• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Good 'OL LCMS

Status
Not open for further replies.

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I'm not asking you to take my word for anything here, Rad. You're the one who posted a quote that said the CTCR overrides convention resolutions. I posted the link about what the CTCR is and does. It says nothing about them having authority over the Synod in convention. If you think I'm wrong, prove me wrong.

I base what I say on Synodical sources and my training and education at seminary. What do you base your statements on? People who are not affiliated with the synod. The burden of proof lies with you since you are the one making the accusations.
 
Upvote 0

DaSeminarian

Veteran
Nov 16, 2006
1,527
116
64
✟24,772.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
What is the CTCR?

Show us where it says that the CTCR has the authority to override Convention resolutions.


I don't know Rad, I read through these things on the LCMS website regarding the CTCR and I have to agree with DaRev.

Not because of friendship or the fact that I go to Fort Wayne or anything else.

I think (and this is just my opinion) that you are so sure there is a conspiracy in the synod that you have no trust in anything the leadership puts forth. I'm not a big fan of Kieschnick in the office he holds, but I don't think he is as evil as you portend him to be.
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Like I said. You pick the insignificant unimportant aspects of what I post and say absolutely nothing on the rest of the article. No comments on relevency of Hartung's comments about taking things from the secular world and applying them to church polity. All you do is pick on a typing error.

I'm not going to answer any posts unless they are relevant to the article and will not answer any questions about typing mistakes. CTCR should have been CCM.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Like I said. You pick the insignificant unimportant aspects of what I post and say absolutely nothing on the rest of the article. No comments on relevency of Hartung's comments about taking things from the secular world and applying them to church polity. All you do is pick on a typing error.

I'm not going to answer any posts unless they are relevant to the article and will not answer any questions about typing mistakes. CTCR should have been CCM.

How is anyone supposed to know that, Rad? Am I supposed to be a mind reader too?? :doh: Unbelievable!

As far as the "things from the secular world and applying them to church polity", that depends on the context of what he's talking about. If he is talking about aspects of the ministry, I agree with you that secularism has no business in the ministry. If he is talking about the organizational structure of the congregation, then I would need to know specifics of what he is referring to. A congregation in many respects needs to be run as a business. There are aspects of the congregational organization that exists in the secular world and has to deal with the secular world and thus needs to be operated as such. Some of these things are unique to congregations, communities, states, etc. I believe (this is my "opinion" now so there's no confusion) that is what Hartung was referring to. I think that Bruce is smarter than that to advocate what you and a few others seem to be accusing him of.
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
How is anyone supposed to know that, Rad? Am I supposed to be a mind reader too?? :doh: Unbelievable!

As far as the "things from the secular world and applying them to church polity", that depends on the context of what he's talking about. If he is talking about aspects of the ministry, I agree with you that secularism has no business in the ministry. If he is talking about the organizational structure of the congregation, then I would need to know specifics of what he is referring to. A congregation in many respects needs to be run as a business. There are aspects of the congregational organization that exists in the secular world and has to deal with the secular world and thus needs to be operated as such. Some of these things are unique to congregations, communities, states, etc. I believe (this is my "opinion" now so there's no confusion) that is what Hartung was referring to. I think that Bruce is smarter than that to advocate what you and a few others seem to be accusing him of.
So what are you advocating? Any Lutheran church is already run like a business. Have been for years.. Hartung is a advocating departing for tradition which has been in effect for along time.
Hartung said:
Whatever your congregation is considering organizationally might very well
be a departure from tradition.
Is his aim to support PLI? If you support him is your aim to support PLI also?

Why don't you ask him what his aim is instead of assuming what it it?

The CTCR does have power to influence changes to resolutions made in conventions by the CTCR document about women from 2005 that suddenly wipes out a Synodical resolution that was adopted by more than a 2/3 majority four years earlier.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
So what are you advocating? Any Lutheran church is already run like a business. Have been for years.. Hartung is a advocating departing for tradition which has been in effect for along time. Is his aim to support PLI? If you support him is your aim to support PLI also?

Why don't you ask him what his aim is instead of assuming what it it?

I don't see at all from what you posted that Bruce is in fact supporting PLI. I don't see it from the context you presented. I'm not assuming anything here, Rad. I am simply stating I don't know the context from which he is speaking.

If he is supporting mingling the ministry with those things outside the purview of the ministry, then I am in agreement with your assumptions on this issue (which is what it is - assumption). If he is speaking of aspects of congregational polity apart from the ministry, that is basically up to the congregation, as long as it coincides with Scripture, the Confessions, and the doctrines of the Synod.

The CTCR does have power to influence changes to resolutions made in conventions by the CTCR document about women from 2005 that suddenly wipes out a Synodical resolution that was adopted by more than a 2/3 majority four years earlier.

No it doesn't. The CTCR opinions are not binding on the Synod. That is just a fact that you need to contend with. Hve you yourself read the CTCR document that is being quoted?

While I don't have that particular CTCR document in frnt of me, I don't believe that the part he quoted was in regards to apsects of the ministry, but rather of organizational polity apart from the ministry. When I get into the office tomorrow, if I have some time, I'll look that section up and see just what the context of that passage is. I'll then have a better handle on what is in fact being addressed and can comment on it then.

It's very easy to take a quote from someone else and apply the wrong context to it. This is a problem I have with folks like Otten and Cascione. They are famous for this, which is why their credibility is questionable. It's called "political spin".
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Well finally! You're going to research something out. At least this is taking a different spin.

The CTCR is like the Supreme Courts. They are the higher authority in the synod on theological issues. Synod and district conventions study and discussed the CTCR findings. Findingsare then studied in pastoral conferences, circuit conferences, teacher conferences, and within the congregations of our Synod. They have a very heavy influence on decision making policy and the findings are usually ratified by synod. They do all the leg work through their counsel and most findings are not quetioned that much because of lack of time. So in other words they are the power behind the synod, CCM, president and the BOD on all theological issues.

CTCR'S "What We Do"
The Synod established the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in 1962 to provide leadership in dealing with the Synod's needs and opportunities in the areas of theology and church relations. Since that time, the Commission has provided reports on a number of significant theological issues and has been the Synod's primary agency for carrying out its ecumenical responsibilities toward other Christians through its membership in the International Lutheran Council. The Commission also provides resources and information regarding organizations, philosophies and religious movements. The Commission provided leadership for a model theological convocation held in 2002. Documents and statements from that convocation are available.

The board of CCM is appointed by Kieshnick. How convenient. They are trying to usurp the powers of the BOD.
The CCM has introduced new changes that increase the authority of the President. CCM rulings have attempted to limit the BOD's constitutional
authority. There's apower struggle in LCMS between the CCM and the BOD. CCM usurpts the BOD's authority to make rulings even thought the BOD rejects and votes out the CCM's decisions the CCM still holds sway over decision making policy.
When the Board of Directors attempted to cut administrative and communication costs, and save missionary jobs, it appears that the Office of the President and the Board for Communication Services enlisted support from the CCM to preserve their own funding.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Well finally! You're going to research something out. At least this is taking a different spin.

The CTCR is like the Supreme Courts. They are the higher authority in the synod on theological issues. Synod and district conventions study and discussed the CTCR findings. Findingsare then studied in pastoral conferences, circuit conferences, teacher conferences, and within the congregations of our Synod. They have a very heavy influence on decision making policy and the findings are usually ratified by synod. They do all the leg work through their counsel and most findings are not quetioned that much because of lack of time. So in other words they are the power behind the synod, CCM, president and the BOD on all theological issues.

CTR'S "What We Do"
The Synod established the Commission on Theology and Church Relations in 1962 to provide leadership in dealing with the Synod's needs and opportunities in the areas of theology and church relations. Since that time, the Commission has provided reports on a number of significant theological issues and has been the Synod's primary agency for carrying out its ecumenical responsibilities toward other Christians through its membership in the International Lutheran Council. The Commission also provides resources and information regarding organizations, philosophies and religious movements. The Commission provided leadership for a model theological convocation held in 2002. Documents and statements from that convocation are available.

But where does it say the CTCR has the authority to override Convention resolutions, Rad? That's what you are accusing them of doing.

It's called "I'm the only one doing ANY homework on this site". Right,wrong or indifferent at least I'm doing it.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. I would hardly call copy-n-pasting blurbs from Otten and Cascione "homework".
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Letter by David L. Mahsman who was head of the Board of for Communication Services who objects to interference in its business by the BOD. More lackeys to the Office of the President.

"The Synod's Board of Directors has taken issue with eight opinions renderedby the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) and declared them to be"of no effect." Five of the opinions define limits to the Board's authority; three deal with"ecclesiastical supervision." The Board Nov. 21 said that "for the sake ofthe Synod and its best interests," it "cannot agree with or accept" theopinions, rendered between June 2002 and September 2003. In two separate but similar resolutions, the Board said that the eightopinions "exceed the service function of the CCM provided in Bylaw 3.905d."That bylaw says the CCM shall "interpret the Synod's Constitution, Bylaws,and resolutions." The same bylaw also states that "an opinion rendered by the commission shallbe binding on the question decided unless and until it is overruled by asynodical convention." Synod President Gerald Kieschnick took note of that provision in a Nov. 25statement to "Reporter," the Synod's newspaper. He also emphasized theexception in a bylaw that gives the Board authority, in business and legalmatters, "to call up for review, criticism, modification, or revocation anyaction or policy of a program board, commission, or council, except opinionsof the Commission on Constitutional Matters." "According to the Bylaws of the LCMS, opinions of the Commission onConstitutional Matters must be followed in the Synod," Kieschnick said. He noted that the Synod's Constitution gives the president the duty to seethat officers, including the Board of Directors, act in accord with theConstitution, "to admonish all who in any way depart from it, and, if suchadmonition is not heeded, to report such cases to the Synod." "Accordingly, I will be working with the Board of Directors and theCommission on Constitutional Matters in an effort to resolve the apparentconflict between these two important groups of synodical leaders,"Kieschnick said. "I respectfully request the prayers of the Synod in thismatter and pledge to keep the Synod informed regarding this endeavor." Dr. Thomas Kuchta told "Reporter" that the Board had to take the action itdid -- despite the cited bylaw provisions -- to protect congregations fromindividual legal liability. Kuchta is the Synod's interim chiefadministrative officer, as well as its vice president- finance/treasurer. "If the Board of Directors does not protect the Synod's status as acorporation under Missouri law, its members -- chiefly congregations -- would be open to individual liability were the Synod or any part of it to besued in court," Kuchta said. "And to protect its corporate status, the Boardhas to act as a corporate board is expected to act under Missouri law. "If the Board had done nothing about these CCM opinions, which purport tolimit the Board's authority in a way that is not consistent with Missourilaw, the Board could weaken the contention that we are operating as acorporation," Kuchta continued. Kuchta cited Bylaw 3.183, which says the Board "shall have the powers andduties accorded to it by the Articles of Incorporation, Constitution,Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod, and the laws of the State ofMissouri." Missouri law, he said, "clearly gives the Board authority tooverrule any decisions that deal with secular issues." "The Board's overall goal is to protect the corporate shield so that theSynod's congregations aren't exposed to liability that would put theirindividual assets at risk," Kuchta said. He said his comments apply specifically to the Board resolution that dealswith the five opinions regarding board authority, but he added that thesecond resolution, on the three "ecclesiastical supervision" opinions, alsohas liability as its concern. Those three opinions say that Synod membership cannot be terminated for anaction taken with the knowledge and approval of a member's ecclesiasticalsupervisor. If a member is exempted on such grounds for "gross, grievouscrimes or other wrongdoing," the result could be "significant legalliability," the Board says. The other five opinions regard the Board's authority to direct how funds areallocated by the Board for Higher Education/Concordia University System; todirect the use of budgeted funds by the Board for Communication Services(BCS); to restrict the use of donor-designated funds by the Synod president;to reverse a Synod convention's delegation of authority to the BCS forSynod-owned radio station KFUO; and to otherwise direct the programs of theBCS, including "Reporter." The BCS at its Nov. 20-21 meeting, which ran concurrently with thedirectors' meeting, "thoroughly discussed" KFUO and the CCM opinion thatsaid the Board of Directors may not reverse a Synod convention's delegationof authority, said BCS Executive Director Tom Lapacka. The directors votedearlier this year to assume direct control of KFUO from the BCS, which hadbeen given responsibility for the station by the 1986 convention. "There are several issues that play a role in making KFUO a more effectivemedium for outreach. None of these are easy," Lapacka said. He said the BCSdeferred any action based on the CCM opinion until next month. Neither of the two Board of Directors resolutions was adopted unanimously.On the second of the two, four directors asked that their negative votes berecorded. The four are Dr. Betty Duda, Dr. Jean Garton, Oscar Hanson and Dr.Edwin A. Trapp Jr. Synod Secretary Raymond Hartwig told the Board that he did not participatein the decision on the two resolutions because he is a member of the CCM aswell as of the Board of Directors. The resolutions were adopted during an evening session that had not beenscheduled in advance of the Board's meeting, but that was held at the sametime as a Lutheran Church Extension Fund (LCEF) awards program. NeitherKieschnick nor First Vice President Daniel Preus were present at the Board'sevening session. The Board's meeting was in Miami, Fla., site of this year's LCEF FallLeadership Conference.
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
The board of CCM is appointed by Kieshnick. How convenient. They are trying to usurp the powers of the BOD. The CCM has introduced new changes that increase the authority of the President. CCM rulings have attempted to limit the BOD's constitutional
authority. There's apower struggle in LCMS between the CCM and the BOD. CCM usurpts the BOD's authority to make rulings even thought the BOD rejects and votes out the CCM's decisions the CCM still holds sway over decision making policy.
When the Board of Directors attempted to cut administrative and communication costs, and save missionary jobs, it appears that the Office of the President and the Board for Communication Services enlisted support from the CCM to preserve their own funding.

This is true. I don't dispute the problem with this. But you were saying that the CTCR has the authority to override Synod convention resolutions, which they do not have. The CTCR and the CCM are two different things.
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This is true. I don't dispute the problem with this. But you were saying that the CTCR has the authority to override Synod convention resolutions, which they do not have. The CTCR and the CCM are two different things.
Read it again. I also said they have the power to influence decisions..
 
Upvote 0

DaRev

Well-Known Member
Apr 18, 2006
15,117
716
✟19,002.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
I read the CTCR report "The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices with Guidelines for Congregations." The quote used by Hartung in the passage that was posted is actually from the second Appendix to the document, which is a report from the CTCR in response to a request by the Minnesota South district.

This appendix deals with the offices of President/Chairman and Vice-President/Vice-Chairman of congregations, along with the structure of other committees and boards in the church. It does not involve the ministry of the Church.

What the section that Dr. Hartung quoted in his reponse had to do with issues of adiaphora in relation to man made offices in the congregation. What committes and boards a congregation has, who sits on those boards and commitees, and what their functions are, are all matters of adiaphora. These types of things are not defined or mandated in any way in the Scriptures.

This document in no way compromises the roles of the pastor and laity in the ministry of the congregation. In fact, the report supports that which is both Scripturally and Confessionally defined. It does not rescind or override any convention resolutions.

My question is this. Does what Dr. Hartung quoted really address the question he was asked? In a broad sense it does in that it addresses the matter of adiaphora in congregational make-up, but this particular document does not address the matters of the ministry in relation to what the person asking the question was inquiring about. In other words, what role does the pastor have (and should the pastor have) in realtion to such organizational structure. What role and/or responsibility should the pastor have in the financial aspects of the congregation, or with business matters, or with personnel issues, or property concerns, etc. The document that Bruce quoted does not touch upon such issues at all.

That being said, I do not see where Dr. Hartung's response supports any position outside the purview of Church and Ministry. I do not see where he is supporting what many have described PLI to be. (I must admit that I'm no expert on the PLI program, although what I do know about it I am not in agreement with.) Personally (and this is my opinion so there's no misunderstanding), I don't see where Dr. Hartung's question and answer supports anything like "pastor as CEO". I do believe that he didn't directly deal with the concerns of the person asking the question. With that he could have done better.
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
OK--thanks for your researched response. Let's get back to the a previous letter I posted about Kieshnick's stand of PLI. Even though Hartung dodges the question asked him Rev. Jon Braunersreuther doesn't.

"Dear XXXXXXXX:
Greetings in the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.
President Kieschnick has been and is an outspoken proponent of PLI. PLI participants are eligible for "wrap around" credit for a Doctor of Ministry degree at both of our seminaries.
With regard to your other question, please see President Kieschnick's response to your concern under 'FAQs' at www.lcms.org/president.
May God's grace, mercy, and peace rest upon you.
Rev. Jon Braunersreuther
Senior Assistant to the President
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road

This is not an adiaphoro problem. This is a biblical precept problem. Hartung says do it biblicly and not worry about adiaphora and as Kieshnicks representative Rev. Jon Braunersreuther says that the president supports PLI which is not only non biblical but also adiaphora. Who's right? Why are they clouding and trying to confuse congregations in the church? WHo really speaks for the Office of the President?
 
Upvote 0

RadMan

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2007
3,580
288
80
Missouri
✟5,227.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
The new presidentially controlled Board of Directors and the Council of District Presidents met in Dallas in November to discuss how to unite the divided synod.

One of the first items that the small groups discovered: "Issues related to worship (traditional vs. progressive) and Holy Communion (closed) are creating what are probably the most destructive divisions among us." Do you see how the leaders of the church phrase this issue? Closed Communion, the biblical, historic and repeatedly affirmed practice of the synod and the real Christian Church from the beginning, is the problem.

How can we trust these "progressive" (read "liberal" change agents) people who cannot see that the real problem is "Open Communion" in many of our churches? Open Communion is the new error within our church. So is the introduction of Protestant, Popular worship forms and music. Moderation in these matters has been tossed out the window, and the synod is suffering for it.
As the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists and ELCA have done in the past, the leaders of the LC-MS recommend acceptance of "diversity" as a way of solving the problem. Well, that is the problem, since "diversity" is by definition "not unity."

So the group has appointed a committee to guide further discussions over an "extended period of time," hoping to wear out the resistance to their liberalizing and "Cowboy Church" changes.
Read about it yourself at: http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Board_Of_Directors/0711 BOD Meeting Minutes.pdf
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.