Take 2

Thank you, brothers, for the excellent back and forth in the previous post about my day-dreaming of a church body in fellowship with, but outside of the bureaucratic jurisdiction of the LCMS. I thought I'd pull together a few thoughts in a new post, especially since Fr. Eckardt sounds interested in taking up the canon law topic in Kewanee in about a month.

First, I'll pull out a couple of points from Fr. Stuckwisch and respond to them, and then note a few points for the potential discussion at Gottesdientst Oktoberfest: Day 2.

Rick wrote:
"The only thing is, I don't think the LCMS would want to be in fellowship with us; and, if we all left, I'm fairly certain that we wouldn't want to be in fellowship with whatever was left of the LCMS after we were gone."

I profoundly disagree. And here again perhaps my optimism is to blame. But I take seriously the stated confession of the faith made by even the goofiest of parishes/pastors among us. Do you really think that if "we" left the bureaucracy of MO that the rest of them would repeal a quia subscription to the Confessions at the next convention? I don't. And I think we owe fellowship to them so long as they make that confession. So long as they make that confession we have something to call them to repentance on.

Part of my optimism here probably comes from my experience as a graduate of the St. Louis seminary. While Fort Wayne can claim its share of neo-evangelicals, the majority are surely from St. Louis. And yet, at St. Louis I've never known a professor - even the most neo-evangelical of them - to advocate for dumping the confessions: they honest-to-goodness see their running after evangelical fads as ways to promote Lutheranism. And the guys I knew who went the neo-evangelical route would consider themselves as confessional Lutherans.

Now, I firmly believe that they have made serious errors in putting that faith into practice. But they desire to be in fellowship with others who confession the Book of Concord: they would not break fellowship with us. And why should we break fellowship with them if they still confess the same doctrine, though live it poorly? Do we not rather owe them fraternal care, support, and calls to better practice? And isn't the best call to better practice living a better practice and showing its benefits in living color?

Which brings me back to my main point. Fr. Rick wrote,
"My own opinion is that we should continue to confess within the Missouri Synod, wherever the Lord has called and stationed us, until conscience would prevent us from remaining in that fellowship, or until we are driven from our post. At which point we should then continue confessing from wherever we find ourselves next. And praying, night and day, that the Lord would call both us and all to repentance."

My question is: how can we best continue to confess, influence, and call to a better practice our brothers in the Missouri Synod who both confess the Concordia with their mouth but live a neo-evangelical parish life? Is that best done within the Missouri Synod, as part of the same bureaucratic network? Or could it perhaps be better done under the model of the old Synodical Conference: a separate body in fellowship with Missouri?

Let me mention one other benefit of the latter arrangement: our sister churches around the world look to the LCMS for guidance. Would they not benefit from a strong Lutheran voice in the United States still in fellowship with them and MO, but giving a clear call and showing a clear example of living out Lutheran doctrine in traditional ways?

Now, what might this new bureaucracy look like? Especially in matters of worship practice? How can a church body have more of the unity we crave without becoming leagalistic? Is that possible?

I think so. And I'd throw this out as a place for Fritz to start the canon law discussion at Oktoberfest. Why couldn't the constitution of such a synod say something like this: "The Hypothetical Lutheran Synod values the traditional forms of the Lutheran Divine Service. For the sake of a united confession before the world, each parish of the HLS shall utilize the Common Service (as contained in either TLH p. 15, LW p. 136, or LSB p. 184) as its chief Sunday service. Permission from the president/bishop/overseer (pick your favorite term!) may be sought for utilizing other settings of the Divine Service from these hymnals alongside the Common Service settings for good reason."

So there's a place to start: we don't all have to have the same rubrics, we don't even have to have the exact same setting of the Common Service, or even the Common Service all the time: but wouldn't it be nice to once again see the letters of your synod on the sign outside the door while you're on vacation and know pretty much what you're going to get inside? Wouldn't that, perhaps, be a strong confession to our other brothers in MO about what a benefit unity in practice is?

Critique and nit-pick that all you like: but isn't that basically what we are really yearning for in our worship practice? And why not have it? Why not give it a try, at least? And since it is self-evident that such a unity simply cannot exist in the bureaucracy of the LCMS, why not at least think seriously and constructively about making it a possibility within the fellowship of Missouri if not her bureaucratic structure?

So come on down to Kewanee for a serious discussion of what such a canon law for Lutherans might look like. It might come to nothing - probably will - but won't it be refreshing to set aside the nay-saying we've become so accustomed to for a morning and just talk constructively about how maybe we could make it happen?

Still asking "what if. . . "
+HRC