The LCMS Synod President cannot serve two masters. After sixteen years of Matthew Harrison, who ran against executive primacy to win in 2010, the record shows which one wins.
Outstanding analysis. Your proposed solution would be worth studying and exploring to find any potential unintended, detrimental consequences before deciding to make such a structural change, but the fundamental proposition of a system where the officer charged with doctrinal oversight, has more time and space to exercise that oversight you addressed so well in this article, seems like a good idea. Besides the reality that I suspect it is unlikely a governance change like this would even be considered without extensive time and effort dedicated to researching it, my skeptical side wonders what the chances are of, even if given the adequate time and space to devote to doctrinal oversight, many of the individuals who might end up in that office also just not wanting to deal with certain kinds of conflict, so selectively finding ways to avoid whichever conflicts that individual officer does not want to deal with, according to his own, biased reasons. If he is clever, he will still be able to defend his selective doctrinal oversight decisions, actions, or inaction, with the political support personnel and mechanisms he builds and gathers around him.
You are absolutely right. What the LCMS needs is another layer of bureaucracy. Because of course, a Chief Theological Officer is going to need a staff and several committees of ordained men.
No need for a new roof on the church; we can keep catching the drip with buckets. Forget the missionaries. Corporate needs to add some staff
Impressive evaluation of the problem from an objective standpoint! I've been unsatisfied with the status quo for several years now, but unable to reconcile the fact that I like Harrison as a theologian with the fact that he doesn't seem to defend that theology as much as he should. Then I'm caught between those who criticize him tremendously vs. those who support him as if the problems are insignificant. I don't know if your prescription is the proper solution (could be), but I think you certainly diagnosed the illness.
As it currently stands, I don't want him reelected. Better than some alternatives? Certainly! But then only three more years of status quo. However, if he were to acknowledge your diagnosis, and commit to doing something to fix it, I'd be mostly happy (I suppose a few other issues could be fixed too, but I don't know which of them are his fault) to have him as president for another term.
Thank you, Pastor. It's not just a structural issue at this point. It has to be generational change as well. Pres. Harrison will be a lame duck, and there will be no change. Ultimately, 2019 should have capped his run, and the mishandling of COVID proved the point, but here we are again.
We need to be entirely honest about what 2010 was all about: it was not to have more Forde, Paulson, Nestingen, et al., but we got them in spades, with the resultant antinomian dead orthodoxy taking deeper root, among several other theological problems.
I am grateful for the improved machinery and financial status, but it has come at the expense of the pure doctrine that we were promised.
Under Harrison's leadership, every LCMS institution has been operated in the same fashion. I have personally heard something along the lines of 'sure there are festering theological problems under so-and-so, but before him they were having trouble keeping the lights on.' about multiple districts, a seminary and several CUS institutions.
There have been a number of theological improvements during Pres. Harrison’s tenure as well, and some of these were acknowledged at the beginning of the article. However, it is getting difficult not to see that Rev. Harrison has become the synodocrat he formerly critiqued. It is sad, and it is very likely the reason he has said this will be his last term. It’s provably one term too long, and I suspect that he will win this election, as there do not appear to be any serious competitors among the slate.
That stated, this is the best piece written by Ad Crucem News on these issues to date. Thank you for the work and for resisting the urge to cop to ad hominem attacks. Keep up the work. I’d call it “good” work, but only God is truly good. The rest of us are forgiven sinners trying to keep our sins to a minimum, on our best days. That, by the way, includes Pres. Harrison. I suggest we all keep him in our prayers on at least a daily basis.
Thank you, pastor. You touch on an important point - Synod politics doesn't have to be personal unless people take offense or think they are above scrutiny and criticism. Running for or occupying a high office in the church puts you in the glasshouse and under a microscope. As President Harrison said, let's be honest and specific about the Synod's condition, business and theological. The LCMS we have was born of a scandalous moment because of the senior leader's moral failings, but it retained the desire and hope of remaining faithful and productive to proclaim God's grace and mercy to sinners by making the atonement THE thing. The central doctrinal corrosion under Harrison is the loss of fidelity to the atonement, not through neglect, but through active promotion of Fordeism in our Synod.
A point of administrative criticism to add is the debacle around the annotated Large Catechism. The publication was never authorized by the Synod in Convention. The CTCR seems to have willfully conflated Synod Resolution 3-13A (2013) with Resolution 5-12 (2016), and the Synod leadership ran off to production when it was only authorized to "explore".
I don’t know that the Synod or CPH need to have authorization to create and publish a book. The concept of the book was presented at the 2013 convention in honor of Rev. Paul McCain, and was, even then, put forward not as something to be “explored”, but as a promise. I was mostly distressed by the fact that this was promoted as something to honor the memory of the man who brought us the Readers Version of the Book of Concord and the Essential Lutheran Library, but then an article by Paulson was included, a theologian Rev. McCain rightly labeled as a heretic for his rejection of vicarious atonement. I know that this probably happened because Rev. John Pless, a fan of Foerde and friend of Paulson, is one of the general editors, but that does not excuse that proverbial slap in the face of Rev. McCain, who would not have stood for it if he had still been alive. I never understood Rev. Harrison’s defense of the book. I wish they had stick with the annotated LC, and left the “Contemporary Applications” out of it. It would have been an excellent publication that way.
This is great work. Thank you for your research and commentary.
Anchoring this in 2008 is illuminating.
Outstanding analysis. Your proposed solution would be worth studying and exploring to find any potential unintended, detrimental consequences before deciding to make such a structural change, but the fundamental proposition of a system where the officer charged with doctrinal oversight, has more time and space to exercise that oversight you addressed so well in this article, seems like a good idea. Besides the reality that I suspect it is unlikely a governance change like this would even be considered without extensive time and effort dedicated to researching it, my skeptical side wonders what the chances are of, even if given the adequate time and space to devote to doctrinal oversight, many of the individuals who might end up in that office also just not wanting to deal with certain kinds of conflict, so selectively finding ways to avoid whichever conflicts that individual officer does not want to deal with, according to his own, biased reasons. If he is clever, he will still be able to defend his selective doctrinal oversight decisions, actions, or inaction, with the political support personnel and mechanisms he builds and gathers around him.
Thank you!
You are absolutely right. What the LCMS needs is another layer of bureaucracy. Because of course, a Chief Theological Officer is going to need a staff and several committees of ordained men.
No need for a new roof on the church; we can keep catching the drip with buckets. Forget the missionaries. Corporate needs to add some staff
Do you know what the Chief Mission Officer is?
A made-up term that people apply to themselves and others to add unearned gravitas.
LOL, you need to quit the blackpill before it takes you all the way.
I am sorry I don't know what a black pill is, but I do recognize when someone is trying to instigate a coup.
A coup via a regularly scheduled election?
Impressive evaluation of the problem from an objective standpoint! I've been unsatisfied with the status quo for several years now, but unable to reconcile the fact that I like Harrison as a theologian with the fact that he doesn't seem to defend that theology as much as he should. Then I'm caught between those who criticize him tremendously vs. those who support him as if the problems are insignificant. I don't know if your prescription is the proper solution (could be), but I think you certainly diagnosed the illness.
As it currently stands, I don't want him reelected. Better than some alternatives? Certainly! But then only three more years of status quo. However, if he were to acknowledge your diagnosis, and commit to doing something to fix it, I'd be mostly happy (I suppose a few other issues could be fixed too, but I don't know which of them are his fault) to have him as president for another term.
Thank you, Pastor. It's not just a structural issue at this point. It has to be generational change as well. Pres. Harrison will be a lame duck, and there will be no change. Ultimately, 2019 should have capped his run, and the mishandling of COVID proved the point, but here we are again.
We need to be entirely honest about what 2010 was all about: it was not to have more Forde, Paulson, Nestingen, et al., but we got them in spades, with the resultant antinomian dead orthodoxy taking deeper root, among several other theological problems.
I am grateful for the improved machinery and financial status, but it has come at the expense of the pure doctrine that we were promised.
Under Harrison's leadership, every LCMS institution has been operated in the same fashion. I have personally heard something along the lines of 'sure there are festering theological problems under so-and-so, but before him they were having trouble keeping the lights on.' about multiple districts, a seminary and several CUS institutions.
There have been a number of theological improvements during Pres. Harrison’s tenure as well, and some of these were acknowledged at the beginning of the article. However, it is getting difficult not to see that Rev. Harrison has become the synodocrat he formerly critiqued. It is sad, and it is very likely the reason he has said this will be his last term. It’s provably one term too long, and I suspect that he will win this election, as there do not appear to be any serious competitors among the slate.
That stated, this is the best piece written by Ad Crucem News on these issues to date. Thank you for the work and for resisting the urge to cop to ad hominem attacks. Keep up the work. I’d call it “good” work, but only God is truly good. The rest of us are forgiven sinners trying to keep our sins to a minimum, on our best days. That, by the way, includes Pres. Harrison. I suggest we all keep him in our prayers on at least a daily basis.
Thank you, pastor. You touch on an important point - Synod politics doesn't have to be personal unless people take offense or think they are above scrutiny and criticism. Running for or occupying a high office in the church puts you in the glasshouse and under a microscope. As President Harrison said, let's be honest and specific about the Synod's condition, business and theological. The LCMS we have was born of a scandalous moment because of the senior leader's moral failings, but it retained the desire and hope of remaining faithful and productive to proclaim God's grace and mercy to sinners by making the atonement THE thing. The central doctrinal corrosion under Harrison is the loss of fidelity to the atonement, not through neglect, but through active promotion of Fordeism in our Synod.
A point of administrative criticism to add is the debacle around the annotated Large Catechism. The publication was never authorized by the Synod in Convention. The CTCR seems to have willfully conflated Synod Resolution 3-13A (2013) with Resolution 5-12 (2016), and the Synod leadership ran off to production when it was only authorized to "explore".
I don’t know that the Synod or CPH need to have authorization to create and publish a book. The concept of the book was presented at the 2013 convention in honor of Rev. Paul McCain, and was, even then, put forward not as something to be “explored”, but as a promise. I was mostly distressed by the fact that this was promoted as something to honor the memory of the man who brought us the Readers Version of the Book of Concord and the Essential Lutheran Library, but then an article by Paulson was included, a theologian Rev. McCain rightly labeled as a heretic for his rejection of vicarious atonement. I know that this probably happened because Rev. John Pless, a fan of Foerde and friend of Paulson, is one of the general editors, but that does not excuse that proverbial slap in the face of Rev. McCain, who would not have stood for it if he had still been alive. I never understood Rev. Harrison’s defense of the book. I wish they had stick with the annotated LC, and left the “Contemporary Applications” out of it. It would have been an excellent publication that way.
The bosses and spenders of money keep citing the resolutions as somehow forcing them to act.
Yes, Pless's involvement is a major problem in many publications.