President Barry's
Report to Various Synodical Entities
September
2000
The following
information was shared by President Barry at recent meetings of the Synod's
Council of Presidents, the Synod's Board of Directors and the Synod's Comission
on Theology and Church Relations. A PDF
version of this report is available.
District Conventions
in review: This summer
was a busy one for our Synod as our districts all held their conventions.
Looking back on all of them, as I review my notes from the ones I personally
attended, and as I heard from our Synod vice presidents and my representatives
to the others, I think we can say that there was much positive activity among
our districts. I am thankful to God that so many of our districts have gotten
behind the Tell the Good News About Jesus effort. District after district
either made this the highlight of their convention, or endorsed the effort
with very encouraging and positive statements underscoring both the importance
and urgency of this great task our Lord has given us as His disciples, namely,
to tell the Good News about Jesus! I certainly did enjoy the opportunity I
had to be at a number of our district conventions. The thing I enjoy the most
about being at these conventions is the time I have to be with a wide variety
of pastors and laypeople and just visit and chat with them, hearing from them
and learning of their hopes, their dreams and their concerns and observations
about our Synod. I do not think I can adequately express my appreciation for
the many kind words of support and encouragement that I heard. Time and again
people indicated to me how very much they appreciate being a part of a strong,
Christ-centered and Word-based church body. They are concerned by the trends
they notice in both our society and in other Lutheran church bodies and want
us to keep moving forward with our strong commitment to faithfulness, genuine
faithfulness, and then aggressive outreach with the Gospel. I was particularly
impressed that so many of our districts, including our largest districts,
passed words of encouragement and support for our Synod's reaction to the
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. Six new district presidents
are now serving in our Synod as a result of our district conventions. I very
much appreciated and enjoyed getting to know them a bit better during the
new district president orientation that we held here in St. Louis on August
14-15.
Pastoral Leadership
Institute: I had the
chance to meet with the leadership of this organization and once again to
hear of their plans and their hopes for their group. At the same time, I was
able to express a number of concerns and perceptions that exist concerning
PLI out in the church. Recently our Synod's Commission on Constitutional Matters
issued their ruling on questions touching on both the organization and financing
of groups such as the PLI. I have attached this ruling as part of this report.
As synodical president, I have drawn these rulings to the attention of the
entities involved. The Board for Higher Education is moving along with its
careful analysis and study of the PLI. Hopefully, their suggestions will soon
be shared with the whole Synod for its reaction and consideration.
Concordia University
System faculty gathering: In
May I was privileged to present a paper to the Concordia University System's
faculty gathering. The paper underscored the need for our faculties to be
very much involved in the task of recruiting future church workers for our
Synod, spoke to their professional and personal lives as people of God, and
featured comments about their duties as professors for The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod. A copy of the speech is available on the Internet at: www.lcms.org/president/literature.asp.
It is titled, "Professing the Faith."
Church Growth Study
Committee: This committee
is in the process of putting the finishing touch on their study of the Church
Growth Movement and offering insight into how this movement has impacted our
Missouri Synod and then offering direction about how best we as a Synod can
move forward in outreach while retaining our strong Lutheran identity and
enhancing the same. When the paper is released, I am planning on making it
available to our Synod's pastors and then also placing it on the Internet
for all to access and study it.
Meetings with Lutheran
Church leaders: I have
once again had the chance to visit with various church leaders over the past
few months. A number of weeks
ago, representatives of our Synod attended the Evangelical Lutheran Church
of Lithuania's church convention. As a result of that convention, we are going
to move ahead in formal fellowship talks. For this we truly thank and praise
God. You may have read something of this in a recent issue of Reporter. I
wanted to provide you with more details about this remarkable and joyful news.
You will find it both encouraging and inspiring. Over the past several years
there have been increasing contacts between our Synod and the Lithuanian church.
I have had the privilege of meeting with Bishop Kalvanas twice, and my respect
for him and for his church continues to grow. He led a group of most of his
pastors to an intensive theological seminar at Concordia Theological Seminary
in Fort Wayne in recent weeks. They are yet another example of a church body
that is coming to Missouri because of our stand for a genuine confessional
Lutheranism. The Lithuanians' courage was remarkably demonstrated at their
convention when, in spite of open and intense pressure from representatives
of the Lutheran World Federation, they adopted a statement in which they made
clear their intentions when it comes to fellowship with other Christians.
I would like here to quote from the resolution that was adopted by the Lithuanians.
The ELCL possesses
and strives towards the preservation of the right and pure preaching and
teaching of the apostolic Word of God and the correct administration of
the Sacraments as they were instituted by our Lord Himself. This has been
the goal of the confessors of the Augsburg Confession (AC VII) and the Formula
of Concord (FC X, 31). However, we are faced with false doctrines which
endanger the biblical and confessional identity of our Lutheran Church in
Lithuania. Rejecting these false doctrines, we confess the complete authority
of the Bible and its teachings, as it is correctly and unchangingly stated
in the Book of Concord. We can have full fellowship with those Churches
who share with us the same faith and teachings, and which do not ordain
or promote the ordination of women, do not defend homosexual behavior, do
not make compromises on the doctrine of Justification, and who confess that
each communicant in the Holy Communion under the sign of bread and wine
is given and receives the Body and Blood of the Lord.
This is a remarkable
act of courage from this relatively small Lutheran Church that endured so
much under the dark years of Soviet persecution and now must endure the pressure
of left-leaning Lutherans who demand that they compromise their strong confessional
stance, even threats to stop sending them much-needed financial support. I
am struck by the irony of the fact that at precisely the same time that the
Lithuanians take such a courageous stand, there are some Lutherans in our
country, and yes, even some within our own Synod, who would shy away from
such a clear and open statement of truth and instead work to undermine the
position of historic, confessional Lutheranism and the doctrines and practices
of our beloved Synod. There is much we can learn from these our new friends
in Lithuania. May God strengthen and support them in their faithful confession
and may He lead us always to the same bold, courageous witness to the truth
of His Word!
China Evangelical
Lutheran Church, Taiwan: I also recently had the chance to visit with
the leaders of the CELC from Taiwan. They continue to face unique challenges
in their culture as they seek to teach and preach the Gospel to the Chinese
people. Let us remember them in our prayers.
Board for Mission
Services area directors: You may have read and heard about the fact that
our Synod's Board for Mission Services has now deployed personnel around the
world to serve as "area directors." I am attaching to this my report
a copy of the presentation I made to them in July, outlining for them their
dual role as representing the Synodical President as well as their service
representing of the Board for Missions. I would ask that you remember these
individuals in your prayers.
Lutheran Laymen's
League convention: Once
again I had the opportunity to be with these brothers and sisters in Christ
during their convention in Ontario, California. Those who have attended these
conventions know how encouraging it is to be with so many fellow Missouri
Synod Lutherans who share a love for their church and a passion for the work
our Lord has given our Synod to do.
Exploring Church
Careers meeting: In early August I had a chance to bring words of greeting
and then answer questions from a group of over 150 high-school young people
who were in St. Louis participating in a special conference on the subject
of church careers. I very much enjoyed this time with these our young people.
They asked many thoughtful and perceptive questions. A survey taken of the
group after the conference was also very interesting as they commented on
their plans, on their hopes, and on their fears as they serve the Lord and
His church. Once again, this meeting highlighted for me the reality of how
influential their own pastors are in their decision to become a pastor.
Salaries:
I continue to hear from church workers
all across our Synod who indicate that their salaries and living conditions
are substandard. I hear this from pastors and teachers. If the situation that
faces a goodly number of our pastors is of concern, then all the more so for
our teachers. A congregation that does not adequately provide for their church
workers thereby forfeits their right to have church workers. Now having said
that, yes, I know there are situations where a congregation simply is not
able to afford to pay more. That certainly is a reality in some situations.
On the other hand, there are congregations that have a tradition of paying
substandard salaries when they could afford to do better. As one person put
it, "Our congregations must not balance their budgets on the backs of
their church workers."
Tell the Good News
About Jesus: This effort
continues to move ahead very well. We had all the district coordinators here
at the International Center on August 16-17, and I was very pleased to notice
how they have really moved forward with their work. We are definitely now
in the stage of action, rather than just planning, and this is very good to
see. The Evangelism Outreach Through Congregations grant program has been
very successful and we are looking forward to following up on this effort.
I have been impressed to notice that the Southeastern District, and I believe
also the Oklahoma District, have even undertaken their own EOC program, distributing
grants and funds for projects within their districts among their congregations.
That is really something that would be great to see in the rest of our Synod's
districts. During our district coordinator meeting there was an excellent
suggestion made that our districts need to bring together all the congregational
coordinators for encouragement and support.
The PALS program:
I brought recently of
greetings to a gathering of the various individuals across our Synod involved
with the Post-Seminary Applied Learning Seminar series. Their efforts to support
new pastors in their first ministries is bearing much fruit, and this program
surely continues to be a blessing to our Synod.
For the Sake of
the Church: Here just
a word of encouragement that you continue to hold this effort before the eyes
of your district. You may obtain additional information from the Board for
Higher Education here at the International Center. There is also a www site
available that you may wish to make mention of in your district publications:
http://sake.lcms.org.
2001 Convention
planning: We have now
held three convention planning meetings here at the International Center in
anticipation of our Synod's convention next summer. These meetings involve
the key IC staff persons responsible for various aspects of the convention.
As I look ahead, I realize once more that we are going to have a very, very
full agenda for the next convention with many important issues requiring our
attention. We will have as the major feature at the convention the Tell the
Good News About Jesus emphasis. Key theological issues that will come before
the next convention will include the matter of our doctrine and practice of
church fellowship and issues concerning the growing pastoral shortage as we
consider a position that for now I am calling "assisting pastors."
We will be hearing and reacting to reports and recommendations from various
groups, including the National/District structure committee, the committee
working on the revised Handbook, the Church Growth Study Committee and the
Recognized Service Organization Task Force. And to this, of course, we ad
all the necessary reports and overtures that we will be considering from members
of the Synod and the various entities and agencies of the Synod.
Studying fellowship:
I wanted here simply to mention
once again the process that our Synod has chosen to follow in studying the
issue of church fellowship. We are now past the stage where our district conventions
have studied and discussed the CTCR fellowship document. Now the document
is to be studied in pastoral conferences, circuit conferences, teacher conferences,
and within the congregations of our Synod. The CTCR paper is available on
the Internet and may be downloaded and copied by our church workers and congregations.
It is available at the CTCR's www site.
Speaking about
public error in the church: A
number of months Dr. Robert Kuhn requested from both of our seminaries their
formal response to a question about how Matthew 18 and the Eighth Commandment
relate to public error in the church. Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort
Wayne, responded to this request and their response is included in the materials
at the end of my report. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, has not yet responded
to Dr. Kuhn's request.
Contacts with the
Roman Catholics: I was
informed by the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
the Most Reverend Joseph A. Fiorenza, that in response to my request, as well
as the encouragement of the CTCR, the NCCB's Committee for Ecumenical and
Interreligious Affairs has been asked to respond to our request to begin a
dialogue between our two churches. Bishop Fiorenza has asked the Committee
for its thoughts and he informed me that he will notify me of what he hears
from them. The Committee's next meeting is scheduled for early October. When
I hear more about this, I will inform you. Hopefully, we will have a chance
to communicate directly with the Roman Catholic Church about a variety of
issues.
Appendices
to President Barry's report
From
the Minutes of the August 2000 Commission on Constitutional Matters Meeting
160. Questions
Re Actions of District and LCEF (00-2189)
A District President
in a series of letters and communications with the Commission raised a series
of questions regarding the rights of Districts and of the Lutheran Church
Extension Fund over against a non-synodical entity and its leadership. After
discussion that extended over a period of several meetings the Commission
responds as follows.
Question 1: "Can
a District of the Synod 'call' a pastor to serve as the executive of an independent
corporation which is not a congregation or a recognized service organization
of the Synod or an entity of the Synod?"
Opinion:
The Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod do not specifically state that a District may issue a
"call." However, the Bylaws do give recognition to such calls. Bylaw 4.71,
3, speaks of ordained and commissioned ministers who are members of the Synod
and are called or appointed to serve the Synod. Bylaw 2.15, f, specifically
states, in the case of missionaries, "...including a call by a District." Thus,
a District may extend a call. Having concluded that a District may extend
a call, the question then is whether such a call may be made to a pastor to
serve as the executive of an independent corporation which is not a congregation,
nor a Recognized Service Organization (RSO) or an entity of the Synod. Article
XII, 12, of the Constitution of the Synod states: "The Districts are independent
in the administration of affairs which concern their District only, it being
understood, however, that such administration shall always serve the interests
of the Synod." Thus the requirement is established that a District can take
an independent action if: (1) the action relates to an activity which only
affects that District, and (2) the activity serves the best interests of the
Synod. Bylaw 4.07, e, states: "Jurisdiction with respect to everything which
is administered by or for the entire Synod resides in the Synod itself,...."
Whether or not the activity of the independent corporation only concerns the
District which issued the call and whether the activity of the independent
corporation serves the interests of the Synod are questions of fact which
are beyond the authority of the Commission.
Question 2: "Can
a man who has received and accepted such a call remain on the roster of the
Synod?"
Opinion:
(The Commission assumes
that the question is whether the man can remain an active member of the Synod
as that term is defined in Bylaw 2.15.) Bylaw 2.15 sets forth various positions
which would qualify an ordained or commissioned minister of religion as an
active member of the Synod. The only category which fits the position described
in question #1 is found in Bylaw 2.15, h, namely, engaged in a "...specialized
ministry endorsed by the Synod, including endorsement by one of its Districts."
The words "or other specialized ministry" were added to Bylaw 2.15, h, by
Resolution 5-11 (Overture 5-12) of the 1989 convention of the Synod, entitled
"To Amend Miscellaneous Bylaws." The "Resolved" of this resolution stated:
"To amend Bylaw 2.15 h to allow for directors of Christian education to serve
in an official civil service position with the military and remain an "active
member" of the Synod as well as to provide for active status for others involved
in specialized ministries...." Neither the Convention Workbook nor the Convention
Proceedings elaborate further on the term "specialized ministry." Bylaw 2.15,
h, further requires the specialized ministry to be endorsed by the Synod and/or
a District. The Council of Presidents addresses this issue in its Policy Manual
where it states: Consequently, the Council of Presidents has declared that
the word "endorsement" as used in Bylaw 2.15, h, shall mean "an ecclesiastical
statement that affirms that the person receiving the endorsement has been
determined by the Synod to be fit for the ministry and that acknowledges that
the position to be filled is a Word or Word/Sacrament ministry." The Commission
accepts this definition. Therefore, to answer the question whether this man
in question may remain on the roster of the Synod under Bylaw 2.15, h, it
must be determined whether the independent corporation is a specialized ministry
and whether the position qualifies for endorsement by a District. These are
factual determinations beyond the authority of the Commission.
Question 3: "Can
the Lutheran Church Extension Fund (LCEF) give grants and funds (not loans)
to an independent organization which is not an RSO or an entity of the Synod,
according to Bylaw 3.503 of the Synodical Handbook?"
Opinion:
The issue placed before
the Commission by this question is what limitations, if any, are placed upon
LCEF in designating recipients of its financial resources and related services?
Bylaw 3.503 states that such financial resources and related services are
to provide for ministry, witness, and outreach of The Lutheran Church - Missouri
Synod. Who then is to determine whether a recipient of LCEF resources and
services provides ministry, witness, and outreach of The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod? For example, Bylaw 3.503, a, indicates that one of the purposes of
LCEF is to provide financing and services for professional church worker education.
Does this mean that LCEF can evaluate, choose, and provide financial resources
(including grants) to any provider of professional church worker education
which it decides, in its sole discretion, qualifies as ministry, witness,
and outreach of the LCMS? If LCEF has sole discretion, without limitation,
to determine appropriate providers of professional church worker education,
it would thereby assume to itself the authority to judge the doctrinal content
of the educational materials used by the provider. Nothing in the Constitution
or Bylaws of the Synod gives any indication that LCEF is vested with such
decision making. Bylaw 11.01, c, states that the primary responsibility for
doctrinal supervision and review lies with the President of the Synod. The
bylaw provisions related to LCEF clearly indicate that the Synod created LCEF
to be a financial vehicle. This is pointed out in Bylaw 3.501, c, which addresses
membership on the Board of Directors of LCEF and provides that all Directors
shall have an understanding of the church extension program and/or demonstrate
an expertise in fields or areas closely related to churchextension activities,
such as knowledge of real estate, management, and financial planning. It has
been said that LCEF should be given wide latitude in deciding who shall be
the recipients of its grants and financial resources. In this fashion it can
provide seed money for new ministries which otherwise could not be created
for lack of funding. This may be so. However, if there is no limitation on
those to whom the LCEF can make funding available, the LCEF becomes a policymaking
body by its ability to determine which ministries and activities should be
given financial support and which should be denied, whether they be within
or without The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Bylaw 3.501, a, provides that
LCEF is operated "...to further the objectives and duties of the Church Extension
Fund within the Synod (emphasis added)." The word "within" indicates an exclusiveness
of recipients of the financial resources and related services of LCEF. Specifically,
its financial resources and related services are restricted to those within
the Synod. Who then is within the Synod? It is those identified in the Constitution
and Bylaws of the Synod, namely, members of the Synod (Article V), the Synod
itself and its component parts, auxiliaries (Bylaw 14.01) and recognized service
organizations (Bylaw 14.03). Bylaw 3.503, a, sets forth specific purposes
for which LCEF can provide financial resources and related services. Other
purposes qualify only if (a) they are approved by the governing board of LCEF;
(b) they are consistent with the ministry and mission of the Synod; and (c)
they qualify under policies approved by the Board of Directors of the Synod.
Thus, Bylaw 3.503, a, relates only to the purposes for which LCEF can provide
financial resources and related services. It does not address the appropriate
recipients of such resources and services. Thus, to summarize: (1) Eligible
recipients of LCEF grants and funds are limited to those within The Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod, namely: members of the Synod, the Synod itself and
its component parts, auxiliaries, and recognized service organizations. (2)
The assets of LCEF must be used exclusively for: [a] acquisition of sites;
[b] construction of facilities; [c] purchase of buildings and equipment; [d]
operating expenses; [e] professional church worker education; [f] residential
housing needs of professional church workers; and [g] other purposes only
if approved by the governing board of LCEF consistent with the ministry and
mission of the Synod under policies approved by the Board of Directors of
the Synod.
Question 4: "Do
the Articles of Incorporation of LCEF, prior to their amendment in 1998, permit
the giving of grants or funds to a non-synodical agency or corporation?"
Opinion:
Bylaw 3.905, d, authorizes
the Commission to interpret the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the
Synod. It does not have the authority to interpret the Articles of Incorporation
of synodwide corporate entities.
Question 5: "Does
the language of the 1997 Articles of Incorporation of LCEF, or the Bylaws
of the Synod which govern the objectives of LCEF, permit the staff of LCEF
to become involved with the creation of a non-synodical corporation for the
purposes of training pastors of the LCMS?"
Opinion:
The Commission only
responds to the portion of the question related to the Bylaws of the Synod.
Bylaws 3.501, 3.502, and 3.503 relate to LCEF but do not speak specifically
of the duties and responsibilities of the staff of LCEF. Bylaw 1.07, e, states,
Each staff develops procedures, recommends and reviews programs and ministries,
manages programs, and recommends policy and program modifications. It implements
decisions of its respective board in accordance with approved policy. It is
responsible to the Synod through its respective board or commission, which
shall exercise supervision in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws,
resolutions of the respective convention, and the decisions of the respective
board or commission. The staff of LCEF, therefore, would be permitted to become
involved in the above-described activity only by decision of its board.
Question 6: "Does
Article III of the Constitution of the Synod restrict the training of pastors,
teachers and other professional church workers of the Synod to the Synod itself,
or does it permit the organization of extra-synodical corporations for such
training?"
Opinion:
Article III, 3, states,
first of all, that the Synod shall "recruit and train pastors, teachers, and
other professional church workers." Bylaws 2.07 and 2.09 govern this process,
setting forth the educational requirements for membership in the Synod. The
Synod reserves this formal training leading to membership to itself and has
made "the overall responsibility to provide for the education of ordained
and commissioned ministers and other professional church workers for the Synod"
a function of its Board for Higher Education (Bylaw 3.409). Article III, 3,
also requires the Synod to "provide opportunity for their continuing growth."
The Commission on Ministerial Growth and Support has been charged with the
responsibility for "providing opportunities and settings for all professional
church workers to continue growing in Christ and in the knowledge, attitudes,
skills, and personal well-being they need to serve Him in His Church" (Bylaw
3.915, a). Continuing growth opportunities are also provided by official church
worker conferences throughout the Synod, "conducted for the spiritual and
professional growth of their members" (Bylaw 5.63). Article III does not,
however, state that the Synod and its entities shall be the sole providers
of post-graduate education opportunities. Additional opportunities may be
otherwise offered. Nothing in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod requires
pastors, teachers, and other professional church workers to obtain post-graduate
education from the Synod or an educational institution approved by the Synod.
Question 7: "Are
the members of the Board of Directors and the staff of LCEF officers of the
Synod and therefore subject to the provision of the Constitution of the Synod,
Article II (A) (1), 'The officers of the Synod must assume only such rights
as have been expressly conferred upon them by the Synod....?'"
Opinion:
Article X and Bylaw
3.53 designate the officers of the Synod. The members of the Board of Directors
and staff of LCEF are not officers of the Synod. Question 8: "What authority
has been given to LCEF to make the grant?" Opinion: See the Opinion to Question
#3 above.
Question 9: "If
such action is a violation of the Articles of Incorporation of LCEF, must
the State of Missouri be informed of such violation?"
Opinion:
The answer to this
question is beyond the function of the Commission as set forth in Bylaw 3.905.
Question 10: "If
a corporation that is not a synodical agency or an RSO selects a pastor of
LCMS to serve as their executive director and the pastor accepts this position
with the corporation, can he remain on the roster of ordained ministers of
the LCMS?"
Opinion:
See the Opinion to
Question #2 above. The Commission further notes that church workers, as a
result of a recent bylaw change adopted by the Board of Directors of the Synod,
may be continued on the roster of the Synod as "Inactive Members" according
to Bylaw 2.17 with "all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of advisory
membership in the Synod as defined in the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod."
A church worker as described above, who serves as the executive of an independent
corporation which is not a congregation or a recognized service organization
of the Synod or an entity of the Synod, may qualify as a "non-candidate" member,
that is, "one who is eligible to perform the duties of any of the offices
of ministry specified in Bylaw 2.15 but who is not currently an active member
or an emeritus member and who chooses not to be a candidate member" (Bylaw
2.17, c).
Question 11: "Is
an action by a District of the Synod 'Accommodation Employment' as defined
in the Synod's Board of Directors Policy Manual #5.6.4?"
Opinion:
Interpretation of
board policy is beyond the function of the Commission as set forth in Bylaw
3.905. In addition, the question requires a determination of facts which likewise
is beyond the function of the Commission.
Question 12: "Can
a District of the Synod 'adopt' a private entrepreneurial corporation as a
ministry of the District and 'call' a pastor to serve as the executive director
of such a corporation?"
Opinion:
See the Opinion provided
to Question #1 above.
Question 13: "If
the 'temporary call' extended is 'Accommodation Employment' as defined by
the Policy of the Board of Directors of the Synod, can a pastor who accepts
such a call remain on the roster of the Synod as an active pastor?"
Opinion:
See the Opinions to
Questions #2 and #11 above.
Question 14: "Can
a ministry of a District apply to the Synod for RSO status?"
Opinion:
Bylaw 14.03, a, states
that "Recognized Service Organization status may be granted to a service organization
(other than an auxiliary) that extends the mission and ministry of the Synod
but is not a part of the Synod as defined by its Constitution and Bylaws."
A ministry of a District is the District and a District is part of the Synod.
Since an RSO cannot be a part of the Synod, a ministry of a District cannot
apply RSO to the Synod for RSO status.
Question 15: "If
a grant made by LCEF is not authorized by the Articles of Incorporation of
LCEF or the Bylaws of the Synod as these were written at the time when the
grant was made, must LCEF seek a repayment of the funds which were given?"
Opinion:
What action a synodwide
corporate entity must take under its Articles of Incorporation if a prior
action of such synodwide corporate entity was contrary to its Articles is
a question beyond the function of the Commission under Bylaw 3.905. As to
what action the Synod may or must take under the circumstance, Bylaw 3.101,
B, 5, provides that the President shall call up for review any action by an
agency (which includes a synodwide corporate entity under Bylaw 3.51) which,
in his view, may be in violation of the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions
of the Synod and, if he deems appropriate, request that such action be altered
or reversed. If the matter cannot be resolved, the President shall refer it
to the synodical Board of Directors, the Commission on Constitutional Matters,
and/or the Synod in convention as he deems appropriate to the issues and the
party/parties involved. Bylaw 3.183, e, provides that the Board of Directors
of the Synod shall exercise general oversight over the operations and activities
of a synodwide corporate entity as required of it in the Constitution and
Bylaws of the Synod. Bylaw 3.195 provides that the governing board of a synodwide
corporate entity shall reply to inquiries and suggestions from the Board of
Directors of the Synod relative to its operations and activities. If the governing
board and the Board of Directors of the Synod do not reach an accord on such
suggestions, the matter may be brought by the Board of Directors of the Synod
to the Synod in convention for a decision. Finally, Bylaw 3.195, e, requires
a governing board of a synodwide corporate entity to be accountable to the
Synod in convention for the discharge of its assigned duties and shall submit
a report thereto for inclusion in the Convention Workbook. The Commission
observes that in its report to the 1998 convention of the Synod (Convention
Workbook, p. 71), LCEF included in its "Future Plans" the following: "Continue
to help the Pastoral Leadership Institute in its start-up phase. The goal
of the institute is to implement an in-service training program for pastors
desiring to develop leadership skills helpful in pastoring large and/or growing
LCMS churches."
Memorandum
to Board for Mission Services Area Directors July 11, 2000
To: BFMS Area Directors
From: President A.
L. Barry
Dear Coworkers in
Christ,
Grace, mercy and peace
to you in the Master's Name.
I would like to share
with you a number of thoughts and observations about how the BFMS area directors
and the synodical president can work together to help and support one another
in our common efforts to advance the cause of the Gospel of Jesus Christ around
the world in faithfulness to our Lutheran confession. Enormous Opportunities
As you all know, there
are enormous opportunities for our Synod worldwide. The Lord is opening doors
where our Synod can be instrumental in helping new and emerging churches,
and in reaching out in areas where the Gospel has not previously been preached.
The Word of the Lord is growing and going forth as never before, for which
we thank and praise Almighty God. The fantastic good news of Christ, crucified
and risen from the dead, is moving forth through the world, and we are blessed
to be a part of this expansion of the Gospel.
Over the past seven-and-a-half
years, I have had repeated contacts from all over the world. I have heard
repeatedly from church leaders asking the LCMS for recognition and assistance.
We already have several "working relationships" with these groups, as I like
to call them. Where will such working relationships lead? That is in God's
hands; but where we can, we will work with these churches. Perhaps such working
relationships will lead to closer ties between ourselves and others, eventually
leading to church fellowship.
I have heard from
many, many church leaders who are coming to the Missouri Synod for assistance
because they respect the Missouri Synod's adherence to historic, genuine Lutheranism.
They are not content with the liberal theology in so many of the state churches
in the world today. They are distressed by the degree to which even unbelief
in the historic Christian faith has gripped many churches. They are distressed
by the embrace of immorality in the form of abortion and homosexuality. They
find in the LCMS a church that still retains the faith once given to the saints,
and because of that they are reaching out to us.
I hear from church
leaders in other areas of the world who are attempting to reach out into new
territories and lands and people where the Gospel has not been proclaimed
Again, we find them turning to Missouri for assistance in this task. Indeed,
I am sure together we would be able to identify many such opportunities for
our church body around the world.
The opportunities
are enormous, and for this, we together sing a Te Deum to God for permitting
us to be here, at this time, and play our part in this incredible expansion
of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Great Responsibilities
With enormous opportunities
come great responsibilities. I need here to be very clear. The responsibility
of the Board for Mission Services and its staff and now particularly you,
the area directors, is very significant. As you make contact with church leaders
and church bodies, you become for them The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
As Missouri Synod Lutherans, we have the great responsibility of working to
spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to do so in faithfulness to historic,
orthodox Christianity. We work hard to reach out boldly and aggressively with
the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ, to tell the good news of Jesus, and to
help other churches prepare pastors who will take that good news out among
their people.
We preach the Gospel
as we know it purely from the Scriptures and according to the Lutheran Confessions,
and thus, our mission is distinguished as a confessional Lutheran mission.
Confessional Lutheranism holds the Scriptures as the actual, inspired, inerrant
Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions as a pure exposition of that Spirit-filled
Word. Those who are coming to us realize, perhaps better than we do, that
the difference between historic Lutheranism and liberal Lutheranism is extremely
significant.
The LCMS is in a position
to provide aggressive mission leadership for confessional Lutheranism.
The Duties of the
LCMS President and His Representatives for Church Relations
I certainly do not
need here to deal with the responsibilities given to the Board for Missions
by our Synod. But I would like to take just a moment to comment on the duties
given to the president of the Synod, as that would relate to your role as
an area director. The Synod's bylaws indicate that the president is the "chief
ecumenical officer of the Synod. He or his representative shall represent
the Synod in official contacts with other church bodies " (Bylaw 3.101.A.5).
The key word here
for our purposes is the word "representative." As you now move into your new
role as area directors for the LCMS Board for Missions, you have a dual role.
Each of you will be responsible to the Board for Missions for the various
specific BFMS duties and tasks you are given, but you will also be serving
as the representative of the LCMS president. When you make contact with others,
you are, as far as they are concerned, representing the Missouri Synod. Particularly
when you work with churches with whom we are not in fellowship, you are definitely
moving into the role as representing not the Board for Missions, but rather
the LCMS president, who is the Synod's chief ecumenical officer.
I believe it would
be helpful for me in this memorandum to lay out before you some observations
and some expectations as to how best you can serve as my representatives in
the various areas of the world where you will be serving.
Expectations of
Partner Churches and Others
We need to recognize
and be mindful of the fact that the Missouri Synod can no longer treat or
regard our partner churches as "daughter churches." I know that we all understand
this, but it is a point worth highlighting here. I know for a fact, from personal
conversations and from correspondence and other contacts, that the leaders
of our partner churches and the other churches with whom we are working actually
are offended when they think that they must relate to the LCMS only through
the Board for Missions. They may not say it as such to you, but it is very
obvious that they expect to be able to relate to the Missouri Synod on a church-to-church,
president-to-president level. So, it will be very helpful for you to be able
to help them understand your dual role of serving our Missions board, while
also serving as the representative of the LCMS president.
I recognize this
is a delicate task and not altogether easy, but I believe it is a very necessary
part of your duties. Our Synod is relating to other church bodies not only
through mission projects per se. We cannot consider a territory in the world
a "mission area" where there is an established and functioning confessional
Lutheran church body. We are working with other churches by sending seminary
professors, and we help them by bringing their students over here. The face
of "missions" is unique, depending on where in the world it is taking place,
but in all these situations, where there is a leader of a church, or a partner
church, they wish to be treated as equals, not as inferiors. And though we
clearly understand this, it will be very important for that distinction to
be made in your contacts with church leaders. In fact, as you make contact
with the heads of our partner churches and with other church bodies, it will
be important that you clearly introduce yourself to them as the area director
for our Board for Mission Services and also as the representative of the President
of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. And then, clearly indicate to them
and make it perfectly plain to church leaders that they should always feel
free to write directly to me and be in direct contact with my office at any
time they so desire. I would also ask that you always be very clear in your
contacts that you are there to be a partner and an advocate for a real, genuine
Lutheran mission effort for the sake of the Gospel.
The Dual Reporting
Role of the Area Director
Clearly, the Board
for Missions and your service as area director will consume most of your time,
as you work to help the mission personnel on the field carry out their work,
counseling them in policies and programs as they develop. This promotion of
mission activities and support will be your primary duty. Along with that
also comes your role in representing the Synod, and the Synod's president,
in ecumenical relationships and contacts with leaders of Lutheran churches
and other churches in your particular world area. I would now like to share
with you my expectations of how you should relate to my office as you go about
your dual responsibility:
Quarterly reports:
I ask that each of
you, every three months, share with me an update on the church relations aspect
of your work, with specific comments, observations, suggestions and otherwise
about the churches in your area of the world. I would like you to share with
me any information about the status of the various Lutheran and non-Lutheran
churches in your world area, discussing how perhaps the LCMS can be of help
and how the president of the Synod could be of assistance to you in your contacts
with other churches in your world area. Whatever would be of significance
in terms of church relations, I would like to hear about and learn better
what you are doing and how these activities relate to strengthening partnerships
with the churches in your part of the world. I would also like to hear about
developments among non-Christian religions in your area, and any other information
that would provide me with a better understanding and grasp of the situation
where you serve. I want to be clear that I do not expect, nor do I wish, to
receive a comprehensive report on everything you are doing, I will receive
copies of your report to the Board for Missions, so there is no need to duplicate
efforts. What I am looking for is a brief-perhaps at times no more than two
pages-report on your observations and activities touching on inter-church
relations as well as the changing religious picture in your particular area.
And by all means, if something comes up that I should be aware of between
the time of your regular reports, please do not hesitate to send me an e-mail
message to: president@lcms.org, or however you may wish to send it.
Significant developments,
meetings and contacts:
I would appreciate
receiving, in addition to quarterly reports, e-mail or faxes from you, when
you will have a significant meeting with other church bodies and their leaders,
and then a follow up message sharing the results of the meeting. I would also
encourage you to let me know right away about any significant developments,
rather than waiting until the next quarterly report.
Personal meetings
with the synodical president:
When you return to
the United States, I would request that you make sure to schedule a meeting
with me to review church relationship issues in the particular world area
to which you are assigned.
Alerting me to
visits by church leaders:
Repeatedly over the
past eight years, there have been times when church leaders have come to St.
Louis and I was not adequately informed or alerted of their visit. Needless
to say, this is simply unacceptable and reflects poorly on our Synod. Consequently,
when you become aware that there is a church leader who will be visiting our
Synod, coming to St. Louis, etc., please always be sure to alert my office
so I can attempt to meet personally with them when they are here, or at the
very least to send them greetings as the chief ecumenical officer of our Synod.
Avoiding sowing
seeds of discord:
I would strongly
request that you do whatever you can to avoid sowing seeds of discord and
tension between other church bodies and any entity of our Synod. Even when
problems arise within our own Synodical family, I would ask that you do whatever
you can to avoid "importing" these concerns into your world area. When problems
do surface there is a right way and a wrong way of addressing these.
An Assurance of
Support and a Word of Encouragement
Finally, I would like
to conclude by offering you a genuine word of support and encouragement as
you now find yourself moving into your new role as an area director, stationed
in various parts of our world. I pray for God's richest and continued blessings
on you and your families as you serve in this unique way. I look forward to
working with you in this dual role you now are assuming as you move into the
future. God bless! God bless richly!
Dealing
With Public Evil Including False Doctrine
The Department of
Systematic Theology of Concordia Theological Seminary has been asked how public
sins and false doctrine ought to be handled. At the heart of the concern is
the question whether or not those who have engaged in or permitted aberrant
doctrine or church practices in their churches must always be approached privately
flrst, before such matters are brought to the attention of others especially
their colleagues in the ministerium of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
Our Lord Himself during
His earthly ministry corrected the false views of Peter, Thomas, and Philip
in the presence of their fellow apostles. Luther began the Reformation by
calling attention publicly to errors in doctrine and practice that had become
entrenched in the church of his day. In interpreting and applying the Eighth
Commandment in the Large Catechism, the Reformer distinguished between private
sins on the one hand, which must be handled discreetly, to avoid the detestable
sins of slander and gossip, and public evil on -the other, which requires
public reproof.
He wrote:
But where the sin
is so public that the judge and the whole world are aware of it, you can
without sin shun and avoid the person as one who has brought disgrace upon
himself, and you may testify publicly concerning him. For when an affair
is manifest to everybody there can be no question of slander or injustice
or false witness. For example, we now censure the pope and his teaching,
which is publicly set forth in books and shouted throughout the world. Where
the sin is public, the punishment ought to be public so that everyone may
know how to guard against it (Commandments, 284,Tappert, p. 403).
Since publicly taught
false doctrine threatens faith and church with confusion and even destruction,
it needs to be publicly removed and corrected as soon as possible. The socalled
steps in St, Matthew 18 are misapplied in such cases, if they are taken to
require lengthy negotiations, while the public error continues without public
correction. The provisions of Mt. 18 do not constitute a legal code or procedure.
Their context rather is that of personal conflicts of various kinds, which
are to be resolved in love, with the least possible embarrassment to the brother.
Unless the offender
himself makes it necessary to draw in yet others, the conflict is to be confined
to the smallest possible circle. Public evil is an entirely different matter
and, requires public correction (I Tim. 5:20), especially if it is a matter
of doctrine and therefore threatens to destroy the unity of the church (Tit.
3:10).
It goes without saying
that no right exists to misconstrue and misrepresent anyone's public or private
position. Public rebuke therefore requires and presupposes that all necessary
steps have been taken accurately to establish the point or points at issue.
Public accusations based on misunderstandings, innuendo, or mere appeal to
popular prejudice-e are unworthy of proper churchly proceedings (I Tim. 5:19).
When public accusations prove to be false or baseless, they must be publicly
withdrawn, with due apologies to the person or persons wronged.
Finally, even though
an error is public and may be publicly reproved, love, which always seeks
to win the brother, may well be impelled to make private, personal attempts
to correct the matter first-if that approach seems to offer the best hope
for a God-pleasing settlement in a given case, and there is no immediate threat
to the church.
However, the evangelical
way of "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) cannot be reduced to a juridical
code of hard and fast regulations to fit all cases. Differences of judgment
in "grey areas" can be expected to, arise, and must be borne. in love, without
tyrannizing anyone's conscience.
- Department of Systematic
Theology Concordia Theological Seminary
Fort Wayne, Indiana
March 9, 2000
