I understand what you are saying in the above. I might even agree in large parts. But let me just suggest a couple of problems.
1) This kind of corporate governance of the church has failed everywhere it has been tried. Look no further than the most recent Archbishop of Canterbury whose entire program was what you describe. Sure, it was not about doctrine. But his entire program was a failure. There are plenty of other such examples.
2) The primary mechanism behind these failures is that you can't protect the gospel through legalistic methods. The law multiplies the sin. It makes is apparent, but that is only meaningful if the heart cares about that. Otherwise all those reviews that supposedly protect things just become box checking exercise. It still rests upon the willingness of the authority to exercise that authority and those under to recognize it. And we are not the people we once were.
3) A huge part of our problem is lack of resources. Why are 80% of constitutions dead letters? Because we don't have the people or money to act as they spell out. The idea that there are the resources to build out structure for this just won't float. Doubly so when you realize from where most of the district resources actually come from.
The deeper reality is that it is our congregationalism that is largely killing us. Today it works to ensure dramatically under-resourced congregations. Those who should have the authority are given space to deny it. And everyone else in the system is just playing a game of devil take the hindmost which fosters not a collegial spirit but the sense that you are truly on your own. There are structural things that might help all of that, but holding on to the idea that the problem is fundamentally structure and not a "return to you first love" issue isn't going to be helpful.
1. I don't know that I would classify the Anglican Communion's governance structure as a "duty to prevent" model.
2. This is something of a straw man. A church Constitution does not guarantee pure doctrine, but it is helpful for good order to ensure that there are no unnecessary inhibitions to Gospel proclamation for temporal reasons. If we extend your logic, then a pastor should only be paid in cash, and a church should just be a pole barn with no financial statements and no Constitution, etc. The point is to fortify what we are doing badly.
It's not a straw man, although I can see where you might think so. Let me expand a bit. I'd love to see the LCMS have what used to be called a "Church Order Book." But the Methodist Church had one of those. It didn't stop what happened over there. Implementing a church order book in the LCMS could have three outcomes: 1) It flushes out those who are not willing to live by the agenda. 2) It forces the institution to adopt agendas that include how a large number of congregations operate which flushes out those who can't accept that. Or 3) the DPs - like the Methodist Bishops - don't enforce the Order Book. Even though many high votes asked for exactly that.
The founding myth of the LCMS is Walther's Church and Ministry. There are always within the church the splits over what the English would debate as of the essence of the church or for the good of the church. I think using more Melanchthon type language we'd say by human law and divine law. Walther's Church and Ministry, in the aftermath of the Stephan debacle, creates a completely spiritual office and removes all human law authority from it. And it worked for the people they were because of the person of Walther, their respect for the authority of the spiritual office from their deep grounding it the Word, and the cohesion the early ministerium had. They didn't need the human law portion spelled out because they had it de facto. What is needed at this point in LCMS history, because we are no longer those people, is a clear spelling out of human law governing the church. To boil it down, we need a reconsideration of Thesis 9 on the office. And until you restore some of the authority to the office and some of the sense of cohesion you will just end up in everyone ignoring things I don't like.
I think this is an admirable attempt to undertake the rebuild necessary to design the LCMS as a denomination determined to execute doctrinal priority and its version of purity through far tighter and more imposed-from-above controls than currently exist under our fundamentally congregational structure. This is identified in the LCMS Constitution, as could be expected, in Article VII and others. It's also identified in relatively recent history by folks like Jack Cascione (no longer LCMS) under the heading the Supremacy of the Congregational Voters' Assembly. It's us. It's been us. And, you are saying, it should no longer be us.
Take it through the system. The only proviso I would have is that to accomplish this in a decent manner without maximum lawsuits there would need to be an "opt out" period of time when the former system, which guards congregational ownership to the max, is being kicked to the curb. So (Methodists, I think, did this) say for a two year period congregations could say "This is no longer the LCMS because it's jumping over our congregation. We want out." And they'd take that option. Freedom in both directions - to embrace the new approach, and to leave - should be offered, with great opportunity to dialog. You can't say this is the historic LCMS, because it isn't. It's morphed into a new era. There's no need to apologize or take any prisoners, so to speak. Just let those go who don't want it. No need for unhappy campers. Start with true believers and those willing to be persuaded.
Will this happen? I'd say it has a zero to two per cent shot. Can this happen? Yes. How many would opt out? More than a few. However, the Remnant would be set to go on the maximum doctrinal integrity trail as doctrine is defined in this process. The Remnant group would determine those definitions, I think.
Excellent article. In the wake of the bizarre happenings at OSLCS, I am most saddened that the congregation was so easily bamboozled by those in whom they put their trust... their pastor and faculty. I'm saddened that one of the few LCMS congregations in the Washington DC metro area with a longstanding and viable K-8 school could now be lost completely to the confessional fold of the synod. We are warned to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, but we just don't expect it to happen within our own church body. Pray that this church and school may be restored to orthodoxy. Pray that our synod will be renewed with vigilance to prevent sheep-skinned wolves from preying on our lambs.
Interesting that Neuhaus’ Law isn’t brought up much in these conversations about doctrinal compliance and enforcement.
What is Neuhaus’s Law?
https://theaquilareport.com/unhappy-fate-optional-orthodoxy-neuhauss-law/
“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.” See discussion here for example: https://wng.org/opinions/orthodoxy-is-not-optional-1710640893
Good point. "Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed."
I understand what you are saying in the above. I might even agree in large parts. But let me just suggest a couple of problems.
1) This kind of corporate governance of the church has failed everywhere it has been tried. Look no further than the most recent Archbishop of Canterbury whose entire program was what you describe. Sure, it was not about doctrine. But his entire program was a failure. There are plenty of other such examples.
2) The primary mechanism behind these failures is that you can't protect the gospel through legalistic methods. The law multiplies the sin. It makes is apparent, but that is only meaningful if the heart cares about that. Otherwise all those reviews that supposedly protect things just become box checking exercise. It still rests upon the willingness of the authority to exercise that authority and those under to recognize it. And we are not the people we once were.
3) A huge part of our problem is lack of resources. Why are 80% of constitutions dead letters? Because we don't have the people or money to act as they spell out. The idea that there are the resources to build out structure for this just won't float. Doubly so when you realize from where most of the district resources actually come from.
The deeper reality is that it is our congregationalism that is largely killing us. Today it works to ensure dramatically under-resourced congregations. Those who should have the authority are given space to deny it. And everyone else in the system is just playing a game of devil take the hindmost which fosters not a collegial spirit but the sense that you are truly on your own. There are structural things that might help all of that, but holding on to the idea that the problem is fundamentally structure and not a "return to you first love" issue isn't going to be helpful.
Thank you, Pastor.
1. I don't know that I would classify the Anglican Communion's governance structure as a "duty to prevent" model.
2. This is something of a straw man. A church Constitution does not guarantee pure doctrine, but it is helpful for good order to ensure that there are no unnecessary inhibitions to Gospel proclamation for temporal reasons. If we extend your logic, then a pastor should only be paid in cash, and a church should just be a pole barn with no financial statements and no Constitution, etc. The point is to fortify what we are doing badly.
3. I agree fully. A large number of our congregations are functionally bankrupt in finances and resourcing and skills. That is why I proposed the VPSI, as another solution layer. https://www.adcrucem.news/p/proposal-for-the-lcms-vicarage-and
It's not a straw man, although I can see where you might think so. Let me expand a bit. I'd love to see the LCMS have what used to be called a "Church Order Book." But the Methodist Church had one of those. It didn't stop what happened over there. Implementing a church order book in the LCMS could have three outcomes: 1) It flushes out those who are not willing to live by the agenda. 2) It forces the institution to adopt agendas that include how a large number of congregations operate which flushes out those who can't accept that. Or 3) the DPs - like the Methodist Bishops - don't enforce the Order Book. Even though many high votes asked for exactly that.
The founding myth of the LCMS is Walther's Church and Ministry. There are always within the church the splits over what the English would debate as of the essence of the church or for the good of the church. I think using more Melanchthon type language we'd say by human law and divine law. Walther's Church and Ministry, in the aftermath of the Stephan debacle, creates a completely spiritual office and removes all human law authority from it. And it worked for the people they were because of the person of Walther, their respect for the authority of the spiritual office from their deep grounding it the Word, and the cohesion the early ministerium had. They didn't need the human law portion spelled out because they had it de facto. What is needed at this point in LCMS history, because we are no longer those people, is a clear spelling out of human law governing the church. To boil it down, we need a reconsideration of Thesis 9 on the office. And until you restore some of the authority to the office and some of the sense of cohesion you will just end up in everyone ignoring things I don't like.
I think this is an admirable attempt to undertake the rebuild necessary to design the LCMS as a denomination determined to execute doctrinal priority and its version of purity through far tighter and more imposed-from-above controls than currently exist under our fundamentally congregational structure. This is identified in the LCMS Constitution, as could be expected, in Article VII and others. It's also identified in relatively recent history by folks like Jack Cascione (no longer LCMS) under the heading the Supremacy of the Congregational Voters' Assembly. It's us. It's been us. And, you are saying, it should no longer be us.
Take it through the system. The only proviso I would have is that to accomplish this in a decent manner without maximum lawsuits there would need to be an "opt out" period of time when the former system, which guards congregational ownership to the max, is being kicked to the curb. So (Methodists, I think, did this) say for a two year period congregations could say "This is no longer the LCMS because it's jumping over our congregation. We want out." And they'd take that option. Freedom in both directions - to embrace the new approach, and to leave - should be offered, with great opportunity to dialog. You can't say this is the historic LCMS, because it isn't. It's morphed into a new era. There's no need to apologize or take any prisoners, so to speak. Just let those go who don't want it. No need for unhappy campers. Start with true believers and those willing to be persuaded.
Will this happen? I'd say it has a zero to two per cent shot. Can this happen? Yes. How many would opt out? More than a few. However, the Remnant would be set to go on the maximum doctrinal integrity trail as doctrine is defined in this process. The Remnant group would determine those definitions, I think.
Excellent article. In the wake of the bizarre happenings at OSLCS, I am most saddened that the congregation was so easily bamboozled by those in whom they put their trust... their pastor and faculty. I'm saddened that one of the few LCMS congregations in the Washington DC metro area with a longstanding and viable K-8 school could now be lost completely to the confessional fold of the synod. We are warned to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing, but we just don't expect it to happen within our own church body. Pray that this church and school may be restored to orthodoxy. Pray that our synod will be renewed with vigilance to prevent sheep-skinned wolves from preying on our lambs.