I've finished my first reading of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Good stuff. Kudos to J.K. Rowling for another fine piece of work. I'm gratified to find that I had the big picture more or less figured out, and not disappointed that I missed the mark on some of the important details. I'm looking forward, now, to reading the book aloud to my children, which will not only provide me with some quality "Daddy time," but will also allow me to reflect upon the entire story and all of its intricacies more carefully than I have on my speedy first time through. My youngest children will not yet have the thrill of discovering these things with the rest of the world, but I was thinking today of the joy and satisfaction they will have in reading (or hearing) these books years from now. I stand by what I have said for some time, that the Harry Potter series will find its place among other literary classics.
As I prepare for my interview on "Issues, Etc.," I will probably blog a bit on my thoughts and reflections, especially as I am reading through the story a second time. There are many things I relished as I was reading this weekend, and it will be a pleasure to revisit and savor those experiences. For the time being, the five things that most struck me were the following, listed in chronological order: (1.) The fact that remorse (read repentance) is the only remedy for damage one has done to his soul. (2.) The verses of Holy Scripture inscribed on the tombs of Dumbledore's and Harry's families. (3.) The process of Ron's return, which was, I thought, almost as profound as the dragon-shedding "baptism" in C.S. Lewis's Voyage of the Dawn Treader. (4.) Probably my favorite, that Harry's victorious self-sacrifice lands him at King's Cross! Brilliant. (5.) Harry's preaching of repentance to his enemy, when it finally comes down to it, demonstrating yet again the compassion that he has learned.
All of these were short, poignant moments in the course of a masterful story. Bravo! I also applaud that the truth about Snape was brought to light, at least for Harry and the reader. And, along similar lines, it was good to have the full picture on Dumbledore, too. From the beginning, one of the best things about the series has been the down-to-earth realism of the characters. They aren't artificial, plastic, one-dimensional, cookie-cuttered folks, but flawed and finite and frail and frustrated along the way (like me!). Readers who got too caught up in the literary device of witchraft and wizardry missed the far more important heart and substance of these books, which is the true-to-life struggles of the people whom Rowling has so beautifully created in this fictional universe of hers. For those who understand that each Christian is both saint and sinner, both old Adam and New Man in Christ, there can be a ready sympathy and appreciation for the journey of daily repentance, of faith and love, which Harry and his friends undergo.
Thanks be to God that, in this real universe of His gracious creation, His only-begotten Son has voluntarily handed Himself over to sacrificial death, in order to atone for the sins of the world, crush the serpent under His foot, reconcile us to the Father, and bring us at last into the peace and rest of life everlasting with the Holy Triune God. We walk by faith and not by sight, for now, but our faith shall not be disappointed. The cross that we are given to carry is a heavy and painful burden at times, but the true King's Cross has gotten the victory for us. Nothing shall ever be able to separate us from that love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Even death has lost its sting and is no longer able to frighten or alarm us. For it is already defeated, and at the last it shall be vanquished evermore.
23 July 2007
22 July 2007
St. Mary Magdalene
Today is the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene, faithful disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ, eyewitness of His Cross and Passion, and first witness of His Resurrection from the dead. The Eastern Church names her "the apostle to the Apostles," which sounds a bit shocking to our ears, but simply confesses that she was the one Christ sent (apostled) to the Apostles with the news of His Resurrection. I know that some of my friends and colleagues have been disappointed that the LSB opted for St. John 20 instead of St. Luke 7, but we deemed it appropriate to hear the testimony of Holy Scripture concerning St. Mary of Magdala on her festival day. St. John there and thereby commemorated her, long before the Church determined this date in her memory.
The fact that St. Mary is identified as the first witness of the Resurrection is indicative of the Gospel's veracity. If the Apostles had invented these things, they would surely not have written a woman into that position. I believe it was also by the Lord's own intention that one of those faithful women who followed and supported Him should be the first to see Him arisen from the dead. The Church ever receives her Lord as the heavenly Bridegroom of us all, and relates to Him collectively as His Bride. It is that feminine posture of faith and love which are exemplified and embodied in St. Mary's witness. Indeed, all of the DaVinci Code nonsense aside, it is the case that she is herself a living member of the Bride of Christ, His holy Church, as are all (both men and women) who believe and are baptized into Him. As He cast out seven unclean spirits from her, so has the Lord Jesus cast out the unclean spirit of sinful unbelief from our hearts, and bestowed His Holy Spirit upon us, by the washing of water and the Word in Holy Baptism.
Now when St. Mary was called by name to recognize and rejoice in her risen Lord Jesus, she was not yet perfected in faith and love. She would then have clung to Him apart from His Ascension to the Father, according to the familiar earthly manner in which she had known Him previously. It is much the same with all of us. We cling to our loved ones, and to our own temporal lives in this world, more comfortable and content with what we have known and are able to see than we are with what is given to us in the Gospel-Word and Sacrament. Yet, the same Lord who called St. Mary to discipleship, who recalled her and restored her to faith and hope and love, likewise calls each of us by name and gathers us again and again to Himself. The Word that He sent to His Apostles via this faithful woman, is a Word that He speaks also to us. Which is to say that His Resurrection and Ascension are for us, for whom He suffered and died, such that His God and Father are now also our God and Father, by grace through faith in Him.
The fact that St. Mary is identified as the first witness of the Resurrection is indicative of the Gospel's veracity. If the Apostles had invented these things, they would surely not have written a woman into that position. I believe it was also by the Lord's own intention that one of those faithful women who followed and supported Him should be the first to see Him arisen from the dead. The Church ever receives her Lord as the heavenly Bridegroom of us all, and relates to Him collectively as His Bride. It is that feminine posture of faith and love which are exemplified and embodied in St. Mary's witness. Indeed, all of the DaVinci Code nonsense aside, it is the case that she is herself a living member of the Bride of Christ, His holy Church, as are all (both men and women) who believe and are baptized into Him. As He cast out seven unclean spirits from her, so has the Lord Jesus cast out the unclean spirit of sinful unbelief from our hearts, and bestowed His Holy Spirit upon us, by the washing of water and the Word in Holy Baptism.
Now when St. Mary was called by name to recognize and rejoice in her risen Lord Jesus, she was not yet perfected in faith and love. She would then have clung to Him apart from His Ascension to the Father, according to the familiar earthly manner in which she had known Him previously. It is much the same with all of us. We cling to our loved ones, and to our own temporal lives in this world, more comfortable and content with what we have known and are able to see than we are with what is given to us in the Gospel-Word and Sacrament. Yet, the same Lord who called St. Mary to discipleship, who recalled her and restored her to faith and hope and love, likewise calls each of us by name and gathers us again and again to Himself. The Word that He sent to His Apostles via this faithful woman, is a Word that He speaks also to us. Which is to say that His Resurrection and Ascension are for us, for whom He suffered and died, such that His God and Father are now also our God and Father, by grace through faith in Him.
21 July 2007
A Book in the Hand Is Worth Four on Pre-Order from Amazon
I'm sure I won't have the stamina to read the whole thing before I give up and go to bed for the night, but I have Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in hand, and have just finished chapter four. I'm impressed with how quickly it has launched into action, fast and furious from the get-go. Already I perceive that my young friend Nathaniel was correct in assuming that the broken mirror from Sirius will come into play importantly. Well spotted, Nat.
Assuming all goes well, I should be able to finish the book by the end of this day, the 21st of July (or tomorrow). Then I can also begin reading it aloud to my dear younger children, who are breathless with anticipation. Of course, by then I will know whether and where my predictions were right, and where they were all wrong. Either way, this is great fun! I'm looking forward to chatting about Deathly Hallows on Issues, Etc. next Sunday (the 29th); at least, I believe that is the plan.
Back to it, then. I believe that something rather tragic has just happened at the end of chapter four, and of course it would be futile for me to attempt falling asleep at this point.
Assuming all goes well, I should be able to finish the book by the end of this day, the 21st of July (or tomorrow). Then I can also begin reading it aloud to my dear younger children, who are breathless with anticipation. Of course, by then I will know whether and where my predictions were right, and where they were all wrong. Either way, this is great fun! I'm looking forward to chatting about Deathly Hallows on Issues, Etc. next Sunday (the 29th); at least, I believe that is the plan.
Back to it, then. I believe that something rather tragic has just happened at the end of chapter four, and of course it would be futile for me to attempt falling asleep at this point.
A Beautiful Disaster
I've heard various friends and colleagues bemoaning the lack of organization on the part of conservatives in preparation for the Convention, and now I'm hearing many suggestions that we need to get organized as soon as possible for the next go-round. I respect the men who are making these comments and suggestions, and I respect their opinion, but I disagree. I believe that we did as well as we did at the Convention, and we did far better than I had anticipated, in large part because there really wasn't much in the way of conservative para-synodical organization. We certainly did as well or better than three years ago, in my view, when there was such a huge amount of time, energy and money invested in organizing. That's how I see it.
Anyway, we already have an organization, a structure and processes, known as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. We belong to that fellowship of pastors and congregations, and it is therein that we ought to be working, contending as needed, but above all confessing and catechizing. By catechizing, I don't mean informing people about the "issues" in the Synod, although I do believe that congregations ought to be kept well informed about such things (because they are the Synod). But the real work of catechizing is that of the Word of God, the speaking of the Law and the Gospel, the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. That is what alone changes hearts and minds, and what ought to govern and guide the entire life of the Church.
The pastors who spoke so eloquently and persuasively from the microphones at the Convention, spoke as they did, theologically, because they spoke from within their office as pastors, in the way they preach and teach and catechize all year long. It was striking, the contrast between the speeches of those men, who are confessional not only in name but in this very such practice of speaking the truth in love, and the "Jesus First" (sic) leaders who by and large said nothing but to call the question, or to get riled up and defensive about such and such. I'm thinking that for many of the delegates to this Convention, "Jesus First" ended up looking rather bad, if not downright silly, with all their politicking, posturing and propaganda. Without a conservative political action group to butt heads against, they were mostly a group of Don Quixotes, waving their sharpened swords at imaginary windmills. They bewail and rail against thost nasty, mean-spirited conservatives, but it was "Jesus First" that was engaged in all the negative behavior. The confessional pastors and lay delegates simply did what confessionals ought to do (what every Christian ought to do): they confessed. They spoke intelligently, politely and respectfully, persisently and carefully. And I really believe that many of the delegates listened and learned and began to be moved by the straightforward truth of the Word of God.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. "Jesus First" got a little taste of that on Monday, when the tide turned against their scarlet letter campaign to identify plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the churchmanship and collegiality that the President of the Synod praised more than once, were mostly demonstrated by confessional pastors who simply behaved in a manner becoming of their office, animated by the Gospel that they preach and administer. Voting results aside (though the fluctuation in the margins of the votes was telling), those speeches made a difference that matters, whereas the "Jesus First" spokesmen came off badly, because they don't appear to have anything of substance to say.
The thing is that the Synod is not the elected officers and full-time executive staff in St. Louis. The Synod is the fellowship of pastors and congregations that make up the membership of the LCMS. This is the argument I made concerning the nominations process last year. We don't need to invent a means of determining who the confessional congregations of the Synod want to nominate; what we need is for those congregations to nominate the men they believe to be the best suited for the office of president (and other offices). That's our process already!
Both at the last Convention and again this time, Sam Nafzger was able to point to the fact that, when the CTCR document on the service of women in the church was put before the Synod for study and response (in 1998), almost no responses were received (it was like only a handful). That's why they were able to bring the thing back and recommend it. We simply gave it up to the "respected leaders" to do our thinking for us, which is more and more what is being put into place as the structure and polity of the Synod. That's what we'll get with a new Constitution and Bylaws, and it's what we deserve, if we don't actually engage the process and participate in it and work within this organization to which we belong, and which belongs to us as members. No matter how hokey it may seem at times, or pointless, it is the polity that we have received under God's providence in our temporal life together.
There were some significantly positive things accomplished at this Convention. I've mentioned some of those highlights previously, and I intend to say more about such things in the future. But for now I want to reiterate that these things were accomplished by and through the organization of the Synod itself. Perhaps the most notable example, again, is the correcting of false teaching on St. Matthew 18. That is tremendous. And how did it happen? In two ways, really: the dissent process, and the submitting of overtures especially from district conventions.
There will be opportunities, stemming from this Convention, for dialogue and discussion on various theological matters, including the doctrine and practice of "worship." Everyone should participate in those discussions to the fullest extent possible, and trust the confession of the Word of God to change hearts and minds. Our own hearts and minds daily need to be changed by the same Word of God, which we need to hear and receive, as well as teach and confess. We do that in our vocation as the children of God, within our respective stations in life, including the place that God has given us within the Missouri Synod. We pastors need to be active in our circuit winkels, and contribute to the life of our districts, and do those things that we are given to do, rather than diverting all our time and energy to creating organizations of our own devising. I'm not saying this as a criticism of various study groups and ministeriums, which I believe to be important and necessary in their own right (though not for political action, but for catechesis and the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren). What I am saying is that we already have a structure and polity within which we can work, and that we ought to be working within it.
Meanwhile, along with doing what each of us is given to do within his (or her) own vocation and stations in life, I'd suggest that everyone read Augstine's City of God, Jaroslav Pelikan's little book on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Machiavelli's The Prince. I need to read and/or re-read these things, myself, for the sake of better understanding genuine politics in relation to the life of the Church on earth.
Anyway, we already have an organization, a structure and processes, known as the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. We belong to that fellowship of pastors and congregations, and it is therein that we ought to be working, contending as needed, but above all confessing and catechizing. By catechizing, I don't mean informing people about the "issues" in the Synod, although I do believe that congregations ought to be kept well informed about such things (because they are the Synod). But the real work of catechizing is that of the Word of God, the speaking of the Law and the Gospel, the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. That is what alone changes hearts and minds, and what ought to govern and guide the entire life of the Church.
The pastors who spoke so eloquently and persuasively from the microphones at the Convention, spoke as they did, theologically, because they spoke from within their office as pastors, in the way they preach and teach and catechize all year long. It was striking, the contrast between the speeches of those men, who are confessional not only in name but in this very such practice of speaking the truth in love, and the "Jesus First" (sic) leaders who by and large said nothing but to call the question, or to get riled up and defensive about such and such. I'm thinking that for many of the delegates to this Convention, "Jesus First" ended up looking rather bad, if not downright silly, with all their politicking, posturing and propaganda. Without a conservative political action group to butt heads against, they were mostly a group of Don Quixotes, waving their sharpened swords at imaginary windmills. They bewail and rail against thost nasty, mean-spirited conservatives, but it was "Jesus First" that was engaged in all the negative behavior. The confessional pastors and lay delegates simply did what confessionals ought to do (what every Christian ought to do): they confessed. They spoke intelligently, politely and respectfully, persisently and carefully. And I really believe that many of the delegates listened and learned and began to be moved by the straightforward truth of the Word of God.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. "Jesus First" got a little taste of that on Monday, when the tide turned against their scarlet letter campaign to identify plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Meanwhile, the churchmanship and collegiality that the President of the Synod praised more than once, were mostly demonstrated by confessional pastors who simply behaved in a manner becoming of their office, animated by the Gospel that they preach and administer. Voting results aside (though the fluctuation in the margins of the votes was telling), those speeches made a difference that matters, whereas the "Jesus First" spokesmen came off badly, because they don't appear to have anything of substance to say.
The thing is that the Synod is not the elected officers and full-time executive staff in St. Louis. The Synod is the fellowship of pastors and congregations that make up the membership of the LCMS. This is the argument I made concerning the nominations process last year. We don't need to invent a means of determining who the confessional congregations of the Synod want to nominate; what we need is for those congregations to nominate the men they believe to be the best suited for the office of president (and other offices). That's our process already!
Both at the last Convention and again this time, Sam Nafzger was able to point to the fact that, when the CTCR document on the service of women in the church was put before the Synod for study and response (in 1998), almost no responses were received (it was like only a handful). That's why they were able to bring the thing back and recommend it. We simply gave it up to the "respected leaders" to do our thinking for us, which is more and more what is being put into place as the structure and polity of the Synod. That's what we'll get with a new Constitution and Bylaws, and it's what we deserve, if we don't actually engage the process and participate in it and work within this organization to which we belong, and which belongs to us as members. No matter how hokey it may seem at times, or pointless, it is the polity that we have received under God's providence in our temporal life together.
There were some significantly positive things accomplished at this Convention. I've mentioned some of those highlights previously, and I intend to say more about such things in the future. But for now I want to reiterate that these things were accomplished by and through the organization of the Synod itself. Perhaps the most notable example, again, is the correcting of false teaching on St. Matthew 18. That is tremendous. And how did it happen? In two ways, really: the dissent process, and the submitting of overtures especially from district conventions.
There will be opportunities, stemming from this Convention, for dialogue and discussion on various theological matters, including the doctrine and practice of "worship." Everyone should participate in those discussions to the fullest extent possible, and trust the confession of the Word of God to change hearts and minds. Our own hearts and minds daily need to be changed by the same Word of God, which we need to hear and receive, as well as teach and confess. We do that in our vocation as the children of God, within our respective stations in life, including the place that God has given us within the Missouri Synod. We pastors need to be active in our circuit winkels, and contribute to the life of our districts, and do those things that we are given to do, rather than diverting all our time and energy to creating organizations of our own devising. I'm not saying this as a criticism of various study groups and ministeriums, which I believe to be important and necessary in their own right (though not for political action, but for catechesis and the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren). What I am saying is that we already have a structure and polity within which we can work, and that we ought to be working within it.
Meanwhile, along with doing what each of us is given to do within his (or her) own vocation and stations in life, I'd suggest that everyone read Augstine's City of God, Jaroslav Pelikan's little book on the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, and Machiavelli's The Prince. I need to read and/or re-read these things, myself, for the sake of better understanding genuine politics in relation to the life of the Church on earth.
20 July 2007
Too Good to Be Forgotten
In the midst of the excitement and exhaustion of yesterday, I neglected to comment on another significant event in the circles of my life and loved ones. Therefore, a belated but no less sincere "Happy Anniversary" to my dear friends, Rob & Sandra, who were married on the 19th of July, I believe it was in the Year of Our Lord 1980.
I've been thinking out loud about weddings and the estate of holy matrimony quite a lot lately, and this couple is surely an example of a Christian husband and wife who live together in faith and love, in daily repentance and forgiveness, in Christ Jesus. Their love for one another is regularly manifested, not only in their commitment to each other, but in their gracious hospitality toward others, not least of all to my wife and I and our family. Their four beautiful children are likewise a tribute to their love, and evidence of the good thing that God began in them 27 years ago. May He grant them, for Jesus' sake, many more happy and healthy years of life together here in time, and hereafter, to them and all of their children, a joyful participation in the great Wedding Banquet of Christ and His Bride in heaven, which is even now set before us in the Holy Communion, and ever shall be in the world without end. Amen.
I've been thinking out loud about weddings and the estate of holy matrimony quite a lot lately, and this couple is surely an example of a Christian husband and wife who live together in faith and love, in daily repentance and forgiveness, in Christ Jesus. Their love for one another is regularly manifested, not only in their commitment to each other, but in their gracious hospitality toward others, not least of all to my wife and I and our family. Their four beautiful children are likewise a tribute to their love, and evidence of the good thing that God began in them 27 years ago. May He grant them, for Jesus' sake, many more happy and healthy years of life together here in time, and hereafter, to them and all of their children, a joyful participation in the great Wedding Banquet of Christ and His Bride in heaven, which is even now set before us in the Holy Communion, and ever shall be in the world without end. Amen.
19 July 2007
The Fat Lady Has Sung
The Convention concluded at 1:00 p.m. earlier today. Now it is time to decompress, as I began to do, delightfully so, with my good friends Pastor Bender and Pastor Gehlbach over a late lunch. Such "good friends, faithful neighbors and the like," are assuredly a divine gift and blessing, for which I give thanks. I was similarly grateful for the opportunity to share supper with several good friends from Detroit last night, and with a group of like-minded colleagues over Starbucks (liquid dessert) this morning. No Christian, far less any pastor, should allow himself to go it alone. There is a time to go apart from the crowd for prayer, but one really must return from such prayer to hear and heed the Word of the Lord from brothers in Christ, and continue to pray in the midst of the brethren, and confess and proclaim the Word to them, that one and all may be sustained by the Spirit of Christ as members of His holy Church. Sincere thanks to all of those brothers who faithfully admonish and encourage me, who call me to repentance by speaking both the Law and the Gospel to me.
Speaking of both the Law and the Gospel, I had a lightbulb moment this afternoon when my brothers and I were speaking of God's discipline. The comment was made that the same Lord God who raises up the pious and faithful ruler, like David for example, also raises up and seats upon the throne a tyrant like Ahaz. Why? In order to discipline His people for the sake of calling them to repentance. And suddenly it dawned on me, in a way I had never considered before: Why should we suppose that God is less adept at properly dividing the Law and the Gospel in His dealings with us, than we strive to be, by His grace and Spirit, in pastoral care and practice? The best advice I heard all day is for each of us to do what he is given to do, within his vocation and stations in life, be they great or small, and to rely upon the Word of the Lord to deal with us and with His Church as He would, according to His good and gracious will for us in Christ. There is only one thing that we can be sure of: that is the Gospel! Not a club with which we are to be pummeled, nor a duty and responsibility for us to fulfill, but His sweet Word of forgiveness.
On that very note, I am exceedingly thankful that the final resolution adopted by the Synod in Convention (2-07A), by a 95.7% majority, encourages "Christian Forgiveness and Greater Use of Individual Confession and Absolution." In my preparations for this week, I had identified this resolution as the one that I was most eager to see adopted. As of this morning, I was doubtful that it would even come to the floor for consideration. At my first opportunity, in between floor committees coming and going, I appealed to the Chair that he allow the time for this resolution to be moved. My thanks to Pastor Gehlbach for seizing the chance, at the end of today's session, to remind the Chair of that request, which, I am happy to say, was then granted. Christ be praised! I was able to speak briefly in favor of the resolution, suggesting (in the words of the late Dr. Korby) that the true key to the renewal of the Church is the Office of the Keys; that Individual Confession and Absolution is a largely lost and forgotten treasure among Lutherans; and that there is no more powerful means of encouraging forgiveness among Christians than for them to be given the opportunity to examine themselves, to confess their sins, and to receive Holy Absolution in the name and stead of Christ. This is the Gospel at its very heart and center.
I rejoice that such a resolution was adopted, because it will ultimately mean that more people will hear and receive the forgiveness of sins. Convention resolutions add nothing to the Word of God, nor to the clear teaching and confession of the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. Holy Absolution is what it is, and does what it does, because it is the Word of Christ our Lord, whereby our sins are forgiven before God in heaven. Nevertheless, a synodical resolution that urges greater use of Individual Confession and Absolution will lend it a credibility with those who might otherwise refuse to consider it. And if such people are consequently more inclined to avail themselves of this means of grace, then this entire Convention was worth it. This Fifth Chief Part of the Christian faith and life is more evangelical, and has more to do with the actual Gospel, than any one other thing that we dealt with all week long.
In looking back over the course of this Convention, somewhat surprisingly, I would have to say that it was in many ways a turn in the right direction; or at least the beginning of such a turn. Despite my crankiness on Tuesday, I have to agree with President Kieschnick's assessment, that this Convention demonstrated a consistent collegiality and churchmanship that have not characterized many such occasions in the past. Significantly, where discussion and debate were allowed to take place, I believe that the delegates listened and weighed carefully what they heard, and voted largely on that basis. And after my own consternation about the quick calling of the question earlier in the week, I sensed that the assembly was not of a mind to terminate debate without hearing sufficient arguments from all sides first. I'm rather glad, actually, that it is this group of delegates who will (in all likelihood) be back in 2009 for a special Convention of the Synod; because, frankly, I think this particular group might actually be able to make something positive out of that sort of work. As I've previously indicated, it is my opinion that some sort of restructuring does need to happen, for the sake of good stewardship of the Church's resources. My concerns have been (and remain) with the approach that will be taken to that work. But I am not going to despair over it. I'm going to pray for wisdom and clarity and the chance to work with brothers in Christ who will give me a hearing and also help me to think through things more comprehensively and carefully than I would on my own. Call me naive, but that is my hope and prayer.
One other very important and positive thing that happened today was the adoption of Resolution 8-05A, "To Encourage the Study of CTCR Documents Relating to Public Rebuke of Public Sin and to Amend Synodical Bylaws Relating to Matthew 18." I'm not much enamored with the title of this resolution, but the bottom line is that we corrected a grave error that was made at the previous Convention. One of my dear colleagues, an impressive young pastor from Illinois, summarized the situation well: As of 2004, the LCMS said something the Bible does not say, and now, with this resolution, it doesn't say that anymore. That is a very good thing. The dissent process, which various pastors and congregations followed, along with overtures that were submitted from a number of districts, actually accomplished what was most necessary. The dispute resolution process adopted in 2004 still stands, with most of its flaws and weaknesses intact, but it no longer suggests that the words of our Lord Jesus in St. Matthew 18 prohibit the public rebuke of public sin. Another resolution (8-06) begins the process of addressing another problematic aspect of the dispute resolution process, namely, the composition of the hearing panels. Let us hope and pray that equity and fairness may be restored, even if it happens slowly and in a more cumbersome manner than we would prefer.
As I take some time to look back over the proceedings and actions of this Convention, I intend to offer a constructive critique, because I believe that is necessary and beneficial, and really part of my responsibility as a delegate. But I also intend to consider and highlight, both for myself and others, the things that were accomplished positively to the glory of Christ and the benefit of His Church on earth. Already on this last day of the Convention, exhausted though I am, and glad to be done with this tiring work, I recognize glimmers of light and signs of hope. Not the least among those positive blessings is the number of faithful young pastors who are able to get up and speak with intelligence, confidence, faithfulness and eloquence. These are men not driven by political ambition or desire, but by a love for the Gospel and for Christ's Church, and by the Word and Spirit of God. They speak to the rest of the Synod, not outside of their vocation as pastors, but precisely from within that vocation, as a continuation of their preaching and teaching and catechizing and pastoral care. God grant that I would be counted among them.
Speaking of both the Law and the Gospel, I had a lightbulb moment this afternoon when my brothers and I were speaking of God's discipline. The comment was made that the same Lord God who raises up the pious and faithful ruler, like David for example, also raises up and seats upon the throne a tyrant like Ahaz. Why? In order to discipline His people for the sake of calling them to repentance. And suddenly it dawned on me, in a way I had never considered before: Why should we suppose that God is less adept at properly dividing the Law and the Gospel in His dealings with us, than we strive to be, by His grace and Spirit, in pastoral care and practice? The best advice I heard all day is for each of us to do what he is given to do, within his vocation and stations in life, be they great or small, and to rely upon the Word of the Lord to deal with us and with His Church as He would, according to His good and gracious will for us in Christ. There is only one thing that we can be sure of: that is the Gospel! Not a club with which we are to be pummeled, nor a duty and responsibility for us to fulfill, but His sweet Word of forgiveness.
On that very note, I am exceedingly thankful that the final resolution adopted by the Synod in Convention (2-07A), by a 95.7% majority, encourages "Christian Forgiveness and Greater Use of Individual Confession and Absolution." In my preparations for this week, I had identified this resolution as the one that I was most eager to see adopted. As of this morning, I was doubtful that it would even come to the floor for consideration. At my first opportunity, in between floor committees coming and going, I appealed to the Chair that he allow the time for this resolution to be moved. My thanks to Pastor Gehlbach for seizing the chance, at the end of today's session, to remind the Chair of that request, which, I am happy to say, was then granted. Christ be praised! I was able to speak briefly in favor of the resolution, suggesting (in the words of the late Dr. Korby) that the true key to the renewal of the Church is the Office of the Keys; that Individual Confession and Absolution is a largely lost and forgotten treasure among Lutherans; and that there is no more powerful means of encouraging forgiveness among Christians than for them to be given the opportunity to examine themselves, to confess their sins, and to receive Holy Absolution in the name and stead of Christ. This is the Gospel at its very heart and center.
I rejoice that such a resolution was adopted, because it will ultimately mean that more people will hear and receive the forgiveness of sins. Convention resolutions add nothing to the Word of God, nor to the clear teaching and confession of the Small Catechism and the Book of Concord. Holy Absolution is what it is, and does what it does, because it is the Word of Christ our Lord, whereby our sins are forgiven before God in heaven. Nevertheless, a synodical resolution that urges greater use of Individual Confession and Absolution will lend it a credibility with those who might otherwise refuse to consider it. And if such people are consequently more inclined to avail themselves of this means of grace, then this entire Convention was worth it. This Fifth Chief Part of the Christian faith and life is more evangelical, and has more to do with the actual Gospel, than any one other thing that we dealt with all week long.
In looking back over the course of this Convention, somewhat surprisingly, I would have to say that it was in many ways a turn in the right direction; or at least the beginning of such a turn. Despite my crankiness on Tuesday, I have to agree with President Kieschnick's assessment, that this Convention demonstrated a consistent collegiality and churchmanship that have not characterized many such occasions in the past. Significantly, where discussion and debate were allowed to take place, I believe that the delegates listened and weighed carefully what they heard, and voted largely on that basis. And after my own consternation about the quick calling of the question earlier in the week, I sensed that the assembly was not of a mind to terminate debate without hearing sufficient arguments from all sides first. I'm rather glad, actually, that it is this group of delegates who will (in all likelihood) be back in 2009 for a special Convention of the Synod; because, frankly, I think this particular group might actually be able to make something positive out of that sort of work. As I've previously indicated, it is my opinion that some sort of restructuring does need to happen, for the sake of good stewardship of the Church's resources. My concerns have been (and remain) with the approach that will be taken to that work. But I am not going to despair over it. I'm going to pray for wisdom and clarity and the chance to work with brothers in Christ who will give me a hearing and also help me to think through things more comprehensively and carefully than I would on my own. Call me naive, but that is my hope and prayer.
One other very important and positive thing that happened today was the adoption of Resolution 8-05A, "To Encourage the Study of CTCR Documents Relating to Public Rebuke of Public Sin and to Amend Synodical Bylaws Relating to Matthew 18." I'm not much enamored with the title of this resolution, but the bottom line is that we corrected a grave error that was made at the previous Convention. One of my dear colleagues, an impressive young pastor from Illinois, summarized the situation well: As of 2004, the LCMS said something the Bible does not say, and now, with this resolution, it doesn't say that anymore. That is a very good thing. The dissent process, which various pastors and congregations followed, along with overtures that were submitted from a number of districts, actually accomplished what was most necessary. The dispute resolution process adopted in 2004 still stands, with most of its flaws and weaknesses intact, but it no longer suggests that the words of our Lord Jesus in St. Matthew 18 prohibit the public rebuke of public sin. Another resolution (8-06) begins the process of addressing another problematic aspect of the dispute resolution process, namely, the composition of the hearing panels. Let us hope and pray that equity and fairness may be restored, even if it happens slowly and in a more cumbersome manner than we would prefer.
As I take some time to look back over the proceedings and actions of this Convention, I intend to offer a constructive critique, because I believe that is necessary and beneficial, and really part of my responsibility as a delegate. But I also intend to consider and highlight, both for myself and others, the things that were accomplished positively to the glory of Christ and the benefit of His Church on earth. Already on this last day of the Convention, exhausted though I am, and glad to be done with this tiring work, I recognize glimmers of light and signs of hope. Not the least among those positive blessings is the number of faithful young pastors who are able to get up and speak with intelligence, confidence, faithfulness and eloquence. These are men not driven by political ambition or desire, but by a love for the Gospel and for Christ's Church, and by the Word and Spirit of God. They speak to the rest of the Synod, not outside of their vocation as pastors, but precisely from within that vocation, as a continuation of their preaching and teaching and catechizing and pastoral care. God grant that I would be counted among them.
18 July 2007
Friendly Amendments
Despite the fact that fuses are short and tempers on edge, today was the day of "friendly" amendments, seemingly to every resolution that was considered. Since the floor committees control everything, they are given the prerogative to accept any amendments proposed from the floor of the Convention, if such amendments are deemed "friendly" to their motion and its intentions. I'm not opposed to this procedure, because it does facilitate things, but I am amused at how frequently it was invoked in the course of this day. I don't recall that any such "friendly" amendments occurred at the 2004 Convention (which wasn't very friendly, anyway), but we had dozens of them today. Those that were not deemed "friendly" enough to the floor committees were then put before the assembly for consideration, as usual. What did cause me to wonder a bit were those several occasions when the person posing the "friendly amendment," the Chair of the Convention, and the chair of the floor committee, essentially engaged in a bit of back-and-forth, three-way conversation, trying to negotiate the wording of an amendment. I'm somewhat surprised that no one objected to the apparent suspension of any and all rules of order at such points, but I guess it never got out of hand.
We finished up the elections this afternoon, so that is all said and done. I was impressed by the efficiency of the process, all things considered. Credit where credit is due. Can't say that I'm delighted with the outcomes, but exactly one-third of the people I voted for were elected (27 people out of the 81 elected to boards and commissions of the Synod). I suppose that I've also been on the prevailing side of the vote on as many as one-third of the resolutions, too. Of course that includes the mom-and-apple-pie resolutions that only a Nazi or a Communist would vote against. (The only unanimous vote has been for the re-election of Tom Kuchta to be the Treasurer of the Synod, who was unopposed for that office.)
As for the resolutions dealt with today, the Convention did adopt (by a 76% majority) the Specific Ministry Pastor Program. Perhaps I will need to think out loud about that particular matter at some later point, but I don't want to say too much about it for the time being. I am aware of the very mixed feelings that many of my friends and like-minded colleagues have had about it, and I myself have had similar mixed feelings, too. I realize that it is prone to abuse, though I don't believe that is the intention of those who have developed and proposed it. Of course, we all know the road that good intentions pave, so I won't try to argue that point either way. As I indicated earlier this week, I think the Specific Ministry Pastor Program, despite the somewhat hokey title, has the potential to be a rather good thing for the Synod. It may be hoped that it can help restore the practice of Augsburg Confession XIV, by gradually doing away with the licensing of lay ministers to preach and administer the Sacraments. We'll see. I'm not holding my breath, but I would like to be optimistic about something. I still have concerns about this new program, don't get me wrong. Yet, in all fairness, I believe that it does have some theological integrity and genuinely historic precedent, especially with reference to the ordained deacons and parish priests of the early church, as well as the men who were trained by apprenticeship for the Office of the Ministry in 19th-century Lutheranism. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to those who are opposed to the Specific Ministry Pastor Program, and I hope they will not think me loosey-goosey for trying to look on the bright side of things.
Actually, I'm trying to take my cues from some of my younger friends and colleagues here, who have maintained a cheerful disposition and a measure of enthusiasm - not because things are going well (they aren't), but rather in the joyful confidence of the Gospel. Better to be good-humored in the face of adversity than to become morbid and down in the mouth about it. Let us rejoice when we are counted worthy to carry the cross and to share in the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us also give thanks for the Lord's discipline and call to repentance, not only for "the other guy," but especially for ourselves, who must also repent.
I have been reminded, yesterday and today, of Abimelech in the Old Testament. We studied him recently in Bible Class. He relied upon nepotism and favoritism to recruit support for his rebellious takeover of Israel. The priests of Baal from Shechem funded him with 70 pieces of silver, with which he hired 70 worthless fellows to kill off his 70 half-brothers, the sons of Gideon. Only Gideon's youngest son survived, by going into hiding, and he then uttered a prophetic curse against his half-brother Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem. If they had dealt honorably with each other and the house of Gideon, then God bless 'em, one and all. But if they had dealt dishonorably, then would fire come out from Abimelech to destroy Shechem, and fire would come out from Shechem to destroy Abimelech. Well, sure enough, after Abimelech had reigned in Israel for three years, Shechem rebelled against him, and when all was said and done, they were all dead and gone. "Thus God repaid the wickedness of Abimelech, which he had done to his father in killing his seventy brothers. Also God returned all the wickedness of the men of Shechem on their heads" (Judges 9:56-67). I'm not suggesting a one-for-one comparison or correspondence between Abimelech and Shechem and current synodical politics, but I am admonishing myself (and anyone else who cares to listen) that justice belongs to the Lord, and He is more than able to visit vengeance upon those who live by the sword. What is all the more amazing, and encouraging, is that He is all the more willing and able to bring even us to repentance and faith in the free and full forgiveness of sins, for the sake of Christ Jesus alone.
Anyway, one of the most interesting discussions today was concerning Resolution 7-08A, which would introduce a process for the removal of individual members from boards or commissions. No matter how important it may be to have such legislation put into place, the language of this thing as it was set before us was troubling. Among the nine possible reasons identified for the removal of a board or commission member was the undefined term, "insubordination," which was thankfully stricken from the resolution after persistent questions about its meaning and intention. The remainder of the debate was almost humorous, if not for the seriousness of the matters at stake. A question was raised about the permissability of the provisions for removing even members of the Board of Directors of the Synod. When Synod's legal counsel was consulted on this question, the first lawyer who spoke said, in fairly simple and straightforward words, that state law requires that members of the Board of Directors of a non-profit corporation (such as the LCMS) can only be removed by the body that elected them to that position; which, in our case, would mean the Synod in Convention. That seemed clear enough to me. The resolution, as it was presented, was asking us to put into the bylaws something contrary to the law of the land. That should have settled it, in my opinion. But, no. Instead, we got to listen to the long-winded explanation of another lawyer, who basically said that, yes, if the proposed bylaw were put to the test, and a particular case involving removal of a member from the Board of Directors were tried by a judge, it wouldn't hold up; but it wasn't likely that such a thing would happen, so we could probably get away with it, and, after all, we can say whatever we want in our bylaws, because we're a church. That was the gist of the argument, so far as I could tell. In short, it sounded like the attitude of many of my friends back in high school: it isn't wrong unless you get caught. Uh-huh. I've tried to teach my own children differently, and the Synod should know better. Thankfully, persistent pressing of this point brought back the first lawyer, who repeated even more simply what he had already said previously. The floor committee did then voluntarily withdraw the motion and return it to the drawing board for further work.
The final excitement of the day was a substitute motion from Floor Committee 8, no longer asking us to approve a special Convention of the Synod in 2009, but simply to entrust that decision and action to the Council of Presidents. As one delegate speaking in favor of this new proposal described it, we need to "empower the leaders of our Synod" and trust them to do what needs to be done. Here we go again with the trusting of mortal princes and the relinquishing of rights and responsibilities on the part of the delegates as representatives of the Synod. The fact of the matter is, though, that there will be a special Convention to consider a complete restructuring of the Synod from the ground up. We were told as much again this afternoon. It is not a question of "if," but only of when this will happen.
Treasurer Kuchta, a man I deeply respect, and whose integrity I do not question in the least, indicates that there is a financial urgency for this restructuring, lest the national ministries of the Synod be cut. He is surely correct in urging that something needs to be done, the sooner the better. There is, however, something more important at stake than finances and the ongoing funding of "missions and ministries." The integrity of our doctrinal standard and confession, and of the Synod as a fellowship of Christ's holy Church on earth, must be maintained, first and foremost: for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel to His own people and to all the nations. Keep the message straight, and get that message out, Missouri. Our Constitution and Bylaws are in many ways theological documents and confessions in their own right, defining our relationship to one another and our place in the world on the basis of our doctrine. These are things, no matter how free, that we ought not be too quick or easily willing to give up. Let us rather take our time and allow the entire Synod to give careful consideration to whatever might be developed, rather than leaving such things largely in the hands of the relatively few.
In fairness, it should be indicated that the substitute resolution we received this afternoon, regarding the proposed special Convention, specifically includes the assertion "that no propsed changes to the Structure and Governance of the Synod will conflict with Article II and Article VI of the Constitution." These are the articles that set forth our doctrinal standard. It is good that such things are protected, at least to this extent, but it would be much better and far stronger to insist that Articles II and VI will simply not be changed. They aren't broke. Don't try 'n' fix 'em.
We finished up the elections this afternoon, so that is all said and done. I was impressed by the efficiency of the process, all things considered. Credit where credit is due. Can't say that I'm delighted with the outcomes, but exactly one-third of the people I voted for were elected (27 people out of the 81 elected to boards and commissions of the Synod). I suppose that I've also been on the prevailing side of the vote on as many as one-third of the resolutions, too. Of course that includes the mom-and-apple-pie resolutions that only a Nazi or a Communist would vote against. (The only unanimous vote has been for the re-election of Tom Kuchta to be the Treasurer of the Synod, who was unopposed for that office.)
As for the resolutions dealt with today, the Convention did adopt (by a 76% majority) the Specific Ministry Pastor Program. Perhaps I will need to think out loud about that particular matter at some later point, but I don't want to say too much about it for the time being. I am aware of the very mixed feelings that many of my friends and like-minded colleagues have had about it, and I myself have had similar mixed feelings, too. I realize that it is prone to abuse, though I don't believe that is the intention of those who have developed and proposed it. Of course, we all know the road that good intentions pave, so I won't try to argue that point either way. As I indicated earlier this week, I think the Specific Ministry Pastor Program, despite the somewhat hokey title, has the potential to be a rather good thing for the Synod. It may be hoped that it can help restore the practice of Augsburg Confession XIV, by gradually doing away with the licensing of lay ministers to preach and administer the Sacraments. We'll see. I'm not holding my breath, but I would like to be optimistic about something. I still have concerns about this new program, don't get me wrong. Yet, in all fairness, I believe that it does have some theological integrity and genuinely historic precedent, especially with reference to the ordained deacons and parish priests of the early church, as well as the men who were trained by apprenticeship for the Office of the Ministry in 19th-century Lutheranism. Nevertheless, I am sympathetic to those who are opposed to the Specific Ministry Pastor Program, and I hope they will not think me loosey-goosey for trying to look on the bright side of things.
Actually, I'm trying to take my cues from some of my younger friends and colleagues here, who have maintained a cheerful disposition and a measure of enthusiasm - not because things are going well (they aren't), but rather in the joyful confidence of the Gospel. Better to be good-humored in the face of adversity than to become morbid and down in the mouth about it. Let us rejoice when we are counted worthy to carry the cross and to share in the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us also give thanks for the Lord's discipline and call to repentance, not only for "the other guy," but especially for ourselves, who must also repent.
I have been reminded, yesterday and today, of Abimelech in the Old Testament. We studied him recently in Bible Class. He relied upon nepotism and favoritism to recruit support for his rebellious takeover of Israel. The priests of Baal from Shechem funded him with 70 pieces of silver, with which he hired 70 worthless fellows to kill off his 70 half-brothers, the sons of Gideon. Only Gideon's youngest son survived, by going into hiding, and he then uttered a prophetic curse against his half-brother Abimelech and the leaders of Shechem. If they had dealt honorably with each other and the house of Gideon, then God bless 'em, one and all. But if they had dealt dishonorably, then would fire come out from Abimelech to destroy Shechem, and fire would come out from Shechem to destroy Abimelech. Well, sure enough, after Abimelech had reigned in Israel for three years, Shechem rebelled against him, and when all was said and done, they were all dead and gone. "Thus God repaid the wickedness of Abimelech, which he had done to his father in killing his seventy brothers. Also God returned all the wickedness of the men of Shechem on their heads" (Judges 9:56-67). I'm not suggesting a one-for-one comparison or correspondence between Abimelech and Shechem and current synodical politics, but I am admonishing myself (and anyone else who cares to listen) that justice belongs to the Lord, and He is more than able to visit vengeance upon those who live by the sword. What is all the more amazing, and encouraging, is that He is all the more willing and able to bring even us to repentance and faith in the free and full forgiveness of sins, for the sake of Christ Jesus alone.
Anyway, one of the most interesting discussions today was concerning Resolution 7-08A, which would introduce a process for the removal of individual members from boards or commissions. No matter how important it may be to have such legislation put into place, the language of this thing as it was set before us was troubling. Among the nine possible reasons identified for the removal of a board or commission member was the undefined term, "insubordination," which was thankfully stricken from the resolution after persistent questions about its meaning and intention. The remainder of the debate was almost humorous, if not for the seriousness of the matters at stake. A question was raised about the permissability of the provisions for removing even members of the Board of Directors of the Synod. When Synod's legal counsel was consulted on this question, the first lawyer who spoke said, in fairly simple and straightforward words, that state law requires that members of the Board of Directors of a non-profit corporation (such as the LCMS) can only be removed by the body that elected them to that position; which, in our case, would mean the Synod in Convention. That seemed clear enough to me. The resolution, as it was presented, was asking us to put into the bylaws something contrary to the law of the land. That should have settled it, in my opinion. But, no. Instead, we got to listen to the long-winded explanation of another lawyer, who basically said that, yes, if the proposed bylaw were put to the test, and a particular case involving removal of a member from the Board of Directors were tried by a judge, it wouldn't hold up; but it wasn't likely that such a thing would happen, so we could probably get away with it, and, after all, we can say whatever we want in our bylaws, because we're a church. That was the gist of the argument, so far as I could tell. In short, it sounded like the attitude of many of my friends back in high school: it isn't wrong unless you get caught. Uh-huh. I've tried to teach my own children differently, and the Synod should know better. Thankfully, persistent pressing of this point brought back the first lawyer, who repeated even more simply what he had already said previously. The floor committee did then voluntarily withdraw the motion and return it to the drawing board for further work.
The final excitement of the day was a substitute motion from Floor Committee 8, no longer asking us to approve a special Convention of the Synod in 2009, but simply to entrust that decision and action to the Council of Presidents. As one delegate speaking in favor of this new proposal described it, we need to "empower the leaders of our Synod" and trust them to do what needs to be done. Here we go again with the trusting of mortal princes and the relinquishing of rights and responsibilities on the part of the delegates as representatives of the Synod. The fact of the matter is, though, that there will be a special Convention to consider a complete restructuring of the Synod from the ground up. We were told as much again this afternoon. It is not a question of "if," but only of when this will happen.
Treasurer Kuchta, a man I deeply respect, and whose integrity I do not question in the least, indicates that there is a financial urgency for this restructuring, lest the national ministries of the Synod be cut. He is surely correct in urging that something needs to be done, the sooner the better. There is, however, something more important at stake than finances and the ongoing funding of "missions and ministries." The integrity of our doctrinal standard and confession, and of the Synod as a fellowship of Christ's holy Church on earth, must be maintained, first and foremost: for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel to His own people and to all the nations. Keep the message straight, and get that message out, Missouri. Our Constitution and Bylaws are in many ways theological documents and confessions in their own right, defining our relationship to one another and our place in the world on the basis of our doctrine. These are things, no matter how free, that we ought not be too quick or easily willing to give up. Let us rather take our time and allow the entire Synod to give careful consideration to whatever might be developed, rather than leaving such things largely in the hands of the relatively few.
In fairness, it should be indicated that the substitute resolution we received this afternoon, regarding the proposed special Convention, specifically includes the assertion "that no propsed changes to the Structure and Governance of the Synod will conflict with Article II and Article VI of the Constitution." These are the articles that set forth our doctrinal standard. It is good that such things are protected, at least to this extent, but it would be much better and far stronger to insist that Articles II and VI will simply not be changed. They aren't broke. Don't try 'n' fix 'em.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)