LCMS news, confusing and very dismaying

[Studeclunker]

In May of 2004, the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) ruled
that District Presidents do not have to follow proper channels in LCMS
congregational constitutions.

This ruling nullifies the autonomy the LCMS Constitution promises all member
congregations in Article VII 1. "In its relations to its members the Synod
is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or coercive
powers, 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."
(Handbook 2004 page 14)...

...Kieschnick claims that the 2004 Convention decided not to overturn CCM
(04-2387). On the surface this sounds credible, except for the fact that
only a hand full of delegates even knew that CCM (04-2387) existed. Also,
as chairman of the Convention, Kieschnick is the one who decided no requests
for review of any CCM rulings came from any floor committee to the
Convention...

...Kieschnick and the Council of District Presidents have made a farce out of
Article VII of the LCMS Constitution' s guarantee of congregational autonomy.
They claim they are bound to follow CCM rulings that nullify LCMS
Constitution Article VII.

Any congregation that remains in the Synod must be prepared to belong to a
District that functions like a Diocese, where the District President/Bishop
can disregard proper channels, articles, or bylaws specified in any
congregational constitution at will.

Could someone please clairify this for me? Is the LCMS a diocean organization or an incorporation? According to this, the Synodical President is granted nearly Papal authority.

I didn't include the entire letter, but excerpts, for the sake of berevity. Should anyone wish, it can be quoted in it's entirety.

I find all of this very disturbing. Does anyone have more information on this?

 

[bdfhjlnprtvxz]

Um... could we see the parts that were edited out?

If you didn't edit the other parts out, then I would like to see the original article from whomever wrote that. People like to choppy-choppy things that may not coincide with their personal agenda... If you did edit them out, could we have a link to the main page so that we can figure out what is being completely said?

That being said, Kieschnick's human too. If he made a mistake, or a commitee makes a mistake, it's a part of human nature.

So, who wrote the letter, anyways? What you've left here's confusing me too (besides the fact that I don't know the LCMS Constitution or the LCMS CCM very well *shame on me*). Also, where'd you find this? It sounds like someone who is opposed to Kieschnick... I've heard of some other groups that are trying to take control of the Synod... which, sounds silly, b/c they're doing politically fighting in a church body, where it shouldn't be happening...

I don't know, but this sounds like propaganda to me. If you can provide more, or a link, that'd be great.

 

[ctay]

I don't understand it to much either but I tend to stay confused

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

"Why Congregations Should Consider Leaving the LCMS"

In May of 2004, the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) ruled
that District Presidents do not have to follow proper channels in LCMS
congregational constitutions.

This ruling nullifies the autonomy the LCMS Constitution promises all member
congregations in Article VII 1. "In its relations to its members the Synod
is not an ecclesiastical government exercising legislative or coercive
powers, 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."
(Handbook 2004 page 14)

In May of 2004, the CCM ruled that all its decisions are binding on all
congregations. "An opinion rendered by the commission shall be binding on
the question decided unless and until it is overruled by a synodical
convention." CCM (04-2385)

In May of 2004 the CCM also ruled that District Presidents do not have to
follow congregational constitutions.

No congregation may join the LCMS without first submitting a constitution
that is approved by the District.

In other words, the CCM ruled that District Presidents do not have to follow
"proper channels" in congregational constitutions even though the Districts
approve these constitutions as follows:

"The Bylaws do not define the term 'proper channels' and thus the procedure
to be used in the investigation [of a congregation] 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
[named in the congregational constitution.] In such an investigation, any
meeting is to carry out the purposes as set forth in these Bylaws." CCM
(04-2387)

The CCM allows the District President to circumvent the Voters' Assembly and
any constitutionally named board or office when dealing with a congregation.

After admittance to the LCMS in 1921, Redeemer Lutheran Church withdrew from
the LCMS on September 13, 2004 because CCM (04-2387) is binding on all LCMS
congregations.

The Redeemer Voters' Assembly also wrote the following communication to
Michigan District President William Hoesman and LCMS President Gerald
Kieschnick:

"Redeemer will seek immediate readmission to the LCMS when the Synodical
President and the Council of Presidents sign the following statement:

We the undersigned [District Presidents] agree that all LCMS congregations'
constitutions, elected officers, elected boards, voters' assemblies, and
pastors are the only proper channels through which the Synod, District, and
Circuit Counselor will communicate to, or confer with member congregations,
or exercise the Synod's authority as stated in the 2001 Handbook.

We the undersigned will not meet with or recognize any other group or
individuals, or dissident groups, claiming to speak for or to represent
member congregations who are not recognized in an LCMS congregation's
constitution."

Michigan District President William Hoesman refused to respond to Redeemer's
above statement that he received in a registered letter.

President Gerald Kieschnick, in behalf of the Council of District
Presidents, sent the following reply on Nov 29, 2004:

----------------------------
Redeemer Evangelical Lutheran Church
30003 Jefferson Avenue
Saint Claire Shores, MI 48082

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

Greetings in the Name of Jesus Christ, Savior of the world and Lord of the
universe, through whom alone we receive forgiveness, life and salvation!

"The members of the Council of Presidents and I are in receipt of your
letter of September 13, 2004, and have given it careful consideration. We
have reviewed your request that the President of the Synod and the Council
of Presidents sign a statement contained in your letter, including a number
of agreements and rejections.

Regarding your requests that relate to the official opinions of the
Commission on Constitutional Matters of the Synod, it should be noted that
such opinions are binding unless and until they are overturned by a
convention of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. The recently concluded
62nd Regular Convention of the LCMS did not overturn the referenced CCM
opinions. They are, therefore, still binding on the members of the Synod.
The members of the Council of Presidents have no authority, constitutional
or otherwise, to change the decision of a convention of the Synod.

God's grace, mercy, and peace be to you!

Sincerely yours, in Christ,

The Council of President, The Lutheran church- Missouri Synod
Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick, President
Rev. C. William Hoeman, President of the Michigan District LCMS
Dr. Raymond Hartwig, Secretary
--------------------------

In the above letter Kieschnick claims all CCM rulings are binding on LCMS
congregations. He fails to mention that he has appointed four of the five
men who serve on the CCM.

Kieschnick claims that the 2004 Convention decided not to overturn CCM
(04-2387). On the surface this sounds credible, except for the fact that
only a hand full of delegates even knew that CCM (04-2387) existed. Also,
as chairman of the Convention, Kieschnick is the one who decided no requests
for review of any CCM rulings came from any floor committee to the
Convention.

Kieschnick and the Council of District Presidents have made a farce out of
Article VII of the LCMS Constitution's guarantee of congregational autonomy.
They claim they are bound to follow CCM rulings that nullify LCMS
Constitution Article VII.

Any congregation that remains in the Synod must be prepared to belong to a
District that functions like a Diocese, where the District President/Bishop
can disregard proper channels, articles, or bylaws specified in any
congregational constitution at will.

Redeemer Lutheran Church is not prepared to surrender its autonomy to the
CCM and the Council of District Presidents.

It must also be remembered that the pastor of any congregation who leaves
the Synod over a disagreement with a CCM ruling will be immediately removed
from the Synodical Roster as was the pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church.

Synodical fellowship is now based on agreement with CCM ruling.

 

[Studeclunker]

Thanks for that, Rad. I'm currently in the last stages of moving and unable to get to the 'net everyday yet.

My question still stands, though. Judging by what I'm seeing, our current SP is trying to secure a diocean structure to our syond.

I find this disturbing...

 

[Studeclunker]

Um... could we see the parts that were edited out?

People like to choppy-choppy things that may not coincide with their personal agenda...

That being said, Kieschnick's human too. If he made a mistake, or a commitee makes a mistake, it's a part of human nature.

My intention had nothing to do with a personal agenda. As I stated (and perhaps you missed?), I'm seeking enlightenment on this subject and only quoted the bits I did because of berevity. I offered to post the entire letter if needed. Thank you Rad for filling that need in my absence.

As for Kieschnick and the council being human? There is a definate form of government they are supposed to follow. They have seemingly gone out of their way to circumvent this format and seem to be following through by squealching any opposition. It's our leadership's prime objective should be to ensure they aren't violating the trust granted to them by the laity of our denomination. This seems to be their offense. That being the case, we must certainly fight the good fight.

Once again, as to our SP and the CCM being human? So were Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. Likewise, subverting any of the members in the body of Christ (the various church bodies or denominations), is a heinous act. Our current leadership is in danger of being accused of just such an act. Please note that I haven't accused anyone of commiting anything, just that the appearance of such a thing has happened. This is fatal to the trust that is granted these leaders.

Ephesians 6:12 -I like the N.E.B and Phillips pharaprases best-:

N.E.B:
"... for our fight is not against human foes, but against cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world, against the super-human forces of evil in the heavens..."

Phillips:
"... For our fight is not against any physical enemy; it is against organizations and powers that are spiritual. We are up against the unseen power that controls this dark world and spiritual agents from the very headquarters of evil..."

K.J.V:
"... For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places..."

Do not be decieved for a moment that these "rulers of the darkness" do not desire church leadership. Such a place is an ideal setting for them to work their mischef. Whitness what they did to the Temple hierarchy of Jesus' time.

I however, must retreat to my first question: Does anyone have further information on this situation?

 

[DaSeminarian]

My intention had nothing to do with a personal agenda. As I stated (and perhaps you missed?), I'm seeking enlightenment on this subject and only quoted the bits I did because of berevity. I offered to post the entire letter if needed. Thank you Rad for filling that need in my absence.

As for Kieschnick and the council being human? There is a definate form of government they are supposed to follow. They have seemingly gone out of their way to circumvent this format and seem to be following through by squealching any opposition. It's our leadership's prime objective should be to ensure they aren't violating the trust granted to them by the laity of our denomination. This seems to be their offense. That being the case, we must certainly fight the good fight.

Once again, as to our SP and the CCM being human? So were Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. Likewise, subverting any of the members in the body of Christ (the various church bodies or denominations), is a heinous act. Our current leadership is in danger of being accused of just such an act. Please note that I haven't accused anyone of commiting anything, just that the appearance of such a thing has happened. This is fatal to the trust that is granted these leaders.

Ephesians 6:12 -I like the N.E.B and Phillips pharaprases best-:

N.E.B:
"... for our fight is not against human foes, but against cosmic powers, against the authorities and potentates of this dark world, against the super-human forces of evil in the heavens..."

Phillips:
"... For our fight is not against any physical enemy; it is against organizations and powers that are spiritual. We are up against the unseen power that controls this dark world and spiritual agents from the very headquarters of evil..."

K.J.V:
"... For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places..."

Do not be decieved for a moment that these "rulers of the darkness" do not desire church leadership. Such a place is an ideal setting for them to work their mischef. Whitness what they did to the Temple hierarchy of Jesus' time.

I however, must retreat to my first question: Does anyone have further information on this situation?

Edited by Scott

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

I am going to play Devil's advocate on this issue just a bit. After the election three years ago, a lawsuit was filed against the LCMS and President Kieschnick in regards to the exceptions he granted before the last convention. The lawsuit was settled and therefore never finished in court to determine if this action by Kieschnick was within his right as Synod President to do.

Now perhaps the previous SPs had the right to do this, but never acted upon it leaving those potential votes out there. Does this make it wrong for Kieschnick to do this again?

Bill Clinton pardoned several people in his administration including his own brother before he left office in 2001. This power is given to our chief executive in the constitution. Clinton used his executive privilege to give these people pardons. Now I might question the quantity of people, but it is his right to do.

I think that though we don't like the fact that Kieschnick gives these exceptions because they seem to result in votes for him and not for the other candidates.
It is seemingly in his jurisdiction to allow these exceptions and most assuredly he will be re-elected.

I have read the candidates views on four issues in the latest Lutheran Witness. Kieschnick has the views that a good number of laity approve. Shulz sounds like he is going to make the LCMS a concentration camp and whip us all into shape (most specifically those liberal groups). Wohlrabe and Preus have the two best views of opponents that I have read. Preus won't get elected merely because of name recognition. Wohlrabe is the newest candidate and has the freshest views, but his main campaign issue is re-structuring the LCMS.

People don't want re-structure. They want to be mission minded and share the good news. Both Kieschnick and Diekelman seem to share this vision and this is what will get them re-elected to their positions.

I have met Kieschnick. Nice amiable man with an LBJ accent. True politician through and through. Is this the man you want running your synod? I have met Daniel Preus and Capt. Wohlrabe and Wally Shulz. All are good people who in their views want to do something with the synod, but only Kieschnick and Diekelman and somewhat Preus seem to be putting out views that show a mission minded synod.

Meditate on this for a bit and then respond.

Gee Scott---You totally avoided the OP, also the content of the letter and just about everything else in the thread. Your comments came out of left field and seem to be just opinions. DO you have any constructive comments on the OP like Stude asked?

The OP stresses the abuses of Kieshnick and the CCM and not the platforms of the candidates.

If you want to post observable platforms about each candidates then maybe we could do that to but maybe some constructive comments about the OP would be in order first.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Could someone please clairify this for me? Is the LCMS a diocean organization or an incorporation? According to this, the Synodical President is granted nearly Papal authority.

I didn't include the entire letter, but excerpts, for the sake of berevity. Should anyone wish, it can be quoted in it's entirety.

I find all of this very disturbing. Does anyone have more information on this?

They are a non-profit organization registered in the state of Missouri. To my knowledge, the synod does not exercise diocesan authority or control. The SP has administrative powers much like the President of the US. However, he may indeed have more power than he should. To this date the LC-MS is in violation of Missouri Law in regards to which body is in charge of it's policy making. Missouri Law states that Non-profit organizations must be run by the Board of Directors. Pres. Kieschnick has reorganized the Synod structure so that the CCM is essentially doing the work of the BOD. THe BOD has been reduced to only financial matters.

 

[Studeclunker]

Thank you, Scott, for both of your answers. I have two problems with them. First of all, the comparison of our S.P. with the office of the President of the United States:
Our structure of the Missouri Synod is more like the first U.S. government, more of a con-federation of independent states, or congregations. Therefore a comparison to the P.O.U.S. is not really valid due to the differences in apportioning of authority. The following makes our current S.P. look like he's trying to create a centralized (or Federal, diocean, form of government) authority:

Kieschnick claims that the 2004 Convention decided not to overturn CCM
(04-2387). On the surface this sounds credible, except for the fact that
only a hand full of delegates even knew that CCM (04-2387) existed. Also,
as chairman of the Convention, Kieschnick is the one who decided no requests
for review of any CCM rulings came from any floor committee to the
Convention.

Kieschnick and the Council of District Presidents have made a farce out of
Article VII of the LCMS Constitution's guarantee of congregational autonomy.
They claim they are bound to follow CCM rulings that nullify LCMS
Constitution Article VII.

Any congregation that remains in the Synod must be prepared to belong to a
District that functions like a Diocese, where the District President/Bishop
can disregard proper channels, articles, or bylaws specified in any
congregational constitution at will.

Redeemer Lutheran Church is not prepared to surrender its autonomy to the
CCM and the Council of District Presidents.

It must also be remembered that the pastor of any congregation who leaves
the Synod over a disagreement with a CCM ruling will be immediately removed
from the Synodical Roster as was the pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church.

Synodical fellowship is now based on agreement with CCM ruling.

So, therefore, if the Synod decides to change their policy regarding a previously accepted congregational constitution, they may do so without any consultation of the said congregation. This does, in effect, an end run around the congregational council and elders as well as the pastor in charge of said congregation. At this point, I'm concerned about the structure of our Synod and the motives of it's leaders. This also gives the Synod the authority to remove and replace a Pastor without any notice to the congregation.

That sounds diocean to me. This also profoundly changes the structure of the Missouri Synod without any authority from it's memberships. In a secular government this would be called a coup. As for a Corporation, it's similar to a hostile take over.

If I'm out there in La-la land, please set me straight.

If I'm not, what can be done, besides what the Congregation at Redeemer has done?