Messy?

Here's the latest nonsense from the LCMS. First VP Bill Diekelman sent us all an email describing the progress of the Ablaze! initiative. Much has been written about the theological weaknesses of the program. But here's something which caught my eye in the latest missive. He says this:

"Ablaze! was endorsed by the 2004 Synod convention in two parts. One part, the witnessing part, is a movement. It is messy, it is un-programmed, it is Spirit driven. The other part is programmatic. While we pray it may also be Spirit led and blessed, it is much more structured."

And I said to my self, "Messy?" Something driven by the Spirit is messy? I don't know what spirit this man is talking about, but there's one thing I know the Holy Spirit is not, and that's messy. Has he not read that our God is a God of order?

We've always known that the Synodical leadership has charismatic tendencies. Well, here's what we might call the root problem. The Spirit preaches Christ, as Christ Himself said, "He shall testify of me." And the Spirit is not messy about it. In fact His way of doing it is in the context of the structured liturgy of the church.

You might call this a slip of pen, but I think it's a little insight into the fallacies at the heart of the whole movement.

You show me a movement that is messy and I'll show you a place where the Holy Spirit is not.

Confession Makes a Comeback

Do I get some sort of credit for being the first among us Lutherans to notice that this article in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "Confession Makes a Comeback" makes reference to a marvelous resolution we passed at the LCMS national convention in Houston last July?

The article is written by Alexandra Alter, and includes this tidbit: "This summer, the second-largest North American branch of the Lutheran Church passed a resolution supporting the rite, which it had all but ignored for more than 100 years." That was in fact the last resolution passed by the convention, and although a number of delegates had already left, it passed by an overwhelming majority. It provided in fact a very fine conclusion to the convention.

Further on in the WSJ article, there's this piece about our very own Central Illinois District's Pastor Bruce Keseman (kudos, Bruce!):

"This past summer, the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, a 2.5 million-member branch whose members are spread across North America, voted to revive private confession with a priest. Some theologians have pointed to the writings of Martin Luther and argued that the Protestant reformer, while criticizing the way the rite was administered, never advocated abolishing it. 'Some of us were saying, "Why in the world did we let that die out?"' says the Rev. Bruce Keseman, a Lutheran pastor in Freeburg, Ill.

"The Rev. Keseman has sought to revive confession in his congregation by bringing it into pastoral counseling, giving demonstrations to youth groups and preaching about its benefits. Leslie Sramek, 48, a lifelong Lutheran and financial manager who lives near St. Louis, says she never heard about private confession and absolution in church when she was growing up. But two years ago, when the Rev. Keseman announced he would be taking confession privately, she decided to give it a try. At these sessions, the pastor wears vestments and stands near the altar while she kneels and recounts her sins. 'I won't say that looking at my sins is pleasant, but they have to be dealt with,' says Mrs. Sramek."

Read the whole article here.

A Great Convention Blog

OK, now that I'm back from vacation, I can catch up a bit. But I don't really have to post anything about the convention, because I find to my great delight that it's already been done, by Pastor Rick Stuckwisch on his blog (click here to read it). That was his first post after the convention, and a more recent one is here at his home page. Both are great reads, and they say exactly what I was thinking. Thanks, Rick, you saved me the work!

A Little Convention Fun

I'll leave the deep, serious, abiding matters of the LCMS Convention for others to blog about in depth--things like the ramifications of the reelection of President Kieschnik, but by only 52% of the vote; the unprecedented shut-out of all floor nominations by a clever new standing rule that somehow had us asking the convention each time a single name was introduced, and the requirement that each time the name was introduced, mention had to be made of the recent lawsuit on everyone's mind and whether or not the nominee was a plaintiff (at least I can't recall ever having seen such shenanigans before, and this is my seventh convention); the declaration of altar and pulpit fellowship with the AALC, a small synod comprised of parishes that had left the old ALC when it merged with the LCA to get the ELCA (I was a bit pleased by that action, actually)--and I'll just mention in passing that although this is only the second day of the convention, and there's still much to do, so who knows what will happen.

But in the meantime I had a little fun. At a certain point when the voting boxes weren't working and everyone was just sitting and waiting, and the Synodical President told a few bad jokes, I took the down time to write a little poem, and then I brought my poem to the floor. With permission, I read it to the delegates, to their evident satisfaction, and even applause. Here it is:

There once was a Synod convention
Which endured not a little contention
But they all had to sit
When the vote boxes quit
And declare, What a splendid invention!

Sleight of Hand

Yeah, I think I'm convinced. Wasn't sure at first, but I can't come up with an alternative explanation for this.

LCMS President Gerald Kieschnik, smiling nearby, took great pains to ensure that all of us Synodical Delegates were duly elected. How very thoughtful. But actually, what we Synodical Delegates were really wondering was whether our votes would really matter, in view of the shenanigans that seem to have transpired in recent years.

See, there was—for the benefit of the uninformed—this little lawsuit a few years back, about the question of suspected illegitimate circuit divisions and the mustering up of more delegates to reelect the incumbent the last time around. That was finally settled out of court, but then along came Rev. Fred Baue with a letter to all delegates explaining, quite intelligently and succinctly, how he remained unconvinced. Very convincing letter, that. Verrry convincing. Like, where did all these delegates come from, when the size of Synod is shrinking? How come they mostly came from districts favorable to the president's re-election in 2004? How come the "exceptions" he granted didn't seem to have sufficient logic? The bylaws permit the President to grant exceptions to the general rules in extraordinary cases, but up to now it was always taken for granted that the extraordinary cases would be just that: extraordinary, and rare. Now the exceptions started popping up like crazy. These were, as I understood them, Rev. Baue's points, which, I thought, were sensible and sound. They certainly raised some questions in my own mind, just when I was beginning to wonder if this entire lawsuit clamor was so much ado over nothing.

So anyhow, President Kieschnik sends this blue ribbon committee to "investigate" the matter, and, sure enough, he reports, Ta Da! They found that everything was done properly. At least, that's what his cover letter said. And that's what the first three or four points of the report also said.

But I kept reading the thing, and, strangely, the last points didn't seem to be saying that at all. The whole tenor of the last part was, I thought, one of a large however.

As in: true, the President didn’t actually break any rules: however, we did find some curious discrepancies which merit further investigation . . .

In other words, the entire report seems to exonerate Rev. Baue, but only if you read the entire report. If you’re an ordinary lay delegate who wants to take his appointment seriously, but you really haven’t got the kind of time you'd like to take to look this all over, since you have other things to do like milking the cows or whatnot, you might well just read the first part, or even the whole thing, but with the President’s preliminary remarks in mind, and finally shrug, scratch your head, and say, Yup, somebody was unhappy with the results of the lawsuit situation, so tried to makes something out of nothing, and here’s the report to prove it. Sure, it seems there’s something minor in the later points, but hey, that’s nothing.

In fact, I recently talked to a Synodical official about my concerns, and he said just that! Naww, you go back and read it again, and you’ll see . . .

Well, I already knew what I read. If you take the report—the whole report—at face value, and you just might begin to see what Rev. Baue has been saying all along, namely that something does smell a bit fishy after all.

Oh, and by the way, I happened to have the opportunity to talk face to face with one of the men who sat on that committee, over drinks, so I asked him about what I had observed. Was I missing something? Nope, he said. You’re exactly right.

Hah. I knew it.

So, to the two or three of you who might actually be worried about whether you’re a legitimate delegate, I hate to rain on your parade, but my recommendation to you is simple: never trust a guy who has a personal stake in making assurances to you. We have a name for that: conflict of interest.

LCMS committee recommendations propose lawlessness

I don't usually read all the mounds of stuff that come pouring in to delegates who have been elected to synodical conventions. So today I got Today's Business, which is the first load of information synodical delegates will need to use at the upcoming LCMS (Missouri Synod) convention in Houston (14-21 July 2007), and, as usual, I paged rather nonchalantly through it, and happened to come upon what I think may be a key issue at this convention: the relation of the LCMS constitution to the civil courts.

For the uninformed, one issue which has been hotly debated over the past several years has been the question of compatibility of LCMS rulings and bylaws with the laws of the state of Missouri, in which the LCMS is registered as a church body. There have been concerns raised by members of the Synod's Board of Directors that the Synodical President and the Commission on Constitutional Matter have overstepped their legal bounds in the application of their authority with respect to the Synod. This has resulted in the filing of a lawsuit which dragged on for a few years until it was finally settled out of court. But it was not really resolved. New allegations have arisen, and the issue still burns hotly.

Well, now comes this proposal by the ad hoc Resolution 7-02A Committee to change the constitution so that the controversy should be resolved internally, without recourse to the civil courts.

All this sounds well and good, in a sense. St. Paul's well-known warnings against lawsuits come to mind (the fact that Jesus First is constantly reminding us of them is probably the reason they come to mind so readily), and the case can easily be made that the recommendations of this committee should all be followed, to resolve this in a God-pleasing way.

I hate to rain on their parade, but could someone explain to me how lawlessness is God-pleasing? Embedded in the midst of tons of verbiage (honestly, I just happened to see this, without more than a five-minute skimming of this sleep-inducing document) is this little proposed addition: "Any issues relative to the applicability of the laws of the State of Missouri shall be resolved in accord with the provisions in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod."

Holy cow, just think about that, folks. Let me translate, if you need it: The Constitution of the Missouri Synod has legal precedence over the law of the land, in all things. And that's the definition of lawlessness. It says this: we get to say how we shall behave, and no government can say otherwise.

They'll argue, no doubt (as they already have), that the state cannot interfere with the church's affairs, and that, as St. Peter, we ought to obey God rather than men. But let's remember that St. Peter was not advocating anarchy.

This suggested constitutional change has me stunned. Do they really mean to say "any issues"? --Any issues at all?--"relative to the applicability of the laws of the State of Missouri shall be resolved in accord with the provisions in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod"? OK, just for the sake of argument, let's say the Constitution of the Synod should enact a provision permitting the confiscation of the property of a minister who is voted out of office by his congregation. What then? State law doesn't apply? Or let's say that a parish which votes to leave the Synod has to give its property to the Synod. Can't do that, you say? Our polity doesn't allow that? No, it doesn't. Not now. But what if that changed? What if some convention just voted the change in? Heaven knows, conventions have been known to do some pretty goofy things. So let's just go even further. Say the Missouri Synod became a weird, outlandish cult (I know what you're thinking, but let's be charitable here), and decided, like the Jim Jones group, to administer poisoned Kool-Aid to its people on retreat in Guyana, or even Perry County. And say they put that provision into a bylaw, by simple majority vote, in a simply goofy convention. Hey, "Any issues relative to the applicability of the laws of the State of Missouri shall be resolved in accord with the provisions in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod," so, I'm sorry, officer, you're just going to have to turn around and go home. Yeah, I know there are a bunch of dead people here, and you may think there's been a mass murder, but we have this bylaw, see, and it says, "Any issues relative to the applicability of the laws of the State of Missouri shall be resolved in accord with the provisions in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod."