Changing the Governance of our Synod
One of the persistent strategies of the progressive wing of the LCMS is to advocate for non-ordained church workers to be voting delegates at conventions. Another related strategy is to push for proportional representation of congregations based on membership size. Make no mistake. This is all about power, and is a means to a progressive end. This is all about change through political process. And this is all about de-grandfathering your church, introducing innovations, and putting the liturgy in the rear-view mirror. It is a Trojan Horse to wheel in the world’s racial vilification, feminism, and deviant sexuality - masquerading as a “conversation” about the Gospel (accomplished by means of culturally-Marxist Gramscian “conversation” to gradually shift the Overton Window). Notice how in this “conversation” about changing our governance, this very topic of making progressive changes to doctrine and practice becomes the “conversation” itself. The “conversation” to try to bypass our current form of pastoral formation is also part of this strategy. Changes in governance is a means to this end.
Not exactly subtle or hidden.
The way things currently work is that each congregation is entitled to equal representation regardless of size. Each congregation is typically represented by a pastoral delegate and a lay delegate. I realize that there are nuances, and I’m sure someone is champing at the bit to say: “Akschyually” followed by a recitation of the bylaws.
Don’t bother…
But this is a 30,000 foot flyover of how this works.
The progressive wing is looking to double the non-pastoral voice in our conventions by creating a third category of delegate: the “commissioned minister.” This would mean that the pastors’ voice and vote would be outnumbered two-to-one by the hearers’ voice and vote - at least in congregations that have lay-rostered employees - thus diluting pastoral authority in our church body.
And again, the large churches - which often are the more progressive (and the richest) - want to be able to drown out the voices of the vast majority of our churches that are small.
This is a bit of a reprise of the debates concerning the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. Should tiny Rhode Island get the same representation as big, powerful Virginia? The founders compromised by creating a bicameral republican model. The states are equally represented in the Senate, but proportionally represented in the House of Representatives.
A quick comparison between my congregation and the one with the lady-praise band singer “consecration” shows that they are about 30 times larger than my parish. So should they get thirty delegates for each one of ours? Or should they just get their votes multiplied by thirty? “Resolved, the praise band lady can consecrate the Lord’s Supper.” “All in favor make pirate sounds. All opposed make horsey sounds.” “The resolution is adopted.” Slam the gavel. Stand and sing the Common Doxology. Rinse. Repeat. This is a short, sweet path to Not Your Grandfathers’ Church.
The first church council in our grandfathers’ church is found in Acts 15. It consisted of “apostles and elders” (presbyters, that is, pastors) who were “gathered together” (verse 6). There were no lay delegates or deacons mentioned, including St. Mary Magdalene and St. Phoebe. In subsequent councils - such as Nicaea (325 AD) and the six other ecumenical councils, we see bishops as the vast majority of participants. In fact, the collective noun for a gathering of bishops came to be expressed historically as a “synod.”
In the polity of the LCMS, pastors and congregations - and later, rostered lay church workers - are considered to be “members of synod.” Roberts’ Rules of Order replaced traditional ecclesiastical consensus building, and church governance became more formally republican in structure, and driven by representation, democratic voting, and the rule of majorities - in other words, more parliamentary - in its decision making. This fit in naturally with the title of “president” being used instead of “bishop,” as our presidents preside over the parliamentary bodies of our conventions.
And, of course, polity is an adiaphoron (although that doesn’t mean that all forms of governance are “created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
That said, the power games and the current desire to dilute pastoral authority are based on fear and distrust of our pastors, as well as a desire for innovation and change. There are two divine vocations established by our Lord Jesus Christ: preachers and hearers. The only churchly office that exists de iure divino, by divine right, and is a necessity and mark of the church, is the Office of the Holy Ministry. All other churchly offices are de iure humano, by human right. They may be beneficial, but they are not essential. They exist to augment, not counter, the pastoral office. This is not to say that the pastors are always right, nor that the laity are always wrong. Far from it. But the Holy Spirit has called all of our pastors to serve their congregations (that is, if you believe that kind of thing), so it kind of stands to reason that we should trust the Holy Spirit in our governance. Bad shepherds can, and ought to be, defrocked. And frankly, I believe that this should happen more often than it does now. But any faithful pastor who is in good standing should represent his congregation, large or small
We should keep in mind that while the details of church body polity have not been established by scripture, some things were: the Office of the Holy Ministry, patriarchy, and hierarchical oversight (the word translated as “bishop” (KJV) and “overseer” (ESV) is literally both patriarchal and hierarchical). This is what our Lord Jesus, God the Son, established, and the Holy Spirit caused to come into being. This is the will of our heavenly Father (not Mother).
And looking at polity in a practical, real-world manner, since our church body is bound to the scriptures and the confessions, I sometimes wonder if all of our lay delegates have even once read the Bible and Book of Concord cover to cover. Of course, given some of the things our pastors come out with, I wonder the same thing about some of them too. But at least all of our pastors are technically required to have at least studied them at seminary. As it stands now, lay delegates have roughly equal representation as pastors, though there is really no way to vet their biblical and confessional acumen as we at least try to do with our clergy. Of course, there are certainly laymen in our synod whose biblical and confessional knowledge runs rings around our clergy. But all things being equal, is it fair to assume that our laity should be as knowledgeable as our pastors in biblical and confessional familiarity? Would it be fair to assume that the average layman (in terms of medicine or physics) should be as knowledgeable of heart valves and quantum mechanics as their cardiologists and physicists? Do we still believe in the doctrine of vocation?
Hopefully, it’s different now, but more than two decades ago, when the rostered (“commissioned”) principal of my school had a rostered (“commissioned”) teacher preaching in chapel - over my objection as the called campus pastor - the teacher shrugged when I showed him Article 14 and reminded him of his vows. He said that his Concordia University had not required him to even read the Book of Concord, even though he vowed to norm his teaching by it at his installation. The principal, for his part, also preached, arguing that he had a call “just like” my call as a pastor. Again, I hope that such things are no longer happening at our Concordias, and in our schools. I’m happy to say that the school I currently serve (and have for twelve years), Wittenberg Academy, respects the pastoral office, the order of creation, the Bible, and the Book of Concord - including Articles 14 and 24.
And we should also not forget that our Lord established neither a democracy nor a republic, but rather a kingdom. When we treat our synod like a republic, we will, in the words of my U.S. Senator from Louisiana, “as big as Dallas,” become mired down in power politics, gerrymandering, the attempted imposition of quotas (real or implied), and will look to permanently alter our polity as a means to short-term political ends.
Those who make a case for bigger, richer churches to have more power could equally make the case that bigger (some of you men really need to cut back on the Little Debbies), richer pastors should also have a bigger voice and vote than the struggling worker-priest, or the financially-strapped multi-point parish pastor serving more than one congregation - not to mention the norm of one pastor serving a small congregation, often in a rural or semi-rural setting. But again, this is about a pathway to other goals. This really isn’t about Jesus and His hegemony over the kingdom.
Polity and governance are necessary evils, but let us not forget that the church is unapologetically patriarchal and hierarchical, and the pastoral office is the only office established by our Lord - who is King (not queen, not president, not citizen), ruling over all, and to Him every knee shall bow.