Michigan Threatens To Filibuster Task Force From Convention Floor
By Rev. Jack Cascione

 

The Michigan District Board of Directors mailed a letter to the Task Force on October 27, 2000 threatening to filibuster the proposed changes if the Task Force recommendations come to the Convention Floor. They copied every District in the Synod and encouraged them to do the same. A copy of this letter was sent to us from a board member in another District that is considering the same action.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the conclusions and suggestions of the Task Force, the District Offices are not in a position to dictate the contractual arrangements between them and Synod. This is the business of the congregations, not the District Office.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "We rejoice in our relationship together as members of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and our focus on congregations." The Michigan District Office, not the District as a whole, views itself as a member of Synod. This is impossible. Not only the "we" aren't "members," they have no vote in the Synodical Convention. How kind of the Michigan District, from its elevated position to claim it has a "focus on congregations." For the past three years this is the same group that has refused to respond to Redeemer Lutheran Church and tell the congregation if they agree that all congregations should confess three and only three creeds.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: ". . . our response is best captured by bringing to light a basic difference we see between unity and uniformity." In this quotation, the Michigan District Board of Directors begins to lobby for the Synod becoming a servant of the Michigan District. First, the Synod created the District. Second, neither the Synod nor the District is a "church" and the relationship is corporation to subsidiary based on the Synodical Constitution.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "We believe that a chief function of our Synod is to strengthen congregations in their ministry." Here the Board invents its own purpose for the Synod, which is not stated in the LC-MS Handbook. The Handbook states:
"Reason for the Forming of the Synodical Union:
1. The example of the apostolic church. Acts 15:1-31
2. Our Lord's will that the diversity of gifts should be for the common profit. 1Cor.12: 4-31."
Again, the Michigan District Board of Directors fails to see that they are servants of the Congregations instead of its masters and that the congregations create them.

The chief function of the Synod is to supply pastors, teachers and carry out mission work. If the Michigan District doesn't understand this, there is no doubt as to the chaos now taking place in Synod.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "The recommendations of the Task Force seek to achieve uniformity among us. Even if such uniformity could be accomplished, it is our conviction that it would not achieve unity. Unity is a gift of our Lord." The uniformity that the Synod seeks with the District's is not a matter of spiritual gifts. General Motors may as well wait for unity with Saturn as a gift from God instead of clear contractual arrangements. The Michigan District Office is not a church.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "Without commenting on any of a number of specifics, the overarching reality is that what is most sorely needed among us is a climate of trust as we seek to bolster one another in ministry and demonstrate the unity that is ours." They seek unity without accountability. The Michigan District seeks "a climate of trust" after they say the Synod is a servant of the district, a reversal of the truth and hardly a basis for trust.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "The tone perceived in the Task Force report is that of an investigative and an enforcement approach which comes top down rather than from a servant posture." Here the Board engages in a confusion of Law and Gospel. Yes, Christ was a servant for our sakes as they tell us in the first paragraph. Yes, we should serve each other as fellow Christians. On this basis, they claim the Synod should be a servant to the District. Why of course! Let the parents serve the children; let the supervising pastor serve the vicar; let the national headquarters serve the subsidiary; and let the pastor serve the secretary. The Board uses the name Lutheran, but doesn't bother to follow Luther on vocation. Here we have the creature in rebellion against the creator. The truth is, whether they like or not, the Synod is over the districts, neither of which is church, and the congregations are over both of them.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "An example of such control is seen in the proliferation of Circuit Counselors, the shrinking of the size of the circuits and the increased oversight of the congregations by the Circuit Counselor." In other words, the Task Force is threatening to trim the sails of the District Office and decentralize some of the District's perceived authority to the local circuits. They want to keep their power.

The Michigan District Board of Directors writes: "We urge the Task Force to reconsider, to develop strategies and to make recommendations that support congregational ministry and strengthen redemptive relationships." We hope the reader enjoyed reading Michigan District double speak. We offer a cash award to anyone who can explain "redemptive relationships" apart from Christ 's work on the cross. God bless the Gospel of Administration.

The Michigan District Board of Directors not only engages in "redemptive (constitutional) relationships," they encouraged the entire District to "committing" itself to eight Core Values that include "culturally relevant congregations," "process consulting," "healthy congregational systems," and "affinity-based learning clusters."

The Michigan District in its 2000 Convention, voted, in a virtual landslide, to commit itself to these Core Values, with only one pastor dissenting at the floor microphone.

Most of these Board members are signed members of the Michigan 102, including all of its vice-presidents.

If the Task Force does not table its own recommendations, the Michigan District Board of Directors threatens to tie up the Convention by bringing up from the floor every point in the document. What fine servants!

This article does not address the merits of The Task Force recommendations to the 2001 LC-MS Convention. However, the chief concern is the manner in which the Michigan District and evidently a number of other districts view themselves as independent of the Synod and who no longer respect their Constitutional responsibilities to the Synod. These districts are placing themselves out of the control of the Synod.


The Michigan District Board of Directors published its objections to the "Task Force on District/Synod Relations" in a letter to the Synodical President and to every other District. Michigan is attempting to recruit the other Districts to join in their objections to the Task Force. Reclaim News recently received a copy of this "in house letter" from a layman sitting on another District Board of Directors. We thank the layman for bringing to light the Michigan District's attempt to Michiganize the entire LC-MS. The Michigan District is almost 10% of the LC-MS.


Michigan District
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
3773 Geddes Road
Ann Arbor MI 48105

October 27, 2000

Task Force - District/Synod Relations
c/o Rev. Ken Schurb

Dear Members of the Task Force:

With you, we recognize that the task before us is indeed enormous. We thank God for our mutual heartfelt concern for unity in the church that the mission of our Lord Jesus might be accomplished. That we might be one with Him and each other, He offered Himself as a servant for our sake. Through His suffering, death and resurrection we are reconciled. In this redemptive relationship, we live and serve Him. Among the blessings of this relationship is the gift of unity in Him. A goal we share is to recognize this unity. It is on this basis that we relate as members of our beloved Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, that we might serve our Lord and accomplish His mission.

Our history and background as a church body is that we relate to one another in an evangelical manner. We stand together in the tradition of the Reformation and celebrate our oneness in Christ. We rejoice in our relationship together as members of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and o ur focus on congregations. Our Lord gives the Office of the Keys to congregations. This congregational focus has been the strength of our church and continues to this day.

The recommendations of the Task Force are received believing that we can be more effective in mission and ministry. In seeking to accomplish this, many organizational issues are covered. Rather than comment on each of the issues, our response is best captured by bringing to light a basic difference we see between unity and uniformity. The recommendations of the Task Force seek to achieve uniformity among us. Even if such uniformity could be accomplished; it is our conviction that it would not achieve unity. Unity is a gift of our Lord. The question is not how we can look and act the same. The question is how can we better relate to one another in national and district synod and thus serve congregations. The objectives of our Synod support this very concept. We believe that a chief function of our Synod is to strengthen congregations in their ministry.

Without commenting on any of a number of specifics, the overarching reality is that what is most sorely needed among us is a climate of trust as we seek to bolster one another in ministry and demonstrate the unity that is ours. The tone perceived in the Task Force report is that of an investigative and an enforcement approach which comes top down rather than from a servant posture. The primary need, as we see it, among our congregations is for support in ministry, not control of ministry. An example of such control is seen in the proliferation of Circuit Counselors, the shrinking of the size of the circuits and the increased oversight of the congregations by the Circuit Counselor.

In addition to the above, the following are other factors that led to a great deal of concern and resulting recommendations as a Board of Directors. There were several voices on the Task Force that were essentially not heard the Task Force was deprived often insights and experience of at least three who were appointed. The resignation of Pastor Richard Thompson, the unfortunate illness of District President Richard Kapfer and the lack of involvement of a Minister of Religion-Commissioned who was subsequently dropped from the Task Force, resulted in a significant loss of input. None of these three were replaced. A broader perspective was not brought to bear on the issues considered. Also, the time to consider and react to the Task Force Report is inadequate. More time for discussion and reaction is absolutely necessary. Therefore it is our strong recommendation that this Task Force Report be tabled at the 2001 convention. We urge the Task Force to reconsider, to develop strategies and to make recommendations that support congregational ministry and strengthen redemptive relationships. We believe discussion of these issues would strengthen us. We urge that such Task Force recommendations be granted broader exposure throughout our entire Synod before they are presented in final form. This enables a focus on the redemptive relationships which are so critical in building trust and collegiality.

If, however, the Task Force chooses to go forward with a presentation of the report in its current form, then we recommend that it be presented one issue at a time on the floor of the convention. Each issue should be given maximum attention for debate and discussion by the delegates. This is a necessary, albeit monumental task simply from the standpoint of convention time. In view of the numerous other complex issues coming to the 2001 Convention and in view of the many unfavorable reactions to the Task Force Report, we reiterate our recommendation to table.

It is suggested that we deal with this Task Force Report similar to the way the Synod in convention handled the Nomenclature Study Committee report. The Nomenclature Study Committee established in 1992 reported to the 1995 Synodical Convention which did not act on it at the time. Subsequently the 1998 Synodical Convention declined the report as stated in Resolution 7-14A. That resolution thanked the Nomenclature Committee for their work, declined the Nomenclature Committee Report and resolved that the Synod pursue "open dialog and come to a clear understanding" regarding the issues. The wisdom in this approach was recognition of the fact that there was not unanimity and further time was necessary for discussion. We believe this applies in the situation before us-

The Lord has surely blessed our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It is a joy to walk together beneath the cross and follow the example of our Lord. Thus we serve each other in love and, together, we tell the Good news of Jesus to many. We pray God's blessing upon the deliberations of the Task Force. We commend to your thought and discussion all such ways that would strengthen and bolster congregations in their local ministry. To that end, we as District and National Synod exist. God help us to ascertain His will and grant us the strength of faith to accomplish it.

For the Board of District, Michigan District LCMS

Paul D Theiss, District Secretary

Board of Directors Members:
Rev Robert Kasper
Rev David Gohn
Mr. Walter Krone
Mr. Roger Kohtz
Mrs. Nancy Hillenbrand
Mrs. Nancy Challis
Mr. John Held
Mr. William Kaiser
Rev. John Rauh
Mr. Henry Pickelmann
Dr. Harold Braeutigam
Mr. William Ward
Rev. Dieter Haupt
Mr. Robert Schultz
Mrs. Eileen Ritter
Mr. Jim Sack

Officers of the Michigan District:
District Treasurer: Mr. Ralph Ferber
Vice Presidents: Rev. Wayne Wentzel;
Rev. Arnold Brammeier;
Rev. David Maier;
Rev. Frank Graves
District President: Rev. C. William Hoesman

CC: Board of Directors of Synod c/o Dr. Donald Muchow, Chairman Council of Presidents
Board of Directors of the Districts
Dr. A. L. Barry, President, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

 


Rev. Jack Cascione is pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church (LCMS - MI) in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. He has written numerous articles for Christian News and is the author of Reclaiming the Gospel in the LCMS: How to Keep Your Congregation Lutheran. He has also written a study on the Book of Revelation called In Search of the Biblical Order.
He can be reached by email at pastorcascione@juno.com.

March 30, 2001