So this video uses the Church Growth and Obama Campaign technique of using music to elicit an emotional response. I make no apologies. I just wanted to get that out in the open.
At this point, I’m pushing the limits of iMovie, so this will probably be my last video until I can upgrade to some better editing software.
One of the proposals in the BRTFSSG report is to change what constitutes “Voting Membership” in the Synod. Currently, voting members are a pastor and a lay delegate from a member congregation. There is also a category of “Advisory Members” which include pastors without congregations, professors, teachers, deaconesses, etc (commissioned ministers). As you see, “Advisory Members” are currently not eligible to be voting members. The BRTFSSG proposal is to eliminate the “Advisory Members” and create an “Associate Membership” category that encompasses pastors and what were formerly “Advisory Members.” So “Voting Membership” in the Synod would be an “Associate Member” and a lay delegate from a member congregation.
This change seems to cause lots of problems and does actually ripple throughout the rest of the document. I wouldn’t presume to speak for the pastors, but from my point of view, it doesn’t seem right for pastors to be viewed on par with non-clergy, even if it is only with respect to voting status. This change seems more inappropriate in light of the BRTFSSG goal to make the Constitution a more confessional document (e.g. “There hasn’t been any place in our governing documents through the years that tells us and the world how we are saved.” and “Subscription to the confessional basis of the Synod (Article II) and to its Constitution.”).
As I mentioned above, the change to make what were formerly “Advisory Members” on par with pastors as far as “Voting Membership” causes some other changes to the Constitution. For one, the district presidents shall (9.c added sections are italicized) “Perform, either in person or by proxy, the ecclesiastical ordination or commissioning of candidates for the ordained and commissioned ministry assigned to their districts and the installation of such, as well as the installation of ordained and commissioned ministries called by the congregations in their districts;” I presume since the status of commissioned ministers has been elevated the commissioning must be elevated to similar status.
Finally, this change also leads to some very unfortunate wording. Since “Associate Members” include pastors and commissioned ministers, bylaw 2.13.4.2 includes this wording “While on suspended status, the member shall continue to hold all rights under the Constitution and Bylaws except that as an associate member he/she shall…” See, we now have a case in which pastors are included in a category that requires the “he/she” construct. I don’t think anyone is trying to “soften things up” for women’s ordination, but it sure seems like a bad idea to have governing documents which muddy the waters.
I understand that the BRTFSSG was trying to address the problem of voting representation for commissioned ministers, but they seem to have addressed the issue in a way that dilutes pastoral authority and inadvertently weakens our stance on women’s ordination. I’m sure I could be overreacting, but I don’t see how this proposal is better even though it may be more efficient.
Many of the BRTFSSG recommendations focus on strengthening relationships and connections within the Synod. One of the consultant’s recommendations is to “Hire ’story-tellers’ who can engagingly and narratively connect LCMS history and identity to the real life experiences of members.” Also, one of the rationales for the recommendation to create five geographic regions is “creating greater relationships and connectivity between the Synod President, the national office, and local congregations.” I certainly hope we’re not looking to heart warming stories and regional loyalty to grow the church.