Thank you for bringing this to light. We laity need to act swiftly and decisively now or risk loosing everything. It is no longer optional for our young men to be involved. In local congregations get on council asap.
A unitary executive in a church body is fatal. The time has arrived to separate the business from the theology, because in every edge case, money will speak over Scripture. This bifurcation should be repeated at the district level (we probably need 60-70 districts to achieve adequate supervision). So, my proposal is to split the current Synod President's office into two: a Chief Theological Officer and a Chief Executive Officer. The relationship should be like a merchant banker and a sell-side analyst under the same brand - they must maintain a "Chinese wall" with almost obsessive focus on avoiding and preventing conflicts of interest. The CTO will be accountable for maintaining pure doctrine. The CEO will be accountable for maintaining pure 'books'. The CTO's primary duty is to prevent Scripture being subordinated to money and power, no matter how costly it is.
Do you really have accurate data on the number of conflict and adjudication situations or is this just a guess? We personally know of at least three recent ones in our rural area. If that number were applied more generally, there would be far more than you state. What about the conflict situations that never make it to adjudication because people run up against a blank wall, are persecuted in the congregation, and quietly leave? We know of too many of those, too.
Do we not act on what we believe? Splitting behavior from theology or doctrine is the real mask here. The circular reasoning here doesn't consider why the Hatfields like the pastor and the McCoys do not. Everything is driven by our beliefs, not the other way around.
No, Dr. Benke. 1) DPs should be attached to an altar and participating in the life of the church. Preaching regularly, doing shut-in visitation, and so on. Not sitting in an office doing bureaucrat things. 2) The number of disputes can be reduced massively if the DPs are actually doing their jobs and being proactive. The entire structure of our governance needs to shift to a Duty to Prevent Doctrinal Dissolution.
#2 is easily addressed. The pastor is there to address doctrine and the doctrine of life. If the people want to fight over carpet colors, let them, but remind them that the kingdom of heaven is not concerned with such things.
I've been arguing basically all these points for over a decade. Of course the underlying problems are two. 1) We have at least 3 different confessions under the corporate umbrella. 2) There is no longer enough strength or money in the system to maintain it without dramatic simplification. But bureaucracy only gets more complex until the crisis.
Mark Brown, I agree and have been arguing the same points. The bureaucracy of the Synod seems more concerned about protecting itself than addressing issues.
What this piece shows with painful clarity is a church structure that no longer begins with fact-finding. It begins with managing outcomes. When reconciliation is treated as the default response, truth becomes optional and the party with institutional authority decides the shape of the story before anyone has gathered the evidence. The result is predictable: complainants bear the weight of the crisis while leaders declare matters resolved. What happened in Arlington is not unusual. It is what happens in a system where adjudication has been replaced with image-management, and where accountability has been allowed to atrophy for decades.
Perfect time to re-open the conversation about the need for the LCMS to adopt an episcopal polity. Congregations need to be held accountable to men who will uphold the traditional standards of orthodoxy, because they have not been doing so for the past few decades.
Perfect time to close the conversation about any LCMS need for an episcopal polity, which is the last thing the LCMS needs, based on the abominable conditions in religious organizations with episcopal polity.
He who prefers peace over justice shall soon have neither.
I have the feeling centuries worth of lacking Inquisition are about to catch up on Lutheranism.
Thank you for bringing this to light. We laity need to act swiftly and decisively now or risk loosing everything. It is no longer optional for our young men to be involved. In local congregations get on council asap.
On point 3, can you unpack that a little and what is your solution?
A unitary executive in a church body is fatal. The time has arrived to separate the business from the theology, because in every edge case, money will speak over Scripture. This bifurcation should be repeated at the district level (we probably need 60-70 districts to achieve adequate supervision). So, my proposal is to split the current Synod President's office into two: a Chief Theological Officer and a Chief Executive Officer. The relationship should be like a merchant banker and a sell-side analyst under the same brand - they must maintain a "Chinese wall" with almost obsessive focus on avoiding and preventing conflicts of interest. The CTO will be accountable for maintaining pure doctrine. The CEO will be accountable for maintaining pure 'books'. The CTO's primary duty is to prevent Scripture being subordinated to money and power, no matter how costly it is.
Do you really have accurate data on the number of conflict and adjudication situations or is this just a guess? We personally know of at least three recent ones in our rural area. If that number were applied more generally, there would be far more than you state. What about the conflict situations that never make it to adjudication because people run up against a blank wall, are persecuted in the congregation, and quietly leave? We know of too many of those, too.
Do we not act on what we believe? Splitting behavior from theology or doctrine is the real mask here. The circular reasoning here doesn't consider why the Hatfields like the pastor and the McCoys do not. Everything is driven by our beliefs, not the other way around.
No, Dr. Benke. 1) DPs should be attached to an altar and participating in the life of the church. Preaching regularly, doing shut-in visitation, and so on. Not sitting in an office doing bureaucrat things. 2) The number of disputes can be reduced massively if the DPs are actually doing their jobs and being proactive. The entire structure of our governance needs to shift to a Duty to Prevent Doctrinal Dissolution.
#2 is easily addressed. The pastor is there to address doctrine and the doctrine of life. If the people want to fight over carpet colors, let them, but remind them that the kingdom of heaven is not concerned with such things.
Thank you. Much to chew on and think about.
I've been arguing basically all these points for over a decade. Of course the underlying problems are two. 1) We have at least 3 different confessions under the corporate umbrella. 2) There is no longer enough strength or money in the system to maintain it without dramatic simplification. But bureaucracy only gets more complex until the crisis.
Mark Brown, I agree and have been arguing the same points. The bureaucracy of the Synod seems more concerned about protecting itself than addressing issues.
The LCMS has functionally abandoned adjudication.
What this piece shows with painful clarity is a church structure that no longer begins with fact-finding. It begins with managing outcomes. When reconciliation is treated as the default response, truth becomes optional and the party with institutional authority decides the shape of the story before anyone has gathered the evidence. The result is predictable: complainants bear the weight of the crisis while leaders declare matters resolved. What happened in Arlington is not unusual. It is what happens in a system where adjudication has been replaced with image-management, and where accountability has been allowed to atrophy for decades.
Perfect time to re-open the conversation about the need for the LCMS to adopt an episcopal polity. Congregations need to be held accountable to men who will uphold the traditional standards of orthodoxy, because they have not been doing so for the past few decades.
As a member of a Southeatern District congregation i would like to know more about this situation. Is there any way to get more details?
Hi Dan, take a look at:
1) https://www.adcrucem.news/p/doctrine-governance-and-process-dispute
2) https://www.adcrucem.news/p/205-days-to-reconcile-an-lcms-pastor
Perfect time to close the conversation about any LCMS need for an episcopal polity, which is the last thing the LCMS needs, based on the abominable conditions in religious organizations with episcopal polity.