# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2004_S205 # Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration) THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS 205 Admittedly, the Holy Spirit does at times use events in the life of unconverted people to prepare them for the Gospel. How- ever, such crises are applications of the Law. As such they may break down the resistance of the unconverted in the sense that they cause that person to become aware of the fact that he or she has sinned against God, deserves His wrath and punishment, and asks, “What must I do to be saved?” But in the strict sense, the individual stops resisting and becomes receptive to the Gospel only at the time of conversion (ECG, p. 38, emphasis added). Can we determine the receptivity of the individual or not? ECG clearly says no, but the CTCR’s Review claims that it says yes. “Soil-testing” has no legitimacy in the Scriptures or Confessions.® Efforts to diagnose the “receptivity” to the Gospel of certain people in comparison to others can easily start one on the path toward syn- ergism. As a theological study document, FSCC is integrated and con- sistent. In contrast, the CTCR’s Review of FSCC presents two con- tradictory messages. On the one hand, it encourages the search out- side Lutheran theology for principles, methods, and resources because this may achieve more “God-pleasing” diversity in wor- ship and measurable increases in growth. “At the same time,” on the other hand, the Commission insistently urges the Synod to con- sult its own documents when it has looked beyond the CTCR for theological guidance. The CTCR cannot have it both ways. The central issue here seems to be the freedom of those in our Synod to seek and employ theological guidance from elsewhere. The CTCR’s Review en- courages Church Growth practitioners to look outside the Synod. How can it be any less appropriate to look beyond the CTCR for theological guidance within the Synod? The CTCR’s Review has nonetheless performed a useful ser- vice for the Synod. It has repeatedly highlighted apparent tensions between its own documents—Evangelism and Church Growth from 1987, in particular—and the 2001 Report of the Church Growth Study Committee. For the Sake of Christ’s Commission can be used along with other recent writings on the CGM’ to as- certain whether outright contradictions can be found within these tensions. Since the CTCR released ECG in September 1987, the Church Growth Movement has itself grown, moved, and mutated, and its practitioners have provided their own critical reassessments. George Barna, a noted observer of Church Growth trends and sta- tistics, questioned the effectiveness of CG methods as he looked back over the ’90s: Claims of prolific church growth have been grossly exag- gerated; not only are most churches not increasing in size, but those that are expanding are doing so at the expense of other churches. More than 80 percent of the adults who get counted as new adherents and thus are part of the growth statistic are re- ally just transplants from other churches—teligious consumers in search of the perfect, or at least more exciting or enjoyable, church experience. Disturbingly little church growth is attribut- able to new converts. All in all, it was not a good decade for . church growth.® Another non-Lutheran Church Growth pastor makes a similar con- fession: Clearly at the inception of the church growth movement the focus was to evangelize the lost. Unfortunately along the way, as growth principles were laid in place, the greatest growth was generated consistently through transfer growth. ... The great press for the evangelization of the world has been detoured as the church’s primary occupation has become seeking the sheep that are wayfarers of a neighboring sheepfold. This redirecting of the church’s evangelistic energy may be the single most neg- ative facet of transfer growth.” Discretion in the use of Church Growth methods among LCMS congregations needs to be heightened and strengthened, not dimin- ished or dismissed. Let us heed this counsel from our Synod’s first President, Dr. C. F. W. Walther: Furthermore, a Synod that is “faithful to the Confessions” must also “supervise the confessional faithfulness of its mem- bers.” It is therefore not enough that a Synod, so to speak, have only the official statement, “A Synod true to the Confessions, adhering without reservation to all the Symbols (confessional statements).” It is not enough that it receive only such pastors and teachers as prove themselves faithful to the Confessions. /f must also see to it that they remain that way, for only “he that is faithful to the end shall be saved” (Matt. 10:22). But it is impossible for a sizable church body to remain in the true faith if there isn’t a constant check to see that every- thing still is as it was in the beginning, when the pastor came to the congregation. Without visitation it is probably impossible for a church to remain in unity of faith and confession (empha- sis added).'° The children of Missouri are struggling against one another within her womb. May the God of Isaac, Rebekah, and Jacob also guide The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod as she seeks to re- solve her inner rivalries in order to boldly bear His promises in our lost and dying culture. Notes |. As a recent advertisement for a Christian college reminds us: “If you want to change the surrounding culture, it helps to have one of your own.” 2. The CTCR’s review of FSCC employs the page numbers found in the 2001 Convention Workbook. FSCC has previously been accessible through the Office of the President’s portion of the official LCMS Web site. A notice indicates that this document may no longer be available from the LCMS Web site after March 31. FSCC can also be found online at http://people.csp.edu/ mueller/ CSP/THY281/ForTheSake- OfTheChurch.doc http://www.ctsfw. edu/library/files/er/480. 3. Concerning our freedom in Christ, Paul wrote: “For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13). Lutheran Christians certainly construct their wor- ship services on the basis of the Word alone (“formal principal”), yet that form always accentuates the “material principal” of the Gospel: justification by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. We apprehend God’s grace in Christ only through the means He Himself has given: Word and Sacrament. That is why the Lutheran church has followed the greater part of Christendom in extolling those means through a regular pattern of consensual worship called the liturgy. Baptists may share with us the “for- mal principle,” yet their “material principle” centers not on the Gospel, but on the believer’s unfettered liberty of conscience in religious matters. The CTCR’s Review speaks of the “freedom granted to the church ... in worship forms ... so long as this di- versity does not compromise or undermine God’s Word.” If ex- ercising that freedom focuses upon anything other than the Gospel in Word and Sacrament, it cannot be called genuinely Lutheran (which is to say, thoroughly Christian). 4. The Synod’s 1998 convention adopted Res. 2-10, “To Build Consensus on Worship.” It presents a practical approach to re- solving these tensions in our Synod, which need not distort our assessment or use of FSCC. That resolution’s final clause quotes Martin Luther’s letter to the Christians in Livonia: “I pray all of you, my dear sirs, let each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters, so that there will be one uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder.” 5. The statements below, taken from the CTCR’s Review, also support this conclusion: « “Tt is the opinion of the CTCR that its ... reports ... can continue to be of service to the church in affirming many of the valid warnings of FSCC while at the same time offering some insight into how certain emphases of the church growth movement might be acknowledged and adapted in ways that are consistent with Lutheran theology” (p. 2). « “The question raised in a pointed way by church growth proponents merits serious consideration also by confessional Lutherans: ‘Is the church today using every legitimate modern technique which God has made available in an effort to meet its mission challenge?’ (ECG, 39)” (p. 4).