Church Gov. question.

[jonathan1971]

A little history to start. I've only been a lutheran for about three years. I joined a small ELS in Oregon about that long ago. I've read most of the BoC but must admit I don't have it commited to memory.

I came from a reformed presby denom and understand a three teir form of government as well as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

I've been somewhat following the trouble in the LCMS. If as a lutheran you agree that the BoC is the most clear concise statement of christian doctrine, what would it matter what the LCMS denom does?

"Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers......."

There is no mention of a denom. So if the pres. of the LCMS and the leadership at large is forcing the denom into an apostate direction what does it matter? They're not the church. Infact isn't it the duty of the congregation to leave that denom?

 

[LilLamb219]

There is no mention of a denom. So if the pres. of the LCMS and the leadership at large is forcing the denom into an apostate direction what does it matter? They're not the church. Infact isn't it the duty of the congregation to leave that denom?

Leave? And then what? Isn't that how new denoms are formed anyway?

What about staying to help correct the problems within first before abandoning ship?

 

[jonathan1971]

Isn't that the same logic that "conservatives" in ELCA use? It appears as if the LCMS puts way too much emphasis on what the pres can and can't do? Were does the Pres derive such authority?

The problem starts with just how much authority the church government has. If you give your leaders that much power over your church then it's just a matter of time before the liberals will win. Just look at the papcy as well as the reformed churches.

 

[Studeclunker]

You have put your thumb on the crux of the problem with what the leadership in the LCMS has been doing. However, the laity hasn't been 'giving' additional power to the LCMS' leadership, the leadership has been appropriating it. Hence the current problems and conflict.

Also, your comment about the congregations doesn't quite take in the structure of 'Congregational Polity' that LMCS' leadership is supposed to recognise and support. This concept, as I understand it, is that the final authority resides within the congregation for practice and structure of said congregation. To remain in the Synod, this congregation must meet certain loose guidelines of sturcture and practice. The Pastor guides the congregation with proper doctrine, theology, and practice with appropriate order and teaching. The main hold the LCMS retains on it's member congregations lies with the Pastor; He must be chosen from a roster presented from the LCMS leadership. Other than that, the Synodical leadership stays (or should be) out of the congregation's business.

This has led to the 'consistant inconsistancy' that I've mentioned before. Some LCMS congregations have wandered off into liberality and others are rock-ribbed conservatives.

I don't mind giving the liberals their own space. The problem is that they demand too much, generally, and eventually take over a congregation and give no place at all to the conservative. This is a denomination wide problem. These people insist on wiping out all of the previous practices and teaching. It reminds me of where it's written, 'they won't tolerate proper teaching.'

 

[Zecryphon]

Leave? And then what?

Welcome to the WELS, Lambie! It's great to have you with us!

 

[jonathan1971]

Thanks Studeclunker that was the answer I was looking for.

 

[jonathan1971]

How much say does the denom have over church property? Does the property belong to the congregation or the denom like it would the RCC or PCUSA?

 

[Studeclunker]

Generally the campus and it's contents belong to the Congregation. However, there are rare situations where the Synod may become involved. One case is in Oakland, CA and mentioned in this forum several times. For the most part though, the Congregation owns their campus, buildings, and all the contents. LCMS isn't supposed to be an episcopal organization.

 

[DaRev]

How much say does the denom have over church property? Does the property belong to the congregation or the denom like it would the RCC or PCUSA?

In the LCMS, church property belongs to the congregation. The only time this changes is if the congregation closes, then in most cases the property is turned over to the district to dispose of.

The case in Oakland that has been mentioned here concerns a congregation whose property was taken over by a splinter group within the congregation which left the synod. The true congregation enlisted the help of the district in order to get back its property, accounts, assets, etc.

 

[Studeclunker]

Splinter group, Revrand? One wonders how you define that. So the Synodical leadership can pick and choose in a congregation whom they want to keep and whom they want to throw out? So if a congregation is ordered to close by the Synod and they vote not to, if a congregation votes to leave and a few malcontents (who lost the vote they participated in) can then be declaired the congregation? So much for Congregational Polity! In that case, it seems to exist only so long as the congregation agrees with the Synod! Polity in that case is only the congregants that the Synodical leadership agree with!

 

[jonathan1971]

Splinter group, Revrand? One wonders how you define that. So the Synodical leadership can pick and choose in a congregation whom they want to keep and whom they want to throw out? So if a congregation is ordered to close by the Synod and they vote not to, if a congregation votes to leave and a few malcontents (who lost the vote they participated in) can then be declaired the congregation? So much for Congregational Polity! In that case, it seems to exist only so long as the congregation agrees with the Synod! Polity in that case is only the congregants that the Synodical leadership agree with!

I guess that's really what my question is. If the LCMS holds to the BoC where does it derive such authority to meddle in the affiars of the local church?

 

[DaRev]

Splinter group, Revrand? One wonders how you define that.

Read the original case file. It's available online and has been linked to elsewhere on the forum. It explains what the issue is.

So the Synodical leadership can pick and choose in a congregation whom they want to keep and whom they want to throw out? So if a congregation is ordered to close by the Synod and they vote not to,

The synodical leadership has nothing to do with the process. It is determined by the congregation and spelled out in their constitution. And neither the district nor the synod has ordered any congregation to close.

if a congregation votes to leave and a few malcontents (who lost the vote they participated in) can then be declaired the congregation? So much for Congregational Polity! In that case, it seems to exist only so long as the congregation agrees with the Synod! Polity in that case is only the congregants that the Synodical leadership agree with!

Most congregations' constitutions contain an article dealing with divisions and dissolution in the congregation. If there is a split in the church, normally the party that adhere's to the terms of synodical membership will retain the property. In the case in Oakland, the "splinter group" voted to leave the synod and, according to their own constitution, should have turned over the property, accounts, etc. to the congregation. They did not and thus the law suit.

I guess that's really what my question is. If the LCMS holds to the BoC where does it derive such authority to meddle in the affiars of the local church?

It does not meddle in the affairs of the local church. Any involvement by the districts or synod in local congregations come at the request of the local congregation. The districts and synod have no authority in the local churches beyond what the local churches allow.

 

[filosofer]

[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

It does not meddle in the affairs of the local church. Any involvement by the districts or synod in local congregations come at the request of the local congregation. The districts and synod have no authority in the local churches beyond what the local churches allow.

That sounds nice on paper; in practice, that is not always the case.

from the voice of experience

 

[DaRev]

That sounds nice on paper; in practice, that is not always the case.

from the voice of experience

I'm sure there have been attempts by district hierarchy to stick their noses in, but it ultimately lies with the voter's assembly. They can either accept the district/synod involvement or vote it down.

 

[filosofer]

I'm sure there have been attempts by district hierarchy to stick their noses in, but it ultimately lies with the voter's assembly. They can either accept the district/synod involvement or vote it down.

More than attempts...

enough said...

Sadly, there were times that the District/Synod should have stepped in but did not.

 

[DaRev]

Sadly, there were times that the District/Synod should have stepped in but did not.

I agree, especially concerning clergy killers.

 

[Jim47]

It has been my practice to refrain from discussing the LCMS other then to ask a few questions and I will continue to refrain as I see no possible good out come. I just don't believe in kicking a harse when its down but I do pray that someday these problems will be corrected and the members can relax in thier worship knowing that their leadership is doing God's will.

 

[RadMan]

[/size][/font][/font]

Read the original case file. It's available online and has been linked to elsewhere on the forum. It explains what the issue is.



The synodical leadership has nothing to do with the process. It is determined by the congregation and spelled out in their constitution. And neither the district nor the synod has ordered any congregation to close.



Most congregations' constitutions contain an article dealing with divisions and dissolution in the congregation. If there is a split in the church, normally the party that adhere's to the terms of synodical membership will retain the property. In the case in Oakland, the "splinter group" voted to leave the synod and, according to their own constitution, should have turned over the property, accounts, etc. to the congregation. They did not and thus the law suit.



It does not meddle in the affairs of the local church. Any involvement by the districts or synod in local congregations come at the request of the local congregation. The districts and synod have no authority in the local churches beyond what the local churches allow.

DaRev would rather support the past Pres and Treasurer of the CA church, who left and lost membership, who voted in the Episcopal Priestess before he left and after DP Newton told Our Redeemer that any Christian could preach and serve communion. Then Ron Lee, who had chaired the meeting to contract the Episcopal Priestess, told the congregation about a year later it was wrong. Then DP Newton told him to join another congregation so that a suit could be issued. SLick.




.

 

[DaRev]

DaRev would rather support the past Pres and Treasurer of the CA church, who left and lost membership, who voted in the Episcopal Priestess before he left and after DP Newton told Our Redeemer that any Christian could preach and serve communion. Then Ron Lee, who had chaired the meeting to contract the Episcopal Priestess, told the congregation about a year later it was wrong. Then DP Newton told him to join another congregation so that a suit could be issued. SLick.

I'm just going by the original file and not by the opinions of someone who has a history of twisting the truth, distorting facts, and telling outright lies.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

be careful what dirty laundry gets aired here, guys...you never know when it will come back and kick you in the tush.