Part V of Martin Noland’s Essay on Laymens’ Rights — Contemporary Challenges to Laymen’s Rights in the LCMS: The Blue Ribbon Proposal

(Editor’s Note: for an introduction to this essay and for Part I  click here. For Part II click here  and for Part III cilck here  for Part IV click here. This part of the paper completes the section on  “Contemporary Challenges to Laymens’ Rights” and the “Conclusion” of the paper.)

E.   “Transforming Congregations Network”

I believe that the most serious challenge to laymen’s rights in congregations since the Buffalo Synod is the program known as “Transforming Congregations Network” (hereafter TCN).   This is part of the Ablaze movement, under the auspices of the LCMS Mission department.   You can find more about it at the TCN web-site; or go to the synod’s web-site and type its name or TCN in the search window.[i]   TCN has also been known as the “Transforming Churches Network.”

The most objectionable feature of TCN is that it recommends to a congregation that it suspend its constitution and bylaws.   The new bylaws, which replace the original constitution and bylaws, have in every case made the pastor the real authority over all affairs of the church, both temporal and spiritual.   Under the TCN constitution, the congregational voter’s assembly no longer functions as the legal authority for the church, and certainly not as the court of final appeal.

This is a doctrinal issue for Lutherans, because the voter’s assembly is the horizontal dimension of the public activity of the priesthood of all believers.   The vertical dimension of the public activity of the priesthood of all believers is lay participation in worship, such as hymn-singing, confessing the creed, confessing our sins, the prayers of the church, etc.  

TCN convinces its clients that abandonment of their old constitution is necessary in order to bring about growth, especially if the congregation is small or declining.   The threat of decline is usually enough to bring along the skeptical members in the congregation, and if they don’t, they are welcome to leave.

The TCN program does not, of course, depict its features in this way.   The change in constitution is nestled inside a consultation with paid experts on church growth.   Consultation, in itself, is not a bad thing and is often very helpful.   The other recommendations made by the consultation are usually salutary. But every case of consultation that I have heard about, so far, recommends that the old constitution be completely replaced, at least for a mandatory three years.   Farmers would call this deception a “pig in the poke.”

The defenders of TCN, which include some district and synodical officials, will argue that the pastor is “accountable” to the Board of Directors who works with him.   But they don’t tell you that the pastor handpicks the directors, who are the legal authority in the congregation.   He is the only person who can nominate persons to be directors.   The voters then get to “select” which of pastor’s favorites get to be directors.   The handpicked nominees of the pastor will support him at first.   But what if they don’t agree with him?   Why would he put their name on the nomination list when their terms expire?   This structure really makes the directors nothing more than the pastor’s “stooges.”

“Selecting” is not “electing.”   This is a deception intended to undermine democratic procedure and all of laymen’s rights in a congregation.   Political scientists recognize that control of the nomination process in this way is a favorite strategy of dictators, tyrants, and fascists.   And our national headquarters is promoting this!

  Why would any LCMS pastor in his right mind want to undermine laymen’s rights and democracy?   Those who adopt TCN are, in my opinion, not in their right mind.   Either they are completely ignorant about the basic principles of American democracy and laymen’s rights, or they are so scared by decline that they will do anything, even if it is wrong and harmful to their flock.  

There is a third possibility, namely, that some of these pastors who adopt TCN are “wolves in sheep clothing.”   They agree with Baptist minister Paul Borden, the TCN mastermind, who wrote:

Our churches have also assumed [traditionally] that a shepherd functions like a chaplain, caring for a group of sheep.   The biblical model, however, portrays a shepherd as an entrepreneur, who led sheep by still waters and into green pastures so that he could eventually shear them or kill them.[ii]

If that is not the mind and spirit of a wolf waiting to devour sheep, I don’t know what is.

                      When the TCN program was first introduced to the LCMS districts, some LCMS district presidents posed the question whether or not congregational constitutions can be suspended temporarily.   The LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters gave an answer in its reply #08-2519, June 6-7, 2008.   It told the inquirers that unless existing constitutions provide for a suspension, a suspension is in fact a complete amendment.   It told the inquirers that the question of a suspended constitution’s effect on its tax and non-profit status would have to be sent to the IRS and the office responsible in each state.   So the effect on non-profit status and taxes is still, to my knowledge, unknown.

                      I am glad that our district presidents and that Commission followed procedure, but I am disappointed that, to my knowledge, no synodical or district official raised the issue of laymen’s rights in TCN.   I am disappointed that, to my knowledge, many of our synodical and district officials have so casually accepted the TCN program, in which there are no checks and balances in a congregation.   The only reason that a pastor and his handpicked cronies might want to change their constitution is because they want to make changes that would not be accepted by a majority of the congregation.   This is what the TCN program is really all about.

F.   The Church Growth Movement

                      TCN has intruded itself into our affairs, because the Church Growth movement paved its way.   Many leaders in our synod judge everything now by statistical growth and decline.   Many pastors now neglect their visits to hospitals, nursing homes, and shut-ins, because these aging and sick people will never contribute to growth.   Of course, a rich man and his family will get immediate attention, because that man’s resources will contribute to “growth.”   Catechism in the traditional manner of one or two years is drastically shortened, because it can be daunting to potential members.   Sermons, worship, and prayers are revised in order to avoid offending potential members.   Anything contributing to growth is accepted; anything potentially lessening growth is rejected.   For many, growth is their idol.

                      Of course, we do want the church of believers in Christ to grow. I do too, and the Missouri Synod has always been aggressive in its outreach.   Historically the Missouri Synod has been more aggressive in its outreach than any other Lutheran synod in America, and has been envied by the other synods for its growth.   But it is wrong for the church to grow at the expense of ethics or laymen’s rights.   The Church Growth movement is antithetical to laymen’s rights, because it was invented and developed by men who were trying to satisfy the egos of pastors.   For such pastors, laymen are not fellow priests to be worked with and cared for, but sheep to be fleeced, as TCN mastermind Paul Borden aptly says!

The Church Growth movement has given many people the impression that the Missouri Synod did not understand “mission” or “pastoral leadership” before it came along in the 1980s.   The truth is that good outreach, pastoral leadership, and church administration has been with the Missouri Synod for a long time.   Our forefathers were no dummies, as is obvious in any of our congregational histories!   Even as late as the 1970s, many congregations were following programs devised by Pastor Guido Merkens of Saint Antonio and his “Living Lutheran Leadership” program for laymen.   Merken’s programs are still useful, in my opinion.[iii]

The Church Growth movement has been responsible for the wide acceptance of “contemporary worship” in our synod, as well as other church bodies in the United States.   Change in worship is the way in which the movement has most publicly manifested itself.   The worship topic is another lecture in itself.   But you have a right to know where I stand on this topic, since you may think my real complaint about the Church Growth movement is worship.

In my theology of worship, I am neither a traditionalist nor a modernist.   Traditionalists say that we can only use the forms of worship inherited from the Lutheran past.   Modernists say that we can use those old forms, but they are not effective among the modern generation, and will contribute to decline.   I follow the position of Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article Ten, Church Usages.   This confessional position, to which all our pastors and congregations subscribe, states that worship practices must meet the criteria of “good order, Christian discipline, evangelical decorum, and the edification of the church.”[iv]  

What does this mean?   “Good order” means that laymen can follow along and participate.   “Christian discipline” means that the congregation is instructed about their faith.   “Evangelical decorum” means that God’s gifts in Word and Sacraments, as also the prayers of the congregation, are treated with respect.   “Edification of the church” means that those in the congregation who are the true believers should be comforted and encouraged by the Word, Sacraments, and prayers, even if many of those attending worship think these things are “boring.”   If a case of contemporary worship meets these criteria, then I will be for it.   If a case of traditionalist worship fails these criteria, then I will be against it.   My experience is that congregations that follow our synodical hymnals and agendas are on firm ground in meeting these criteria, while those that don’t are frequently entertaining the world, not edifying the faithful.

One book bears great responsibility for the current misunderstanding about the Missouri Synod’s past effectiveness and for promoting “contemporary worship.”   That book, called Evangelical Style and Lutheran Substance,[v] greatly distorts Lutheran and Missouri Synod history, while promoting the basic ideas of the Church Growth “experts.” The book’s basic argument is that to grow, Lutheran congregations can no longer be Lutheran or they will die.   The author, David Luecke, says that we can still teach Lutheran doctrine, but we can’t be Lutheran or we will die.   This argument comes out of the same mold as Episcopal Bishop Shelby Spong’s book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die (1999).  

One organization has been particularly effective in promoting the ideas and attitudes of the church growth movement.   This is the Jesus First organization,[vi] which actively and successfully campaigns for candidates for synodical office, often in unethical ways.[vii]   In the most recent issue of the Jesus First newsletter, David Luecke unfairly criticizes the Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis faculty.   Luecke’s complaint is that our seminary faculty, in a recent issue of the Concordia Journal, [viii] encourages our congregations to uphold the common interests of the church.  

What is wrong with our seminary faculty’s counsel, according to Luecke?   His Jesus First article “Congregation-Led Entreprenuership Is Necessary”[ix] argues that congregations need to think and act primarily out of “self-interest.”   If this argument from Luecke is accepted, then the synod will collapse.   Our synod is established on common interests, not personal or congregational self-interest.   Luecke and the leaders of the Jesus First organization need to read the Missouri Synod’s Constitution, Article II, regarding the reason for forming the synod.   This article states that it is “Our Lord’s will that the diversities of gifts should be for the common profit, I Corinthians 12:4-31.”

Luecke’s article is an unusual, and perhaps unintentional, revelation.   It reveals that he, and the leaders of the Jesus First organization, apparently do not understand the meaning of Christian love.   Christian love often has to work contrary to self-interest and always works for the common good.[x]

G.   “High Priest” Idea

One other movement has intruded itself in our affairs.   Although its influence is limited, it can be disastrous when and where it takes root.   That is the Roman Catholic idea that the pastor is the authority in the church over both spiritual and temporal affairs, because of his ordination, call, or ministerial status.   I am calling this the “high priest” idea, since a high priest claims more status than a common priest.   I believe that this idea took root in the 1950s due to the teaching and influence of Arthur Carl Piepkorn.   Richard John Neuhaus, who later joined the Roman Catholic church, acknowledged that his biggest theological influence was Piepkorn.[xi]   Piepkorn was the leader of what become known as the “evangelical-catholic” movement in the LCMS, and its current journals of opinion are Lutheran Forum and Forum Newsletter.

One of the manifestations of this movement is the tendency to call our district presidents “bishops” or our pastors “father.”   Those terms carry significant freight with them, and should be avoided by Lutherans.   Another manifestation is the unilateral use of the “lesser ban” by the pastor, which our synod rejected explicitly early on its history.[xii] The term “lesser ban” is a fancy term for “excommunication,” i.e., withholding communion from a congregation member as a form of discipline.

The biblical procedure for excommunication is as follows:   If a pastor in an LCMS church is going to exert discipline, and the person being disciplined refuses to accept it, he has to bring the case to the elders.   If the person being disciplined still refuses, they have to bring it before the voters, prior to the ban going into effect.   That principle is there in order to protect laymen’s rights, and we should never abandon it.

V.   Conclusion

                      In my opinion, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the best church option going in the United States for people who want to be real Lutherans.   Current challenges, as described in this article, do not change my assessment of this fact.   I intend to stay in our church-body until the Lord takes me home.   I am teaching my children about what is good and what is great about our church, so that they will be encouraged to stay with our church and our faith when they become adults.

                      That does not mean that the synod has a carte blanche as far as my support and membership is concerned.   If the Missouri Synod continues to follow the direction set by TCN, or if the synod makes it a policy, and trains its clergy, to trample on laymen’s rights, I may have second thoughts.   After all, I want to belong to a real Lutheran church that teaches and practices in accord with the Scriptures, the Confessions, and the insights of Martin Luther.   I hope that is what you want, and that you will join me in trying to keep the Missouri Synod in that faith, doctrine, and practice.

[i]   As of this date, the LCMS web-site is at:; and the TCN web-site is at:  

[ii]   From Paul Borden’s interview with John Mark Ministries.   Found at:   on 3/19/2009

[iii]   See for example, Guido A. Merkens, Organized for Action:   How to Build a Successful Parish and Its Program (Saint Louis:   Concordia Publishing House, 1959).

[iv] FC SD, X, 9; see Tappert, p. 612.   See also Martin Chemnitz’s explanation of these criteria in his first volume of the Examination of the Council of Trent.

[v] David S. Luecke, Evangelical Style and Lutheran Substance (Saint Louis:   Concordia Publishing House, 1988).

[vi]   A number of years ago, I wrote an article titled “What is Jesus First?”   The organization was only about a year old at the time, and people were wondering who its leaders and members were, and what it was all about.   I did extensive research and found that many of its members had been involved in a variety of organizations, including a pro-charismatic group, a pro-women’s ordination group, a pro-Evangelical-worship group, and a more “middle of the road” group called Lutherans Alive.   Some members of Jesus First had also been supportive of the people who were involved in “Seminex” and the AELC.   But it was not evident at that time what ideas or attitudes would dominate the Jesus First group.   Now ten years later, it appears to me that the ideas and attitudes of the Church Growth movement, combined with a tolerance toward the other groups, best explains the position of Jesus First and its leaders.   I would not be surprised if some of its original supporters have since pulled back support, since their specific goals and ideas have not found resonance in the organization.

[vii] At the 2007 convention, the Jesus First newsletter slandered Secretary Raymond Hartwig in order to unseat him.   They were not successful, because their lies had no element of truth.   This is just the most recent, and most public, of many cases of unethical behavior by this organization.  

[viii]   See Concordia Journal (Winter 2009).

[ix] See Jesus First (September 2009), at:     Specifically on this point, Luecke says, “[Concordia] Journal authors Erik Herrmann and David Schmitt worry that principles of self-interest are becoming too dominant.   But that is how it has always been.   Why would a congregation join and stay in a synod other than for reasons of self interest?”

[x] See also Romans 12:10, 14:19, 15:2; Galatians 5:13-14, and Philippians 2:1-5, among others.

[xi] The memorial issue of First Things included Neuhaus’ tribute to his mentor Piepkorn, see First Things No. 192 (April 2009): 94.   Confirmation of Piepkorn’s influence is seen in Jim Neuchterlein’s tribute, ibid., page 42; and of Neuhaus’ connection to the ALPB, Lutheran Forum, Forum Letter, and other “evangelical-catholic” persons and institutions, in Saltzmann’s tribute, ibid., page 59-61.

[xii]   See Walther, 23, which is Ministry Thesis IX.C.   The Missouri Synod’s first doctrinal resolution also dealt with the matter of unilateral excommunication and firmly rejected that practice, in response to a case involving Pastor L.F.E. Krause of Wisconsin.   See 1847 LCMS convention proceedings in   Synodal Berichte 1847, pages 11-13.   The text in German and English can be obtained in:   The Doctrinal Resolutions of the National Conventions of the LC-MS, 1847-2004  (Saint Louis:   Concordia Historical Institute, 2006), CD-ROM.


Part V of Martin Noland’s Essay on Laymens’ Rights — Contemporary Challenges to Laymen’s Rights in the LCMS: The Blue Ribbon Proposal — 18 Comments

  1. Pastor Noland,
    Thank you so much for writing this article. It is painfully bittersweet to read. It is what I saw, experienced, and watched, w/horror at our last church. Three times over before we departed it & the LCMS. That reference to the Jesus First article, hit home. I have that, in hard copy. It explained why & what we were seeing (last 3 congregations) & why we chose to confront, & were told ” the Bible doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone” from the BOE & Pastor of our last LCMS church. My husband & I are still reeling & healing from the damage, violation, betrayal, and collateral damage done to our family thru TCN, Ablaze! & Fan the Flame. To the deepest level of a lamb’s soul!

    The damage, violation, betrayal of trust, is most evident & felt by our 12 year old son. Everything his parents taught him, was proved false, by the people he was taught to trust the most!!! By a Pastor, Elder,Youth Leaders, & fellowshiping (family in Christ) brothers & sisters. We were shunned, as the Amish do, for speaking, acting, on the Truth of Christ’s Word & our Denominational Foundations, (think what Luther did at Worms, you’ll get the jist). The damage done to our son, we are still trying to repent, recompence, and re teach, w/submission & obedience to our Lord & doctrines. It did damage untold to that little boy!!! For who, what & to what end? It Spiritually harmed my husband, my son, & myself, in ways unspeakable.

    It is my prayer, as a parent, what we raised & taught that sweet little boy, still holds some Truth, even in the midst of the betrayal he has seen & felt,(that poor wee lamb). No Pastor, should ever put a child, in a position, where they would have to choose between their parents & that congregation. To force a parent, to contridict a Pastor, on the ride home from church, is MOST VILE.

    That is what TCN, Jesus First, Purpose Driven Church directives, do. What a choice, to place on any lamb, let alone a wee one (Johannes, macht schnell mit dem Papier am dem kleine, ja!!!). I pray, if my husband & I, do anything right as parents, it will be in this. His Eternal Life depends on what my baby hears on any given Sunday & what he hears at home! His parents are products of his Grandfather’s Church, if his parents no longer recognize what they knew & were taught, how in the world can he?!
    What that little boy, watched & heard happen, to his parents, what they did & were encouraged to do, by elder family members, for the sake of the LCMS, (in our little corner of it) & watched the fall out & collateral damage done, what more can, we as parents do? To preserve the Truth, for him, for Christ’s sake?!

    If you ever had any doubt, what horrid, long reaching damage, TCN, Ablaze! Fan the Flame, & CGM/Emergent Christianity does, remember this post. My little boy will….and does.

  2. To any who may read post #1,
    Advice is readily accepted, most needed, and greatly warrented. What should I say to a child who has been betrayed by his church, pastor, & those who was taught to trust? I may be 40, but I am still waiting for an answer on this too!

  3. What should I say to a child who has been betrayed?

    I’d have a hard time answering this, other than to relate that he now knows in part what Christ went through when He was betrayed by Judas and handed over to the authorities to be crucified, and that he’s seen first hand how Satan can work even in places and through people in positions of trust.

    In the end, the issues he’s having to work through pertaining to who he can trust will require a long, long time to heal. I’d suggest finding a counseling resource that works from a Christian basis to help all of you heal as you work through these issues.

    My prayers are with you.

  4. I just wonder, however, if there might be a better way of expressing these same concerns rather than the political language of “rights.” I don’t think it is the most biblical term. Perhaps better to say, “To whom is it given?” It is vocational.

    The history of the term “right” is left hand political. Unless we delve into “social contract” language, we’d do better by ourselves if we stick to biblical vocabulary. Vocabulary shapes our thinking and behavior. If we’re going to talk about laymen’s rights then we’ll end up talking about pastor’s rights, women’s rights, and whatever else. I’m not sure we want to derive our language from Rousseau, Locke, et al.

    Likewise we shouldn’t borrow the language of sociology or theatre in this regard – as we fall into using the term “role.” That has problems that take vocation and creation out of the realm of the particular vocations and orders of creation. “Right” opens the way to legalism whereas “role” opens the way to Gnosticism.

  5. Tim,
    Thanks bunches for your post. Making these things age appropriate for a kid is a toughie. The issues haven’t followed him in any other respect, except regarding church & church fellowship. Being shunned, is a hard thing for an adult, but for a kid, it’s a bit more tough. We have sought a fair bit of advice (Pastoral), and we are doing what we ought to be. Those moments are few now, but we had one this morning. Oddly enough, over CCM vs hymns & liturgy vs CW. He misses the feeling, (oi vey). But, feelings & knowings, are two different things. One doesn’t last, the other can never be lost.
    He gets all this, truly he does, but the memories of what was lost & done, sometimes sneak up on him, (if they do w/ us adults, it will w/kids who love the Lord & their church too).
    TCN bears bad fruit, no other way to say it: bad roots, bad tree, bad branches = bad fruit. Bad fruit makes you sick & causes momentary pain. Whether actual or figurative.

    I pray Johannes is quick w/that write up. I’ve seen what TCN peddles, to adults & to the youth, and what happens, when someone stands up & says NO. Goods, fame, child, and wife, let these all be gone, they have yet nothing won. That is a tough lesson to learn in the life of a Believer, our son just learned & was blest in the knowing, a bit on the young side. There is many a blessing in this, you really don’t have to look too hard for them!
    He is a well grounded kid, tough age, tough thing to happen. His Faith, is amazing to his parents, but hurts can still sting a bit while their healing. Should never have happenned, and happens much to much, to far too many w/TCN & Ablaze!.

  6. Pastor Frahm,
    Your right in what you say, but constitution & bylaw aren’t Biblical terms either. Terms were defined prior, so the terms Pastor Nolan uses are acceptable, under the dictates already meeted out. We can wish it were different, but it is what it is.

  7. My issue not simply that they aren’t biblical terms, but that they bring with them a lot of baggage from other realms. I think the continued usage of these terms has brought on a lot of the problems we are facing – left hand kingdom, business mindset. Sometimes we do not realize how our less than circumspectly chosen nomenclature ends up undermining our theology.

  8. Oh, Pastor Frahm, I totally agree w/you! Constitutions, bylaws, ammendments, point of order, rights, priviliges, etc. Oi vey. How in the world, did we get this all so muddied?

  9. Whoo! Borden gets my vote for cynic of the year. And the LCMS bureaucrats who endorse this view, my vote for co-conspirator. What a disturbing thing, that those “leaders” would subscribe to such a distorted interpretation of the 23rd Psalm.

    Pastor Noland, meanwhile, gets my hurrah yet again.

    For what all that’s worth. 😎

  10. This is the generation that will give away all that our fathers and grandfathers worked for.
    I cannot even fathom my father or grandfather (or myself for that matter) willingly suspend the congregations constititution. What in the world! They would have shown them the curb, or shove them down the river without a padddle. This is what happens when we think we can do better. The problem is, the solution is too easy! It’s all been done for you! Let the Holy Spirit do the work.

    Ya know, You folks out of St. Louis. I think you can focus better than I can.
    I get to drive past the JF HQ and the SOB to and from work, day in and day out.
    I vurp every time I think of what new outdated program will spew forth from the bottom of lake LCMS on Kirkwood Rd.

    The only thing that keeeps me going is that there is still some good things coming out of the palace.

    There are better men than me, brighter, well spoken etc. I will support those men. That is what my duty / right is.


  11. @John Hooss #11
    When the Means of Grace are no longer seen as efficacious, a “program mentality” sets in. Programs that promise growth are invited “in” and they replace the Gospel with the Law. TCN is simply the latest church growth program of the day. It’s that simple.

    I’m afraid a lot of sincere hard-working and well-meaning Christian people are going to be very disappointed.

  12. The spread of TCN/Church Growth mentality at the local, district, and synod level is concerning to say the least. Many of our supposed servants or shepherds have become consumed with and corrupted by power and their desire to do things their way. They trample on sheep under the guise of their love for and desire to save lost souls. The thing that gives the wolves away is their lack of love for the souls of at least some of the sheep already under their care. The Good Shepherd will always provide for and protect His sheep. The pastures are green and the water still. We need fear no evil, for Jesus Christ is with us, His rod and His staff do comfort us.

    Thanks Dr. Noland for your fine essay.

  13. We are looking at introducing TCN at the District level here in Canada (with some changes as I understand it). Does anyone have any evidence of the results form a congregation (or preferably a few) that show what happens to one of these congregations that has gone through this process?


  14. @P.W. #14
    Unfortunately, the story is incomplete. I know some congregations have decided not to continue TC after being exposed to it–I don’t know who they are. Most of the congregations I am familiar with are still in the middle of things, so there is little to report. The “some changes” you talk about must be substantive, or the program will be just another CG program. For one thing, the accountable leader business must be dropped. The Gospel, which is missing from all the TC prescriptions I have seen (about 20 or so), must be integrated into the prescriptions. I recently visited the Seminary in Fort Wayne, and found out that the Indiana District is doing a “Revitalization” type program, but I don’t have any info on that. It sounds similar to TC in methodology–self study, weekend visit, presentations & prescriptions, but without TC’s onerous flaws, but I have no specifics.

    I think you’d be well served to contact them and see what you can find out.

    If you are considering TC, beware!

  15. Johannes,
    Make quick w/the wee one article. My little boy does know a wee bit of what goes on at this site, and he & I are waiting. You KNOW how horrid this perverts Scripture & Doctrine for youth & young ones. That has not been spoken much of here. Post it, as you have it!
    Members, youth, wee ones, “mature” ones, need to know what you have been writing!
    Perfection, isn’t expected, facts & Scriptural Truth is all that is warranted. What you may write in the article posted, may inform & reform many Johannes.

  16. @Pr. John A. Frahm #4

    Thank you for your comments on “rights” and “roles”, Pr. Frahm!
    Those terms made me wince all through the Rossow/Noland article.

    The only thing that was more surprising to me was the comment on Guido Merkens.
    “Even as late as the 1970s, many congregations were following programs devised by Pastor Guido Merkens of Saint Antonio and his “Living Lutheran Leadership” program for laymen. Merken’s programs are still useful, in my opinion.” –Noland/Rossow

    I don’t know what Guido was doing in the 70’s. In the 80’s/90’s his “big church” methods were draining surrounding congregations of talented members, according to comments made by their Pastors. [“Sheep stealing” is a virtue in CG. St Mark, Houston, did much the same thing with an all city choir program. Theoretically, the choir members were to go back and improve the music in their home congregations. Actually, it didn’t work out that way.]
    Guido’s church was a model… until they got overly ambitious, moved to the upscale side of town and into more building debt than the members wanted to repay. By then, in classic CG fashion, Guido was gone; his successor also left and went to South America.
    (I haven’t paid attention since the buzz over that last died down.) 🙁

  17. “One of the manifestations of this movement is the tendency to call our district presidents ‘bishops’ or our pastors ‘father.’ Those terms carry significant freight with them, and should be avoided by Lutherans.” (Dr Noland’s statement above).

    I actually agree with this for the most part. However, there is a large group of devout, confessional Lutherans who use these phrases. I prefer “Pastor” to “father.” Frankly, we should refrain from using “bishops” because we don’t have bishops. We could have bishops, but DPs are not bishops.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.