top of his/her concerns.
- Do they advocate mission based on unity or focus on difference and division?
- What is the record of organizations supporting the candidate?
- Were they involved in the lawsuit?
- Is their focus on unity in mission - or on the differences that divide?
Wow, that’s actually pretty helpful:
- Kieschnick/TBNJFPAC? Missionaries were pulled from the field rather than cut back on the bureaucracy at home…
- TBNJFPAC has proven in their delegate literature that they are all about division & difference between their side and any who dare to disagree…
- I’ll be sure to note who is endorsed by TBNJFPAC, so that I can stay away from divisiveness…
- Kieschnick & Diekelman? Presided over the chicanery that necessitated the lawsuit. Stay away from them - check…
- Unity in mission, based on ALL that is said/commanded in Matt 28:19-20 (esp. 20!)? They get my vote! Differences that divide, based on emotionalistic appeals & relativistic revisions of Scripture? I’ll stay away from those folks…
I guess it’s not that difficult after all, and that these TBNJFPAC newsletters will actually serve some use to me.
Cool…
-ghp
Comments
-
Analytics & Hosting
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment