# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S203 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 203 Summary * The CTCR’s Review encourages congregations to read and study For the Sake of Christ’s Commission, but demonstrates a preference for its own documents. Over one half of FSCC was largely neglected in the CTCR’s Review. * FSCC provides guidelines for discernment toward Church Growth presuppositions, methods, and resources not found in CTCR docu- ments. ¢ A previous CTCR report condemns “soil-testing” as unscriptural, but this CTCR Review seems to endorse the concept. ¢ In general, the CTCR counsels a much more permissive approach to- ward Church Growth methods than FSCC. The CTCR also expressed particular concern to promote ‘“‘diversity in worship,” which was not part of the Church Growth Study Committee’s assignment. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth (1 Corinthians 3:6-7 NASB). How shall the church engage her surrounding culture, and how should this shape the way Christians order their own life together within the church? To what extent should the culture outside Christ’s body influence the culture within?' How does the revealed truth of the Holy Scriptures actually “norm” our behavior and prac- tice? Are we modifying what we say we believe in order to justify what we want to do? The 1995 convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod adopted Res. 3-09, “To Address the Church Growth Move- ment” (see Appendix). The Synod thereby called for the creation of the Church Growth Study Committee (CGSC) and delineated its assignment. The CGSC delivered its final report, For the Sake of Christ's Commission (henceforth referenced as FSCC) to the 2001 Synod convention (2001 Convention Workbook, pp. 442-50). FSCC can also be found online.” . Without first reading the convention resolution and then the FSCC report itself, the CTCR’s review of FSCC cannot be fully understood and assessed. In its conclusion the CTCR itself stated: “The Commission recommends that FSCC be read and studied.” Overall, the CTCR found much to affirm and reemphasize in FSCC. Not one point in FSCC is specifically condemned, but the CTCR did highlight contrasts between its own documents and FSCC. This Minority Opinion provides an alternative assessment of FSCC and takes issue with the critique and qualifying statements adopted by the CTCR. From the outset, the CTCR misconstrued the assignment given to the CGSC. The Review states that “For reasons not explicitly stated in the report, ... little attention is given in FSCC to the Synod’s request to ‘in fairness show how some [Church Growth] materials and practices may be used in the service of the Gospel and the advancement of the Kingdom.’” The CTCR truncated this quotation. Read the beginning of the sentence, and the reason why “Jittle attention is given in FSCC” becomes perfectly clear: “Resolved, that The Lutheran Witness, Reporter, and other publi- cations of the Synod report on the errors in some Church Growth materials and practices and also in fairness show ...” In other words, that assignment was given to “publications of the Synod,” and not to the CGSC. No fault can be found with them for failing to address someone else’s assignment. The Committee’s own task was delineated in the following paragraph: Resolved, That the President of the Synod consider appoint- ing a committee to study and address how the truth of the Scrip- tures and the Lutheran Confessions might be clearly proclaimed in light of the Church Growth Movement and the influences of American culture and pluralism. The CGSC fulfilled this assignment and did not go beyond it. Upon the pretext that CGSC failed to adequately address its as- signment rests the CTCR’s justification for supplying its own al- ternative interpretive framework beyond a simple review of FSCC. FSCC begins by answering the question “What Is the Church Growth Movement?” and notes that “it can be correctly understood and defined ... only on the basis of its own recognized standards and texts.” The CTCR evidently accepts FSCC’s answer to this question. Its Review offered nothing beyond FSCC to our under- standing of the Church Growth Movement. The CTCR did direct attention to its own previous documents and quoted itself extensively while reviewing FSCC. In particular, it cited Evangelism and Church Growth (1987), A Theological Statement of Mission (1991), and Spiritual Gifts (1994). These doc- uments were already available in 1995 when the Synod adopted Res. 3-09; in fact, that resolution cited ECG several times. Evi- dently these documents were not considered adequate to address the assignment given to the CGSC. The Synod in convention clearly defined the scope of the Report it still needed and did not yet have, and authorized a special Committee (not the CTCR) to complete this task. Yet now, curiously, the CTCR has produced something ap- proximating an alternative Report—what it might have written had it received the CGSC’s assignment. This seems to exceed the CTCR’s own assignment to simply review FSCC. The CTCR’s document deserves its own attention, and its method will be as- sessed below. But FSCC was the topic of the Commission’s own assignment, and it must not be neglected here. FSCC is organized in two parts. Part | addresses the “Theolog- ical Issues” of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and the CTCR focused its Review almost exclusively upon this section. Part 2 of FSCC (which is longer than Part 1) addresses the “Cul- tural Issues” of the CGM. The CTCR neglected to comment upon this half of the Report in any substantive fashion. Those who are truly interested in evangelistic outreach ought not overlook what FSCC has to offer here, because it makes a refreshingly bold claim: The Lutheran church is blessed with a theology that offers a specific, comprehensive framework for addressing the relation- ship between church and culture. The doctrine of the two king- doms can help us address the cultural issues raised by the Church Growth Movement in a positive way. FSCC’s conclusions from Part 2 are worth repeating here in sum- mary form: |. The Lutheran theology of the two kingdoms teaches that God reigns in all cultures, but that the church is to be ruled by the Word of God alone, and not by the culture. ... It follows that the culture is not to set the agenda for the church. 2. American culture offers many blessings, but it currently includes features that can undermine the faith. ... It follows that adjusting the church’s practice to appeal to today’s American culture, as advocated by the Church Growth Movement, will be particularly problematic. 3. Cultural pluralism does not mean cultural relativism; rather, it means that the church has the opportunity to reach out to human beings in all of their God-given diversity. ... It follows that, ina climate of cultural diversity, the church must recover its univer- sality. The Commission took issue with this last point. The CTCR asserts: This proper and scriptural emphasis on the unity of Christ’s church in its confession and worship must not be played off against the freedom granted to the church in both Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions for God-pleasing diversity in worship forms and other ecclesial rites and practices, so long as this di- versity does not compromise or undermine God’s Word. ... FSCC warns against recent trends toward diversity in worship, but it is important to emphasize that a keen sense of balance is needed when addressing this difficult and sensitive issue (p. 14). In fact, FSCC does not address trends in diversity of worship as such. Rather, it addresses trends in the diversity of culture, which the church must engage. Some elements in the church today express great impatience with anything that might be perceived as limiting the freedom of an individual congregation to experiment with more creative worship styles.* It comes as no surprise that FSCC has not met with their approval. To label “diversity in wor- ship forms” as “God-pleasing” would seem to require more than bare assertion in the face of authoritative synodical statements on this “difficult and sensitive issue."