+ Information for Confess And Teach For Unity's eList Subscribers + Knowing the tendency of boards and commissions of the LCMS to hide behind bylaws to justify reprehensible behavior (e.g., the false and sinful exoneration of serial syncretist David Benke or the bizarre statement that a district president can insert himself into congregation affairs in any way he wishes--e.g., not communicating *at all* with the pastor or elected officials of the parish--since the call of the bylaws that a DP muse use "proper channels" is meaningless because the bylaws don't define what those are), I decided I would try to find a way around the bureaucratic opacity/chicanery to get an answer to a question that finds far more division among LCMS 'conservatives' than among LCMS liberals, namely, "What is the self-understanding of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod with regard to the existence of church fellowship between all of its members?"
My approach? Since, as one who is not a Member of the LCMS, I have no standing before the agencies of the LCMS anyway, I asked the "LCMS Church Information Center." The following is a record of the communications that have taken place. If you're not interested, go ahead and delete this; personally, I think the interchange shows a lot about that church body. Of course, those who wish to defend it will use every justification imaginable for denying an inquirer a response...but anyone 'objective'--say, any Christian outside of any Lutheran body--would consider such behavior as displayed by the LCMS to be cult-like. It doesn't matter whether you think I deserve an answer; I answer people who don't 'deserve it' every day. What is the LCMS hiding, that it can't answer simple questions about whether or not an outsider is understanding its own documents correctly? ========================================================================== Initial note from me, submitted via web form around 7:45 pm CDT on 8/2/11: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two years ago, I wrote a short essay with the enormous title of "The Self-Understanding of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod with Regard to the Existence of Church Fellowship between All of Its Members." It has resulted in much debate among some pastors of the LCMS. Some find that it states the reality of the situation correctly, and some try to make a distinction between "fellowship in the LCMS" and "fellowship/membership in LCMS, Inc." While I understand their thought process, I consider it contrary not only to some contemporary understanding of fellowship, but to what has always been the understanding of the LCMS. Unfortunately, as a *former* member of the LCMS, I seem to be at an impasse. While it is quite possible that some pastors of the LCMS may present the document itself, or a summary thereof, to the CCM and CTCR, I cannot do so in any way that would compel an answer. Thus, while I'm waiting for them, I am addressing this to you folks at the CIC as an inquirer from the outside, and I would be more than thrilled if you passed the request on to the CCM and CTCR, and would be happy to provide my little article (seriously, it's only 2 sides of an 8.5" x 11" paper) for them to see what I'm wanting to know. In short, though, the question is: "Is it the self-understanding of the LCMS that all of its pastors and parishes are in fellowship with one another?" Along with it: "Has this always been the self-understanding of the LCMS?" Personally, I see those questions as easily answered "Yes" without even consulting a single document, because it's self-evident that such is the definition of a church body. Nonetheless, I would appreciate an answer with the sort of thoroughness that would convince pastors of your church body a) that they really are in a declared state of fellowship with one another by virtue of their synodical membership and b) that they must, therefore, either accept their brethren as they are (and commune them and commune with them), show that those brethren are in error, or depart from them, lest they break the unity of the synod. Thank you for your assistance. ========================================== Response from CIC at 8:15 am CDT on 8/3/11 ------------------------------------------ Dear Rev. Stefanski, You have reached the LCMS Church Information Center, and I appreciate the opportunity to serve you. I’d like to include your paper when I forward your message. Please send it at your earliest convenience. Thank you! Serving Him and you! Until next time, [Nice and dutiful lady whose name is withheld] ==================================== My response at 8:22 am CDT on 8/3/11 ------------------------------------ Thank you so much! You may wish to advise them that I understand completely if they don't accept my rhetoric and position with regard to what I would consider a faithful course of action; I simply want to know whether I am correctly understanding how the LCMS understands fellowship between its own members. Again, thank you! [[EJG NOTE: If those reading this exchange would like a copy of this paper, please go to: http://holytrinitylc.com/LCMS_Self-Understanding.pdf Thank you.]] ======================= Initial response was that CIC was unable to open PDF file; eventually [Nice and dutiful lady whose name is withheld] got it open and converted it to Word. ======================= =================================== CIC update of 9:22 am CFT on 8/3/11 ----------------------------------- Dear Rev. Stefanski, You have reached the LCMS Church Information Center, and I appreciate the opportunity to serve you. I have forwarded your message to our CTCR and CCM staff. Due to their travel and meeting schedules, please allow additional time for their response. God bless your day. Serving Him and you! Until next time, [Nice and dutiful lady whose name is withheld] ==================================== CIC update of 10:45 am CDT on 8/3/11 ------------------------------------ Rev. Stefanski, I have been informed that because you are not a member of the Synod, you do not have the privilege to submit matters to the Commission on Constitutional Matters (Bylaw 3.9.2.2), even though well intentioned. So, the commission cannot respond. Serving Him and you! Until next time, [Nice and dutiful lady whose name is withheld] ==================================== My response of 3:10 pm CDT on 8/3/11 ------------------------------------ I knew that beforehand; my thought was, simply, that no information request from any source, mediated through the CIC, should be denied. I mean, think about it: what they have done by not accepting YOUR (not my) request for information is to authorize you either to 'wing it' in providing an outsider with an answer to a question that is argued about by your church body's own pastors, or to say, "We refuse/are unable to answer." Just to be clear: What if I had not been honest with you, and simply claimed to be some layman from an LCMS parish, some Methodist seeking to understand Closed Communion and how LCMS parishes understood their relationship to one another so that I could understand why one local LCMS parish would commune me while another wouldn't, or some such thing? As a member of a congregation of Synod or as a total never-been-Lutheran outsider, I would have expected an answer...and what would happen/how would that answer come? Would you 'wing it', or would you ask for their input? I believe that you would have asked for their assistance, and then what? Would they refuse to help you, since I, the Methodist, was not a Member of Synod, or since I, the Lutheran layman, must ask my pastor to make inquiry for me? Or is it just for those of us who used to be in the LCMS and have more than a passing acquaintance with the bylaws that such a roadblock would be put up? See, it's illogical to me that they have set you up to be unable to do your job. You need to be able to give inquirers authoritative answers, and that requires those in authority giving you those answers. Why would a Commission set you up to fail that way, when they should take every request made by the CIC as crucial to the public image of the LCMS? There is another avenue for this, however: the request for an opinion from the CTCR--which can, itself, ask for an opinion of the CCM. While the CTCR can also refuse--based on, I guess, the relatively small size of the ELDoNA--isn't a part of their responsibility what their name indicates--"church relations." I would like to be able accurately to speak of our diocese's position in comparison with that of the LCMS when, e.g., I teach at our St. Ignatius emsinary. Is their ruling then going to be that an instructor is an improper requester of church relations information and that I must have either the headmaster or the bishop make inquiry? I thank you, ma'am for your desire and willingness to help. I wish those on the various boards and commissions of the LCMS would have a desire for a) transparency and b) confession of their position (which, one would think, they hold to be true) that would make them willing to equip you to answer *any* question. I'm sorry that you've had to be the recipient of all of this text from me, but their having hamstrung you through their bureaucratic opacity leaves me with no other point of contact. Again, thank you for your desire to find an answer for me; regardless of any other thought I have about this process, you have gone above and beyond the call of duty, and I am truly appreciative. ========== Conclusion ---------- I let two full business days elapse after this last note, simply to see whether or not anyone from the LCMS would answer me. The last communication from me, above, was CCed to the Rev. Pres. Matthew Harrison, the Rev. Sec. Raymond Hartwig (as representative of the CCM), and the Rev. Dr. Joel Lehenbauer (Executive Director of the CTCR). I have received no response. Oh, sure...I'm a belligerent bully, etc., who would twist their words anyway, etc., so they were 'wise as serpents' not to answer. Nonsense. If you read my paper, as you were invited to do, above, at http://holytrinitylc.com/LCMS_Self-Understanding.pdf you will see that all I do--at least in terms of what I was asking the CTCR and CCM to do--is to quote the LCMS Handbook and ask if I've understood it correctly. Yes, I also say that it is unfaithful and unchristian to claim that one should forever remain in a heterodox body just because it hasn't cast you out and that when you remain a part of such a body it is normal for everyone to think that you actually embrace its false teaching (just as you may consider it improper to commune United Methodists, etc., who claim to believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, yet remain in the UMC). I remain of the opinion I've asserted since the early '90s: fight or leave--or, rather, the only possible Scriptural excuse for not leaving (in line with Romans 16:17 or, more, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15) is the securing of the flock entrusted to one's care and/or the active fight against false teachers, both of which entail naming the error and errorists within one's church body. The point is, all my short essay does is support what Walther understood the synod to be and what Missouri says it is on paper...yet, so many LCMS pastors (on the 'Confessional' side of things) reject this in practice and, often, in speaking, that I want to know, officially, as a Lutheran in a different Lutheran body, how my body should relate to the LCMS, which depends on knowing whether I have correctly understood and presented LCMS teaching. I'm even willing to suffer the cheap shots of the CTCR and CCM for my rhetoric; I simply wish to say, "No, see, my paper is right," or to be disabused of my misunderstanding by those who are actually entrusted by the LCMS with determining such things. Thus, beyond simply presenting this refusal of the LCMS to give ANY sort of an answer to this 'outsider', I am now imploring your LCMS pastors and congregations--those who disagree with me as much or more as those who agree with me: please submit this paper to the CCM and CTCR without delay and ask them, simply, whether "that snotty Polack in Arkansas is right about what our official position is on the matter of the existence of fellowship between all the members of our church body." Thank you, EJG * * * * * * * * An Approach to Liturgical Style - 28 of 28 * * * * * * * * The preacher, the liturgist...he must sympathize with the plight of those who hear him (even as does his Lord), but never seek to know his wants. Let him start sniffing the air, or glancing at the Trend Machine, and he is as good as dead, although he may make a nice living. The Rev. Eric J. Stefanski [email protected] The Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America http://ELDoNA.org Confess And Teach For Unity http://www.CAT41.org Lists: [email protected] Holy Trinity Ev.-Luth. Church, Harrison, AR http://www.HolyTrinityLC.com * * * * * Adapted from Strunk & White, ~The Elements of Style~ * * * * * + + + Confess and Teach for Unity <http://www.CAT41.org> + + + The preceding is a message from the Confess and Teach For Unity List Administrator; you are receiving it because you are *or have been* a subscriber to one or more email lists run by Confess and Teach for Unity (CAT41.org). If you are no longer on any CAT 41 list and do not wish to receive such periodic mailings regarding new mail lists and other services, please send ANY note to: [email protected] NOTE: if you are on a CAT 41 list or resubscribe to any CAT 41 list, you will be re-added to this list, as this list is the venue for necessary system notices, etc. To Subscribe, send ANY note to: [email protected] Unless otherwise noted, posts from this list may be forwarded and/or republished via other media, provided they are not altered and list subscription information is included. For any further information or problems in unsubscribing, please contact the list administrator by writing to: MoM [at] lists (dot) cat41 <dot> org
