The Michigan District Board of Directors mailed a letter
to the Task Force on October 27, 2000 threatening to filibuster the proposed
changes if the Task Force recommendations come to the Convention Floor. They
copied every District in the Synod and encouraged them to do the same. A copy
of this letter was sent to us from a board member in another District that is
considering the same action.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the conclusions and suggestions of the
Task Force, the District Offices are not in a position to dictate the
contractual arrangements between them and Synod. This is the business of the
congregations, not the District Office.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "We rejoice in our
relationship together as members of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and our
focus on congregations." The Michigan District Office, not the District
as a whole, views itself as a member of Synod. This is impossible. Not only
the "we" aren't "members," they have no vote in the
Synodical Convention. How kind of the Michigan District, from its elevated
position to claim it has a "focus on congregations." For the past
three years this is the same group that has refused to respond to Redeemer
Lutheran Church and tell the congregation if they agree that all
congregations should confess three and only three creeds.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: ". . . our response
is best captured by bringing to light a basic difference we see between unity
and uniformity." In this quotation, the Michigan District Board of
Directors begins to lobby for the Synod becoming a servant of the Michigan
District. First, the Synod created the District. Second, neither the Synod nor
the District is a "church" and the relationship is corporation to
subsidiary based on the Synodical Constitution.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "We believe that a
chief function of our Synod is to strengthen congregations in their
ministry." Here the Board invents its own purpose for the Synod, which is
not stated in the LC-MS Handbook. The Handbook states:
"Reason for the Forming of the Synodical Union:
1. The example of the apostolic church. Acts 15:1-31
2. Our Lord's will that the diversity of gifts should be for the common
profit. 1Cor.12: 4-31."
Again, the Michigan District Board of Directors fails to see that they are
servants of the Congregations instead of its masters and that the
congregations create them.
The chief function of the Synod is to supply pastors, teachers and carry
out mission work. If the Michigan District doesn't understand this, there is
no doubt as to the chaos now taking place in Synod.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "The recommendations
of the Task Force seek to achieve uniformity among us. Even if such uniformity
could be accomplished, it is our conviction that it would not achieve unity.
Unity is a gift of our Lord." The uniformity that the Synod seeks with
the District's is not a matter of spiritual gifts. General Motors may as well
wait for unity with Saturn as a gift from God instead of clear contractual
arrangements. The Michigan District Office is not a church.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "Without commenting
on any of a number of specifics, the overarching reality is that what is most
sorely needed among us is a climate of trust as we seek to bolster one another
in ministry and demonstrate the unity that is ours." They seek unity
without accountability. The Michigan District seeks "a climate of
trust" after they say the Synod is a servant of the district, a reversal
of the truth and hardly a basis for trust.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "The tone perceived
in the Task Force report is that of an investigative and an enforcement
approach which comes top down rather than from a servant posture." Here
the Board engages in a confusion of Law and Gospel. Yes, Christ was a servant
for our sakes as they tell us in the first paragraph. Yes, we should serve
each other as fellow Christians. On this basis, they claim the Synod should be
a servant to the District. Why of course! Let the parents serve the children;
let the supervising pastor serve the vicar; let the national headquarters
serve the subsidiary; and let the pastor serve the secretary. The Board uses
the name Lutheran, but doesn't bother to follow Luther on vocation. Here we
have the creature in rebellion against the creator. The truth is, whether they
like or not, the Synod is over the districts, neither of which is church, and
the congregations are over both of them.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "An example of such
control is seen in the proliferation of Circuit Counselors, the shrinking of
the size of the circuits and the increased oversight of the congregations by
the Circuit Counselor." In other words, the Task Force is threatening to
trim the sails of the District Office and decentralize some of the District's
perceived authority to the local circuits. They want to keep their power.
The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "We urge the Task
Force to reconsider, to develop strategies and to make recommendations that
support congregational ministry and strengthen redemptive relationships."
We hope the reader enjoyed reading Michigan District double speak. We offer a
cash award to anyone who can explain "redemptive relationships"
apart from Christ 's work on the cross. God bless the Gospel of
Administration.
The Michigan District Board of Directors not only engages in
"redemptive (constitutional) relationships," they encouraged the
entire District to "committing" itself to eight Core
Values that include "culturally relevant congregations,"
"process consulting," "healthy congregational systems,"
and "affinity-based learning clusters."
The Michigan District in its 2000 Convention, voted, in a virtual
landslide, to commit itself to these Core Values, with only one pastor
dissenting at the floor microphone.
Most of these Board members are signed members of the Michigan 102,
including all of its vice-presidents.
If the Task Force does not table its own recommendations, the Michigan
District Board of Directors threatens to tie up the Convention by bringing up
from the floor every point in the document. What fine servants!
This article does not address the merits of The Task Force recommendations
to the 2001 LC-MS Convention. However, the chief concern is the manner in
which the Michigan District and evidently a number of other districts view
themselves as independent of the Synod and who no longer respect their
Constitutional responsibilities to the Synod. These districts are placing
themselves out of the control of the Synod.
The Michigan District Board of
Directors published its objections to the "Task Force on District/Synod
Relations" in a letter to the Synodical President and to every other
District. Michigan is attempting to recruit the other Districts to join in
their objections to the Task Force. Reclaim News
recently received a copy of this "in house letter" from a layman
sitting on another District Board of Directors. We thank the layman for
bringing to light the Michigan District's attempt to Michiganize the entire
LC-MS. The Michigan District is almost 10% of the LC-MS.
Michigan District
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
3773 Geddes Road
Ann Arbor MI 48105
October 27, 2000
Task Force - District/Synod Relations
c/o Rev. Ken Schurb
Dear Members of the Task Force:
With you, we recognize that the task before us is indeed enormous. We thank
God for our mutual heartfelt concern for unity in the church that the mission
of our Lord Jesus might be accomplished. That we might be one with Him and
each other, He offered Himself as a servant for our sake. Through His
suffering, death and resurrection we are reconciled. In this redemptive
relationship, we live and serve Him. Among the blessings of this relationship
is the gift of unity in Him. A goal we share is to recognize this unity. It is
on this basis that we relate as members of our beloved Lutheran
Church-Missouri Synod, that we might serve our Lord and accomplish His
mission.
Our history and background as a church body is that we relate to one
another in an evangelical manner. We stand together in the tradition of the
Reformation and celebrate our oneness in Christ. We rejoice in our
relationship together as members of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and o
ur focus on congregations. Our Lord gives the Office of the Keys to
congregations. This congregational focus has been the strength of our church
and continues to this day.
The recommendations of the Task Force are received believing that we can be
more effective in mission and ministry. In seeking to accomplish this, many
organizational issues are covered. Rather than comment on each of the issues,
our response is best captured by bringing to light a basic difference we see
between unity and uniformity. The recommendations of the Task Force seek to
achieve uniformity among us. Even if such uniformity could be accomplished; it
is our conviction that it would not achieve unity. Unity is a gift of our
Lord. The question is not how we can look and act the same. The question is
how can we better relate to one another in national and district synod and
thus serve congregations. The objectives of our Synod support this very
concept. We believe that a chief function of our Synod is to strengthen
congregations in their ministry.
Without commenting on any of a number of specifics, the overarching reality
is that what is most sorely needed among us is a climate of trust as we seek
to bolster one another in ministry and demonstrate the unity that is ours. The
tone perceived in the Task Force report is that of an investigative and an
enforcement approach which comes top down rather than from a servant posture.
The primary need, as we see it, among our congregations is for support in
ministry, not control of ministry. An example of such control is seen in the
proliferation of Circuit Counselors, the shrinking of the size of the circuits
and the increased oversight of the congregations by the Circuit Counselor.
In addition to the above, the following are other factors that led to a
great deal of concern and resulting recommendations as a Board of Directors.
There were several voices on the Task Force that were essentially not heard
the Task Force was deprived often insights and experience of at least three
who were appointed. The resignation of Pastor Richard Thompson, the
unfortunate illness of District President Richard Kapfer and the lack of
involvement of a Minister of Religion-Commissioned who was subsequently
dropped from the Task Force, resulted in a significant loss of input. None of
these three were replaced. A broader perspective was not brought to bear on
the issues considered. Also, the time to consider and react to the Task Force
Report is inadequate. More time for discussion and reaction is absolutely
necessary. Therefore it is our strong recommendation that this Task Force
Report be tabled at the 2001 convention. We urge the Task Force to reconsider,
to develop strategies and to make recommendations that support congregational
ministry and strengthen redemptive relationships. We believe discussion of
these issues would strengthen us. We urge that such Task Force recommendations
be granted broader exposure throughout our entire Synod before they are
presented in final form. This enables a focus on the redemptive relationships
which are so critical in building trust and collegiality.
If, however, the Task Force chooses to go forward with a presentation of
the report in its current form, then we recommend that it be presented one
issue at a time on the floor of the convention. Each issue should be given
maximum attention for debate and discussion by the delegates. This is a
necessary, albeit monumental task simply from the standpoint of convention
time. In view of the numerous other complex issues coming to the 2001
Convention and in view of the many unfavorable reactions to the Task Force
Report, we reiterate our recommendation to table.
It is suggested that we deal with this Task Force Report similar to the way
the Synod in convention handled the Nomenclature Study Committee report. The
Nomenclature Study Committee established in 1992 reported to the 1995
Synodical Convention which did not act on it at the time. Subsequently the
1998 Synodical Convention declined the report as stated in Resolution 7-14A.
That resolution thanked the Nomenclature Committee for their work, declined
the Nomenclature Committee Report and resolved that the Synod pursue
"open dialog and come to a clear understanding" regarding the
issues. The wisdom in this approach was recognition of the fact that there was
not unanimity and further time was necessary for discussion. We believe this
applies in the situation before us-
The Lord has surely blessed our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is a joy
to walk together beneath the cross and follow the example of our Lord. Thus we
serve each other in love and, together, we tell the Good news of Jesus to
many. We pray God's blessing upon the deliberations of the Task Force. We
commend to your thought and discussion all such ways that would strengthen and
bolster congregations in their local ministry. To that end, we as District and
National Synod exist. God help us to ascertain His will and grant us the
strength of faith to accomplish it.
For the Board of District, Michigan District LCMS
Paul D Theiss, District Secretary
Board of Directors Members:
Rev Robert Kasper
Rev David Gohn
Mr. Walter Krone
Mr. Roger Kohtz
Mrs. Nancy Hillenbrand
Mrs. Nancy Challis
Mr. John Held
Mr. William Kaiser
Rev. John Rauh
Mr. Henry Pickelmann
Dr. Harold Braeutigam
Mr. William Ward
Rev. Dieter Haupt
Mr. Robert Schultz
Mrs. Eileen Ritter
Mr. Jim Sack
Officers of the Michigan District:
District Treasurer: Mr. Ralph Ferber
Vice Presidents: Rev. Wayne Wentzel;
Rev. Arnold Brammeier;
Rev. David Maier;
Rev. Frank Graves
District President: Rev. C. William Hoesman
CC: Board of Directors of Synod c/o Dr. Donald Muchow, Chairman Council of
Presidents
Board of Directors of the Districts
Dr. A. L. Barry, President, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod