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
Today’s good and bad
Church this morning was a mix of good and bad things. But I guess that’s to be expected isn’t it…
The good:
- The new LSBs were in the pews, and we sang all the hymns from them. They’ll be dedicated next week, and I would guess that in about a month or two we’ll start to see the use of liturgies right from the book. This is cool. This is good.
- The sermon was a very good application of Law & Gospel, with the Law convicting us of our inability to walk Jesus’ walk, and the Gospel sweetly comforting us & keeping us safe in the sure knowledge that when God looks at us, He sees Jesus and the results of His walk, not the failure of ours.
- The Lord’s Supper, the celebration of which is always a comfort.
The bad (or at least not-so-good):
- Pre-service music included “God Bless America”, which of course meant that someone had to stand up & implore everyone to, “Sing the words everyone!” I really don’t like it when the pre-service preparations are disturbed by this type of thing (sort of like how I detest it when folks clap after a chorale during the service), even if/when/though well-meaning. Neither do I like it when nationalistic stuff from the Left-hand Kingdom bleeds over into the Right-hand Kingdom.
- Post-Benediction recitations of pledges of allegiance to the Christian and American flags. I’m not a big fan of services on/around July 4. I’m proud to be American and I’m certainly thankful that God saw fit to bless me & my family by being Americans. However, I still don’t like having the divine service turned into a service of nationalistic cheerleading. Frankly, once I enter into the sanctuary, I wouldn’t care if the folks worshipping with me are Americans, Germans, Turks, or even Iraqis. What matters in that context is that they are fellow Christians. My goodness, what if a foreign national had been there today? I dare-say that they would’ve been unnecessarily offended by the unwarranted nationalism on display.
- A reminder/update on the process of finding a DCE. This is an ongoing thing that is causing a not-small amount of angst within the congregation, as well as amongst some of the boards. To get into it in any more detail here would be neither productive, nor proper, so I’ll just leave it that it continues to be a thorn in my side.
- Helping serve the Lord’s Supper. It’s part of my duties as a member of the Board of Elders, but it’s one that I’ve never gotten fully comfortable with, as I’m a supremely unworthy sinner. I wish that I didn’t feel so conflicted about these duties, but that probably won’t happen until such a time as we change up how the elements are distributed.
- Non-Every Sunday celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I wish that we could get to the point where folks understood that offering the Supper every Sunday is the right & proper thing to do. I truly don’t understand how some can argue that offering it at every service somehow devalues it by making it more “common”. Is the air we breathe less “special” and/or “meaningful” merely because it’s so abundantly common? I think not.
- The Territorial Daughter being squarely in a phase where she really, really doesn’t want to go to church. This makes every Saturday night/Sunday morning a battleground - one that makes me feel both powerless and like a failure.
All in all, it wasn’t all that bad. It’s just that the things that irritate me are very difficult for me to set aside, even (especially?) when I know that I should.
-ghp
Delegate Dialog - thoughts
Something that I think will happen over the course of the next two months, is that the strawman dichotomy of “doctrine vs. mission” will get trotted out by a vocal contingent in the LCMS.
This false dichotomy is usually proffered in the bemoaning of a focus on “incessant doctrinal purification”, and that pastors need to be more “mission-minded” rather than just being “caretakers”.
This false dichotomy can be quickly debunked & exposed by reading this quote from LCMS Founding Father C.F.W. Walther:
“Many say, ‘Instead of disputing over doctrine so much, we should much rather be concerned with souls and with leading them to Christ.’ But all who speak in this way do not really know what they are saying or what they are doing. As foolish as it would be to scold a farmer for being concerned about sowing good seed and to demand of him simply to be concerned about a good harvest, so foolish it is to scold those who are concerned first and foremost with the doctrine, and to demand of them that they should rather seek to rescue souls. For just as the farmer who wants a good crop must first of all be concerned about good seed, so
the church must above all be concerned about right doctrine if it would save souls.”
–C. F. W. Walther, synodical president
“Our Common Task–The Saving of Souls,” 1872
It’s an emotionalistic argument, and it’s certainly not one based on Scripture or the Confessions.
The drumbeat will be loud, but it can, and must, be withstood.
-ghp
Missouri in a handbasket
The LCMS is in a handbasket, and you know where that mode of transport takes you…
Per this letter, the St. Louis Seminary (CSL) has jumped into bed with a renegade, conservative/”confessional”, faction of ELCA, WordAlone.
So, what many view to be as the crown jewel seminary of the LCMS (not me — I prefer CTSFW, but that’s just subjective based on my personal experiences at/on the CTSFW campus — I’ve known good pastors who are grads of both sems — and general, anecdotal observations that even in post-Seminex times, some dicey stuff can happen at CSL…) is now going to educate future pastors of the ELCA. Men and WOMEN. Priestitutes. Spiffy.
WordAlone, from what I’ve been able to discern, seems to have been moved into action in response to ELCA’s bedding down with the Episcopalians, as they really don’t like the historic episcopate. And they don’t like ELCA’s move towards blessing same-sex unions & ordaining gays/lesbians. But, they’re cool with ELCA’s focus on social justice, priestitutes, open communion, mindless ecumenism, Biblical errancy, and general disavowal of orthodox confessional Lutheranism (i.e., Christianity). Peachy.
What possible reason could there be for the powers-that-be at CSL to want to jump into bed with a group like WordAlone? Especially when they do so with delusional sophistry like this from Rev. Bartelt’s letter:
“Further, as discussed with your representatives, Concordia Seminary invites students to enroll into our graduate programs of theological studies, cognizant of our traditional, confessional position within the framework of historic and evangelical Lutheran theology. Indeed, we welcome those who are willing to engage in honest dialogue and conversation about controversial theological matters, including issues such as the historical-critical method and women’s ordination. We recognize that, as a denominational seminary, we do not prepare candidates for the Holy Ministry outside of the LCMS and those in church fellowship with her. We are also prepared to continue discussion of the initiatives of WordAlone Network to augment such graduate education as they see fit, including proposals such as a house of studies and the interchange of guest faculty.”
Sorry, but the historical-critical method & women’s ordination are not “controversial theological matters” that are open for “honest dialogue and conversation” — they are issues that have been discredited & debunked as sinful attempts to corrupt God’s clear Word.
And, if the LCMS’s seminaries are not for preparing candidates for those outside of the LCMS, then what could possibly be the purpose/benefit of letting some rogue outfit’s students/candidates take classes as part of their programs elsewhere? Let’s be honest here, in doing so, we are preparing them, for all intents and purposes. The LCMS will be complicit in allowing/enabling women to usurp the Pastoral Office. Stating a bylaw/policy doesn’t change that, not when the practice is so obvious.
This makes me very sad…
-ghp
-
Analytics & Hosting
