Comments on: Comprehensive Analysis on the Blue Ribbon Proposals Part 10 ““ Recommendation #7: To What Extent does your Congregation Actually Need and Use District and Synod? by Pr. Rossow

By: Todd Wilken

Todd Wilken — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:53:40 +0000

WRL,

Yes, if these proposals pass, it will because of the myth of LCMS Exceptionalism is still alive and well (and is being used by the synodical president and his task force) in the LCMS.

By: wrl

wrl — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:45:33 +0000

To clarify my comment above “(from people who don’t like centralized secular government)”:

The irony is that people who don’t like centralized secular government can at the same time not be bothered by centralized power in the Synod. I can only attribute that to LCMS Exceptionalism.

By: wrl

wrl — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:07:39 +0000

Sometimes it’s hard to know if resistance to criticism is coming solely from Jesus First supporters. I recently spoke to someone who has been studying the Task Force Report for months, a devout Lutheran and a good man. When I pointed out that #18 centralizes power, he countered with quotes from the report where they say the BRTF will “de-centralize” power (and quotes about “harmony” and “unity”, and of course Walther quotes). I countered that that’s the problem, in my book, that constitutional and bylaw language must be very precise, and that the whole report says one thing on one hand and makes proposals that are just the opposite. He and I should not be reading the same thing and walk away with two different conclusions, I said. He also countered that there are checks and balances throughout the Constitution, especially with the Board of Directors. I point out that they’re selling #18 as a way to save money partially, but that Synod Treasurer (who is on the Task Force) says it is net neutral.

No matter what points I used, I got the feeling that because this is what the Synod has proposed after careful study, and is going to all this effort promoting it at regional meetings, we should go along with it. There was no discussion of whether this proposal or that proposal was good or bad, just a sort of blanket approval of the whole thing; a sort of “if this is what the proposal says, then it must be true” attitude. To my knowledge, this person knows little of the history of proposals (how they were put forward by Jesus First at 2004 convention and voted down) and doesn’t seem particularly interested in any of that. Nor did he really know what is dividing the Synod. But he does think that there’s a lot of unwarranted criticism of our Synodical President.

I think what I was coming up against was Pastor Wilken’s description of LCMS Exceptionalism. There are those that have little or no connection to the politics, but act as if everything that the Synod proposes must be good and correct, and that local congregations need to follow. And that criticism of anything coming out of the Synod is somehow improper (from people who don’t like centralized secular government). I have even heard the comment, “Even if #18 centralizes power, would that be bad if we’ve elected a God-fearing man?”

Answer: No matter who gets elected, centralized power seduces even the best. We have checks and balances in our structures because we are all sinful human beings.

By: helen

helen — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:27:03 +0000

@wrl #15 Berko angry in a unreasonable way Thank you, wrl. [Google failed.] I take it then that JF(Politics First) didn't appreciate your noticing the proposed concentration of power (and control over the budget)?

By: Paul Becker

Paul Becker — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:29:02 +0000

now, why would the SP want to do that?!

By: Todd Wilken

Todd Wilken — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:27:47 +0000

Did anyone at any of these meetings mention that passage of proposal 18 would mean that the President of Synod would personally control 70-80% of synod’s $81 million budget?

By: PPPadre

PPPadre — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:01:24 +0000

@Johannes #11
Johannes,

At the St. Louis meeting, the question was asked whether it was top proposals we wanted or top priorities to be addressed/changed/corrected/defeated. Several tables made it quite explicitly clear that their top priorities were items they wanted voted down.

Do you have the list from the Dearborn meeting? I don’t have that one yet for my research project – which has expanded into a presentation for our District Pastors Conference in about 6 weeks.

By: Rev. Roger Sterle

Rev. Roger Sterle — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 04:36:15 +0000

@STEVEN BOBB #12 It would be similar to when the "confessionals" had some changes made in the constitution and by-law to help their cause while a good man was president. He was defeated and the changes were now being used against the conservative/confessional cause. I tried to find the examples before writing but it is late and I could not. Maybe someone with better computer files would be able.

By: wrl

wrl — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 00:47:01 +0000

@helen#9

“Translate â€œgo berkoâ€ (if you can do that on a public site).”

Ooops…Australian slang…

Berko
angry in a unreasonable way

Berko, gone
gone mad, looks like going mad

By: PPPadre

PPPadre — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:48:25 +0000

@Brian Yamabe #13 Fabulous! Thank you very much. 2 down, 7 to go!