Clergy vs. Congregation--Who's Right?

[ByzantineDixie]

We had a sub-thread running in the "Just Curious" thread about a few current issues in the LCMS.

Lotar had mentioned that while the sems are graduating orthodox pastors, the congregations are not supporting the orthodox views of these pastors (more specifically as it relates to open communion).

I got to thinking about this...how do we determine which is correct...the clergy or the congregations. Here is my initial thinking on this. I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

The Lutheran Doctrine of the Public Ministry indicates it is not graduation from seminary that is evidence of the "call" but rather, assurance that a man has been called by God to serve in public ministry is obtained when a "call" issued by a congregation. Our own doctrine supports the fact that God's will is affirmed in the voice of the congregation.

Henry Blackaby says this in his book, Experiencing God:



You may say to me, "Henry, you don't know my church. I can't depend on them to help me know God's will." Be careful. When you say that, you have said more about what you believe about God than what you believe about your church.

When the clergy and the congregation disagree...shouldn't we be seriously looking at the congregations are saying? Isn't the church God's vehicle, not just the clergy?

Now...I am not necessarily talking about that lone renegade rebellious congregation. If there are truly numbers of congregations that are out of alignment with what the new pastors leaving seminary believe, don't we have a problem and couldn't it be that the problem is not with the congregations? Is proper understanding of the faith limited to the domain of the clergy alone?

Peace

Rose

[JVAC]

Clergy, and not the congregations, are vested with the authority and office to judge doctrine, according to the confessions.

-James

[ByzantineDixie]

James...would you mind directing me to specific references? Thanks-----R

[JVAC]

Article XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession, the whole thing is pretty good, but if you don't want to read it all anotated verses 20-22 is pretty succinct.

-James

[filosofer]

It is double-edged sword. Walther wrote a convention essay titled: Sheep Judge their Shepherds. Very timely and pertinent for today.

I would say that in my 50+ years of observing pastors and congregations all over the US (we have moved 27 times!), there are far more problems with clergy lording it over the congregation than the other way around. The biggest problem seems to be the failure of the pastor to understand service, and that authority is based on the Word, not some inherent right of the pastor. BTW I have been on both sides of the aisle (pastor and layman) as an adult.

[SPALATIN]

We had a sub-thread running in the "Just Curious" thread about a few current issues in the LCMS.

Lotar had mentioned that while the sems are graduating orthodox pastors, the congregations are not supporting the orthodox views of these pastors (more specifically as it relates to open communion).

I got to thinking about this...how do we determine which is correct...the clergy or the congregations. Here is my initial thinking on this. I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

The Lutheran Doctrine of the Public Ministry indicates it is not graduation from seminary that is evidence of the "call" but rather, assurance that a man has been called by God to serve in public ministry is obtained when a "call" issued by a congregation. Our own doctrine supports the fact that God's will is affirmed in the voice of the congregation.

Henry Blackaby says this in his book, Experiencing God:



When the clergy and the congregation disagree...shouldn't we be seriously looking at the congregations are saying? Isn't the church God's vehicle, not just the clergy?

Now...I am not necessarily talking about that lone renegade rebellious congregation. If there are truly numbers of congregations that are out of alignment with what the new pastors leaving seminary believe, don't we have a problem and couldn't it be that the problem is not with the congregations? Is proper understanding of the faith limited to the domain of the clergy alone?

Peace

Rose
While the congregation issues the call and has the right also rescind the call if the minister is failing in his leadership role, the Minister is the Spiritual leader of the congregation that is to Preach the Law and Gospel.

In your question you are asking why when Sem students are being graduated to be Orthodox ministers that they are facing congregations that want heterodox teaching.

The Pastor who is called is too preach the orthodox way and hope that his congregation sees which way is correct according to scripture. If there is still a problem it will have to be discussed between Pastor and Elders.

Interestingly it is usually the Baby Boomers who are wanting "Open Communion" and Praise and Worship music. A recent study showed the 20 somethings are looking for more substance in their worship while the Baby Boomers were wanting more heterodoxical worship. I am wanting to shun by Baby Boomer title because I fit in more with those who want substance.

Scott Strohkirch

[ByzantineDixie]

In your question you are asking why when Sem students are being graduated to be Orthodox ministers that they are facing congregations that want heterodox teaching.

I guess my question is more who gets to call something heterodox. Everything is subject to interpretation. The BoC respresents the Lutheran interpretation of Scripture and how we do things respresents how we intrepret to BoC. If the power for interpretation lies solely with the clergy then aren't we vulnerable to the same abuses that lead to the reformation in the first place?

Interestingly it is usually the Baby Boomers who are wanting "Open Communion" and Praise and Worship music. A recent study showed the 20 somethings are looking for more substance in their worship while the Baby Boomers were wanting more heterodoxical worship.


Scott, these two statements of fact have been subtilely punctuated with opinion so bear with me as I address both.

The concept that 20 somethings want something different than their 40 - 50 something parents. Not new, not surprising, I have been around this block before. Consider those baby boomers...what did we want? Something different than what our parents liked. And what did we lean toward in worship? Anything rather than something Beaver Cleaver would have done. In my case I was Roman Catholic at the time and absolutely fell in love with the folk mass. (Even today when I hear those old Catholic folk tunes of the 1970's my spirit lifts.) The only reason I would want to disassociate myself from the Baby Boomers is because the title infers a bit more age than I really want to accept! ;)

However to call contemporary worship heterodox goes back to my original question. Who says its heterodox? The confessions don't say this. Even Martin Luther was a strong proponent of culturally relevent worship. He wanted distinctly German worship...not that German worship was the one true way to worship but because it would be appropriate for his people.

I think we have to be very careful in our use of the term heterodox. I call your attention to something Martin Luther wrote in a letter to Prince George of Anhalt [July 10, 1545],

And if one cope or alb is not enough for your lord, the elector, wear three of them, as the high priest Aaron did when he put on three vestments, one on top of the other and all of them beautiful and attractive [cf. Lev. 8:7] (after which ecclesiastical vestments were called ornata in the papacy). Moreover, if His Grace is not satisfied that you go about singing and ringing bells in procession only once, go about seven times, as Joshua compassed the city of Jericho seven times with the Children of Israel, making a great shout and blowing trumpets [Joshua 6:4,5,16]. If your lord, the margrave, desires it, let His grace leap and dance at the head of the procession with harps, drums, cymbals, and bells, as David danced before the Ark of the Lord when it was carried into the city of Jerusalem . I am fully satisfied, for none of these things (as long as no abuse is connected with them) adds anything to the gospel or detracts from it. [I]Only do not let such things be regarded as necessary for salvation and thus bind the consciences of men. How I would rejoice and thank God if I could persuade the pope and the papists of this! If the pope gave me the freedom to go about and preach and only commanded me (with a dispensation) to hitch on a pair of trousers, I should be glad to do him the favor of wearing them.

You see, calling something or someone heterodox can have an impact on someone's faith. A correct call can bring them back in line, an incorrect call can have an opposite effect an can be damaging to someone's faith. I would wield that sword with great care.

Filosofer...thank's for the Walther reference. I'll see if I can dig that up and give it a read.

Love y'all

Rose

[JVAC]

We had a sub-thread running in the "Just Curious" thread about a few current issues in the LCMS.

Lotar had mentioned that while the sems are graduating orthodox pastors, the congregations are not supporting the orthodox views of these pastors (more specifically as it relates to open communion).

I got to thinking about this...how do we determine which is correct...the clergy or the congregations. Here is my initial thinking on this. I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

The Lutheran Doctrine of the Public Ministry indicates it is not graduation from seminary that is evidence of the "call" but rather, assurance that a man has been called by God to serve in public ministry is obtained when a "call" issued by a congregation. Our own doctrine supports the fact that God's will is affirmed in the voice of the congregation.

Henry Blackaby says this in his book, Experiencing God:



When the clergy and the congregation disagree...shouldn't we be seriously looking at the congregations are saying? Isn't the church God's vehicle, not just the clergy?

Now...I am not necessarily talking about that lone renegade rebellious congregation. If there are truly numbers of congregations that are out of alignment with what the new pastors leaving seminary believe, don't we have a problem and couldn't it be that the problem is not with the congregations? Is proper understanding of the faith limited to the domain of the clergy alone?

Peace

Rose
If you ask me, and no body is or probably wants too ;), that is the reason why we should and do have Bishops.

(Man I think I have beat that to death :D )

-James

[SPALATIN]

I guess my question is more who gets to call something heterodox. Everything is subject to interpretation. The BoC respresents the Lutheran interpretation of Scripture and how we do things respresents how we intrepret to BoC. If the power for interpretation lies solely with the clergy then aren't we vulnerable to the same abuses that lead to the reformation in the first place?

If you were to look at the lyrics of much of the "praise and worship" music out there today will you find it to be theologically correct based on scripture. The music is geared to evoke an emotional response. I used to like the contemporary worship services until some LCMS people shared with me the low grade theology in much of the "praise and worship" music. So you are probably correct in that I am calling anything that does not follow the Formula of Concord to be Heterodoxical.

[Rechtgläubig]

If you ask me, and no body is or probably wants too ;), that is the reason why we should and do have Bishops.

(Man I think I have beat that to death :D )

-James
That just gives them one more "orthodox" person to ignore. :D


Does the LCMS have district or circut pastors or presidents (that's what we call them)? I was just wondering.

[ByzantineDixie]

Yes...we have district presidents and circuit pastors. Although I know very little about the roles and expectations of both positions. In my limited understanding, the district presidents as having "supervisory authority" over the pastors. I thought the circuit counselers were strictly for pastors needing someone to talk to...more like therapy.

How does it work in WELS, Recht?-----R

[Rechtgläubig]

How does it work in WELS, Recht?-----R
Thanks for the reply Rosie-posie :D :hug:

I was wondering how close it was to our system. Our pastor can go to the circuit pastors for guidance if needed, but we are also encouraged to go to them if there are issues with the pastor. That is, of course, after we try to resolve the issue with the pastor first.

[filosofer]

Yes...we have district presidents and circuit pastors. Although I know very little about the roles and expectations of both positions. In my limited understanding, the district presidents as having "supervisory authority" over the pastors. I thought the circuit counselers were strictly for pastors needing someone to talk to...more like therapy.


In actuality, Circuit Counselors are part of the Synod structure, whereas technically the District Presidents are not (they are par tof the District). Thus, Circuit Counselors have immediate supervisory authority over both pastors and congregations in the circuit. Although not originally intended that way, the District Presidents have the same authority over both pastors and congregations.