Governance in the way of the Law or the Gospel?
(or, Does Size Matter?)
As a Synod, we have the freedom to organize our polity and govern ourselves in the manner we see best. There is no biblically-mandated structure or organizational design for the church (BTP* #5). This is nothing new, and our Synod has changed various points of governance in the past. For example, not too many years ago our dispute resolution process was changed from an “adjudication model” to a “reconciliation model.” This change, it seems to me, was a change from basing our governance and polity from being based in the way of the Law (adjudication) to being based in the way of the Gospel (reconciliation). Whether you think this was a wise change or not is fair game for debate. Yet our Synod was making a bold statement with this change, stating that it was our desire to put ourselves under the Gospel – not just as individual Christians, or congregations, but as a church body.
However, there is an idea that is now being put forward by some that would go against this new direction and desire of our Synod. Some think that larger congregations and districts should be entitled to greater representation than smaller congregations and districts. This would mean that larger congregations should have more votes and more influence in our Synod than smaller congregations. How far reaching this greater influence would be is not yet known. Would it be only at Synodical conventions? District conventions? Boards and Committees? Regardless, the question we need to ask is this: is this change in the way of the Law or in the way of the Gospel? Is this a churchly way of governance, or a worldly way of governance? The answer is clear: it is in the way of the world and the Law, for it is a model based upon rights and influence, and those are not of the church and the Gospel.
Historically, our Synod has believed, taught, and confessed that each congregation is the church, and fully the church (BTP #12). Smaller congregations are not less church than larger congregations, for in both Christ is present with His gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation, and “Where Christ is, there is His church” (BTP #6). This model sees each congregation not on the basis of size or numbers or income or any other such measures (which are of the Law), but sees each congregation as the place where the gifts of Christ are given (which is of the Gospel). Therefore, each congregation has been given equal representation, because each is equally church, none “worth” more or less than another.
Should this change? Should we move to a model of representation based upon the Law rather than the Gospel? Historically, the answer is no. Based upon other recent changes to our governance, the answer is no. And to move in this direction would not be a helpful change to the evangelical unity and focus of our Synod. One also must wonder how great the temptation would be to inflate and manipulate the numbers to help ones cause? The political machinations of our Synod could lead in this direction too, further damaging and dividing us. No, let us value one another not on the basis of our size but on the basis of Christ, who is present creating faith and giving life in all our congregations. Where He chooses to grant more growth and where He chooses to grant less should not be the criteria of “who gets more votes.” Rather, let us walk forward together, for after all, isn’t that what a “synod” is for?
Rev. James Douthwaite
* The abbreviation “BTP” refers to one of the “Basic Theological Principles” outlined in the Congregation-Synod-Church document and on the basis of which feedback was requested. You need not read these to understand the article.
3 comments:
Frankly, even giving this subject as much consideration as it seems to have gotten, reveals an incredible short-sightedness by some in leadership in the LCMS these days. They imagine that, if they give a bigger vote to bigger congregations, then those bigger congregations will give better to the Synodical bureaucracy. But even a cursory check of the records will reveal a much different track record! The small congregations of the LCMS are the bread and butter of the LCMS. LCMS, Inc. is hurting these days because many of these bread and butter congregations are realizing that they give to missions only to have their missions money spent on bureaucracy. So they either quit giving or they redirect their giving. Give the larger congregations more votes? Do it, and it will further sound the death knell of the LCMS because the smaller congregations will further step back and will be compelled to look to one another and others for "synod" because it will be clear that they no longer "walk together" with the leadership of the LCMS. May the Lord save and deliver us from such shortsightedness and give us men who are able to look forward to eternity and to plan for eternity and to work for eternity -- this is the work of Christ's Church! Anything else is of this life and this world and is destined to destruction. Thanks be to God that Christ has redeemed us from such sad shortsightedness.
An unfortunate correction must be mentioned and that is the fact that we already grant votes to convention based on size (or the Law per the article). Each circuit can only send two delegates to convention, and these must meet a certain size requirement in number of congregations and size of membership -7 and 1500 respectively. Could one assume that the numerous exceptions made by Kieschnick in the past Conventions would be motivated by a Gospel view? Unfortunately, it does seem that the suggestion to give larger churches more say is much more an effort to minimize the influence of smaller rural churches in the Synod. As one Pastor told me, 'those (little) churches don't understand the challenges to growing churches in the city.'
Dear "PK" (do you have a name?): Perhaps the good brothers whom you anonymously mention would be good enough to share with the whole rest of the Synod "the challenges to growing churches in the city." The plain spirit of the original post/article is that granting more delegate votes to larger parishes would plainly upset the "balance" which respects and acknowledges the glorious truth that smaller congregations are no less "Church" than the relatively few big churches in the LCMS (because of God's wonderful means of grace). How does your post address that issue? Just saying that there are "challenges" is not enough for understanding or cooperation. Want to know some of the challenges of smaller congregations (whether they are rural or small town or in the city? Just ask us, but I'm pretty sure that those challenges would be obvious even as challenges to these "growing churches in the city" are obvious to at least some of us.). I am also curious to know how granting more votes to larger congregations would bring a cure to those "growing churches in the city." Please offer some particulars rather than mere generalities lest one be tempted to see your post as an attempt at mere obfuscation. Let's work toward a cure, ok? Thanks! In Christian love . . .
Post a Comment