Monday, June 29, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
LCMS RMD Convention
ROCKY MOUNTAIN DISTRICT CONVENTION NOTES
The following is a synopsis of the RMD Convention that ran from 18-21 June. All the notes are written by a Lay Delegate and any errors in them are mine. I believe I have captured the discussion accurately and beg forgiveness if I have not.
The convention’s focus was on John 4:35, “Look, I tell You, Lift Up Your Eyes, and See that the Fields are White for Harvest.” Missions was a primary focus throughout the event.
The first orders of the day after the opening service were elections of the RMD Presidium. The RMD is apparently pleased with its leadership team as all the Presidium incumbents and the Secretary were re-elected for additional terms.
President: Rev Randy Golter (acclamation)
1VP: Rev Allen Anderson
2VP: Rev Doug Escue
3VP: Rev Roger Schlecte
4VP: Rev Gary Trickey
Secretary: Rev Robert Harmon
The convention started with a worship service presided over by DP Golter, with preaching by Bishop David Tswaedi of the Lutheran Church of Southern Africa
President Golter opened the main convention with a message basically entitled, “I love the Church.” He talked of the differences between the church as an institution and a church that confesses Christ. His speech will be available at the RMD website this week. It was rather good.
Rev Dr Wilhlem Weber, of the South African Church’s Seminary, was the Bible Study leader for three sessions discussing Missions from the perspective of John.
The Keynote speaker for all three days and the opening session was Bishop Tswaedi. He presented an interesting view of the Christian church in Africa, Lutheran Missions in Africa, and the Future of the Church in Africa. It was quite interesting to hear the impact of Islam and traditional family worship on the church. Bishop Tswaedi stated that one of the reasons the Catholic church was growing quite steadily is the nature of the veneration of saints and the traditional Africans’ linking of that to traditional ancestor worship. Further, he indicated the African pastors’ dilemma because of the strong ties they have to the cultural and tribal aspects of their families and their duty and striving for orthodoxy. He urged us not to change the message of the Gospel to meet the demands of the people and urged us to get back to the Confessions.
Most of the overtures were fairly innocuous in that they were measures of thanks and support for the RMD’s Southern Africa Mission effort. Most of these were passed with little debate and with high percentages in favor. Our district did manage to raise about $470K of the $500K goal for Mission: Southern Africa.
Other resolutions voted on concerned the Lutheran Hispanic Missionary Institute in El Paso, Texas, healthcare insurance concerns, thanks for the District Staff and bylaw changes. One bylaw was changed in that the DP can now take a call to a district congregation as well as serve as DP.
A good resolution from Hope, Aurora called for CPH to place the 1986 Small Catechism in the public domain for non-profit purposes only. This passed overwhelmingly, but its ultimate impact is TBD due to legal and copyright issues.
I’ll discuss the rest of the convention in non-chronological order.
Bottom Line: Regarding the BRTFSSG, from what I can tell, the RMD is skeptical, to say the least. Most are not convinced that things need to be fixed—because they’re not broken.
President Kieschnick’s Executive Assistant (Rev John Braunersreuther) presented the BRTFSSG proposals to the convention in two one-hour blocks. He gave us a four page survey to provide feedback on their efforts. The representative said the Task Force would consider our opinions in their final proposal to the Synod at convention next year. He read each of the statements and gave the Task Force's reasons for making the proposals. Questions and comments were allowed in a second session after he reviewed the entire effort with us.
There was much discussion in the Q&A—I don’t remember anyone outright supporting the effort, but I wasn’t able to stay for the whole session. I do remember quite a bit of pushback from the EA—as to be expected. I do not envy his role at all. In all, there was far too little discussion time for such an important issue.
He estimated that to date, the BRTFSSG has spent over $650K on the effort, of which about $250K has been travel and $400K has been on a consultant. (I heard somewhere where the consultants will be our new heresy—or something to that effect.)
Two resolutions put forward regarding BRTFSSG passed with near unanimity.
The first is “For Rightly Understanding the “Doctrinal Position of Synod” which addressed “coercive language,” subscription requirements, and the relationship of Synod to Congregations.
The first resolve urged that we retain the “time tested words in the Constitution” regarding the advisory nature of Synod toward the congregations and that no resolution of Synod is binding if it is not in accordance with the Bible or is inexpedient toward the life of a congregation.
The second resolve states that “members of Synod” are bound only by the Word of God, subscribing to the Confessions, and are not bound by resolutions of conventions or inventions of men.
Much discussion concerned the proposed requirements of adherence to the “collective will” and the requiring subscription to the Constitution. Apparently, the term “collective will” is currently in the Synod handbook and has been for quite some time.
The second overture dealt with the BRTFSSG proposals themselves.
In general, the concern is over the need to rush these proposals through prematurely and without enough effective thought.
The resolves urged the district to avail themselves of every opportunity to provide feedback, to urge the BRTFSSG to hold a special conference at least 120 days prior to the 2010 convention, to provide the proposals and recommended changes by Oct 31, 2009, and that if these timelines are not met, to encourage the 2010 convention to table any changes to 2013.
President Kieschnick gave his presentation, which was basically his speech to the LCMS COP from April 2008 on Theological Unity in the LCMS. Most of the speech was taken from this document. Interestingly, he rattled off nearly 25 ways the Synod is united. From the list, he perhaps by oversight, omitted two bullets: that the flood was a historical event; that the pastoral office is the only divinely instituted office. Thinking back on it, it may have been an intentional omission on the pastoral office because there is significant disagreement on “lay ministry” issues. As for the historicity of the flood, perhaps that was an accident.
He answered a number of questions that were presented to him:
1) Why are we doing the BRTFSSG in the first place?; 2) What should we do about joint workshops, etc., with the ELCA when they support homosexual clergy? Should we continue with Wheatridge Ministries?; 3) What is your opinion of TCN?; 4) Why did the LCMS reallocate the funds from interest away from LWR and what are your comments to Matt Harrison’s paper?; 5) Why is the KFUO decision (selling it) not before the Synod(?)
He offered comments on the Finances of Synod saying that with rights and privileges comes duty and responsibility to provide funds to Synod. He basically said that congregations and districts aren’t providing the national office with enough funding to do its job of promoting the Gospel and supporting missions
He continued by answering a question he’d been asked at previous conventions, “if you could change one thing in Synod…” He would change the palpable spirit of distrust, innuendo, rumor, and falsehoods….the 8th commandment is clear. He stated that some things told about him were absolute lies. He provided his personal doctrinal statement, also in line with the April 2008 message to the COP.
He concluded by saying that the LCMS’ future is bright as long as God continues his blessing as we rely on Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. We have pastors with great theological training; commissioned ministers who dedicate their lives, and (lay) people with resources that need to be addressed.
The final order of the convention was an overture concerning District Licensed Deacon Training Programs and amending the Synodical Bylaws to support the calling and ordaining of eligible deacons to the Pastoral Office. Additionally, it called for the Synod to clarify the terminology, call, and ordination of these Deacons in accordance with AC XIV. My notes indicate an amendment to the resolve asking for these deacons to be placed on the Ordained Minister roster…but I can’t remember if this went through or not.
I was hoping for additional discussion on this last issue, but by the time we got around to discussing it for the 3d time-limited time, we addressed it, called the question, and voted on it within 10 minutes. The resolution passed w/ 77%, higher than I thought.
This and the BRTFSSG were the two biggest issues, but unfortunately got less than half the time as the elections and the other resolutions combined. Overall, though I am pleased with the fact both passed and send a message to Synod from our District that there are enough concerns that we want more work done on both fronts.
Overall, I thought the convention went well….I could do with less of the politics and more with the theological discussions (and less of the every-organization-gets-to-speak stuff). I’m also tired of bureaucracies.
Kudos to CPH for their table.
The following is a synopsis of the RMD Convention that ran from 18-21 June. All the notes are written by a Lay Delegate and any errors in them are mine. I believe I have captured the discussion accurately and beg forgiveness if I have not.
The convention’s focus was on John 4:35, “Look, I tell You, Lift Up Your Eyes, and See that the Fields are White for Harvest.” Missions was a primary focus throughout the event.
The first orders of the day after the opening service were elections of the RMD Presidium. The RMD is apparently pleased with its leadership team as all the Presidium incumbents and the Secretary were re-elected for additional terms.
President: Rev Randy Golter (acclamation)
1VP: Rev Allen Anderson
2VP: Rev Doug Escue
3VP: Rev Roger Schlecte
4VP: Rev Gary Trickey
Secretary: Rev Robert Harmon
The convention started with a worship service presided over by DP Golter, with preaching by Bishop David Tswaedi of the Lutheran Church of Southern Africa
President Golter opened the main convention with a message basically entitled, “I love the Church.” He talked of the differences between the church as an institution and a church that confesses Christ. His speech will be available at the RMD website this week. It was rather good.
Rev Dr Wilhlem Weber, of the South African Church’s Seminary, was the Bible Study leader for three sessions discussing Missions from the perspective of John.
The Keynote speaker for all three days and the opening session was Bishop Tswaedi. He presented an interesting view of the Christian church in Africa, Lutheran Missions in Africa, and the Future of the Church in Africa. It was quite interesting to hear the impact of Islam and traditional family worship on the church. Bishop Tswaedi stated that one of the reasons the Catholic church was growing quite steadily is the nature of the veneration of saints and the traditional Africans’ linking of that to traditional ancestor worship. Further, he indicated the African pastors’ dilemma because of the strong ties they have to the cultural and tribal aspects of their families and their duty and striving for orthodoxy. He urged us not to change the message of the Gospel to meet the demands of the people and urged us to get back to the Confessions.
Most of the overtures were fairly innocuous in that they were measures of thanks and support for the RMD’s Southern Africa Mission effort. Most of these were passed with little debate and with high percentages in favor. Our district did manage to raise about $470K of the $500K goal for Mission: Southern Africa.
Other resolutions voted on concerned the Lutheran Hispanic Missionary Institute in El Paso, Texas, healthcare insurance concerns, thanks for the District Staff and bylaw changes. One bylaw was changed in that the DP can now take a call to a district congregation as well as serve as DP.
A good resolution from Hope, Aurora called for CPH to place the 1986 Small Catechism in the public domain for non-profit purposes only. This passed overwhelmingly, but its ultimate impact is TBD due to legal and copyright issues.
I’ll discuss the rest of the convention in non-chronological order.
Bottom Line: Regarding the BRTFSSG, from what I can tell, the RMD is skeptical, to say the least. Most are not convinced that things need to be fixed—because they’re not broken.
President Kieschnick’s Executive Assistant (Rev John Braunersreuther) presented the BRTFSSG proposals to the convention in two one-hour blocks. He gave us a four page survey to provide feedback on their efforts. The representative said the Task Force would consider our opinions in their final proposal to the Synod at convention next year. He read each of the statements and gave the Task Force's reasons for making the proposals. Questions and comments were allowed in a second session after he reviewed the entire effort with us.
There was much discussion in the Q&A—I don’t remember anyone outright supporting the effort, but I wasn’t able to stay for the whole session. I do remember quite a bit of pushback from the EA—as to be expected. I do not envy his role at all. In all, there was far too little discussion time for such an important issue.
He estimated that to date, the BRTFSSG has spent over $650K on the effort, of which about $250K has been travel and $400K has been on a consultant. (I heard somewhere where the consultants will be our new heresy—or something to that effect.)
Two resolutions put forward regarding BRTFSSG passed with near unanimity.
The first is “For Rightly Understanding the “Doctrinal Position of Synod” which addressed “coercive language,” subscription requirements, and the relationship of Synod to Congregations.
The first resolve urged that we retain the “time tested words in the Constitution” regarding the advisory nature of Synod toward the congregations and that no resolution of Synod is binding if it is not in accordance with the Bible or is inexpedient toward the life of a congregation.
The second resolve states that “members of Synod” are bound only by the Word of God, subscribing to the Confessions, and are not bound by resolutions of conventions or inventions of men.
Much discussion concerned the proposed requirements of adherence to the “collective will” and the requiring subscription to the Constitution. Apparently, the term “collective will” is currently in the Synod handbook and has been for quite some time.
The second overture dealt with the BRTFSSG proposals themselves.
In general, the concern is over the need to rush these proposals through prematurely and without enough effective thought.
The resolves urged the district to avail themselves of every opportunity to provide feedback, to urge the BRTFSSG to hold a special conference at least 120 days prior to the 2010 convention, to provide the proposals and recommended changes by Oct 31, 2009, and that if these timelines are not met, to encourage the 2010 convention to table any changes to 2013.
President Kieschnick gave his presentation, which was basically his speech to the LCMS COP from April 2008 on Theological Unity in the LCMS. Most of the speech was taken from this document. Interestingly, he rattled off nearly 25 ways the Synod is united. From the list, he perhaps by oversight, omitted two bullets: that the flood was a historical event; that the pastoral office is the only divinely instituted office. Thinking back on it, it may have been an intentional omission on the pastoral office because there is significant disagreement on “lay ministry” issues. As for the historicity of the flood, perhaps that was an accident.
He answered a number of questions that were presented to him:
1) Why are we doing the BRTFSSG in the first place?; 2) What should we do about joint workshops, etc., with the ELCA when they support homosexual clergy? Should we continue with Wheatridge Ministries?; 3) What is your opinion of TCN?; 4) Why did the LCMS reallocate the funds from interest away from LWR and what are your comments to Matt Harrison’s paper?; 5) Why is the KFUO decision (selling it) not before the Synod(?)
He offered comments on the Finances of Synod saying that with rights and privileges comes duty and responsibility to provide funds to Synod. He basically said that congregations and districts aren’t providing the national office with enough funding to do its job of promoting the Gospel and supporting missions
He continued by answering a question he’d been asked at previous conventions, “if you could change one thing in Synod…” He would change the palpable spirit of distrust, innuendo, rumor, and falsehoods….the 8th commandment is clear. He stated that some things told about him were absolute lies. He provided his personal doctrinal statement, also in line with the April 2008 message to the COP.
He concluded by saying that the LCMS’ future is bright as long as God continues his blessing as we rely on Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. We have pastors with great theological training; commissioned ministers who dedicate their lives, and (lay) people with resources that need to be addressed.
The final order of the convention was an overture concerning District Licensed Deacon Training Programs and amending the Synodical Bylaws to support the calling and ordaining of eligible deacons to the Pastoral Office. Additionally, it called for the Synod to clarify the terminology, call, and ordination of these Deacons in accordance with AC XIV. My notes indicate an amendment to the resolve asking for these deacons to be placed on the Ordained Minister roster…but I can’t remember if this went through or not.
I was hoping for additional discussion on this last issue, but by the time we got around to discussing it for the 3d time-limited time, we addressed it, called the question, and voted on it within 10 minutes. The resolution passed w/ 77%, higher than I thought.
This and the BRTFSSG were the two biggest issues, but unfortunately got less than half the time as the elections and the other resolutions combined. Overall, though I am pleased with the fact both passed and send a message to Synod from our District that there are enough concerns that we want more work done on both fronts.
Overall, I thought the convention went well….I could do with less of the politics and more with the theological discussions (and less of the every-organization-gets-to-speak stuff). I’m also tired of bureaucracies.
Kudos to CPH for their table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)