LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2004, Page 432

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

432 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

* One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Bringing Out the Best in Any Size
Church, by Gary L. McIntosh (ISBN 0-8007-5699-1), Revell,
1999.

* Quiet Conversations: Concrete Help for Weary Ministry Lead-
ers, by Alan C. and Cheryl D. Klaas (ISBN 0-9702314-0-7), Mis-
sion Growth Publishing, 2000.

Whether favorably interested or skeptically concerned, those
with an interest in the ongoing life and health of congregations and
the synodical fellowship could study these books and materials to
gain a deeper understanding of the IIM concept, as well as its rela-
tionship to the theology and practice of the Divine Call in the
LCMS today.

Pau] Nus

April 29, 2003

2.

There are of course many fine statements in this CTCR’s report,
the text of which has been developing in committee for nearly 10
years. Our main reservations about this draft are twofold: (1)
Specifically, the document abandons our Synod’s 150-year-long
opposition in principle to “temporary calls”; and (2) in general, we
are concerned about a pragmatic type of theologizing which always
seeks to reshape doctrine to fit existing practice, rather than cor-
recting practice by the unchanging standard of biblical doctrine.

“Temporary Calls”

Although the document admits that “there have been good and
solid reasons for regarding the calls of parish pastors as open-ended
or of unspecified duration” (38), and even takes this as normal
practice for ordinary parish calls, the document treats this as no
more than a desirable adiaphoron: “It may well be the case that the
length of service, like location and salary, is also an issue that is
entrusted to the church to administer ‘by human right” (de jure hu-
mano) (37). Walther says the opposite: “the church cannot create a
call according to its own discretion but can issue only that call
which God has instituted and which He alone recognizes (through
which alone a servant of God comes into existence, not, however,
through a human contract for a few hours and days)” (Walther
Speaks to the Church: Selected Letters, Carl S. Meyer, ed. [St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1973], 58; emphasis added).

If adopted, the new theology would be the first official break—
foreshadowed, to be sure, by decades of loose practice—with our
Synod’s previous stand on the matter throughout its history. Indeed,
the whole Synodical Conference from the beginning held that “the
toleration of temporary calls for pastors” was a “practice contrary
to the confession, and therefore a bar to church fellowship” (CTCR
Report Theology of Fellowship, 20). Unlike other CTCR reports,
merely recommended by the Synod for study, etc., this one was
formally “adopted” as its position by the Synod in 1967.

If it is true that the minister of the Gospel is “God’s man”
(1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:17), who may therefore be removed from
office only for cause (ungodly doctrine, ungodly life, incompe-
tence), properly established (1 Tim. 5:19), then a temporary “call”
is simply an enabling device for arbitrary dismissal on unbiblical
grounds, and is no call at all. It is in fact “an abominable disorder”
(see Walther, below). That is the historic Lutheran position de-
fended by our Synod.

The document’s “situationism,” which holds that “pastors in
specialized fields of service” may be treated differently (38-41),
threatens the distinctively Lutheran understanding that there is only
one divinely established Gospel ministry, and that all Gospel min-
isters—-whatever their particular specializations—are therefore es-
sentially alike as incumbents of one and the same God-given of-
fice. Thus Walther, refuting Grabau’s claim that he had the right
to dismiss his assistant, Pastor Hochstetter, because he was techni-

2004 Convention Workbook

cally only an “archdeacon,” accused Grabau of “sacrilege” and
“church-robbery,” saying:

However therefore Pastor Grabau may twist and wiggle, he will
never manage to prove from God's Word that there is more than one
divinely instituted office, and that there exists a type of preacher who by
divine right would be something other or more or less than other
[preachers], which of course is a doctrine which domineering pastors
would only too fondly like to smuggle in from the Roman or the Epis-
copal church into the Lutheran. (Der Lutheraner, vol. 23, no. 9 [1867],
67)

If “the free and unhindered proclamation of the whole counsel
of God has been a fundamental reason why the call of a local pas-
tor has been considered permanent” (38), it is difficult to see why
that same logic should not apply in other situations. If anything,
academic or bureaucratic pressures for conformity within the syn-
odical structure are likely to be much more intense than public
opinion within a local congregation. Why then does the document
favor temporary appointments or “a rolling contract” (40) for
Gospel ministers in such situations? If permanent calls for local
parish pastors are desirable in resisting “the pressure ... for the pas-
tor to become a ‘people-pleaser’ ” (38), then how can pastors in the
employ of the Synod under “a solemn Call” be expected to “serve
at the pleasure of the appointing authorities”? (1989 Proceedings,
129).

We recognize of course that there are unusual and “fluid” situ-
ations. This, however, is not the place to offer detailed suggestions
for various cases. What is important is the principle that the one
Gospel ministry is conveyed by a regular (non-temporary!) divine
call, and that this is also the way for orderly transfers of Gospel
ministers from one field of service to another. Within a permanent
call to a mission field, for example, orderly changes of location
may well be made by mutual consent. And as for elected offices, if
they require ministers of the Gospel, then these may either be
called permanently or else be given temporary auxiliary calls in ad-
dition to their regular, permanent calls. Where there is a will to fol-
low proper churchly practice, there will always be a way. The pro-
posed document’s treatment of the new concept of “intentional
interim ministry” (see 40-41) does not face up sufficiently to the
underlying issues of principle. Nor do the issues of “Resignation
and Retirement” (45-46) appear to have been sufficiently thought
through.

The majority document is mistaken in assuming (20) that un-
like Walther, Pieper ‘was willing, however, to distinguish between
a call for temporary assistance and a temporary call.” In point of
fact, that distinction had been made already by Walther: “Those
preachers, however, who without giving up the office to which they
have an orderly, regular call, serve another congregation for a time
as it were ‘on loan,’ with the agreement of their congregation, by
no means thereby make themselves guilty of conducting the office
on the basis of a temporary call” (Pastoraltheologie, 4th ed., 1897,
44n). Walther cites biblical and Reformation examples, including
that of Bugenhagen, “who near the beginning of the Gospel was
lent from Wittenberg to Brunswick for a year.”

Doctrine and Practice: The Horse-and-Cart Problem

Serious theology needs constantly to call the church’s practice
back to the pure standards of her doctrine. It is a mark of decline
when theologizing is used instead to justify loose, pragmatic prac-
tice. In this way unsound practice ultimately leads to unsound doc-
trine, instead of sound doctrine being allowed to cure the ills of un-
sound practice. It is easy for the church, especially in an age of
pragmatism, to drift into loose practice. In call matters all sorts of
practical anomalies have arisen, and have been accepted apparently
without any serious theological analysis. For instance, the Wichita
convention (1989), contrary to Augsburg Confession XIV, ac-
cepted Word and Sacrament ministry by uncalled, unordained (“‘li-
censed”) persons, largely on the grounds that the thing was hap-