Comprehensive Analysis of the Blue Ribbon Proposals on Structure & Governance, Proposal 1 – Manipulation and Deception by the Task Force, by Pr. Rossow
This is a continuing series analyzing the final report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Structure and Governance (BRTFSG). I started out with the troubling revelation that the proposals are based on the work of non-Lutheran consultants (10/28/09) and a follow up a few days later focusing on the fact that these consultants cost you and I one half a million dollars (10/29/09). I then jumped to the “Conclusion” of the proposals to illustrate the Task Force’s abuse of a Walther text in a failed attempt to demonstrate that Walther supports their misleading views on “the mission of God” and the place of evangelism in the role of structuring the church (11/02/09). In this post I will move beyond the opening and closing sections of the final report and begin considering the proposals themselves.
Recommendation #1 – Affirm and Clarify Governing Documents
Here is the text of Recommendation #1:
Amplify, affirm, and clarify the Preamble of the Synod’s Constitution (Reasons for the Existence of a Synod), Article II (Confession), Article III (Mission and Purpose), Article VI (Requirements of Membership), and Article VII (Relation of Synod and Its Members).
Klemet Preus has already posted a fine blog critiquing the Task Force’s proposal to change Article II of the LCMS constitution so I will focus on other matters. I would like to focus on the process that the Task Force describes in Recommendation #1 and alert all delegates to next summer’s LCMS convention and all members of LCMS churches to a troubling manipulation of statistics and an attempted deception of the good folks of the LCMS by the Task Force.
The Task Force makes this claim in their description of the recommendation:
In the feedback received from the thousands of delegates at the 2009 district conventions, the task force was encouraged by the 83 percent of respondents either agreeing strongly or agreeing with this recommendation.
This is a deception. The Task Force claims that 83% of the thousands of district conventioneers who filled out surveys on the proposals agreed with the proposal. Here is the text from the Task Force’s district convention survey:
No. 1: Affirm in Our Governing Documents the Mission and Purpose of Our Synod
Goal: Affirm in our governing documents that the reason for the Synod’s existence is for congregations to walk together in God’s mission and to serve one another for His purpose of saving all people through Jesus Christ (Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 12).
Current Problem or Deficiency:
Current wording in our synod’s Constitution fails to underscore the continuity of the Synod’s commitment to Christ, Scripture, Confessions, and the mission of God.
Update our Constitutional language to clarify our:
- Reasons for existence.(the current Preamble.)
- Confession (Art. II)
- Mission and purpose.(Art. III)
- Conditions of Membership (Art. VI)
- Relation of the Synod to its members (Art. VII).
Rationale: Affirm and clarify that Christ and His mission are the center of our common confession, while assuring that the confessional basis of our Synod remains unchanged.
The conventioneers had all of 90 seconds to reflect on this and state their reaction to it. The problem with the claim that 83% of the respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with this proposal is that they did not know what they were agreeing or strongly agreeing to! Let me explain.
Who would oppose the goal, recommended solution and rational as described above? As described it would be like opposing baseball, apple pie and motherhood. Look at the rationale specifically. Who would oppose “affirming and clarifying that Christ and His mission are the center of our common confession, while assuring that the confessional basis of our Synod remains unchanged?” I am surprised that 17% of the conventioneers opposed this. Actually I am not surprised by the 17%. I have a partial explanation for it. First let me explain what was missing from the survey managed and controlled by the Task Force.
The survey did not include the proposed changes to the constitution and even if it did, the 90 seconds allowed to consider the proposal before voting would not have been near enough time to understand all of the ramifications of four significant constitutional changes!
Now let me explain the 17%. Many of the 17% had most likely read a website that got a lot of circulation on Lutheran blogs and here at the Brothers of John the Steadfast. It was put on the web by “Four Interested Laymen.” (To view the site and take the Task Force’s survey click here.) The Interested Laymen posted the Task Force’s questionnaire word for word but in addition to the rationale given by the Task Force they also published the other side of the issue. They gave a balanced pro and con so that their respondents could give a fair and balanced response to each proposal. Here is the rationale they gave against Recommendation #1:
Other Thoughts to Consider:
This first issue will take up more of our time than most of the others since the proposals would have us change the very objectives that the synod has had since its early history.
In order to understand this first proposal you will have to take the time to review the committees proposed changes to the synods constitution (click here or on the sidebar to the left). This first proposal has to do with Article III Objectives.
(The following is a summary of points 8-11 in the “Review of Constitutional Amendments.”) First consider that the existing article title “Objectives” is preferable to the trendy new proposed term “Mission and Purpose.” “Objectives” speak of something lasting and enduring which is appropriate for the Christian faith. “Mission” is a word that comes out of the business world and is trendy, less than a generation old. “Purpose” comes out of the pagan existentialist philosophy of the twentieth century and is grounded in man’s desires rather than the more external matters of the more preferable term “objectives.” The proposed new wording is also long-winded and ambiguous. This would be a hasty and trendy change of terminology.
The next consideration is subtle but important. The proposed language in III.A.2. would have the LCMS manifesting “the unity of the true faith in Jesus Christ.” This speaks of a personal unity among LCMS members. The current language does not distinguish this from manifesting “confessional unity within the synod” which is not about a personal unity between LCMS members but an objective truth that we share revealed in Scripture. The current wording does not have us manifesting unity with one another because the unity is manifested in the Lutheran faith that we share. Basing unity on personal relations would lead to all sorts of ungodly unity between the LCMS and churches that do not confess all of the truth of the Bible. The current wording is sufficient and does not open the door to an emphasis on personal unity outside of doctrinal unity.
A further consideration is that proposed III.B.8 eliminates the phrase “encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice” found in the current III.7. The wording in the current III.7 is offensive to many people in the Missouri Synod who wish to “go beyond” good Lutheran practice. There are many persons in the synod who claim that worship practice and church polity are completely “adiaphora,” (neither commanded nor forbidden by God) and that the attempt to “encourage . . .uniformity” is legalism. Many of them also want a diversity of communion admission policies. One might quote C.F.W. Walther who wrote: “The fact that a truly Lutheran congregation needs neither a definite organization nor a fixed ceremonial instituted by men is attested by Article VII of the Augsburg Confession” (our emphasis; see Walther, The Form of a Christian Congregation [St Louis: CPH, 1963], p. 2-3). But Walther then immediately quotes Luther’s 1539 letter to Buchholzer in which Luther accepts adiaphora “if only the abusus (misuse) is kept away, neither add anything to the Gospel (i.e., New Testament) nor take anything away from it.” Thus both Walther and Luther agree that there are church practices that are not Lutheran or Biblical, so one cannot say that “anything goes” in church practices. The current III.7 has a good balance in that it encourages uniformity for the sake of harmony out of love for the brethren, but also respects “a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith.” The proposed III.B.8 reflects the attitude of people in the synod who don’t care about harmony (concordia), but who have accepted the late 20th century American motto “Do your own thing!”
This is an excellent critique of proposal #1. We also recommend, as we did above, that you read Klemet Preus’ critique of this change as well. He gives an even more in-depth analysis than the “Interested Laymen.”
Out of the 450 people who responded to this first proposal on the Interested Laymen survey, approximately 65% strongly disagreed or disagreed with this proposal. That is a huge difference: 83% agreed at the conventions and 65% disagreed when given a chance to hear both sides of the issue. It is important to note that this cannot be chalked up to a bias of those taking the “Interested Layman” survey because there are some proposals where the results are similar between the “Interested Laymen” survey and the district convention surveys sponsored by and manipulated by the Task Force. For sure, this is not a purely scientific comparison. I do not claim that it is but the stark difference in numbers makes it clear that the biased presentation at the district conventions resulted in biased and manipulated results.
I take no joy in making this assertion. As I have stated elsewhere I have come to have a kindly and good relationship with Robert Greene, the chairman of the Task Force, through numerous e-mails exchanged. I do not know if it was him or others on the committee that devised this manipulative approach to gathering information. I addressed this with the committee only a few weeks into the district convention rotation and asked them to give both sides to the issues but they refused. Based on that refusal, reviewing the vastly divergent results from the two surveys and simply looking at the arrogance of announcing that 83% of the district convention respondents approved this proposal when they didn’t even have time to look at nor reflect on the actual constitutional changes being proposed, I can come to no other conclusion than that this task force appointed by President Kieschnick is trying to pull a fast one on the delegates to next summer’s synod convention by manipulating survey results and claiming that there is 83% agreement on this first recommendation.