So let’s get to the point.  I am going to make a couple presumptions here from my reading of the ACELC, its documents and stated goals.  If I have misunderstood or misrepresented those goals, I will gladly receive correction.

As I read the stated intents of the ACELC, it is to fraternally point out and exhort the LCMS and its leadership to A) recognize the errors in doctrine and practice in our midst and B) to correct these errors.

The presumption that the ACELC then makes is that the divisions in theology and practice may be addressed using our current structure.  The problem as they have structured it is A) ignorance of what the errors are, hence the evidence of errors and the teaching materials; B) Disagreement over what actually are errors (hence the ACELC fraternal admonition and other supporting documents); or C) We don’t have elected officials who will follow through with questions of discipline over either pastors/church workers or congregations.

The way that Lutherans in the twentieth century sought reform (at least in the Missouri Synod) is two-fold.  The first is more or less what the ACELC seeks to do.  That is, draw a line in the sand, demonstrate the errors, condemn false doctrine, and set oneself up more or less against the institutional status quo.  We can see this in The Confessional Lutheran, the formation of the Orthodox Lutheran Conference (and similar groups after it), in Christian News, in Affirm, Consensus, and many other groups big or small.

The second way basically has been to seek to elect godly and faithful men (and women) to various offices in the church, the goal being that if the right people are elected, then the right things will start to happen.  We saw this leading up to the election of JAO Preus II, the election of A.L. Barry, and most recently with the election of Matthew Harrison.  It has also happened on a much smaller scale at the district or even the circuit level.

Certainly to a certain degree I recognize and agree with both of these approaches.  We should recognize the wea

knesses and errors in our midst, repent of them, receive absolution and move forward as a church body.  We should also seek to elect godly and faithful people to work.  I have no qualms whatsoever with anyone in the LCMS who wants to agitate to elect this or that candidate.  This is our structure, and if that doesn’t happen, then we are simply agreeing with the status quo.

But this is the heart of the problem.  Our structure and system is broken.  Maybe it never really worked in the first place.

This is why.

As long as we elect district president, synodical president, and various other positions of leadership in the church, and most importantly, reelect them on a regular cycle, it is impossible for our church body to exercise church discipline of any sort.

The reason is very simple.  A district president (or synodical president) is always 3 years away from another election.  He is elected and reelected by the very people whom he has been called to exercise discipline over.  That is what we might call “biting the hand that feeds you.”  This approach can’t work, for the very same reason that Walther and others have rejected temporary calls.  If I as a pastor have to constantly worry about whether my pastoral care and discipline of my sheep is going to be up for review/renewal, and that my ability to remain as the pastor is dependent upon my sheep either liking me or even agreeing with me, then my ability to serve them is compromised.  I don’t see how I can reject the temporary call of pastors and at the same time assent to the temporary call (election, whatever term you want to use) of district presidents that are then expected to exercise pastoral discipline.

If we as a church body want to act like a church and receive discipline, then we must have pastors who are able to exercise that discipline.  Yes, I am talking about bishops.  But if we as a church are unwilling to accept that authority, then I don’t see how we can accept our “leaders” to exercise that authority.

I am not trying to be a hyper-Euro-Lutheran, or suggest that the way of bishops is without its dangers.  I fully recognize that as long as we are dealing with fallible men as pastors/bishops, abuse will happen.  But the way we are currently structured in my opinion makes it pretty much impossible for any kind of discipline to actually happen at either the pastoral, congregational, or district level.

I am happy to be convinced otherwise here.  Please do so.  But after looking at our own history for some time, I don’t see any other conclusion.

In Christ,

Pastor Todd A. Peperkorn

Messiah Lutheran Church (LCMS)

Kenosha, Wisconsin

It seems as though there are a couple of basic objections to this line of thinking.  Let’s see if I can list them off here.

• This is not an “outside group,” but members of the LCMS calling it to repentance.
• There are plenty of “outside groups” that have a very positive influence on the LCMS.  Higher Things, LLL, LWML, etc.
• How will we discuss and correct the problems in our church without such entities?  Doing nothing is not an option.
• The synod is not a church, but simply an external organization.  As such, it is good and reasonable that congregations join together to serve as a positive influence on the LCMS as a whole.

I’m sure there are other objections to my first post.  That is my distilling of the arguments as I’ve seen them.  Here are my responses:

This is not an “outside group,” but members of the LCMS calling it to repentance.

In one sense this is true, in another obvious sense it is not.  The ACELC (as well as Higher Things, LLL, etc.) are by definition an outside organizations.  They are incorporated, with officers, a constitution, finances, and so forth.  While the individual members of a given organization may be LCMS, the organization itself is not.  I as an individual member of synod (rostered) may interact, cajole, influence, and speak.  So can congregations.  I would contend, however, that when a group of pastors and/or congregations start speaking together ad hoc, and outside of our agreed upon structure, it creates a conflict that I do not believe is helpful.

Please note, I’m not saying it’s wrong, sinful, or anything to that effect.  I am saying it is not helpful.  I don’t believe that it will help the confession of the faith in the LCMS.

The reason I do not believe it is helpful is because once that ad hoc entity is created and begins to espouse a particular position, the underlying question is now “what is the point of this group?” and NOT “what are they trying to say?”  That is one of the many things I learned during my time working with Consensus.

There are plenty of “outside groups” that have a very positive influence on the LCMS.  Higher Things, LLL, LWML, etc.

Very true.  The way that these various entities have served as a positive influence has been by what I would call vocation.  Higher Things works with youth to teach and pass on the faith.  LLL (primarily) works and teaches men.  LCMS works and teaches women.  Bethesda, all of the various Lutheran schools, the groups that are the most helpful are the ones that have a laser tight focus on how they may serve the furtherance of the Gospel in our midst.

None of them have as their stated purpose to change the doctrine and practice of the LCMS (either in a good way or a bad way).  They simply do what they do, and the results speak for themselves.

I would commend that the places where confessional Lutheranism has been the most vibrant are the places where there is a need and it is filled by like minded people who recognize the need and act upon it.

I suppose one could look at a group like the ACELC and say that is exactly what they are doing.  As I look at the stated goals, that’s not what I see.  (I will address where this conversation should take place in my next post.)

How will we discuss and correct the problems in our church without such entities?  Doing nothing is not an option.

I believe conservatives are people of conviction.  People of conviction want to speak what they believe, see things in pretty clear black and white categories, and want to have all of the lines cleanly drawn.  I resonate with that.  It is who I am as well.

But publicizing a list of all of the “tolerated errors” in the LCMS, what that does and will do is create fissures, cracks, broken relationships, side taking, antagonism, and anger.  The laity will remain ignorant of the whole picture, or they will only be catechized about one “side” of an issue.  Where does it end?  Is this really the best we can do in the LCMS?

The synod is not a church, but simply an external organization.  As such, it is good and reasonable that congregations join together to serve as a positive influence on the LCMS as a whole.

This is a big one.  It is big enough that it shapes much of our common discourse together.  I’m going to deal with this in another post, because I don’t want this to get lost in a bullet.

So what is coming next is an answer to this last bullet, and a proposal for a more positive and helpful way to approach the challenges facing the LCMS.  I welcome your thoughts.

Pr. Todd A. Peperkorn, STM

Messiah Lutheran Church (LCMS)

Kenosha, Wisconsin

What made it long was that we spent pretty much the entire day listening to Committee 8 on Restructuring.  We saw videos, heard testimonies, listened to about a 4 hour Q&A, and generally listened.  There is a sense of the anticipation of GETTING SOMETHING DONE that is warming up.  It will be very interesting to see how that sense translates into action today.

For my part, I spoke at the mic once, in favor of an amendment to adopt the agenda.  The amendment failed 48-51%, or by about 20 votes.  he plan was to move the election of the synodical president to the front of the convention, as has been done in everyone’s recent memory.

Today I expect we will start to conduct business, consider resolutions, and the like.

Sorry it’s not much of a report.  It wasn’t much of a day.  Oh, I did have some FANTASTIC BBQ in the evening.

Todd Peperkorn

Posted via email from Todd Peperkorn’s Posterous

Todd Peperkorn

Posted via email from Todd Peperkorn’s Posterous

Because of this, it struck me today, upon my arrival in Houston, how different my perspective is now than it was six years ago when I was a delegate.  Six years ago I was all about fixing what is wrong, making the synod safe for democracy, something like that.  My theological views haven’t really changed much in six years, but my self-understanding as a pastor has changed dramatically.  I’m no longer interested in the politics, the personalities, and all of the juicy gossip that every human institution inevitably breeds.  At this point I am really asking the question, where is Christ?  Where is the Gospel of the forgiveness of sins?  Where is the healing for the brokenhearted, the balm of Gilead that can only come from the divine Word?

I know this is a little rambling.  It’s late, but I wanted to get something written for the day.  There are many friends here, old and new.  It’s great to see them all.  There are people I have been in conflict with in various was here as well.  I pray for reconciliation.  There will be lots of back room deals and shenanigans.  There always are.  But in the midst of it all, God can and is still at work.  Sometimes it happens through us.  Sometimes it happens in spite of us.  Sometimes both at the same time.  It is my prayer this week that the decisions and elections that take place here in Houston will further His Kingdom, and that the old hymn will remain true, “Lord, help us ever to retain, the catechisms doctrine plain, as Luther taught the word of truth, in simple words to tender youth!”

-Pastor Todd Peperkorn

Circuit 26 Pastoral Delegate (South Wisconsin District)

Kenosha, Wisconsin

PS CARDS WIN!  8-0 over the Astros.  Go Cards!

Houston Report #1