This post is my opinion and does not claim to speak for the < .1% of Japanese-American LCMS members ;-)
I just got an email from LCMS news with an article entitled Non-white Lutherans share concerns, ask for voice and I’m mad because I’m a non-white Lutheran and nobody asked me to share my concerns or asked for my voice. The synod has the Board for Black Ministry Services, the Black Clergy Caucus, and the Center for Hispanic Studies. Where’s the Japanese Clergy Caucus (I know there are a few of you) and don’t try to placate me with any of that “Asian” stuff. For anyone who actually knows anything about Asians, there is a vast difference culturally between Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, et al and if you think an “Asian caucus” would be able to address those differences then you probably deserve the guilt you’re feeling. Nothing a few Ablaze! dollars couldn’t overcome though.
From the article and the accompanying Multi-ethnic symposium statement, “The problem is sin and that has expressed itself historically in our church so that non-Anglo-Saxon minorities are marginalized and seemingly voiceless in our structures.” And even in this, the multi-ethnic symposium has sinned by marginalizing and not giving voice to non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Black, non-Hispanic, non-Hmong, non-non-Japanese minorities. That’s the real sin! Where’s my Ablaze! funds.
Let’s get down to brass tacks:
Even though “race doesn’t exist” as a biological category, Nunes said, people often make it “the defining category of who and what we are,” creating stumbling blocks to mission efforts.
See, you guys aren’t Japanese and you never will be. Your best option is to give us some Ablaze! dollars so we can start our own district like you did for the English and the Slovaks, or how about our own affiliated synod!!!
For those who couldn’t tell, this post was largely tongue-in-cheek with a few actual points. If you need a map, I can lay it out in the comments. My real point is that the LCMS needs to abandon it’s direct concern for diversity and address it indirectly by focusing on pure doctrine. Just as “The Mission” flows from “The Message” so will diversity. It is not up to some man-made program as to how the Holy Spirit will address diversity. And if the marks of the church are the Gospel purely preached and the sacraments properly administered, I’m at a loss to understand where the need for a minority voice comes into that picture of the church.
Finally, the one thing I know that the LCMS news article got right is ‘Even though “race doesn’t exist” … people often make it “the defining category of who and what we are.”‘ Sinful humans have strongly rooted cultural/denominational ties (African-Americans/Baptist, Hispanic-Americans/Catholic, Japanese-Americans/Methodist and Presbyterian) which often outweigh the pure doctrine of confessional Lutheranism. My honest opinion is that a separate body (church, district, or affiliate synod) would be better at addressing these cultural issues from an insiders perspective. Any attempts by typical LCMS structures to come into these cultures will be perceived as the “Great White Hope” trying to save the “Underserved Minority,” not the best way to do outreach.
This is the second part of my report on the LCMS Regional Gathering for the CNH, Northwest, PSW, and English districts. Part 1 can be found here.
More Notables
мебель в болгарии
Someone else asked a written question regarding the change from “Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school.” to “Use of worship and catechetical resources that are in harmony with the confessional basis of the Synod;” Dr. Sohns answered this one by explaining that “doctrinally pure” was unclear and needed to be better defined thus the “confessional basis of the Synod” wording. This was unsatisfying as it didn’t address the change from “exclusive” to “in harmony”. Someone else was also dissatisfied and asked why we would want to loosen the terminology. Dr. Sohns’ response was that the intent of the change was to better define “doctrinally pure” and it was not the intent of the rephrasing to weaken the exclusivity. I will take Dr. Sohns at his word, but then I wonder how many of these proposed changes have unintentionally changed the meaning of the original. Pastor Bestul’s comment was that if they just wanted to clarify “doctrinally pure” they could have just added that parenthetically. He also didn’t think we really needed to clarify the term in the first place.
The Political
One thing that stood out in mind was how much the American concepts of equity, fairness, and diversity were used to evoke support. Why have regional VPs? Well because none come from West of Minnesota and that’s not fair. Why should larger congregations get more delegates? That would just be more equitable. Should we consider using worship attendance instead of confirmed members when calculated representation? The CNH, Northwest, and PSW have a greater worship attendance percentage then most districts so it would be more fair and equitable to go that way. The pandering to base instincts was disturbing.
I also mentioned that diversity was thrown out and the lack of ethnic, gender, age, and socio-economic diversity was decried. This could make some squeamish, but since I’m definitely one of the minorities, I’ll take it on. At one point the delegates were admonished because we come from some of the more diverse parts of the country and yet there were probably 90%+ males, 90%+ caucasians, 80%+ over 55 (hey I’m not very good at guessing the age of caucasians . I honestly felt saddened that this type of language was being used to push through an agenda. I even used the term “white guilt” in a tweet I posted because I felt like the presenter was trying to use the lack of diversity to guilt the delegates into backing the proposals. Look, I know to the world that my family sticks out like a sore thumb in our (and most) LCMS congregation, but when Law is preached we feel the same weight of sin as everyone else and when Gospel is preached we feel the same joy. Honestly, LCMS, just keep preaching Law and Gospel and the Holy Spirit will take care of the diversity.
The Problematic
While discussing the proposal to urge pastors in continuing education one pastor decried how few business courses were taught in seminary. His statement was, “They didn’t teach us anything about business in seminary and then when I got to the parish I found out, It is a business!”
The Odd
The roommate I had has the condition known as sleep apnea. All I can say is, Wow!
Personally Enlightening
While I was eating breakfast and reading “Law and Gospel” a pastor came up to me and asked what I was reading. I showed him and he asked if I was in some sort of lay training program? I told him that I just like to ask my pastor for reading suggestions and he gives me recommendations. The pastor’s response was, “It’s great that a layman loves the Lord so much that he reads Walther for enjoyment.” I of course thanked him for the kind words, but this made me think about how uncomfortable I get when people talk about “loving the Lord.” Was I reading Walther because I love the Lord? How do I know if what I’m doing shows that I love the Lord? Then it hit me, this whole line of thinking is just Law. I think I understand why people talk this way, but I feel much better knowing why I’ve always felt weird around it.
BRTFSSG Enlightenment
After finishing up the district caucus and having a beer with Pastor Bestul, I went back to my room and had a very informative conversation with my roommate. He told me most of the proposals were over his head because his real concern was for his struggling congregation. They were going through the TCN process and he was hoping the proposals would somehow help local congregations. So the light really came on that there a lot of sincere people, at the local and national level, that are honestly concerned about the decline of individual congregations and the synod that they have been blinded to the errors they are introducing. I’ve always concerned myself with the errors, but it really hit me how much we on the side that is trying to combat these errors really need to speak with love because many people are just really feeling the pain in the decline of the church and are largely ignorant of the wider implications.
The Annoying
The “confessional straw man” was rolled out several times and it was pretty annoying. Need an example of someone whose closed minded, just roll him out. Want to blame someone for binding consciences, you’ve got your man. He wasn’t blamed for the decline of the synod, but he’s there impeding progress.
In closing, I must say that I got a lot out of the gathering but not in the way the BRTFSSG had probably hoped. I learned about pastors, laity, and myself. And what I did learn of the proposals just confirmed that they are just too sweeping and the number and impact of the unintended consequences is almost unimaginable.
I wasn’t sure if I was going to write a report on the LCMS Regional Gathering for the CNH, Northwest, PSW, and English districts because there have already been reports (here, here, here, and here) that did a good job of covering them in general. However, I think I have something to add to the conversation, and I also haven’t posted in a while.
The Great
I got to spend time getting to know the pastoral delegate from my circuit, Pastor John Bestul. My pastor said he was a very solid guy and I found him to be exactly that. I feel fortunate that my circuit has two such fine confessional Lutheran pastors. I really appreciated pastor Bestul’s thoughtfulness, thoroughness, and clarity. He helped me to focus not just on the stated goal of the proposals, but also the long term affects. Thanks for making the whole thing worthwhile Pastor Bestul.
The Notable
The 4 other delegates at my table were pastoral delegates. They were all very nice and were very interested in getting a layman’s perspective on the proposals. They were also very kind in thanking me for taking the time away from work and family. However, they weren’t exactly the most conservative pastors I’ve met and if I were a conspiracy theorist I might think I was purposely put at that table to mute my voice (I spoke my mind, but I wasn’t about to engage in arguments on 4 fronts). It was tough being at a table with 4 pastors who were behind pretty much all the proposals to one degree or another.
President Kieschnick was very presidential. The man is a very good politician. Friday was his birthday, his anniversary, and his wife’s step-father passed away on Friday. Obviously he did not orchestrate this, but this stuff didn’t hurt in softening the crowd which was already sympathetic. I pray that Matt Harrison will be the next SP, but I feel a lot less hopeful after the gathering. Dr. Kieschnick is just getting so much face time and he’s also able to deflect from the more controversial BRTFSSG proposals by pointing out that he has a response to the final report that is critical of it in some areas. So, if you don’t know the specifics of his response (I need to read it), it would be pretty easy to assume that he doesn’t agree with the parts you don’t agree with, especially if you are already leaning in his direction.
My question to the panel was the second one asked in the Q&A. I asked about the proposed change in wording from “Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice…” to “Encouraging a common understanding…” Dr. Sohns gave the response which was first to say that the current phrase is being used legalistically to enforce uniformity of practice and then by walking through the history of this article. Starting in 1847 with “uniformity of ceremonies” which he says meant only special ceremonies like baptism (this didn’t sound right and I would like to check on this with the Gottesdienst crowd), then changing in 1917 to “uniformity of practice and affairs” and then in 1927 to “uniformity of practice”. He says that “common understanding” would lead to common practice and that was the original intent of the article. I’m sure this was sufficient for most and I’m sure some felt like the liturgical crowd got its smack-down. But I’m not buying it. I remember from the district convention that we used “encourage” all the time in proposals and it never had a legalistic tone. This was just one example, I’ll give a couple others later, where the strawman that the liturgical crowd is trying to impose things was put forth.
I was hoping to put up one big post, but I’m still groggy from the event (another part of my report) so I’ll hopefully put up part 2 tomorrow.
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.
. I honestly felt saddened that this type of language was being used to push through an agenda. I even used the term “white guilt” in a tweet I posted because I felt like the presenter was trying to use the lack of diversity to guilt the delegates into backing the proposals. Look, I know to the world that my family sticks out like a sore thumb in our (and most) LCMS congregation, but when Law is preached we feel the same weight of sin as everyone else and when Gospel is preached we feel the same joy. Honestly, LCMS, just keep preaching Law and Gospel and the Holy Spirit will take care of the diversity.
Subscribe via RSS