I suggest “para-synodical”.

I do think that some para-synodical groups, even those not holding RSO or Auxilary status, are helpful and useful. Until recently, Higher Things was that. So it’s not the nature of the relationship to synod that counts so much, as it is what they are DOING – that we find unhelpful, right?

I would like to say that we are blessed that we do not have more “outside groups” in this synod, as compared to the Roman Catholic church. That church body has multiple groups all claiming some type of need to address the errors of their church body. Most read like special interest groups, or political action committees. These group sow much confusion in their respective church body. Maybe that says something about how the LCMS has some level of uniformity by the lack of the number of “outside groups” existing in the synod.

I do understand the need to be vigilant in regards to doctrine and assuring that the true faith is passed on from generation to generation. I believe that the church can benefit from groups who do call into question those things that may not be scriptural or doctrinal before it takes hold. The ecumenical councils come to mind. Yet, the LCMS is not set up in its current structure to hold discussions on errors (real or perceived) to come to a conclusion or answer. Doctrinal questions are sent to a committee who are elected to their posts, instead of non-elected theologians, and answers to questions do not come in a timely fashion. This has led to synodical positions being decided by whichever way the political wind was blowing when people were elected, and also when such issues were either accepted or denied to be decided upon. (Yes, I know, the first seven ecumenical councils were not perfect and there was politics involved with those as well.) It would be a refreshing change of pace to actually have open discussions in the LCMS regarding the issues facing the church.

I don’t understand why the ACELC needs to be set up as a 501(c)3. Why is there a need for this designation so soon? I know that the IRS gives great leeway to religious organizations when applying for tax-exempt status, but why the need to have a treasury and ability to raise funds, with the bonus to have donors write off their contributions? Is this to qualify for Thrivent matching funds, or to apply for grants? What expenses, other than printing and mailing costs, are there? I can understand Higher Things, or other similar organizations, needing donations to continue their activities and hence applying for tax-exempt status, but I am just not convinced with the whole “in a post-9/11 world” arguement.

I guess I am confused by what the ACELC is trying to accomplish. In other words, what their “end game” is. It is no secret that their are problems in the LCMS. There have been problems for years. I can understand the frustration of seeing the LCMS “paper doctrine” not matching what its “practiced doctrine” is. I get frustrated as well. I don’t know if things have gotten to the point where there is the need for yet another group getting together to point out what many already know. A group that goes beyond pointing out problems and offering reasonable solutions would be welcomed.