The Catholic Consensus of the Church

I've recently made passing reference to the "catholic consensus of the Church," but without offering any specific definition of what I mean by that, and without indicating what the "content" of that "catholic consensus" might include.  A brother in Christ has helpfully prompted me to give some further thought to this, and to comment on it.

In part, I have not been more specific regarding the "catholic consensus of the Church," because it seems to me that the contours of what that comprises continue to grow and develop in the actual life of the Church.  Even so, what I do have in mind, especially, is that we (pastors and congregations of the Church catholic) ought to begin with what we have received from the saints who have gone before us, and that we should then proceed to live and to pray, to serve and assist one another, in continuity with both the past and the present communion of the Church.  Some aspects of that catholic tradition would be more obvious than others, at least in my view, such as following the Church Year, adhering to the basic Ordo of the Mass, using a Chalice for the Holy Communion, confessing the ecumenical Creeds, using clerical vestments in the celebration of the Liturgy, and so forth.  Although such things are, in one sense, "adiaphora," forsaking them for some novel alternatives would not be without significance to the confession and life of the Church.

The "catholic consensus" becomes more "narrow," if that isn't a self-contradiction in terms, within the particular "families" and "jurisdictions" of the Church on earth.  Here what I have in mind are such things as our Lutheran heritage and identity, which would include the Catechisms and hymns of Luther, for example; and then also the particular "synods" or territories of the Lutheran communion (albeit that "Lutheran" has become a more ambiguous and amorphous term in the course of generations; I use it positively here).

I don't believe that it contradicts catholicity for there to be different "local customs, traditions, and practices," from one place to another; but I would assert and maintain that the defining locus for those differences belongs, not to each individual congregation or parish (although each place, as each pastor, will have its own personality), but to the larger fellowship of congregations within a geographical proximity to one another.  This is where I struggle for a greater clarity in my own perspective and thinking, and yearn for clarity and consistency, as well, in the life of the Church at large.  In contrast to the past, modern transportation and communication have, on the one hand, given us a global community, while, on the other hand, they often separate us from those who are, in fact, our real "neighbors" (those whom God has placed right next to us).

Within our Synod, our Districts, and our Circuits, for example, my sense is that many, if not most, of our congregations tend to live as islands unto themselves, and that our pastors (myself included) have as much or more interaction with our self-determined online circles of like minds and kindred spirits, than active fraternal conversation, camaraderie, and consensus with those who are closest to us in the particular "loci" where God has actually stationed us.  So, I would offer that the current pattern of doing things, and the current "status quo," is certainly not "the catholic consensus of the Church."

Those Who Believed Had All Things in Common

Here is Part XI of my ACELC free conference paper (16 April 2013).  It is one of the sections that I omitted in my presentation of the paper, because of time constraints.  The entire paper will be made available on the ACELC website.

The Lutherans of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries regulated the practices of the churches within each territory, in the interest of a unified confession of the faith they held in common.  We in our day could, and should, learn something from them.

There does not need to be, nor could there be, a “lock-step uniformity” in all ceremonies.  However, a unity and harmony and consistency of practice, as belonging to our confession of fellowship in the Gospel, is desirable and would be edifying.  That was true at the time of the Reformation, and it is not less so in this modern age of internet communications and rapid mobility!

As Luther and others often cited, it is appropriate that we Christians should have common rites and ceremonies for the administration of the Sacraments, since we have the Sacraments themselves in common.  Indeed, we have one Lord, one faith, one Holy Baptism, one God and Father of all.  We are called, gathered, enlightened, and sanctified by one and the same Holy Spirit, and we all partake of one Holy Communion.  We are all one Body in Christ Jesus, because we all eat of the one Bread, which is His Body; so do we all drink of the one Cup, which is the New Testament in His Blood.  As our fellowship is found in the Sacrament, it is appropriate that our celebration of the Supper be similar.

The regulating of adiaphorous rubrics, rites, and ceremonies within the good order of the Church’s fellowship, within a particular jurisdiction of the Church’s life on earth, is not contrary to the Gospel, but serves the confession and catechesis of the Gospel within the Church’s catholicity of faith and love.  Such commonly agreed-upon rubrics, coupled with the supervision of an overseer, or “bishop,” provides for a common practice from place to place, and from week to week, while it also allows room for genuine pastoral care of the Church in each time and place.

This approach to the life of the Church, as a fellowship of congregations in the unity of the faith, is beneficial, not only to the mutual relationships of the congregations with one another, but also to the life of each congregation, and to the relationship of pastors and people within each congregation.

Pastors benefit from the use of what has been received and adopted in common.  Especially because  it is the case that pastoral piety, in both large and small ways, is never simply personal or private, but is public, “political,” and pedagogical.  The people learn from their pastor’s practice.  They also pick up on discrepancies between his preaching and his practice (as in his handling of the Sacrament).

Parishioners benefit, too, when pastors use the common rites and ceremonies of the Church, rather than inventing their own practices, or else importing practices from outside of the Lutheran Church.  Wilhelm Löhe advised, for example, that a layperson should be able to discern where there is Lutheran doctrine and Lutheran worship, by comparing what the pastor preaches and teaches with the Small Catechism, and by comparing what the pastor says and does in the Divine Service with the rubrics, rites, and ceremonies of the Lutheran Liturgy.  In any event, the people of God should not be asked or expected to pray and confess words which they have never seen before, and which they will most likely never see again.  How shall they give their “Amen” to such things, without even knowing where they came from?  Of course, they listen attentively to the sermon, which they haven’t heard ahead of time; but they are not asked to pray and confess the sermon, nor to give their “Amen” to it, without first being given an adequate opportunity to follow it through and to consider it against the Scriptures.

Stand Up for Religious Freedom

Today I attended the Stand Up for Religious Freedom rally at Federal Plaza in the Chicago Loop.  It was a great event with excellent speakers: two US Representatives - Walsh and Lipinski, a physician, an educator, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, plenty of Roman Catholics, a Jewish attorney, some conservative Anglicans and even one LCMS pastor.  Our own being the Rev. Steven Anderson of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, Chicago, IL.  I got there nice and early and it was raining hard.  The power went out but it turns out the power was turned off by the Feds themselves, but turned on later thanks to the Post Office next door.  I was glad to be there and met lots of good folks standing for freedom of conscience.  The LCMS got props for the Hosanna-Tabor decision, President Harrison's testimony before Congress and even by the Jewish speaker who said he was glad to stand on the dais with Pastor Anderson.  There were several thousand in attendance, and I'm glad I was there early to get a good spot to hear and see, and holler a bit during Pastor Anderson's speech.  Which I am happy to say a few thousand people did too; holler in approval that is.

Pastor Anderson on the dais

Full disclosure:  Pastor Anderson is one of my best friends, groomsman in my wedding and godfather to my son.  I was awfully proud to call him friend today.

Pre-Seminex Cinema

Here is some video from the 1973 LCMS convention at New Orleans, with some narration.

It sure is interesting.

HT/The Rev. RLHIV

Blackbirding a Blackbird on Polity

Another Blackbird, the Rev. Tim May, has an excellent reflective essay on his blog regarding polity in the life of the church, especially in light of the upcoming convention of the LCMS.

It is not to be missed!

So, I hope Fr. Tim doesn't mind his blog being blackbirded by a fellow Blackbird. And lest the grammar police come knocking at my virtual door, according to Messrs. Merriam and Webster the word "blackbird" can indeed be an intransitive verb.

Politics in the Church…

This is more of a question than a statement. After going to our circuit forum meeting and noticing that my Church “politics” differ from others in the circuit, I then started to ponder how politics are done in the church. We have bound ourselves to a structure, and a polity. That is fine and good but how do we stop this from running the way the church thinks, acts, and proclaims God’s great work to the people placed into her care and the world as whole. I am fine with others differing from me politically, but how can we differ from the way the church operates in Word and Sacrament due to our different political views? The way we structure ourselves, the way our polity manifests itself reflects our understanding of what the church is and how she is to work, operate, and function. How does the called and ordained Pastor be both Pastor(al) and political without becoming indifferent, cynical, or hyper-political in these matters while at the same time participating, and contributing to the discussion in Church politics?

More Strange Bedfellows

As a postscript to my earlier post regarding joint missionary or humanitarian endeavors between the LCMS and the ELCA, here is yet another example of not just strange bedfellows, but an unusual ministère à trois.

The Southern District of the LCMS has a joint ministry not only with the ELCA, but also with the Episcopal Church USA. It is called Lutheran Episcopal Services in Mississippi.

Obviously, in a humanitarian emergency situation, we should work with anyone in order to save lives. In the aftermath of a hurricane or tsunami, for example, if Hindus and Christians are sharing a boat to rescue people, I think this is a commendable thing. However, I think there is a big difference between a spontaneous emergency and the deliberate setting up of a joint ministry. I think there would be quite a bit of objection to having an organized joint LCMS-Hindu ministry - no matter how noble the goals (maybe I'm wrong about this!).

LESM is indeed a joint ministry between three church bodies, two of which are in fellowship with each other, and the other of which isn't. This is not a spontaneous reaction to a disaster, but rather a carefully-planned 501-c3 organization with bylaws, employees, and a mission statement.

At least one member of the staff is an "ordained" woman.

Is this kind of cooperative ministry appropriate for a district of the LCMS? If so, what about cooperation with non-Christian religions? What about joint work with other Christian (and non-Christian groups) on behalf of the unborn? Should any line be drawn anywhere?

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Mission Impossible

I received a newsletter of a Lutheran mission to a certain ethnic group in the United States, the usual bulk-mail glossy with lots of pictures. It was addressed to our church, and it ended up on my desk. I did not recognize this group, and took a quick glance at the picture on the back that was visible even without breaking the seal. The picture was of a vested woman "pastor" having hands laid on her.

Obviously (or almost obviously), this was not an LCMS mission society. I wondered why my congregation was on their mailing list?

I don't think it is helpful or salutary for Lutherans to be exposed to pictures and stories about Lutheran women "pastors" - as this only serves to normalize the heresy. I wrote to the mission and told them that although I have no doubt that it was certainly not their intent to be offensive, they were doing just that by including LCMS churches on their mailing list. Obviously, the ELCA and the LCMS have doctrinal differences when it comes to the role of the vocation of the male and female sexes.

I received a reply from their "pastor" ("Rev. Deborah") that said:

"I will be sure to take you off our mailing list. Historically, our mission has been blessed with the participation of both Missouri Synod and ELCA congregations, and the picture was of my husband and I being installed, not ordained. I have been ordained for over 25 years. I am sorry our newsletter was offensive to you, we have several Missouri Synod board members who are involved in what is distributed."

Their board includes 12 members, and according to Mrs. Deborah, "several" of their board members are affiliated with the LCMS.

I do not understand how any LCMS Lutheran in good conscience can serve an ELCA mission, especially one that has a woman "pastor." There are many LCMS missionaries living hand to mouth, always on the edge of being shut down, even as we have LCMS folks not only supporting this mission with their treasure, but with their talents.

Personally, I believe any and all cooperative ministries with the ELCA - whether schools, chaplaincies, or malaria prevention - ought to be shut down. There seems to be an attitude among Missourians that "it can't happen here." We will never have a serious push for female "ordination" or a blessing of homosexual "marriage." Arguably, the four stupidest and most arrogant words in the English language are: "It can't happen here."

There must be other ways to end the scourge of malaria other than cutting a Faustian bargain to normalize that which is contrary to Scripture. As terrible as malaria is, it can only kill the body.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Consecration Sunday?

I just got an e-mail from the District Office (here all may genuflect) that mentions "Consecration Sunday."

I checked and double-checked the LSB pages x through xiii and I'm coming up empty.

Then again, according to Apology XXIV:1, every Sunday is a Mass Consecration Sunday (kind of like those youth group "Mass Events"?). But the way this e-mail sounds, "Consecration Sunday" has nothing to do with the consecration of the elements, nor even the daily consecration of ourselves through the remembrance of baptism, etc.

Consecration involves bishops - but I'm not in the English District. We pastors are ordained and consecrated at the laying on of hands - but I don't think this has anything to do with that. And apparently, "Consecration" is also a kind of beer.

The LCMS is a strange place to be at times.

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Office and Personalities

Excerpt from an article by a former president of Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario (Lutheran Church-Canada), Rev. Dr. Jonathan F. Grothe:

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS … of Diagnosis, Prognosis and Proposal: What’s going on … and what to do?


Has this always been a problem in the Church? I suspect so. Has it always been as bad as now? I cannot know and could only guess.


A. WHAT IS THE CAUSE? Sin … . Sin that invades and corrupts hearts of ministers and laity. So it has probably always been a problem, and probably as bad as now. Sometimes people point to the widespread “lack of respect for authority” and general conditions in society as contributing factors to the removal of pastors. I don’t think so. Most of our congregations are strongly inclined to respect their leaders. But I do think there are some contributing factors that have exacerbated the problem. They come from the Ministerium itself: We have contributed—greatly, I would say—to the conditions in which bad situations develop and are dealt with poorly.


1.) We have promulgated—or acquiesced while others promulgated—an Übertragungslehre [transferral doctrine], a distorted view of the relationship of Lord, Church, and Ministry. We have let it be taught and caught that the Lord gave “ministry” to the Church, that is, to the local congregation, which can order and delegate to its chosen representative such functions of ministry as it wishes. What therefore the congregation (supposedly) gives, it can (supposedly) also take back again. The transparochial Church is lost sight of, as is any personal minister representing it: any “bishop” is already deposed. Synod is “only advisory”; the “real stuff” is between pastor and congregation, and the District President better watch his step. Thus we have helped set up the situation in which a congregation acts on its own, for its own reasons, and thinks it has the full right to do so.


2.) We pastors and church leaders have also contributed to the conditions where this happens by spreading—or agreeing with— all kinds of nonsense about the human skills needed for “effective” ministry. I’ve done this much myself in the Scriptural Standards and Ecclesiastical Expectations document, which N. Nagel criticised aptly, as looking too much at the vehicle, not enough at the Giver of Gifts.17 When we talk about how it’s so “different” in the parish today (a “new world”) and what kind of communications and counselling and cross-cultural skills today’s pastors have to have. … And when we rely on Personal Information Forms and interviews and all kinds of human psych-soc. stuff to get a good “fit”, a round peg in a round hole, etc … . And when we marvel at the “effective” ministry in growing churches … WE RAISE CONGREGATIONAL EXPECTATIONS SO HIGH that they would be “satisfied” with only a small percentage of the current clergy—and only with them till they hit about (age) 55.

Leaving out the need for “the right attitude”, for love, forbearance, trust, thanksgiving for God’s gifts—all attitudes which arise from spiritual sources, we focus on talents and training. We scare the daylights out of the humbler seminarians, and we raise the hopes of congregations that they can get a Renaissance super-hero for a pastor and have a booming, effective “ministry”. And what happens? People see: things aren’t booming here, this ministry is not effective. What (we think) should be happening here, isn’t. In disappointment, and with good intentions for the “mission and ministry of the Church in this place”, the congregation removes the pastor. Perhaps the District President may even let this happen—even without demonstration of godly causes—because he wants “effective” (successful) ministry, or perhaps because he suspects the man should be deposed but has no desire (or thinks he hasn’t the power?) to effect the deposing.


Either way, in trumping up the pastors’ needed skills, we sow the seeds of discontent and disappointment which can come to fruition in congregational removal from office.

3.) Finally, we in the ministerium contribute to all of this happening because of a certain kind of “professional courtesy among lone rangers”.

pp.24-26. “Deposal And/Or Removal: Principles, Practices and Proposals” in Lutheran Theological Review, Volume VII:1&2 (Fall/Winter 1994 & Spring/Summer 1995) published jointly by the seminaries of Lutheran Church-Canada, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, St. Catharines, Ontario and Concordia Lutheran Seminary, Edmonton, Alberta.

Korah Feels Called to Minister to Others

Since the meaning of the public office is lost, ministry is limited to the private sphere. Willy-nilly Christianity becomes simply a private cult and the rationale for ordained ministry in Lutheranism threatens to disappear altogether. Here I expect is a major reason for the erosion of the understanding of ordained ministry among us. When the church becomes merely a private cult it is difficult to say why just any Christian cannot perform most if not all the functions ordinarily assigned to the ordained. It appears presumptuous in a democratic society to suppose that some are raised to a different level by ecclesiastical monkey business. And since it is, after all, only a “private” matter, what difference does ordination make? Furthermore when members of the clergy themselves capitulate and no longer do what can be called public preaching, teaching, or absolving but rather just make a public display of private emotions and experiences or invest most of their effort in private counseling, what does one need ordained clergy for? What matters is not the public exercise of the office but what “personal skills” or what kind of a (private) person the leader is. There is no way that ordination automatically imparts any skills or makes a person nice. So what is it for? Cannot properly sensitized or trained lay persons do just as well, or better?

Gerhard O. Forde. “The Ordained Ministry” in Todd Nichol & Marc Kolden (ed.) Called and Ordained: Lutheran Perspectives on the Office of the Ministry. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); p.126

Some Thoughts for Restructuring

To speak of the church is necessarily to speak of institution and organization. But makes a whale of a difference which images you are using when you say organization. If one speaks with the image of a religious IBM with its international headquarters, it is not far to consider of individual units as franchises to distribute whatever the central headquarters designs or sells. Such franchises are known as the grass roots. What a strange grid to lay over the holy church. Can you imagine what a picture is conjured up when nurturing the church is thought of as fertilizing the grass roots?

Kenneth F. Korby. “The Pastoral Office and the Priesthood of Believers” in Lord Jesus Christ, Will You Not Stay: Essays in Honor of Ronald Feuerhahn on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by J. Bart Day, Jon D. Vieker et al. (Houston, Texas: The Feuerhahn Festschrift Committee, 2002); p.337

Article about ELS and ELCA from Mankato Free Press

http://www.mankato-freepress.com/local/local_story_237211220.html

Having a Personal Vision for the Church?

We do not deny that the spirit of prophecy still lives, that He rules and works, that the gift of prophecy is still in the Church; but we hold that all prophecy must be according to the analogy of faith, -- namely, in the New Testament, must be related to the Word of the Lord as the particular to the universal, as the conclusion to the proposition, as the bud to the plant. A prophecy that does not confirm the true doctrine, or that is not in connection with it, is empty and worthless (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 [Open in Libronix (if available)] ). Further, a prophecy that rests on merely human foundations, or does not proceed from the Holy Spirit, even though it be ever so correct a conjecture, is not a prophecy; as, for instance, Balaam's, Numbers 24, or Caiaphas's, John 11:51 [Open in Libronix (if available)] , is no testimony to the man that said it. Therefore we must be just as critical of prophecies as of miracles, and must hold firmly that all prophecies must accord with the faith once delivered to the saints (Romans 12:7 [Open in Libronix (if available)] ).

This distinction, which has to be made with reference to miracles and prophecies, shows that they cannot be characteristic marks of the Church. They need to be sifted and tried by the pure Word and the Scriptural Confession of the Church; they do not give a clear testimony; they, according to their nature, call to inquiry, -- and this so much the more because it is not the church only that has these uncertain witnesses; but heretics too, heathen, and Antichrist, boast and will boast of them.

Besides, it is not easy to see why our opponents glory so in miracles. The miracles which occurred in the first centuries did not occur in the service of the Roman Church -- and if in the missions of later times wonderful things occurred, it was not in the service of Romish error. If, however, something wonderful actually occurred in connection with the doctrine that contradicted the Scriptures, it certainly was not of divine origin, for God would not help error to victory by miracles. And, as to later times, what can they tell of? Miracles like that at Ratisbon can easily be explained even if it were not condemned by the worship of images; and miracles such as are claimed for the holy coat at Treves, an imposing personality -- whether Jewish or Mohammedan or heathen -- could produce upon neurotic people. How many things of this sort could be alleged, if there were any reason. We need not go back to Luther, for did many a wonderful thing for the sake of which, if he had been a Romanist, Rome would have canonized him. Every period of our Church has had occurrences enough of the sort, far surpassing the image of the Madonna at Ratisbon and the coat at Treves. And this is the case with prophecy too, of which our opponents in our times have indeed little enough reason to boast.

Let the ministers of our Church become conscious of the wonderful gift which is bestowed upon them in the pure Word and prayer; let them cease to dismiss the melancholy, the tempted, or those who seem to be possessed, and to treat them like fools, turning their own parishioners over to the Romanists to be sprinkled with holy water; let them cease on account of their indolence and indifference towards those who seek their help to give the Romanists occasion to boast of miracles done upon their flocks. It is time to use God's Word in prayer and to make use of the prayer of the Church for blessing upon all who are in need. The gift of God can sleep, but it can be waked up again. The Lord has not left our Church without the gift of prayer; He hears her cry. If the gift be used, help and answer will come, through which the pure Word, and a great blessing through it, will more and more be commended to the people. -- The Lord be with us; His blessing and the gifts of His grace be and abide with us; that men may know that the true God is in Sion!

Wilhelm Loehe. Three Books Concerning the Church: Offered to friends of the Lutheran Church, for Consideration and Discussion. Translated from the German by Edward T. Horn. [Reading, PA: Pilger Publishing House, 1908] pages 148-150

Fighting as a Sign of Life: The True Faith Makes the True Church

We know well enough what our adversaries are always saying. "Whenever were you united? You always have been fighting, -- and how long has it been that you have boasted of a Church again? It is not long that you have spoken in this way, and not a very long time ago you yourselves forsook your Confession and were not the Church, which now you boast yourselves to be." But our adversaries' mockery does not frighten us. We are not afraid to say the whole truth, -- we have the courage of repentance, and in this courage a fresh life which our adversaries cannot slay, which it were better for them to fear.

It is true that our fathers contended; in the bright light of our Church they they saw little inequalities in the way, yes, motes in the air; and over these they contended. But it was for us they fought. Now there is rest. We are one, and our unity grows apace! We have conquered each other. We can go forward with one mind. -- It is true! There was much unfaithfulness in our borders. We had almost dropped out of sight. But we had not died out, -- or then whence came we, who fight against you? We are the proof what we teach, that the Church can be small, but also that it is immortal; that it can wane like the Moon, but also that it can increase like the Moon. Or would you that we had died out?

Let us use your own position. For our new life has been kindled by the Scriptures, which in that point are clear, as indeed they are everywhere. Therefore here is a manifest shining example that you are wrong who say that the Scriptures are not clear. Or would you prefer to say that our new life was enkindled by the writings of our fathers? Good! Then may you well be amazed before these relics of ours, before these dumb words of our sleeping fathers now first learned by us to their least part, in which we learn both how we must fight, and how we must not fight. Enough! Here is the Lutheran Church. Behold, it was dead, and it is alive again. It is the old Confession, but new times and new strength are here!

Permit us to carry our speech higher, yet we will not therefore allow ourselves to lie. This Lutheran Church, inasmuch as it holds Word and Sacraments in a pure Confession, is the wellspring of truth, and by her waters all who thirst in all other Churches are satisfied. The children of this Church in cheerful peace with shining faces and sharp swords stand around the spring, from which all are saved who are saved. Here is Israel's host and, in the midst, the Ark of the Word and Sacraments, and over the Ark of the Lord. Yes, here is the Holy of Holies of the House of God; and if one say: "The Lord send thee help from the Sanctuary and strengthen thee out of Zion," the Sanctuary and Zion are here with the Church of the pure Confession, in whose Word and Sacraments the Lord dwells more gloriously than in the Temple of the Old Testament! Hence proceeds all salvation; for here is uncovered, not partially but completely, so far as it can be on this side of the grave, the clear truth of the Gospel.

Whatever other truths other communions possess, are here united in the Truth. The perfect Truth, kept in the fire of the centuries, the Truth that overcometh the world, is here! Here it is confessed, here is protest against every perversion of it, here not a little word of it is yielded. So it was, and so it is again. Therefore, here is the Church par excellence. Do they gainsay this? Let them take away from us the standards and marks of the Church! Let them prove, what they never can prove, that our Confession declines from the Word! So long as they do not do this, the Lord is with us, and it is from us, from our perfect fulness, that all other Churches live. Till then let us rejoice in what we have, be a blessing to all other Churches, refuse their error, take pleasure in all their truths; -- fight against their wrongdoing, and feel at one with them in all they do that is right.

Wilhelm Loehe. Three Books Concerning the Church: Offered to friends of the Lutheran Church, for Consideration and Discussion. Translated from the German by Edward T. Horn. [Reading, PA: Pilger Publishing House, 1908] pages 103-106

To More Fully Reflect Augsburg Confession XIV in Our Practice

The following passed at our District Convention yesterday. I forgot to write down the vote numbers.

Resolution 1-01 - To More Fully Reflect Augsburg Confession XIV in Our Practice

Whereas, in certain situations today, the Synod approves of preaching and administration of the sacraments by men who have not been publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry (this position is expressed in 1989 Resolution 3-05B, “. . . when no pastor is available, and in the absence of any specific Scriptural directives to the contrary, congregations may arrange for the performance of these distinctive functions [preaching and administering the sacraments] by qualified individuals”); and

Whereas, the Augsburg Confession's fourteenth article reads, “Concerning church government it is taught that no one should publicly teach, preach, or administer the sacraments without a proper [public] call” (KW p. 46), which includes both call and ordination; and

Whereas, the systematic theology faculties of both seminaries, acting jointly, have published a detailed statement on “The Office of the Holy Ministry” (Concordia Journal 33.3[July 2007]: 242-255) which states in part,

“The Confessions never use the truth that the whole church possesses the power of the keys to make the office of the holy ministry unnecessary or merely useful. On the contrary, this truth serves as the basis for the church's right to call, choose, and ordain ministers. . . . [T]he Treatise [on the Power and Primacy of the Pope] does not imagine churches without ordained ministers of some kind, even in emergency situations or when no one else will call and ordain men for the office. As confessors of the same doctrine, neither should we. . . “'[C]all and ordination' are essential for conduct of the ministry. . . .What is the sign of authority for ministers today? It is their call and ordination, which assure that they act by divine right and on the authority of Christ. This truth makes such ideas as “lay ministers” invitations for difficulties and troubles to ministers whose authority is doubtful and to laypersons whose assurance of God's grace may be questioned.” (pp. 253-254, 255); and,

Whereas, the Board for Pastoral Education and the two seminaries are now implementing the Specific Ministry Pastor Program mandated by the 2007 Synodical Convention; and

Whereas, the Board for Pastoral Education and the Council of Presidents are due to report to the 2010 Synodical Convention concerning “situations currently served by licensed lay deacons” (2007 Res. 5-02); therefore be it

Resolved, that the Northern Illinois District in convention express its concern about the current situation in the Synod at large concerning men who are conducting Word and Sacrament ministry without being publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry; and be it further

Resolved, that the Northern Illinois District in convention memorialize the 2010 Synodical convention to direct the Board for Pastoral Education and the Council of Presidents to develop a plan and lay out procedures A) for how all men who are currently engaged in the public ministry of Word and Sacrament without being publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry may either be enrolled in a regular seminary program or the Specific Ministry Pastor Program, or cease from all forms of public Word and Sacrament ministry by the end of 2016, and B) for how all current Synod and District tracks, programs, and licensing procedures which train men for pubic Word and Sacrament ministry without benefit of being publicly called to and placed in the office of the ministry can be phased out in favor of the Specific Ministry Pastor Program or a regular seminary program by the end of 2016; and be it further

Resolved, that the Board for Pastoral Education report on this plan to the 2013 Synod in Convention for approval, emendation, and adoption, and be it finally

Resolved, that the Northern Illinois District memorialize the 2010 Synodical convention to reconsider 1989 Resolution 3-05B in light of the Scriptures, the Confessions, the report mandated by 2007 Resolution 5-02, and the Specific Ministry Pastor Program.

Congregational Catholicity, Pastoral Practice, and Episcopal Ecclesiology

The catholicity of the Church comprises two aspects:

(1.) It is the unity of doctrine and fellowship, of teaching and practice, which is shared by all the congregations of the whole Church in every time and place; and,

(2.) It is the fullness of the one Church in each congregation, in each time and each place, wherever the apostolic doctrine of Christ is faithfully received and handed over in teaching and practice.

The locus of this catholicity is the preaching of Christ and the administration of His gifts. That is why the Church, properly speaking, is the whole communion of those believers in Christ among whom the Gospel is rightly preached and the Sacraments are rightly administered in accordance with the Gospel. Wherever there is this faithful preaching and hearing, this faithful giving and receiving of the Gospel, there is the Church, the one Body of Christ.

The catholicity of any given congregation is therefore both inward and outward. On the one hand, the Church in each congregation is fully self-contained and self-sufficient in the local Ministry of the Gospel; because it is Christ Himself who speaks and acts in that Ministry. On the other hand, the Ministry of the Gospel does not belong exclusively to any one congregation; because it is the sacred tradition of the one Lord Jesus Christ, handed over to His holy Apostles and to each succeeding generation of His Church on earth. Because a congregation lives from that Ministry, and is the Church because of that Ministry of the Gospel, it belongs to the fellowship of every other congregation that lives from that same Holy Ministry.

The fellowship of the Church catholic is the shared participation of the means of grace. To have pulpit and altar in common is not merely a consequence of Church fellowship; it is the fellowship of the Church. For as the Church lives in the preaching and hearing, the giving and receiving of the Gospel, so does the fellowship of the Church reside in the mutual administration of the Gospel. This fellowship is not parcelled out in bits and pieces, nor by degrees, but is whole and complete in the common preaching of the one Lord, the common teaching of the one faith, the common practice of one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and the common administration of the one Bread, which is the Body of Christ, and the one Cup, which is the New Testament in His Blood. Many other things may differ between congregations, whether in their temporal circumstances, their pious customs or ceremonies, without impinging upon the catholicity and fellowship of the Church. But differences in the preaching, teaching and administration of the Gospel are a breaking of the Church's fellowship on earth.

The catholic faith is not divided, nor can it be, but the Church on earth is, on account of sinful human fraility and mortal weakness. Thus, the fellowship of the Church on earth is necessarily marked and measured by the outward confession of the catholic faith, that is, by the preaching and teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the administration of the Holy Sacraments. Differences in this outward confession divide the fellowship of the Church on earth, so that the integrity of the catholic faith may be clarified, and that the erring may be corrected and called to repentance. Since the heart of the faith is the Gospel, and Christ is the Savior of sinners, we do not conclude that the heterodox are damned; but precisely for the sake of Christ and His Gospel, neither do we encourage or embrace the outward confession of heterodoxy. Rather, we share the fellowship of the means of grace with those who share with us the outward confession of the catholic faith in teaching and practice.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is a fellowship of congregations ostensibly sharing a common confession of the catholic faith. The polity of this synodical fellowship was formed, historically, on a congregational basis. That arrangement demonstrates a real understanding of catholicity, in recognizing the wholeness of the Church in the life of each local congregation, and in the mutual cooperation of those congregations as fellow members of the one Body of Christ. The synodical membership of congregations collectively and of pastors individually, and the suffrage of both congregations and pastors in the governance of the Missouri Synod, rightly acknowledges that the Church comprises both preachers and hearers of the Gospel. That the official leadership of this polity is vested in men ordained to the Holy Ministry is appropriate, given that the pastors of the Church are responsible for the administration of the Gospel, which is the foundation of the Church and the basis for the fellowship of congregations in the Church.

Unfortunately, the autonomy of congregations within the fellowship of the Missouri Synod has increasingly meant an independence of spirit and practice. At the same time, the "advisory" role of "the Synod" has become increasingly legalistic and heavy-handed, as confidence in the Word of God appears to have waned and the unity of our confession in teaching and practice has been stretched and strained. The political representation of both congregations and pastors often seems to be a competitive balance of powers, almost adversarial, instead of the harmonious concord of preachers and hearers. Suffrage in general has been driven by partisan propaganda, rather than emerging out of the lived catholicity of the Church in the practice of congregations. The "pastors" who administrate the polity of our synodical fellowship have been ordained, but, with few exceptions, they are no longer pastoring the Church with the means of grace; they are not attached to any one pulpit and altar; and they are not regularly preaching and teaching and administering the Gospel. Sadly, that is also the case with most of our seminary professors. As a consequence, the leading "pastors" of our synodical fellowship are functionally removed from the beating heart of our catholicity, where the Church lives and the fellowship of the Church resides. That is not to fault those men who are presently serving in such offices, but it is a fault of the current LCMS polity.

Church fellowship is pulpit and altar fellowship. It is the fellowship of real bishops, that is to say, of parish pastors who are called and ordained to the oversight of particular congregations. When a pastor communes the member(s) of another congregation, it is because he is in fellowship with the pastor of that other congregation; which means, or ought to mean, that he preaches and teaches and practices the same confession of the catholic faith. Likewise, when a pastor preaches from the pulpit of another pastor's parish, he does so within the fellowship of their common confession, as a sharing of pastoral care and catechesis; for that is what preaching is.

The polity of our synodical fellowship ought to be connected, at ground level, as closely as possible to that real life of the Church in local congregations. It should therefore be structured along the contours of pastoral fellowship in the catholic faith, in service and support of pastoral practice. Such a polity would rightly begin with the mutual conversation and consolation of brother pastors serving congregations in close proximity.

The current arrangement of circuits in the LCMS is generally quite sound, and the monthly meeting of circuit pastors would be a fine starting point for synodical structure and governance. In that comradery of real bishops (parish pastors), a mutual consensus should be reached to identify one as an overseer of the rest. We have that now in the office of circuit counselor, but there is a lack of clarity and consistency in the way that office is understood and exercised. Although the circuit counselor is more-or-less chosen by his colleagues (whether by consensus or compromise), he then functions officially as an agent of the District President, so his relationship to the circuit ends up being from the top-down, instead of from the ground-up. But the special strength of the circuit counselor is that he (not always, but usually) continues to serve as a full-time pastor in his own parish; he remains a real bishop of the Church in that place. His humanly arranged oversight of colleagues is informed by the exercise of his divinely given pastoral vocation.

Now, the circuit overseers within a larger region might identify one of their number to serve as their overseer and representative; and, in turn, those regional overseers might identify one of their number to serve as their overseer and representative; and so on, and so forth, perhaps as many as three or four levels of oversight.

Each of these overseers should continue to serve his pastoral office as a real bishop of the Church in a particular place, that is to say, as the pastor of his own congregation. At some level of oversight, it is likely that a pastor would not be able to serve a parish on his own while also serving the larger synodical fellowship. Even then, instead of becoming a "full-time" politician, he should still be attached to the particular pulpit and altar of a local congregation, where he would regularly serve as a minister of the liturgy in cooperation with the parish pastor, and, as time permits, regularly preach and teach, visit the homebound and hospitalized, and administer the holy Sacraments. In such a case, his income would be covered, in whole or in large part, by the synodical fellowship, so as not to be a burden but a benefit to the local congregation. It would not need to be a large congregation. The point is that an overseer of brother pastors should remain actively engaged in parish life and pastoral practice. The same thing is true of seminary professors. It wouldn't be necessary for the parish service of these men to be extensive, nor should it be excessive, but only regular and consistent, a genuine service and a real participation in the life of the Church. A fine example is provided in the case of my dear friend and colleague, Pastor Grobien, who serves as an assistant pastor of Emmaus in South Bend while pursuing his full-time doctoral studies at the University of Notre Dame. Such arrangements can be made to the mutual benefit of both the pastor and the congregation, without unduly burdening either.

The most important "oversight" within this sort of synodical polity would not be that which requires "full-time" attention at a district or national level, but that of the circuit overseer. His "political" function, so to speak, would be to foster collegial fellowship with and among the circuit pastors and to facilitate the discernment of their conciliar wisdom pertaining to pastoral practice and the Church's confession of the catholic faith. Every other level of synodical oversight would build upon this pastoral foundation.

The role of the laity in this polity would be exercised, first and foremost, in the relationship they actually have, by divine arrangement, with their own pastors. For it is precisely in that relationship of the faithful with their own pastors that the Church catholic is embodied and lives in the form of the local congregation. Pastors do not constitute the Church by themselves; preachers and hearers belong together in Christ, as the Gospel belongs to faith and faith to the Gospel. (That is why every man ordained to the Office of the Holy Ministry should be attached to a particular pulpit and altar.) This relationship of pastors with the people of God is not a competition, nor should it be contentious, but is the very concord of Christ and His Church.

As pastors are called to serve the Church within their divine vocation as Ministers of the Gospel, so are the laity called to serve within their own respective vocations. This works well in the life of a healthy parish, and there's no reason it can't work on the larger scale of synodical politics. The members of sister congregations within a circuit, for example, ought to cooperate in planning and putting into practice the common efforts of the "synod in that place." That should be happening more than it does. Especially with respect to legal and financial considerations, and in the Church's work of mercy in the world, the laity are often much better positioned and equipped than most pastors to carry out the responsibilities of the Church's earthly life. That is true at every level of a synodical fellowship. As they are fully members of the Church, the laity ought to be fully involved in developing, authorizing, and undertaking such enterprises, whether in part-time or full-time capacities. Not in competition with the pastors of the Church, nor as a "balance of powers," but as a stewardship in cooperation with the pastors.

In sum, the polity of our synodical fellowship ought to be congregationally structured and pastorally governed. That is simply to say that our polity, however it may be formed in the freedom of faith, ought to grow out of the preaching and hearing, the giving and receiving of the Gospel. It ought to concern itself chiefly with that Ministry of the Gospel. It ought to be always returning us (and calling others) to that life of the Church in the pure fountain which flows from the riven side of Christ, our Lord.

Sketching Some Categories and Contours for Consideration and Conversation

First, a clarification: This most recent string of posts dealing with the possibility of an evangelical "rule" is not the underlying point, nor the primary purpose, of the Four-and-Twenty Blackbirds. It is simply a current topic of conversation. Some of the blackbirds are interested; others are not. Some may agree that this is worth pursuing; others may not. Some may think that this or that would be the best way to proceed; whereas others may have entirely different ideas. In the end, we may all walk away from this discussion, and that'll be that. In the meantime, other topics are fair game, and no one is bound one way or the other by these present debates.

Second, along with the reading list I previously shared in my comments under the previous post, a good friend pointed me to the "Rule" of the Society of the Holy Trinity. That may be found at: http://www.societyholytrinity.org/ (link to the Rule of the Society on the lefthand side of their homepage). I am aware of differences of opinion regarding the Society of the Holy Trinity; there are certain aspects of that Society's principles and practices to which I also take exception. However, I think it does provide an instructive example worthy of consideration. I attended one of the Society's general retreats as an observer several years ago, and I was frankly impressed with much of what I saw and heard. In any case, for purposes of this discussion, the "Rule" of the Society is helpful, and so for that reason I call attention to it.

Finally, to the main point of this new post: As I've been perusing various readings, pondering our discussions heretofore, and putting my pen to paper over the past week or so, I've been sketching some categories and contours for consideration and conversation. What I've drafted along those lines so far is what follows. The only "rules" included at this point are some basic Scriptural texts, which help (I hope) to define the scope and determine the structure I envision.

I've formulated three broad categories: Prayer, Pastoral Care, and Public Profession of the Faith. Somewhat coincidentally, these three areas appear to correspond with leitourgia, diakonia, and marturia, such as Dr. Just described and discussed in his plenary presentation at our recent Indiana District Worship and Spiritual Care Workshop. Of course, he didn't invent those categories; he learned them from the discourse of the early church. I was struck with the similarity of these distinctions to the parameters with which I had already been tinkering, and that helped, in turn, to clarify, firm up, and develop my thinking.

For the time being, then, I've attempted to organize the shape that a broad evangelical "rule" of pastoral practice might take. As I've said before, I imagine that such a "rule" would be spelled out in a kind of manual, preferrably one that would be easily updated, edited and expanded, as collective pastoral experience and wisdom were brought to bear upon it. Already, it is for the sake of soliciting the input of such pastoral experience and wisdom that I set this forth, a work in progress, that it might be fodder for fraternal conversation.


RUBY RULES OF ORDER FOR PRAYER, PASTORAL CARE, AND PUBLIC PROFESSION OF FAITH

"So then, those who received his word were baptized. . . . They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. . . . And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common. . . . Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved" (Acts 2:41a, 42, 44–47).


RULES OF PRAYER (lex orandi / leitourgia)

"Rejoice always; pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks."
(1 Thessalonians 5:16–18a)

"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgiving, be made on behalf of all men. . . . Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension" (1 Timothy 2:1, 8).

"I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.’"
(1 Corinthians 11:23–24)

"Let all things be done for edification. . . . For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. . . . But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner."
(1 Corinthians 14:26c, 33, 40)


1. Service Books and Hymnals


2. The Divine Service

a. orders of service

b. special rites

c. additional rubrics


3. Assisting Ministers

a. the order of the clergy within the parish

b. Communion assistants

c. acolytes and other assistants


4. Daily Prayer

a. of the pastor

b. of the parish

c. resources for homes and families


5. Calendar

a. lectionary

b. seasonal contours

c. festivals and precedence

d. sanctoral cycle

e. additional propers


6. Music

a. cantors and choirs

b. liturgical music

c. hymnody

d. instrumentation


7. Ceremonies

a. the evangelical and catholic understanding of adiaphora

b. the use of ceremonies for the sake of love and good order, without frivolity

c. the avoidance of novelty, innovation, and offense

d. processions

e. genuflecting

f. elevations

g. incense


8. Vestments and Paraments

a. for the Divine Service

b. for the daily offices

c. the color of the day


9. Architecture and Accouterments

a. vessels

b. furnishings

c. candles


RULES OF PASTORAL CARE (inner missions / diakonia)

"Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age’" (St. Matthew 28:28–20).

"The congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need" (Acts 4:32–35).

"The twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, ‘It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word’" (Acts 6:2–4).

"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20:28).


1. Preaching


2. Catechesis

a. resources

b. methodology

c. involvement of parents in the catechesis of children

d. fostering ongoing catechesis within the congregation


3. Holy Baptism

a. scheduling and preparation
i. infants
ii. older children
iii. adults

b. recognition of emergency Baptism

c. uncertainty concerning Baptism


4. Admittance to the Holy Communion

a. criteria

b. preparation

c. examination

d. First Communion

e. the rite of confirmation


5. The Office of the Keys

a. Confession and Holy Absolution
i. the pastor’s father confessor
ii. being a father confessor
iii. scheduling times for confession

b. Church discipline


6. Visitations

a. general

b. homebound members

c. hospital

d. prison

e. delinquents

f. visitors


7. Counsel and Advice

a. vocational questions

b. illnesses of body and mind

c. addictions and besetting sins
i. pornography
ii. alcoholism
iii. drug addiction

d. financial decisions


8. Marriage and Family

a. living together

b. out of wedlock pregnancy

c. preparation for marriage

d. weddings

e. marital counseling

f. procreation questions

e. divorce and remarriage

f. the pastor’s personal vocations as husband and father


9. Serving the Youth


10. Pastoral Oversight of Diakonia

a. almsgiving

b. widows and orphans in distress

c. the care of women

d. the role of lay elders


11. Death and Dying

a. ministry to the dying

b. ministry to the bereaved

c. funerals

d. cremation

e. miscarriage and still-birth


12. Working with Lutheran Schools

a. relations with the principal and teachers

b. the pastor’s role in the life of the school

c. association schools

d. Lutheran high school


13. Communication within the Parish


RULES OF PUBLIC PROFESSION (outer mission / marturia)

"First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:1–4).

"Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king."
(1 Peter 2:17)

"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. . . . Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. . . . Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law" (Romans 13:1–2, 5, 7–8).

"Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame."
(1 Peter 3:15–16)


1. Church Fellowship

a. synodical fellowship
i. participation in synodical polity and politics
~ circuit winkels, forums and convocations
~ district conferences and conventions
ii. respect for synodical structures and protocols
iii. conscientious dissent and means of reconciliation

b. Communion fellowship / closed Communion

c. cooperation in externals (?)


2. The Divine Call

a. consideration

b. announcing acceptance or decline

c. ordination and installation

d. sabbaticals and leaves of absence


3. Missions and Evangelism

a. support of seminaries and colleges

b. encouraging evangelism in the proper vocations of each member

c. evangelism as a corporate enterprise of the congregation

d. supporting and participating in the larger mission of the Church


4. Chaplaincy

a. military

b. institutional

c. government

d. police force

e. firefighters and paramedics

f. crisis situations


5. The Public Square

a. apologetics

b. morality and ethics

c. publicity in the media / public communications

d. political commentary

e. participation in civic events

A Step Back, a Deep Breath, and a New Prospective Perspective

The recent thread of multiple posts and many comments on the potential possibility of an evangelical rule has been interesting, to say the least; some parts invigorating, some parts frustrating, but instructive in any case. As I've noted in a couple of my notoriously long comments, my perspective and my thinking on this idea have developed in the course of discussion, and I regard that as the mark of a good conversation. I appreciate the give and take, the cut and thrust of debate, the concrete propositions, the pointed criticisms, the cautions and concerns. I'm not as thrilled with some of the specifics that have been bandied about, but I haven't felt threatened by anything. It seems to me that we ought to be able to contemplate ideas without harboring the fear or savoring the fantasy that something, once uttered, is a position irrevocably taken or a project in the process of appearing.

I'm offering some new thoughts to contemplate here, as I continue to formulate some alternative proposals for consideration and discussion. Someone has to join Brother Curtis out on the limb with the bull by the horns and the tiger by the tail, even if only to lead him back to the trunk of the tree in one piece. I'm grateful to him, not only for his daring contributions, which have generated a lively discussion, but also for his graciously patient responses to critics.

The notion of a "rule" of order is certainly not contrary to the Gospel, nor is it divisive to the life of the Church. This isn't the lawyer seeking to justify himself, but the pastor seeking to serve the flock faithfully. To be ordained is to be under orders, for the sake of the people one is called to shepherd with the Word of the Lord. To be put into an office is to be "ruled" and "ordered" by that vocation, so that others may be served by grace. Thus, there are the rules laid out for the leaders of Israel, for priests and prophets and kings. And there are the rules of the Pastoral Epistles, for the pastoral office and for the households of the parish, for husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, children, slaves, workers and such. Hence, the Table of Duties in the Small Catechism. Here is the Law serving as both curb and guide, not for the sake of justification, but for the sake of the neighbor. Those who are perfectly free before God by faith, are entirely bound to the neighbor by love. Call it whatever you like, there are "rules" by which we live to the glory of God and the good of others, and pastors are obliged to strive for the sort of practice that will best serve the Church.

It is true that we are not in a position to establish, adopt or enforce anything like the ancient canons of the great ecumenical councils, nor anything like the sixteenth-century Lutheran church orders. Those historic precedents belong to the polity and jurisdiction of the Church on earth, in a way that we are in no position or authority to emulate. We've not been aiming at the formation of a new communion, nor a new church structure. The benefit of the ancient canons and the church orders is their example of the Church's confession in response to the particular circumstances and challenges of the day and age in which they were formulated. We have our own circumstances and challenges to deal with. So how shall we best respond with a clear and consistent confession of Christ? Apart from the political structures within which the canons and church orders found their place, the way in which those canons and orders addressed specifics then can be instructive to us now. Analogous counsel, guidance and advice can be rendered in any number of ways, many of which would have nothing like the ecclesial jurisdiction or political authority of those historic examples.

Despite the reactions that some readers have had, and perhaps in spite of presuppositions that some of "us" have had to begin with, an evangelical "rule" of order would not likely deal with a lot of ceremonial details. There is guidance to be given in the realm of ceremonies, to be sure, but evangelical guidance will respect the broad catholicity of the Church as well as the freedom of the Gospel and the necessity of pastoral judgment, discretion and care. In any case, the sort of "rule" that I have more and more come to envision would be far more comprehensive, broader and more general than the fine points of liturgical practice. "Rules" pertaining to the liturgy, rites and ceremonies, would find their place alongside "rules" pertaining to pastoral care, catechesis, almsgiving, church fellowship, public witness, missions, etc. Such "rules," as I have already suggested in several comments, would not point us away from our synodical fellowship, but would encourage a conscientious respect for that fellowship and support an active participation in its polity and protocols.

What we really need, it seems to me, are not so much "rules" that describe what we're already doing well, but "rules" that call us to daily repentance and admonish us to do better in those areas where we are at our weakest, whether out of ignorance, laziness, reluctance or cynicism. We should not come up with "rules" for ourselves that are mainly aimed at correcting others; though I do not deny that we are called to correct, reprove and exhort our erring brethren. But we ought to "rule" and discipline ourselves to strive for greater and more consistent faithfulness in our own practices, especially with respect to the duties of office that are most difficult for us and the least enjoyable. That's one of the tremendous benefits of doing something together with brothers in office, so that we do not individually become caricatures of our respective strengths and negligent in areas of personal weakness.

An evangelical "rule" would simply be a way of organizing and putting into writing what ought to be happening all the time anyway: the mutual conversation and consolation of the brethren, the spiritual counsel of fathers in Christ for their sons in the faith, and the spiritual care of fellow pastors for one another, out of love for the office, for each other and the Church. It's a way of pooling our knowledge and experience for the benefit of one and all.

I've offered some examples of the sort of thing I have in mind, in my response to Brother Peperkorn, and I'll mention two of those again: The Concordia Catechetial Academy and Higher Things. These efforts are narrower than an evangelical "rule" would be, but in their own respective bailiwicks they give us a good picture of how to serve the Church by confessing the faith in very practical ways and with very tangible means. I've also mentioned the extraordinary example of Wilhelm Löhe, who, from his Neuendettelsau parish, served the Church far and wide in a number of significant areas: Liturgy. Missions. Pastoral Care. Diakonia. He taught by his own beautiful example, but he also worked hard to facilitate positive efforts on the part of the Church at large. He organized, catechized, recruited and inspired, exhorted and encouraged, and contributed to great lengths. Not only his example, but the fruits of his labors continue to serve the Church in our own day.

Along with these examples, my attention has been turning to other sorts of models to consider. The ancient canons and Lutheran church orders are interesting and instructive, but there are also more pertinent things to read and contemplate. Manuals of pastoral care, for example, spanning church history from St. Gregory the Great to our own C.F.W. Walther. Any number of Luther's writings, which deal with the life of the Church in the world. The Saxon Visitation Articles, which Brother Curtis also mentioned at one point, but which we haven't discussed. Similarly, the Enchiridion of Martin Chemnitz on Ministry, Word and Sacraments, which served as a measure of a man's readiness for the pastoral office. I've got a dozen or more books that I want to begin perusing and reading, as my time permits, for the sake of learning from others who have carefully considered the work of pastors in caring for the Church on earth.

My thinking, at this point, is that the sort of "rule" that might emerge from our discussions and fraternal debate would function more like a manual of pastoral care than a new "society" within our current synodical fellowship(s). It would ideally be the sort of "living document" that the Apostolic Constitutions of the early church appear to have been; that is to say, developing over time through the input of pastoral experience, and addressing ever new challenges facing the Church in her confession of the Gospel. It would be entirely free, take it or leave it. Yet, by mutual agreement and voluntary submission on the part of pastors who recognize its wisdom and benefits, an evangelical "rule" of this sort would serve and support the catechesis of the Word of God, the preaching of the Gospel, the profession of the faith, the prayer of the Church, the pastoral care of souls, and the compassionate care of orphans and widows in their distress.

Order, Order, in the Basilica!

The crossed gavels upon which St. Missouriensis was martyred for his adiaphoraism, upside down.

Here's a first stab at some canons for a society of church order in our midst. Where I thought it would be helpful, I've put notes to elucidate my thinking in square brackets. I've sought to keep it short and to just the points we listed in previous discussions. I sort of kept it organized. . .

I hope it proves fruitful for discussion here and maybe at Kewanee as well - but that's up to the Editor - no not him, the other Editor, the hyper-Euro Editor.

+HRC

Evangelical Rule and Church Order

Preamble

[Name, Nature, Purpose]

We, the undersigned member congregations and pastors of the Missouri Synod, distressed at the confusing state of churchly life among us, hereby pledge to conduct our ministries within the Missouri Synod under the following Evangelical Rule and Church Order. We do not pine for Rome, Constantinople, or the America of neo-Evangelicalism. We seek to be authentically Lutheran and show as much to the world through a unified practice of our common doctrine.

In previous centuries, Lutheran Church Orders regulated the life of the church in a given territory and carried names commensurate with that purpose, e.g., The Wittenberg Church Order. This order, however, is set down not for a territorial church but to be of assistance within the fellowship of the Missouri Synod. Therefore, this order shall simply be called the Evangelical Rule and Church Order [of such-and-such? Still looking for a better name...]

The ERCO is not a communion fellowship – rather it is created to be of assistance to members within the communion fellowship of the Missouri Synod. Member congregations and pastors of the LCMS may freely join the society of this Rule and Order and just as freely leave without any repercussions for fellowship whatsoever. Members of this Rule and Order first and foremost pledge to abide by a faithful, evangelical, and fraternal life within the Missouri Synod – and are therefore by definition in full altar and pulpit fellowship with all members of the Missouri Synod whether they be members of this society or not.

The purpose of this Evangelical Rule and Church Order is twofold. Toward members of the same, the ERCO exists to provide an evangelical and fraternal framework for regulating churchly life and ministry toward greater unity and harmony. For members of our communion fellowship who are not members of this order, the ERCO exists to show an example of what a peaceful, ordered, and unified practice can mean for churchly life in our midst.

The Canons of the Evangelical Rule and Church Order

[Section 1: Authority and Membership]

[The Dean]

[Notes: Authority in the church must be as a-political as possible without being strictly elite and “above the law.” Hence, I propose an authority of lifelong tenure but with clear procedures for impeachment. A lifelong tenure removes the Dean from the necessity to “campaign” for his office every few years – the possibility of impeachment holds him accountable. I also thought about simply having the question come before the assembly ever 5 years: Shall the Dean be retained in office? But the procedure below seems more in keeping with Christian custom for authority in the church.]

Canon 1

The Dean and head of this order shall be an ordained minister of the LCMS, either retired or serving a congregation, and member of this order. He shall exemplify the qualifications for the Ministry laid down in Scripture and be known for wisdom and humility. It is the Dean's duty to enforce these Canons in the ministry and churchly life of the members of the society. His decisions in all such questions are final and binding on members of the ERCO. If members refuse to abide by his decisions, it is the Dean's duty to remove them from membership and notify the other members of his decision and the reason(s) therefor.

Canon 2

Members of the ERCO shall assemble annually on ___________ at _____________ for the purposes of mutual encouragement, study, prayer, elections, the setting of the year's Calendar, and amending canons.

Canon 3

The Dean shall be elected at the next annual assembly after a vacancy in the office has occurred. The Dean must be elected by a two-thirds majority of the assembly. The Dean's tenure lasts until A) he becomes unwilling to serve, B) he is impeached, or C) his disability or death.

Canon 4

A simple majority of the annual assembly may agree to hear charges against the Dean upon the request of two or three witnesses. After hearing the evidence against the Dean and hearing his response, a two-thirds majority of the annual assembly may convict and remove the Dean. The assembly will then open the floor for nominations and elect a new dean by a two-thirds majority.

Canon 5

If the Deanship is vacated by resignation, disability, or death, the oldest member of the ERCO shall be offered the Interim Deanship, and if he refuses, the next oldest and so on until it is accepted. The Interim Dean fulfills the duties of the Dean until a Dean is elected.

[Members and the Annual Assembly]

Canon 6

Pastors and congregations may become members of the ERCO by informing the Dean of their desire to conform their ministry to these canons. All such applications are provisionally accepted. In a timely manner, if at all possible before the next annual assembly, the Dean shall arrange a time to meet with the applicant before finally accepting them as members. Such meetings, especially with pastors, are preferably made face to face. These meetings may, especially with representatives of congregations, take place over the phone.

Canon 7

The annual assembly consists of all pastoral members of the ERCO and a representative of the congregational members, who shall preferably be the president of the member congregation. Members seeking an exemption from the annual meeting (Canon 2) should present it in writing to the Dean not less than one week before (or one week after in the event of an unforeseen absence) the annual assembly. The annual assembly may amend these canons by a three-fourths vote.

Canon 8

Members agree to conduct their ministry and churchly life in accord with these canons. If questions arise concerning how the canons are to be applied in a certain situation, the member is to contact the Dean for his judgment in the matter. Likewise, if a member questions the practice of another member regarding the canons, the former shall inform the Dean of his concern and the Dean shall investigate the matter in good time and report his decision to both parties. All members are required to cooperate with the Dean in such inquiries.

Canon 9

Laity sympathetic to ERCO who belong to LCMS congregations that are not members of this society are hereby encouraged to pray for their congregation, the LCMS, and the members of ERCO – as well as work peaceably and humbly within their congregations to encourage membership in ERCO.

Canon 10

Members may petition the Dean for local exceptions from Canons 11-XX. The Dean shall evaluate these requests in good time and notify the petitioner of his judgment on the matter in writing.

[Section II: The Divine Service]

Canon 11

The Divine Service of the Sacrament of the Altar shall be celebrated at each member congregation every Lord's Day and on other feast days according to the calendar of the order. On Sundays, no office or service besides the Divine Service shall be celebrated between 7:30 and 11:30 am.

Canon 12

For the sake of a united confession before the world, each parish and pastor shall utilize the Common Service (as contained in either TLH p. 15, LW p. 136, or LSB p. 184) as the setting of the Divine Service. In accord with Canon 10, the Dean may grant that other settings of the Divine Service from those hymnals be used alongside of a Common Service setting so long as the Common Service is used with at least equal frequency.

Canon 13

Pastors shall vest for the Divine Service in at least clerical collar (or cassock), alb, cincture, and stole. The use of the full Eucharistic vestments (in addition to those listed: chasuble and maniple) is encouraged.

Canon 14

The propers for the day shall be those of the ERCO calendar, set at each annual assembly.

Canon 15

The manner of celebration (ceremony) shall be in accord with reverence and traditional Lutheran custom.

[Note: only a few specific ceremonies/rubrics on a few controversial topics need to be addressed here. For most, Canon 15 will do.]

Canon 16

At the conclusion of each Consecration (“...in remembrance of Me.”) the pastor shall make some sign of reverence that confesses the Real and Substantial Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ and accords with local custom: a deep bow or genuflection.

Canon 17

Only ordained ministers shall assist in the distribution of Christ's Body and Blood and read during the Divine Service.

Canon 18

In accord with the Lord's Command to “take and eat. . . take and drink” and Bl. Martin Luther's counsel, all that is consecrated at each celebration is consumed at that celebration.

Canon 19

Congregational hymnody shall be taken from the hymnals listed in Canon 12 alone.

Canon 20

The musical accompaniment of the liturgy, choir selections, etc. shall be in keeping with Lutheranism's rich musical heritage and shall avoid all frivolity.

[Section III: Closed Communion]

Canon 21

As members of the LCMS, members of the ERCO shall faithfully practice closed communion: namely, except in the rarest and most exigent of circumstances, pastors will only commune those of our communion fellowship.

Canon 22

If a pastor encounters one of these rare and exigent circumstances and communes a person not of our fellowship, he shall immediately report such occurrence to the Dean for his counsel, and if necessary, admonition.