Just a quick question or two if you don't mind? I try not to intrude in the LCMS discussions so I'll be careful.
Does anyone want the LCMS synod structure to change to be more like a church body instead if ruling body?
I've never understood the benefit of your structure and somehow don't feel it serves its members or our Lord the best, but I don't fully understand it either.
No, simply put we want the ruling bodies to be less of a ruling body. An NO DaRev is mistaken. Our churches are not truly autonomous anymore.
"CCM Ruling Removes Autonomy From LCMS Congregations"
The hallmark of LCMS congregational structure was congregational autonomy.
An LCMS congregation is supposed to govern itself. The LCMS is not the
Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, or the
ELCA. It is a synod, a group of congregations that are not run by a
hierarchy, a Pope, or a CEO.
In their May 20-24, 2004 meeting, the LCMS President's appointees on the
Commission of Constitution Matters (CCM) reinterpreted the LCMS Constitution
to give LCMS District Presidents the authority to deal with and investigate
congregations without speaking to a congregation's Voters' Assembly, elected
officers, or the pastor.
The CCM would only be so bold to usurp congregational authority if they were
convinced that LCMS laypeople are willing to surrender the operation of
their congregation to the Synodical hierarchy.
Article VII of the LCMS Handbook States:
"In its relation to its members the Synod is not an ecclesiastical
government exercising legislative or coercive power, and with respect to the
individual congregation's right of self-government it is but an advisory
body. Accordingly no resolution of the Synod imposing anything upon the
individual congregation is of binding force if it is not in accordance with
the word of God or if it appears to be inexpedient as far as the condition
of a congregation is concerned"
Now the CCM reverses the above and states on May 20-24:
"The Bylaws do not define the term 'proper channels' and thus the procedure
to be used in the investigation is chosen by the District President or his
representative and does not necessarily require the initial contact or
meeting to be with any particular person or group."
The CCM admits the Bylaws don't discuss "proper channels" hence the CCM
claims the Synod doesn't have to follow "proper channels." By the same
processes, the Bylaws also don't prohibit that the Synod from regulating
congregational finances, hence there is nothing to prevent the CCM from
saying that the District has authority over a congregation's finances. The
CCM's reasons that the Synod can claim any right for the Synod that is not
prohibited in the Bylaws.
The CCM assumes this power for the Synod by interpreting the Bylaws over the
Constitution. LCMS Congregations may now dream that they are autonomous,
but Synod knows better. The CCM says the District Office can deal with and
investigate any issue in a congregation without consulting anyone. This
power grab was accomplished without a vote of the Convention.
The 2001 LCMS Convention reaffirmed Walther's "Church and Ministry" as the
official teaching of the LCMS. The following are three quotations from
Walther's "Church and Ministry" that the CCM no longer follows:
"Here [Matt. 18:15-18] Christ clearly gives the supreme jurisdiction to the
church or congregation, as our Confessions say, . . .("Church and Ministry"
C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1987, 322)
"For when our Savior Christ says, 'Tell it to the church,' He by these words
commands the church [local congregation] to be the supreme judge."("Church
and Ministry" C.F.W. Walther, 1851, CPH 1987, -page 343)
". . . 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)
If this ruling by the CCM is allowed to stand unchallenged during the 2004
Convention, those congregations that wish to stay autonomous should give
serious consideration to leaving the Synod.
About 200 out of 12,000 congregations left the ELCA when the ELCA adopted
Episcopal hierocracy about 2 years ago.
The entire CCM ruling is published below.
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/CCM/May20-24.pdf#xml=http://www.lcms.org/ca/search/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=1949&Index=F%3a%5cinetpub%5cwwwroot%5clcmsorg%5cdb%5csearch%5clcms&HitCount=2&hits=d08+d09+&hc=2&req=%2804%2D2387%29
267. Question Regarding the Relationship of the Circuit Counselor to Member
Congregations (04-2387)
In an e-mail sent April 30, 2004, an ordained member of the Synod submitted
a question regarding the Circuit Counselor's relation to member
congregations.
Question: Since the Bylaw [5.13 j] envisions only visits with
"congregation
," is it appropriate for the Circuit Counselor to meet with
a dissident faction within a congregation to receive accusations against
other members or the pastor of the congregation, and does meeting with a
dissident faction within a congregation constitute such "extraordinary
circumstances" that it is permissible for a Circuit Counselor to schedule
such a meeting without prior consultation with the president or other
officers of the congregation (much less the pastor), much less without
'inviting' them to be present to answer accusations against them?
Opinion: One of the functions of a District President is to inquire into the
prevailing spiritual conditions of the congregations of his District and he
may call upon the Circuit Counselor to assist him (Bylaw 4.73). Bylaw 4.75
states that a District President, even without a formal request therefore,
may through the proper channels arrange for an (a) official visit or (b)
investigation when a controversy arises in a congregation or when there is
evidence of a continuing unresolved problem in doctrine or practice in order
that the District President "may have a clear understanding of the
situation." The same bylaw further recognizes that a District President may
authorize another person (such as the Circuit Counselor) to represent him in
the matter. The Bylaws do not define the term "proper channels" and thus the
procedure to be used in the investigation is chosen by the District
President or his representative and does not necessarily require the initial
contact or meeting to be with any particular person or group. In such an
investigation, any meeting is to carry out the purposes as set forth in
these Bylaws. Your attention is also directed to the provisions of Article
XII 7 of the Constitution, which provides:
7. The District Presidents shall, moreover, especially exercise supervision
over the doctrine, life, and administration of office of the ordained and
commissioned ministers of their District and acquaint themselves with the
religious conditions of the congregations of their District. To this end
they shall visit and, according as they deem it necessary, hold
investigations in the congregations. Their assistants in this work are the
Circuit Counselors, who therefore shall regularly make their reports to the
District President.
They'd be right at home. There would be no problem with their policies and beliefs etc...
