08 December 2009

On Politics and the Synod

Mostly a summary of a letter to a friend this morning on the topic:

First, the Synod isn't of divine institution. The Synod is a gathering of congregations and pastors that ARE of divine institution. At least, that's what it always has been. Its goal originally was to do together those things which we had difficulty or found impossible to do alone. And one of its tasks as it gathers is to elect officers for this humanly devised organization that seeks to be in service to the divinely instituted congregations and ministry.

If politics becomes more than politics, you are correct [it just becomes Satan's playground]. But it need not become more than politics, and so Satan's victory. It can simply be a fraternal discussion within the Church by which we seek to discern and, once we have discerned, persuade one another regarding whom we regard as the better placed man to hold a given position.

A discussion of why we think so, why this man and not that, need not be damaging to the Church at all if it is done with the charity we are expected to show to everyone. This is true especially when we remember that every candidate for office is fractured, damaged and in need of forgiveness - just like us! So we pray for wisdom, use the minds God has given us, and seek to love all, even and especially those with whom we disagree.

Above all, we pray that God's good, gracious and perfect will be done through this whole process. In this way politics in the Synod are rendered relatively harmless.

6 comments:

Mike Keith said...

It would seem to me that this is very well said.

The Renegade said...

Amen, Brother Weedon.

I particularly appreciate your observation that the synod is to be in service to the divinely-instituted congregations and pastors. So often synod and its organizations seem focused on achievement of corporate national/international goals and growth, rather than just supporting and serving the local manifestation of "Church" in what they are called to do.

More importantly, I heartily echo the "if it is done with the charity we are expected to show to everyone" of your third paragraph. I (and many others) have sometimes been less than charitable in portraying various individuals, depending on my support or objection to their views. I need repent each time I do. Kyrie Eleison!

Anonymous said...

As a long time LCMS member, I have been mortally disheartened by this matter.

Sometimes, we parishioners get caught in the middle of this. It seems that too many pastors who would usually take the rightful middle ground are taking either one extreme or the other so to prove their point. It's my soul that is caught in the politics as each side overreacts to the other and Satan takes his hold.

Article VII: Of the Church.
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints,
in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3]
the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or
ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.
4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one
God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.

In Christ.

Dan @ Necessary Roughness said...

The "we don't want our liturgy to change, EVER" argument strikes me a bit like a Garrison Keillor caricature that we Lutherans tend to assent to in order that we look like we have some sense of humor.

The liturgy is a safeguard against bad theology. The Creed is a safeguard against bad theology. Ditto the Lord's Prayer. The Kyrie. Confession and Absolution.

So when we ditch these things in the name of FC X, adiaphora, or what not, we have to examine what we are replacing them with. In my experience, this good stuff gets eschewed in favor of CCM Top 40, trusting in one's emotions to determine whether the Spirit is there, "I love you God" songs that say nothing about what God has done, or other gunk.

The ceremonies are not the problem. It's the enthusiasm, the Methodism, and the business models being crammed down the church's throat that we have a problem with.

William Weedon said...

The sad thing that tends to be ignored (and is ignored in the DP's theses, by the bye) is that all these folks lived under territories where liturgy was "imposed" (to use that loaded term). The Visitor saw to it that the liturgy used in each parish matched that published for that territory in the Church Order published for it. They weren't all the same (the Church orders) but within the territories, the liturgies WERE to be conducted according to the book. Period. And they never regarded that as in any way breaching AC V because they knew that what makes for good order and can be required for that reason must be taught as "not necessary for salvation." But the idea of each congregation doing willy-nilly whatever the pastor or congregation comes up with was utterly foreign to the folks who put together the Book of Concord.

Anonymous said...

Just to try to get some understanding...is the liturgy currently a big point of contention politically in the LCMS?

We've had a very traditional church for nearly two centuries. Over the last few months, we've been getting propaganda in newsletter and from the pulpit from our pastor defending the liturgy. As far as I know, no one in our congregation has disputed the use of the liturgy.


I don't mind this information, but it gets so extreme that it begins to butt into the time when we should be meditating on the liturgy not reading propaganda made to battle the synod.

Common congregation members are less concerned with the political affairs of the synod. We come to worship the Lord and have fellowship with one another. Political battles should not be waged from the pulpit.