Thank you for giving anyone interested an opportunity to see what is being attempted by this "Blue Ribbon task force". As someone else said, it is an attempt to grab power in perpetuity.
I find the proposals for changing seminarians' certification especially odious!
In plain English, "Come out to one of our entertainment congregations and if you don't dance to our satisfaction, you are out."
Dedicated Lutheran Pastors are already being eliminated un-Scripturally, one by one, with no district discipline of the congregations, because faithful Lutheran Pastors are not wanted by the administration in the "new Missouri."
June 21, Texas
I marked "Strongly Disagree" for each survey statement, even the more
innocent-sounding ones, because President Kieschnick's Blue Ribbon
package, as a whole, stinks! The overall effect would be to
consolidate power in the hands of the Kieschnick/JesusFirst crowd, to
centralize power and move it away from the congregations. This is
their desperate attempt to secure the reins of power for the future,
before their window of opportunity closes. "Efficient," if it is
efficient in the wrong direction, is not a good thing.
The Task Force has loaded the survey statements with nice-sounding
language, but they still have not provided enough specific detail.
And where they have tipped their hand, the power grab is obvious.
Even proposals which might otherwise be neutral, in this current
climate, and based on the Kieschnick track record, must be viewed with
suspicion. Let us first get to work on theological unity, in doctrine
and practice! This is not the time for major changes in structure and
governance.
May 15, Bonne Terre, MO
I am making copies of the survey on this site, and placing it in our narthex for members to read. I am also posting the link so some may go to the site themselves. I've also written a letter to the congregation to be put in our monthly newsletter re- the MNN District convention, the website also placed the site on there. I encourage all to make the survey known. Especially the survey given on this site.
May 4, MN
I am concerned about the future of our church if this survey is a reflection of what's happening in our Synod. Legalities mire down our focus of bringing God's grace and Christ's salvation to the lost. That's what gives our church life and hope in the community and the world. I was led to believe that I would be doing the church a service by filling out the survey. It reminds me of a definition of religion: "A system of beliefs designed to perpetuate the sysem." Sadly, I believe we are doomed to repeat our mistakes if we don't look with new eyes at the service of our church to the community and the world. Respondents have agreed up to this point that term limits are important for district presidents and national board and commission members and that the certification process for pastoral candidates should be left alone; maybe the members are smarter than the powers that are give them credit for being. Keep it simple.
May 3
The four dedicated churchmen, who have constructed this survey, and those who have added the "Other Thoughts to Consider" are thanked by me for their interest in the future of our Synod and for performing a much needed service. Basically, the present structure of the Synod is just fine, but the problem is that we have a number of elected people who do not carry out their duties, which are clearly defined by the Synod and Districts, to deal with the "problem" people in our Synod. If the extreme elements, i.e., pastors who are either liberal or confessional extremists and the laymen who support them like a cult, were properly disciplined within the present structure, we would have a much stronger Synod and could focus our energy on the purpose God has in mind for us. A few of those making comments have chosen to ATTACK the dedicated people trying to keep order in our Synod instead of addressing the real issues. They are the ones who are pathetic.
May 2, Denver, Colorado
After taking this survey, I am reminded of something I read in Vol 2 of "The Lonely Way:Selected Essays and Letters of Hermann Sasse": 'You must be sober and think clearly in the Missouri Synod if your church is to remain what it is, the last stronghold of the Lutheran Reformation in the world.' Sasse wrote that in a 1956 letter to Arthur Carl Piepkorn.
While our responses as laymen may not matter, it does very much matter that all laymen at least see this. This survey reaffirms that it is *my* resposibility as 'mother' to make sure that my boys know what is, in the words of my great-great-grandfather "Gerechtikeit." Obviously those who should be concerned with such matters are not.
May 1
Oh my! At a time in our world history that we are dealing with
economic, health and poverty issues, I'm a little taken back by the
survey. People are struggling to know God and how to deal with day to
day issues, and it seems from this survey our governing bodies are
concerned with wording, language and perception rather than the hunger
of the people. I know no good organization can work without a good
structure and rules to be governed by, but as a layperson there are
several things in the survey that I neither understand nor can see how
this will help further sharing Christ's message with the world. I am
quite sure I am missing the "meat" of the survey due to my ignorance
of church bylaws and constitution, but if these changes are so
revolutionary shouldn't they be explained to laypersons without the
filter of bias upon the committee?
April 29, 2009
Do to the inadequacy of my mental faculties, many of the proposals escape my comprehension. Is there any way in which you could explain to me the change which would occur under the proposal in regard to who would be casting votes at national conventions which would appear to me to have a much expanded authority to make binding doctrinal statements.
My second question is regarding the proposal to alter the process of certifying candidates. How can candidates be sent to serve congregations in Word and Sacrament apart from a regular call, according to our confessions? If they receive a call from the Holy Spirit, what does certification mean in relation thereto? If a "candidate" is denied certification is his call revoked? Does this mean that expanding the responsibility of certification is a ratification of or overturning of the Holy Spirit's call? Or have we already counted him out of the equation?
My third question is; what is the rationale behind all of this? As one not well versed in constitutional law, I find myself suspicious of so much significant legislative change. Being a resident of Iowa, we have recently witnessed how the wheels of the machine manage to roll over the mandate of the people by processes which most people are incapable of or unwilling to discern until it is quite late in the game. Does the LCMS have a significant problem which demands redressing by legislation?
April 28, Knoxville, IA
I don't get it. Take Q3.1 "Congregations are the voting members of the Synod"; am I to choose 1-5 as an answer to this statement, or as an answer to Q3 "Clarify the Categories of Membership in Our Synod", or as an answer to the question "Do I agree with the BRTF's goals as enumerated in the discussion above Q3.1?
I'm never satisfied with surveys... I probably read too much into the questions or misinterpret what is being asked.
After reviewing the constitutional changes, my opinion is that a sweeping rewrite needs an exhaustive justification/discussion/review, much more than what has been presented. If there are problems with the present constitution then they should be addressed by specific, careful modifications. The BRTF is essentially saying that "the old constitution is so bad that we just have to throw the whole thing out and start over." This is nonsense.
April 27, Naperville, IL
Thank you for developing this survey. Hopefully, it would receive much input from the ordained clergy of the Synod, as well as others. The results should be interesting; already, a wide variety of views is seen in response to the proposals. I know that some of my answers were not the "majority view," as reported when finished with the survey.
Whatever daylight can be shone on this process is good. Perhaps this whole matter should be the focus of the 2013 convention (or a special one in 2011), so that more time can be given to reviewing and discussing a concrete proposal, as well as deciding upon a result.
April 25, Carlisle, PA
It continues to amaze me that we focus on "membership" when we all know that many congregations carry "members" who never actually attend church (some having moved 100's of miles away (some even being dead)! Let us please begin to focus on people who actually care enough about their "membership" to actually show up in church...let base things on how many people come to worship NOT names in a book!!! PLEASE!!!
We replied to him, asking for clarification, leading to this response:
I am so honored that you replied to my email. I honestly never expected such a thing...Thank you!
I'm sorry...I didn't fully explain myself at all in my first note to you--I linked to your email as I was reading certain questions in the survey, and I guess I thought that you would know what I was talking about (by magic perhaps--LOL). My bad!
Let me back up...as I was answering the survey, a series of 2 or 3 questions dealt with changing the current structure of voting on the district and synodical level, based on the MEMBERSHIP of some larger congregations...my email was linked to those specific questions. While I have no special feeling one way or the other on the larger question (it probably would be a good idea in many ways); I have a problem with focusing on "membership" per se. We all know many churches worshiping 53 people on a Sunday with a reported "membership of 652 people--this is the point of my letter.
The LCMS continues to base all sorts of things on "membership" tied to a specific roll of "members" without regard for whether those souls ever even come to church...or even live within 500 miles of the church (or live at all in some cases). That is a very dated notion...rooted in a modern era ideal of "joining." I have problems with that for 2 reasons: first, most congregations' rolls are bloated with perhaps 1/2 and frequently upwards of 75% of people who NEVER actually come the church. When I addressed the roll at the congregation I am presently serving I found nearly 15% of the people on the membership roll were actually dead (and I'm not even in Chicago)! These people had moved to FL or AZ and left their "membership" back "home" and fell out of contact--as times passed, so did they, but the church never knew and so they were still there on the rolls. Many others were living hundreds of miles away and we knew that, yet kept them on our roll. I know this is common in the LCMS and it is wrong! It doesn't reflect our actual ministry (but it keeps our circuit roster above "the line") Shame on us all for allowing this to occur. Secondly, younger people, and people coming into church from non-churched backgrounds are slow to "join." This is a post-modern generational thing. Xers and Millennials are not "joiners" even when they are regular attendees. We have quite a few of these types of people in our pews on Sunday mornings (we've worked really hard to reach into our community for people not raised in church, and were actually congratulated by synod for being in the top 5% for adult baptisms last year).
Basing "size of ministry" on the actual number of people who attend worship (instead on a list of names on a paper...who may or may not actually come to church) seems a much more sane and honest way of assessing what's really going on. That was what I meant to ask you all to consider proposing!
I realize that many people will balk at this (mostly because they are stuffed with non-attendees, whose names are kept on the "list" long after ministry to those people has ceased; it drives me crazy to see churches lie (and I personally believe it is a lie to self and synod) about the "size" of their ministry. To base "voting rights" on numbers which aren't reflecting actual ministry seems muddle headed to me.
Many congregations haven't submitted a parochial report in many years, so their stats show an attendance that hasn't been true for many years. They carry a memberships of hundreds who haven't darkened the doors of the respective congregations in decades! It's wrong of us not only to allow this, but to virtually celebrate and reward it. Please consider making all congregations report an actual number of average attendees. Also consider not carrying previous years foreword to cover for churches who aren't reporting. It is simple human nature to not report when things move into decline. But we actually reward that action by posting the old numbers as current in the present system. If no report is submitted, drop them to zero...dropping from 76 to 64 looks better than 76 to zero--a bit of incentive to be honest!
I really appreciate that you responded to me! I am so sorry I didn't more clearly clue you in to what I was addressing! I believe you all are in a unique position to force us all to get honest with "membership." It is a lot dirtier business than most anyone seems to want to admit. Names on a sheet mean next to nothing if those people don't worship with the Body. Obviously everyone has a few who honestly can't come to worship anymore, but most congregations have dozens or even hundreds who are on the rolls and live out of state (or with our Lord) and its just not honest to synod to make that the number we all measure by!
April 24, Olean, NY
Thanks for providing this highly valuable service to the church – access to the materials, and the survey with comments was terrific. Hopefully, the Lord will bless us with greater attention to and conformity to His Word, that we may truly be blessed as our church moves forward in these difficult times. Again, thanks!
April 23, 2009, Lafayette, CO
The Council of Presidents of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod at its most recent meeting this week made a decision as a group to discourage anyone from completing this independent survey, and on their behalf I request you to cease and desist in promoting it. Instead, please direct those on your email list to participate at lcms.org in the appropriate forums and interactive ways in the process designed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Structure and Governance.
Thank you for receiving this message from me; I serve in many capacities - as the executive director of St. Peter's Pre-School, as the Pastor of St. Peter's Lutheran Church, as the Education Executive of the Atlantic District, LCMS, and as the President of the Atlantic District, LCMS.
Your timely response would be appreciated,
In Christ, our Lord,
Rev. Dr. David H. Benke
April 23, 2009
We replied with this message.
Dear Pastor Benke,
Thanks for reaching out to us. We are just trying to help out by increasing the awareness of the BRTFSSG survey among the LCMS family, including LCMS Members and members of the LCMS Member Congregations. Considering the importance of the BRTFSSG’s work, we wanted to do what we could to help get the word out about their proposals. We believe our survey results will be helpful to everyone in this process, and hope you will reconsider your position.
You said “The Council of Presidents of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod at its most recent meeting this week made a decision as a group to discourage anyone from completing this independent survey.” Were you designated as their spokesman? We are very much open to dialog with the Council of Presidents. Since this is such an important decision for all laymen of the synod, can you send us the documentation of this action taken by the Council of Presidents?
We believe the church is a family and it is always good to hear from the family members when there is an important decision to make. We appeal to you to reconsider your position, and encourage people to take our survey.
In Christ,
Interested Laymen
April 23, 2009
Pastor Benke then replied with:
Dear ................
You ask me to appeal a decision I have not made. The Council of Presidents as a group has made this decision. We are all to send the memo prepared to the lay leaders, pastors and lay members of our districts at our earliest opportunity. Please refer people to the website listed - "Walking Together" - and allow those entrusted with the decision process in the Missouri Synod to carry out their responsibilities.
I will send you the memo from the council of presidents meeting when I send it to the rest of those in the Atlantic District tomorrow.
In Christ,
Dr. David H. Benke
May 1, 2009
And here is the memo that was distributed to the COP:
To: Council of Presidents for Public Distribution
Re: A response to the unofficial invitation for individuals to respond to the BRTFFS via web survey
An invitation has been distributed to individuals in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod to respond to the topics under consideration by the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance through an unofficial web survey. This invitation encourages individuals to express their opinions on topics to those who have no relationship with the BRTFSSG or any responsibility concerning the work of the task force. All members of the synod are encouraged to respond directly to the task force after reviewing the current work of the task force as posted on the synod web site, www.lcms.org, click on “Walking Together.” After accessing and reviewing the “Current District Convention Report” and other documents posted on this site, your comments can be sent directly to the task force at LCMSFuture@lcms.org. The email address and phone number are posted on the front page of the BRTFFS web site. The members of the task force encourage your response.
We then replied with:
Dear Pastor Benke:
We currently have a link to the LCMS Website "Walking together" page
on our website for all of our visitors to reference. Is there
anywhere at the
BRTFSSG portion of the LCMS Website that you can actually take their
survey? When I last checked, there wasn't any active link to the
BRTFSSG survey or their recommendations to be found there.
Additionally, while there is a place to of
fer comments, there is no
place to take their survey, or any interactive opportunity to post
comments where they can be viewed for all to see, let alone receive
replies in a public format. There really is no practical official
process for us to engage in. These things are all available on our
website.
Rather than minimizing the value of the input and information our
website can provide, I'd like to once again open an invitation to you,
as the representative of the COP, to join with us in this effort and
embrace it, perhaps even provide a link to it on the "Walking
Together" page so that the broader base of the synod's laity can offer
you their input in an open, direct and interactive format.
As the COP's spokesperson in this matter, we're only asking that you
"Walk Together" with us and allow us to offer you and the BRTFSSG this
valuable resource for their mission to "seek input" for their
proposals.
Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
Respectfully,
Eric Ramer
Interested Laymen
May 4, 2009
Pastor Benke then replied with:
Dear Eric,
Greetings again in Jesus' Name!
As I explained in my other email, I'm not the spokesperson for the COP on this matter; the decision was made by the group, and I'm responding to you not on their behalf but on behalf of the district I represent, as their ecclesiastical supervisor.
As to the specifics of your request and email, I would say the best course of action would be for you to interact with the staff or members of the BRTFSSG themselves. Bob Green is involved, as is PSW President Larry Stoterau.
In Christ,
Dr. Dave Benke, President
Atlantic District, LCMS
Pastor, St. Peter's Lutheran, Brooklyn, NY
May 4, 2009
I find the survey difficult to complete. I do not know if I am
responding to the statements as they are proposed or if I am responding
to their recommendations that they believe support those statements.
They are often different answers.
April 22, 2009, River Grove, IL
Dear fellow-members of the Body of Christ,
Thank you for your e-mail message!
One of the questions involved here is that we are faced with the age-old problem of making rules or laws, for which the Creator did not equip us, because He, and He alone, is the Lawgiver! One of the aspects of His Being that He did not include in the Image of God in which He created us is this ability to make laws.
The real essence of sin is involved here. What Satan was able to do in his temptation of Eve and Adam was to persuade them that they could be "like God" in knowledge and ability, including the authority and capability to make laws for themselves. Of course that was a lie, coming from the father of lies. Eve and Adam were duped into thinking that they could set aside the clear Command of God, His "Law", in other words, and make the laws they chose to obey. But God never created us to be Lawmakers, never gave us that ability, since His Laws for us are perfect and sufficient. Unfortunately, all of us human beings who are the offspring of Adam and Eve are infected with the same basic sin: we also continue to make the laws for ourselves as we go along, and we obey our laws rather than to obey the Laws God has given us. That is the essence of our sin, our sinfulness, the curse from which our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ lived a perfect life of obedience to the Laws of God, and then died a cruel death on the Roman cross to redeem us.
Basically, that is the reason our "laws" are so flawed and imperfect that we have to revise them at intervals because they get so convoluted and top-heavy they become a burden and a roadblock instead of the map and guide that the Perfect Law of God is for us and our life. The dangerous tendency in our law-making is that they eventually lead to creating a demi-god, a central authority which tries to make the "rulers" omniscient and omnipotent by concentrating the authority in fewer and fewer hands. We will object and say that is not our intention, but such excuses are ready-made and supplied by the one who wishes to destroy us. Just look at what he is doing to the E.L.C.A.!
The Church does not need to make laws because God's Word is sufficient. But church bodies are made by us human beings, and because of our sinfulness, we feel the need to make laws, rules, and regulations to govern our self-centered activities. What a tremendous job that is! We are simply not equipped for that task! It can only be achieved by acknowledging our inability, by prayer and supplication to the One who can help us in our weakness and sinfulness.
Please forgive me for my verbosity and ineptness! I am grateful to all those who humbly and prayerfully acknowledge their lack of preparedness for the task, yet are willing to do their God-directed and God-blessed best to accomplish this gargantuan task! May God be with and bless all who are devotedly committed to do the best job of which we flawed human beings are capable, and crown their efforts with His guidance and strength and blessing!
April 21, Bel Air, MD
I have to say, you people are really pathetic.
Why don't you take your hate and isolationism, and become Muslims? The Taliban are always looking for recruits, and maybe you can get a chance to become suicide bombers for your cause.
Stephen, I'm sorry to see that you have gotten yourself mixed up with these losers. I thought a man of your skills and talent would be immune to this kind of stupidity.
April 21, Lagrangeville, NY
It sounds like you want you really want is a response from every
member of every member congregation Why else would you ask that we
publicize this to lay people? According to the Handbook of Synod,
members of Synod are congregations and ministers of religion (ordained
& commissioned). That's one of the problem of the Blue Ribbon Task
Force. According to them "We are Congregations." According to the
Handbook, Synod is congregations and ministers of religion. If we
start to believe that every member of every member congregation are
members of Synod, why shouldn't we give bigger congregations more
votes.
In the future, please try to be clear with your language. In this
context it is important that we be clear as to who really are members
of Synod.
April 21, Aitkin MN
