Good 'OL LCMS

[RadMan]

Well, what you posted does not say anything about the pastor making a comment about CEO's either. The person asking the question is the one who made the CEO comment, not the pastor or Hartung. Don't put words in people's mouths that they did not say.

Hartung said nothing about the pastor being a CEO. He is commenting on the congregation's Christian freedom to set it's polity as it sees fit and not dictated by the Synod.

Well you must not have read the whole thing then because you missed most of Hartung's comments about taking things from the secular world and applying them to church polity.

You nit pic the things that don't mean anything and have no constructive comments about the things that are important like CTCR document of 2005. It's like you ignored the whole article and just dwell on the spelling or some irrelevant thing like that.

 

[DaRev]

Well you must not have read the whole thing then because you missed most of Hartung's comments about taking things from the secular world and applying them to church polity.

You nit pic the things that don't mean anything and have no constructive comments about the things that are important like CTCR document of 2005. It's like you ignored the whole article and just dwell on the spelling or some irrelevant thing like that.

I nit pick things that don't mean anything?? Why don't you try reading your own posts, Rad.

You posted a mile long blurb with the heading "Hartung's aproval of replacing Walther's "Church and Ministry" with CEOs " But no where in Hartung's quote does he say anything about CEO's. He's talking about individual congregational polity. Then you responded with this:

He is condoning the comment the lay person's pastor made about CEOs and forming the congregation the way he wants to and not according to Walther's "Church and Ministry".

I read the post, Rad, and the pastor's comments quoted also says nothing about CEOs. The individual who asked the question is the only one who mentioned "CEO".

Have you ever investigated the other sides of your arguments at all? Or do you take everything that Otten and Cascione say as Gospel? If that's what you are doing, I feel sorry for you. man. You are being horribly misled.

 

[DaRev]

It's like you ignored the whole article and just dwell on the spelling or some irrelevant thing like that.

Oh... and where did I comment on "spelling"?

 

[RadMan]

Hartung's aproval of replacing Walther's "Church and Ministry" with CEOs

Quotes from Walther’s “Church
and Ministry”

“This is to be understood in the sense not only that the church has the
power to excommunicate impenitent sinners but also that the congregation has
the supreme authority in all church matters such as reproof, church
discipline, divisions, judging doctrine, and appointing pastors, to mention
only these things” ("Church and Ministry." C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1987,
page 343)

“Why then should the Scriptures of the prophets and apostles be so obscure
and perplexing that ignorant people should not be able to judge doctrine
from them? Without doubt the prophets and apostles wrote nothing else than
what they proclaimed with their living voice.” ("Church and Ministry"
C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1987, Page 344)

“Indeed, ‘all the multitude’ of believers (Acts 15:12) were together and on
the basis of a common vote the resolution was adopted.” ("Church and
Ministry" C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1987, Page 346)

2001 LCMS Convention Resolution 7-17A Adopted yes: 791 no: 291)

Whereas, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) has experienced during
its history confusion with regard to the doctrine of church and ministry:
and

Whereas, Dr. D. F. W. Walther addressed this confusion in 1851 through his
“Theses on Church and Ministry,” which were subsequently declared to be the
position of the LCMS in 1851; and

Whereas, The book “The Voice of our Church on the Question of Church and
Ministry,” by Dr. C. F. W. Walther, was published in 1852. The LCMS in
convention declared this book to be the pure doctrine (reine Lehre) of
church and ministry; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod meeting in convention in
the year of our Lord 2001 affirm the above referenced writings of C. F. W.
Walther as the definitive statement under Holy Scripture and the Lutheran
Confessions of the Synod’s understanding on the subject of church and
ministry; and be if further

Resolved, That the LCMS in convention reaffirm the decision of the 1852
convention in recognizing C. F. W. Walther’s book, “The Voice of Our Church
on the Question of Church and Ministry,” as the official position of the
LCMS; and be it further

Resolved, That all pastors, professors, teachers of the church, and
congregations honor and uphold the resolutions of the Synod as regards the
official position of our Synod on church and ministry and teach in
accordance with them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
The CTCR overruled the above resolutuinss, usurped the Convention’s authority
to judge doctrine, and claims to correct the Synod’s founder.

In 2001 the LCMS Convention voted by more than 73% to reaffirm “Church and
Ministry,” written in 1851 by the Synod’s founder, C. F. W. Walther, and
published as the official position of the LCMS in 1852. In the folowing response Hartung never
bothers to inform the layman that there ever was or is an official position
on “Church and Ministry,” Voters’ Assemblies, or congregational structure in
the LCMS.

Instead he quotes 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. Hartung continues by writing: “In fact, the New Testament does not give
any mandates regarding the polity of a congregation or Synod.” Yet the
Convention voted in 2001 that Walther’s book is the doctrine of the Bible
and the Lutheran Confessions for church and ministry and that all pastors
and teachers should uphold this book as the official position of the LCMS.

Dr Bruce Hartung's response to the questions about congregations changing
their constitution in opposition to the afore mentioned resolution passed
in 2001 convention. And his support of opposing the resolution......Or
sidestepping it anyway.

“Pressure Points (November)”
With Dr. Bruce Hartung
Q: Our pastor is encouraging our congregation to change its constitution so
that we can have a completely new style of governing structure.
Some of us are concerned that it is too much of a departure from our
traditional way of doing things and may even be unbiblical. We also fear
that the pastor will become a CEO instead of a shepherd, and that he will
not have time to concentrate on Word and Sacrament ministry.
Could you offer us any advice concerning this matter?
A: Let me begin with a word from the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church
Relations, which might be helpful:
“Congregational polity is an adiaphoron, neither commanded nor forbidden in
Holy Scripture. The New Testament is not an encyclopedia that answers all
possible questions. One cannot expect these ancient documents to address
the polity questions that arise 2,000 years later. In fact, the New
Testament does not give any mandates regarding the polity of a congregation
or Synod. How a congregation sets up its daily working arrangements and
organizational structure is left to the discretion of human reason and
sanctified common sense. How many committees it has and how each committee
operates are matters that belong to the area of Christian freedom.
“ ... A key question is this: What type of polity and organizational
structure will support and reinforce doctrine and practice as taught by the
Scriptures?” (“Appendix B, The Service of Women in Congregational Offices of
Executive Director/President or Assistant Director/Vice President,” The
Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices, CTCR, January
2005, p. 28).
Thus, in one clear sense there is no organization of the congregation that
is scripturally commended. This could very well mean that congregations
might organize themselves in whatever way best serves their ministry.
In other words, it is a congregation's choice whether there is a president,
executive director, voters assembly, board of elders, or board of directors.

And, likely, there are organizational structures and ideas from the
so-called business community that might be helpful. In fact, I would
encourage congregations and other church organizations to consider helpful
models and suggestions from the secular world. But through it all, such
secular models must be disciplined according to the Scriptures.
We in the church all wear a theological or scriptural lens through which we
look. I believe that all organizational polity must meet the test of
spiritual discipline and proclamation of the Gospel.
Whatever your congregation is considering organizationally might very well
be a departure from tradition. However, it is difficult to see what
specific part of a governing structure is unbiblical unless it fosters a
departure from biblical doctrines.
In the end, what is your overriding concern?
It appears to me that you want to protect the Office of the Holy Ministry.
You want your pastor to remain the “shepherd” of the flock, the public
minister of Word and Sacrament.
If that is your intent, congregational polity needs to be developed to help
that happen. It should answer the question, “How will this polity help us
be more faithful proclaimers of the Gospel and evangelists to the world
around us?”
New forms and structures might very well be indicated. But they should
enable a clear proclamation of the Gospel.
To quote a colleague of mine on this issue, “No structure is perfect,
because sinners serve in it. We are free to try new structures and even to
fail, because of the Gospel which brings us forgiveness, confident that the
future of the church is ultimately in the capable hands of our Risen
Savior.”
Rev. Bruce M. Hartung, Ph.D., is dean of Ministerial Formation for Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis. He can be reached at hartungb@csl.edu.
Posted Nov. 1, 2007
http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=12715


Does Doctor Dale Meyer, President of the St. Louis
Seminary, President Kieschnick, and the Council of District Presidents fully
support Hartung’s statements?

These Synodical officials endorse pastors as CEO’s and “encourage
congregations and other church organizations to consider helpful models and
suggestions from the secular world.” as Hartung writes below. They don’t
care if the church is modeled after the world instead of pure doctrine as
originally taught by the LCMS.

Meanwhile, in November of 2007, United States Senator Grassley’s committee
claims that churches run by CEO/pastors are really not-for-profit
corporations and should file 990 tax forms with the IRS.

Five men appointed by the LCMS President on the CCM meet in a closed room
and their rulings are binding on all parties: the Convention, the
congregations, and every pastor and teacher. However, when the Convention
votes by a 2/3 majority on a resolution dealing with the official doctrine
and practice of the Synod, it is as if they never wrote it.

The 22,000 members by which the Synod shrank in 2006 are counted as
acceptable losses that “position the Synod for growth” by getting rid of
dissidents and giving the hierarchy total control over Synodical assets.

 

[DaRev]

What was your point in reposting all of that??

 

[DaRev]

Children must play...

 

[LilLamb219]

Play nice now...this thread is getting dangerously close to be closed....

 

[RadMan]

So someone has reported this thread. How mean, small and pathetic can a person be since there are no violations here and............they just don't like the content.

Now someone has a reason to report this thread.

 

[DaRev]

So someone has reported this thread. How mean, small and pathetic can a person be since there are no violations here and............they just don't like the content.

Now someone has a reason to report this thread.

Wasn't me.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So someone has reported this thread. How mean, small and pathetic can a person be since there are no violations here and............they just don't like the content.

Now someone has a reason to report this thread.

No one reported the thread, silly. Someone reported a post within the thread. And the author of the reported post edited it like the gentleman that he is.

 

[RadMan]

Well most of the comments here were posted towards me and I didn't take any offense so why should anybody else? It wasn't posted towards them so what business is it of theirs. There's too many nosy, busy bodies on this forum that should mind there own business. Bunch of control freaks!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well most of the comments here were posted towards me and I didn't take any offense so why should anybody else? It wasn't posted towards them so what business is it of theirs. There's too many nosy, busy bodies on this forum that should mind there own business. Bunch of control freaks!

Just because you were not offended by it doesn't mean no one else will be.

At any rate, it's a done deal. The post was edited, end of story.

 

[RadMan]

Just because you were not offended by it doesn't mean no one else will be.

At any rate, it's a done deal. The post was edited, end of story.

That's their problem. Tell them to grow up. This is the real world not some fantasy world that someone wants to live in that's all peaches and cream. People like that just make people more determined to have freedom of speech on here and not "thought police"

This story isn't finished. This is going to be on-going saga.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

So getting this back on topic, what else do you have to say about the LCMS Rad?

 

[RadMan]

There's enough info on this web to keep people busy for weeks if they would just get out of their easy chair and do the work themselves. Unfortunately they don't want their peace and serenity disturbed. They might actually find something that contradicts what I posted and not just opinions.

 

[DaRev]

There's enough info on this web to keep people busy for weeks if they would just get out of their easy chair and do the work themselves. Unfortunately they don't want their peace and serenity disturbed. They might actually find something that contradicts what I posted and not just opinions.

Well, some of us have more important things to do than chase fireflies, but here's something FYI...

First, the CTCR opinions are not binding in the LCMS. They are precisely what they are, opinions. They are based upon Scripture, the Confessions, and Synodical doctrine and thus describe LCMS positions, but they do not override Convention resolutions. This statement in your post

The CTCR overruled the above resolutions

is simply untrue. Whoever you quoted that from is in error.

Second, while the 2001 Convention did set Walther's "Church and Ministry" as the norm for congregational polity, the LCMS as a Synod has no authority to dictate to congregations what their individual polity is as long as it conforms to Scripture and the Confessions. Are you suggesting that the Synod has the authority to dictate to individual congregations what their polity must be? I do not believe that is what Walther had in mind when the Synod was founded. That sounds very Roman Catholic to me.

 

[RadMan]

Just wait and see how your niavity plays out. We'll be like the RCC sooner than you think. Kieshnick already has control of the CCM. What's next? The BOD, then what?..................popedom.

 

[RadMan]

Well, some of us have more important things to do than chase fireflies, but here's something FYI...

First, the CTCR opinions are not binding in the LCMS. They are precisely what they are, opinions. They are based upon Scripture, the Confessions, and Synodical doctrine and thus describe LCMS positions, but they do not override Convention resolutions. This statement in your post is simply untrue. Whoever you quoted that from is in error.

Second, while the 2001 Convention did set Walther's "Church and Ministry" as the norm for congregational polity, the LCMS as a Synod has no authority to dictate to congregations what their individual polity is as long as it conforms to Scripture and the Confessions. Are you suggesting that the Synod has the authority to dictate to individual congregations what their polity must be? I do not believe that is what Walther had in mind when the Synod was founded. That sounds very Roman Catholic to me.

Common---post your sources. You're always telling me to. You can do it. I know you can.

 

[DaRev]

What is the CTCR?

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

 

[RadMan]

Nope you first. I'm not going to take anything you say any more just because you say it. Your days of just posting opinions is past. People don't have to believe you just because you say so.