LCMS St. Louis vs. Ft. Wayne

[NordicLutheran]

I noticed there was a segment on the Today show about a LCMS Pastor, something about weight loss. Anyway I looked at the Church's sight and it is a member of Jesus First. I started reading about Jesus First and apparently they are against the Ft. Wayne Seminary because of the confessionals. Does this mean that St. Louis Seminary isn't confessional? I was really planning on attending St. Louis Seminary in 4 years, but if the seminaries are polarized then I want to be on the right side. Does anyone have any insight on this?

[filosofer]

There is not the distinction between the two seminaries that some want to make it. Either seminary is a top notch, solidly confessional seminary with top scholars and faithful professors. The son of a very good friend of mine graduated from St. Louis this past spring. He represents the best in what the LCMS stands for in its confession and profession.

[DaRev]

Both seminaries are very Confessional and Biblical in their pastoral formation.

[DaSeminarian]

I noticed there was a segment on the Today show about a LCMS Pastor, something about weight loss. Anyway I looked at the Church's sight and it is a member of Jesus First. I started reading about Jesus First and apparently they are against the Ft. Wayne Seminary because of the confessionals. Does this mean that St. Louis Seminary isn't confessional? I was really planning on attending St. Louis Seminary in 4 years, but if the seminaries are polarized then I want to be on the right side. Does anyone have any insight on this?

I concur with DaRev and filosofer. Jesus First is a radical group made up of many of the Seminex guys who left St. Louis in 74. There are also the discontent women who want to force the LCMS into Women's ordination.

Both Seminaries are very confessional and either one would train you for the pastorate. I attend Fort Wayne. You might want to consider coming to the Spring Invitational in March at Fort Wayne to see for yourself. I am not sure when the next invitational is for St. Louis.

[RadMan]

Jesus First is a radical group made up of many of the Seminex guys who left St. Louis in 74.Jesus First is an LCMS organization so how could they have left St.Louis in 74? Jesus First members are pastors and professors in our synod. They have a great influence in our synod offices and seminaries. Their "office" is located at Kieshnick's church in Kirkwood Mo. Concordia Kirkwood.

Jesus-First Leadership
505 South Kirkwood Rd
Kirkwood, MO 63122-5925

[DaRev]

Jesus First is NOT an LCMS organization. They may be LCMS members, but the organization is not affiliated with the Synod in any way.

[RadMan]

If it's on LCMS property then it's an LCMS organization. It works out of the same office, address and building that Concordia Kirkwood occupies The church is a member of LCMS so Jesus First is a member also. IT IS AN LCMS ORGANIZATION !

[DaRev]

No, it isn't.

[RadMan]

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...........IT'S A DUCK. Avoiding the fact that the Seminex influence isn't alive and well ignores the fact that Jesus First has a very large influence in LCMS. More than even the congregations and voting members to the conventions. After all they brag that they got Kieshnick elected. Go to the Jesus First's endorsement site and see how many LCMS pastors belong to the organization. They even brag that they have around 30 District Presidents on their side.

http://www.jesusfirst.net/endorsements.htm

[DaRev]

I'm not arguing any of that. I am simply saying that Jesus First is NOT an organization of the synod.

[NordicLutheran]

Well I'm glad the seminaries aren't polarized. Personally I think more power should be given to the District Presidents(Bishops).

[DaRev]

Well I'm glad the seminaries aren't polarized. Personally I think more power should be given to the District Presidents(Bishops).

The LCMS teaches that the Church exists in the congregations where the Gospel is preached in it's purity and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's command. While the DP's are "bishops" in an ecclesiastical sense, they are more administerial in their positions. The synod in it's organization is not the Church.

What type of "power" do you think the DP's need?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well I'm glad the seminaries aren't polarized. Personally I think more power should be given to the District Presidents(Bishops).

The LCMS teaches that the Church exists in the congregations where the Gospel is preached in it's purity and the Sacraments are administered according to Christ's command. While the DP's are "bishops" in an ecclesiastical sense, they are more administerial in their positions. The synod in it's organization is not the Church.

What type of "power" do you think the DP's need?

I agree with NordicLutheran, as do most of the more orthodox and confessional Pastors here in Canada.

Our DPs need to be able to exercise more doctrinal and Scriptural authority. Currently their work seems to be more administrative, a chairman of the board so to speak. Liberal clergy and their congregations like it this way. There are two congregations within 10 miles of my Church that practice full open Communion, and are very liberal in many other respects. (One is my old congregation is one of them.)

There was also a very liberal core in the congregation that I now attend. When the feces hit the fan about 3 years ago, the DP was contacted and we were told that he had no authority over the congregation. He did attend a Congregational meeting where he spoke for about 15 minutes, quoted the constitution and very little Scripture. The rest of it was rhetoric and political double-speak, lots of potatoes and no meat.

He really offered no doctrinal support, nor did he even stress the "official" Synodical position regarding the issues at hand. We were on our own.

Both factions were looking for guidance from district as the Elders at that time were split along family lines, and both sides were blaming the Pastor (who is just trying to maintain confessional integrity).

About half of our membership left, only one family now attend a Lutheran Church, the rest have gone to either Baptist or Missionary Churches. Those that are left, about half of them still blame the Pastor. All are angry with District. District has yet to offer any support or advice.

Last Sunday at a voters meeting one elderly member stated that "in the New Year, I'm driving down to District and I am going to give them a piece of my mind", and he will. I'm afraid that all he will achieve is a higher level of frustration, as have we.
:sigh:

Is the sole purpose of District, and Synod for that matter to write feel good letters for the various publications, and feel good programmes for outreach where we can throw thousands of dollars at, with no results what so ever? It would appear that the answer to the above questions is yes.

Something should change, we need DPs with the authority of Bishops.

[RadMan]

Then on the other hand you could have the potential for abuse from the synod itself if it becomes liberal. If a synod promotes unionism, syncretism, fellowship with denoms with non aligned beliefs, power ploys by the administration etc. then it can pass policy that swings the other way and gives the synod too much power such as telling the congregations that they cannot fire a pastor for wrongdoing or false teaching without the synods OK.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Then on the other hand you could have the potential for abuse from the synod itself if it becomes liberal. If a synod promotes unionism, syncretism, fellowship with denoms with non aligned beliefs, power ploys by the administration etc. then it can pass policy that swings the other way and gives the synod too much power such as telling the congregations that they cannot fire a pastor for wrongdoing or false teaching without the synods OK.

I'm not talking about unilateral power, but only authority with regard to Scripture and our confessions. The DP's and Synod would still have to be Daps to the Church (Congregations), no Papal infallibility. They would still be bound by the constitution. The constitution would still be amended only through convention of the Synod.

I think it could work.

We have had DP's in the past who did exercise such authority (even if it wasn't their mandate), and it was accepted on a congregational level, and was a unifing factor. This also could be abused, because the truth is most ordinairy members do look to the DP's as authority figures because they read their Bibles little, and probibily have seen the Book of Concord only on a shelf in the Chruch librairy. This is why they get [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]y when there isn't any authority exercised!

Mark

[DaRev]

The LCMS doesn't need a hierarchial system of bishops to maintain synodical polity. It needs the DP's to do their jobs as DP's. This is the biggest gripe I have about the LCMS. They do not police or discipline where they need to. When a pastor is teaching and practicing outside the synod guidelines (which should be Biblical and Confessional), Matthew 18 needs to come into play, with the end result being removal from the roster if all other efforts fail. The same goes for member congregations. The problem is that they don't employ Matthew 18 at all.

The synod has no power to dictate. Our polity is congregational. But membership in the synod is voluntary. Both pastors and congregations volunatrily vow to uphold the constitution of the synod in order to be members of synod. If they do not follow through, they should be removed from membership. Pure and simple.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The LCMS doesn't need a hierarchial system of bishops to maintain synodical polity. It needs the DP's to do their jobs as DP's. This is the biggest gripe I have about the LCMS. They do not police or discipline where they need to. When a pastor is teaching and practicing outside the synod guidelines (which should be Biblical and Confessional), Matthew 18 needs to come into play, with the end result being removal from the roster if all other efforts fail. The same goes for member congregations. The problem is that they don't employ Matthew 18 at all.

The synod has no power to dictate. Our polity is congregational. But membership in the synod is voluntary. Both pastors and congregations volunatrily vow to uphold the constitution of the synod in order to be members of synod. If they do not follow through, they should be removed from membership. Pure and simple.

Today, if they actually did that we would have a whole bunch of free Churches.

[DaRev]

Today, if they actually did that we would have a whole bunch of free Churches.

I don't know about that. If Matthew 18 is employed it would show these congregations and pastors where they are erring. As it is now, they don't think they are. But if that happens, so be it.

[RadMan]

Unfortunately "authority with regard to Scripture and our confessions" usually come from unilateral power. In spite of a constitution the DPs/Bishops have ways of getting around it to the point of heterodox sometimes. For instance the "unionism" being fostered in the LCMS. That's only one instance. There are more.

I understand were you are coming from but only the intense education of the laity can keep an equitable balance so that abuses aren't permitted. Especially at conventions where the constitution is amended. Uneducated laity can be influenced heavily by pastors and the synod officers if they don't have the necessary tools to counteract it.

"My people perishing form lack of knowledge" and non-equipping the saints can open the door to much heterodox and abuse by the powers that be.

Even in congregations the on-going education has to happen because there has been too much of an attitude to defer to the pastor to make decisions because they are "educated". Hence more abuse and that leaves the door open to having CEOs as pastors and abducting the Biblical mandate for laity to judge doctrine and self governing of the congregation. .

[DaSeminarian]

Unfortunately "authority with regard to Scripture and our confessions" usually come from unilateral power. In spite of a constitution the DPs/Bishops have ways of getting around it to the point of heterodox sometimes. For instance the "unionism" being fostered in the LCMS. That's only one instance. There are more.

I understand were you are coming from but only the intense education of the laity can keep an equitable balance so that abuses aren't permitted. Especially at conventions where the constitution is amended. Uneducated laity can be influenced heavily by pastors and the synod officers if they don't have the necessary tools to counteract it.

"My people perishing form lack of knowledge" and non-equipping the saints can open the door to much heterodox and abuse by the powers that be.

Even in congregations the on-going education has to happen because there has been too much of an attitude to defer to the pastor to make decisions because they are "educated". Hence more abuse and that leaves the door open to having CEOs as pastors and abducting the Biblical mandate for laity to judge doctrine and self governing of the congregation. .

As long as we live in a sinful world, these abuses will continue whether we try to stop them or not.

Catechesis is from cradle to grave

[NordicLutheran]

Well the LCMS needs a new policy. If the current one does not allow for congregational or even pastoral discipline by the DPs then I think it should change. Why can't the LCMS become a Church body that has a biblical form of governing. This is the weirdest thing about the LCMS. We have too many parishes to allow them all to be autonomous. Can you imagine the RCC being like this? It would be an absolute disaster!

[DaRev]

Congregational polity IS Biblical. The RCC's hierarchial magisterium is not.

[Tofferer]

Congregational polity IS Biblical. The RCC's hierarchial magisterium is not.
Amen! Now I know it may not be my place to speak, yet giving a "bishop" unilateral power is a dangerous thing. Especially when one considers the concerns regarding some of the more liberal pastors already in the pulpit. What if enough of these pastors became bishops with the type of power that nordiclutheran is advocating? I fear that the LCMS would find itself in a situation that is quite similiar to what the ELCA is already in. I wouldn't be too quick to give the bishop that much power.

[NordicLutheran]

The Synod should oversee the installation of confessional bishops. The people should vote for the Synodical leaders that represent them, and the bishops would be under the direct discipline of the Synod. IE. The people vote for the bishops that they want.

[DaRev]

The voter's assemblies nominate pastors for the district leadership positions (DP, VPs, etc). They then select a delegate to attend the district convention to vote for their choices. It's a representative system.

[NordicLutheran]

Our representatives should have more power to make sure the district is uniform. No?

[DaRev]

I'm not sure what you mean by "power". The delegates vote on candidates for the offices as nominated by the congregation voter's assemblies and member pastors. Delegates also have a say in other matters of business. It's parlimentary procedure.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well the LCMS needs a new policy. If the current one does not allow for congregational or even pastoral discipline by the DPs then I think it should change. Why can't the LCMS become a Church body that has a biblical form of governing. This is the weirdest thing about the LCMS. We have too many parishes to allow them all to be autonomous. Can you imagine the RCC being like this? It would be an absolute disaster!

Amen! Now I know it may not be my place to speak, yet giving a "bishop" unilateral power is a dangerous thing. Especially when one considers the concerns regarding some of the more liberal pastors already in the pulpit. What if enough of these pastors became bishops with the type of power that nordiclutheran is advocating? I fear that the LCMS would find itself in a situation that is quite similiar to what the ELCA is already in. I wouldn't be too quick to give the bishop that much power.

As I stated before, Bishops should not have unilateral power. They should however be able to exercise "Scriptural authority" regarding right teaching, and right practice. When we read the Epistles it is undeniable that the "first" Bishops and Pastors certainly did. St. Paul always seemed to be admonishing and reproving the Churches.

When controversy arose it was settled in Council, as it was for centuries until the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Vatican II functioned a lot like these early councils.

Bishops would be elected, as they are now, for a fixed term. Therefore they are under the authority of the Church (Congregations). Since it would be impractical to also elect Circuit Councilors this way, the present system could remain. While CC's meet at regular intervals, its not to often that the DP attends. There should be at least two district councils with the DP and the CC's every year. The DP would also be answerable to this council, as would be each of the CC's. I believe that it should also work in the same way with the Synod President, and the DP's.

When matters are pressing a "council" should be able to convene on relatively short notice. By doing this, it would show that the CC's support the DP. Likewise, when there are issues that are communicated to the Congregations (news letters) they should be not only from the DP but the CC's as well. This not only would show unity in doctrine and spirit, but would breed it as well.

An analogy of this type of system would be the "self regulating" professions. The one that I am most familiar with being a licenced Funeral Director in Ontario Canada is our Board of Funeral Services. In Canada self regulating professions have lobbied parliament, which creates and "Act" (law) which directs the board. We have an elected board of directors made up of our peers, as well as lay "unlicensed people". The peers are elected by the licenced members. Lay delegates are appointed by "the minister", but approved by the board. A registrar (who oversees the day to day function of the board) is "hired" by the board. Also hired by the board are the Inspectors who regularly visit all of the establishments (which must be licenced by the board) and inspect the premises, records (financial included), to assist with and ensure compliance with the Act. There is also a disciplinary committee elected by the board, from the board to enforce the Act. This committee (tribunal) hears complaints by both the industry and the public. It has power to impose penalties including the suspension and even revocation of licences of both individuals and establishments. Decisions of this committee can be appealed, first to the board, then the Superior Court of Ontario, and could eventually go as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, although they would likely refuse to hear the case.

Please don't dismiss this as a rant. I'v posted this as a hypothetical example of how the power of authority could be administered by our present Synodical structures, both in LCMS and LCC, with the Synods still remaining democratic and Scriptural in structure.

Mark