In 1969, the incumbent president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) was voted out of office by a conservative faction that disdained the synod’s ecumenical relations with more moderate Lutheran bodies and the teaching of the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation rather than a literalistic, infallibility doctrine. In response, many LCMS moderates started Seminex (seminary in exile) and eventually departed the LCMS altogether. The already conservative Lutheran church body effectively purged its moderates and liberals and moved further to the right.
It appears the Missouri Synod needs a ritual cleansing every generation or so to ensure its ideological purity according to the news this week that the already conservative three term incumbent president has been ousted by an even more conservative faction. A blog that calls itself brothers of John the Steadfast trumpeted the uprising. Both the incumbent (Kieschnick)and the challenger (Harrison) appealed to the base by strident bashing of the recent gay-friendly policies of the ELCA, the great bogeyman for many in the LCMS. The delegates to the convention voted overwhelmingly for two resolutions critical of the ELCA, and each of the two candidates attempted to ride the anti-ELCA sentiment to victory. In the end, the delegates apparently believed the challenger hated the ELCA more than the incumbent.
Here is a sampling of blogosphere commentary.
Earlier, as the momentum toward an insurrection mounted, the online magazine named Christianity Today suggested “Tea Party Insurgence Ripples Through Missouri Synod Election.”
Magdalene’s Egg suggests:
First, let’s be clear that this election was a sweep of massive proportions. Earlier this month, candidates were nominated, and Harrison’s nominations were nearly double Kieschnick’s, 1332 to 755. At the actual assembly, Harrison won 54% of the vote, and more than that, he won on the first ballot. This signals a decisive rejection of Kieschnick.
Otagosh refers to a “fawning interview” with the newly elected president:
It is the oozing self-deprecating humility, however, that is the most notable feature of the first Harrison interview. Again, no tribute to his predecessor was offered; the Harrison lobby would probably sooner choke. (He did however manage a one sentence reference to Kieschnick in his address to conference following his election.)
Progressive Involvement says:
Harrison is a staunch conservative, of course, as is Kieschnick. As is ever the case, some grumbled that Kieschnick wasn’t quite conservative enough. Plus, while both of them bashed the ELCA, Harrison seemed to do so with particular vigor.
LCMS moves to the right.
Isn’t that an assumed position to take?
What, it wants to be in line with the Wisconsin Synod?
(so says recovering former Miss. Synod Lutheran)
In lieu of anything more smartypants, I’ll just recall the guilt of my childhood.
I have an acquaintance who is a long-time member of her Missouri Synod church, though she doesn’t agree with them on most social issues. Earlier this summer, she was excited to report to me that, in her congregation, women are now allowed to bring the offering plates forward. They aren’t allowed to pass them among the congregation though, since only men can be ushers. I guess we take progress where we can get it!
It is very interesting to me that the largest Lutheran bodies now mirror the polarities of our nation. While all this depends on where you come from and what you believe, it seems for many the ELCA has adopted the social issues of the left on almost every issue (read back through press releases). Whether it is health care, immigration reform, advocation for Palestine, etc….. Actually, on some of them I agree with the ELCA, but in other cases I just see a lot of politics.
The LCMS now is further right. For me, I think this step will move them further right, and it will be interesting to see the fallout, if any.
Is it any wonder that people are leaving both denominations, and the average age for both denominations is over 55? The vast majority of Americans are in the middle on a number of issues, and it seems that maybe they are getting tired of churches playing politics. Maybe a little more Gospel and bible study, and less social issues?
I think the difference is that the “conservative” Missouri Synod denies half the population of the world the ability to lead their churches, even in a lay capacity, such as on the church council. That seems to me to be a lot more damaging than the ELCA taking a stand on immigration reform or health care – which, as a member of the ELCA I’m free to disagree with the official stand of the church. I also have sincere doubts about the notion that the ELCA is anywhere on “the left,” either theologically or politically, but that’s probably a discussion for another day.
Ann, it is all relative. Many people think the that the decisions of last August were very “damaging” while others rejoiced. I also think there is a vast difference between ministry standards and the involvement of a church in the realm of politics. While the two overlap to some degree, who qualifies for ordination is a different ballgame than taking stances on the issue of the day.
My point was that the two major Lutheran bodies reflect the polarity of our nation right now , and the middle is shrinking. Lutherans are pretty good at “moderation”, so I am not sure the leadership of either denomination is going to be helpful in growing the church as a denomination. Of course, I may be totally wrong….
Missouri Synod has old German conservative roots. We have a black president, some gay people wanting more rights, and women who would like to do more than be in the kitchen at every funeral. It is too bad that their “old boys’ club” still want to have the rule in every decision. I am descended from some of those old German roots and married into some more of them. The ethnic “values” are still here after 150 years in America. This won’t change any time soon because the same families keep going to the same churches in the same towns where they grew up. This has spilled over into the German elements of the ELCA. It is worse in the WELS. It isn’t just religion, it is local culture. How does this change ?
I will repeat again-polity and policy are different than taking sides in political arguments. My pastoral colleague has been a female pastor for 36 years (who doesn’t agree that the decisions of last August mirror the struggle for female pastors), and I grew up in a family with a working outside the home mom. I do not agree with the LCMS about female pastors. This isn’t about that.
It is about two church bodies who appear to this independent to be moving farther and farther afield, one to the left, the other to the right. Just my opinion, feel free to disagree, but everytime a discussion comes up it doesn’t have to revolve around polity when it is really about the two kingdoms.
It kind of is about that, though. If you think the Missouri Synod’s hard-line stance against women’s involvement in all levels of church leadership is not tied in any way to secular issues like women’s increasing roles in the workplace and elsewhere in the “public sphere,” I really don’t know what to say to you. The church (including the ELCA) is a patriarchal institution; it reflects society that way.
The other thought I have on this is that as long as the men feel that they have an important place in the church, they will come to church and be active in it. Too often men feel that the church- which ever one they are feeling about- is a place for the elderly and the women. That doesn’t excuse their lack of recognizing that women might want some say in the running of the church. One thing I will say for our former ELCA- now LCMC church is that the men with children are active. This is basically an old German church. Many of the people grew up in Missouri Synod but married into ALC. Is there some way to put a Ladies Aid representative on the Missouri Synod councils or to let them have one Sunday a year to run the service ? Maybe that is happening some places ? Let the other social issues follow– but I don’t think they are ready for them.
Good point Lilly. Average attendance at all Christian churches is 70 percent women and thirty percent men on a given Sunday. Lots of reasons for this, read “WHy Men Hate Going to Church”.
Ann, I really don’t know what to say to you. Sadly, the church often conforms to culture, in that way the church has lost it’s way. Patriarchy is true, we have a church where most pastors and bishops are men, but men are not in the pews? Why is that? I have a few ideas, our home parish has one of the largest mens ministries in the nation.
Sadly, most of things mainline Protestants, and Lutherans, are doing in terms of leadership fail in this arena.
I wonder what blogosphere bundits would have thought of Jesus’ parable of the sheep and the goats? Would he be labeled too simplistic, not able to see nuance and the like? Too polarizing, not able to moderate his views a bit? Or was He bound by his culture? He was bound alright, but on a cross for speaking Truth.
I’ve read “Why Men Hate Going to Church,” and I’m not sure that necessarily solves the problem – I think it exacerbates it. Men don’t go to church because things like spirituality, morality, etc. are (arbitrarily) considered feminine and the concern of women in our society and have been for a very long time. (Women have been considered the guardians of their family’s and community’s morals for a very long time – consider temperance, or the women’s club movement, for starters.) Attempting to associate church in men’s minds with things that are (arbitrarily) considered masculine or with (arbitrarily assigned) masculine traits that (some) men have can’t really be the solution.
We are neither male nor female, but one in the Body of Christ, if you’ll recall.
I don’t think there is too much that is new in this issue except women are no longer considered property in this country at least. (I hope.)
One of the things we must consider here is that men’s brains and women’s brains are wired differently. If men are going to be “sinning” every time that they respond to seeing a pretty woman then there is no way they can stop sinning in thought. Lutherans with the sins of thought, word, and deed can make a guilt trip pretty easily for everyone. I suggest “Laugh Your Way to a Better Marriage” by Mark Gungor as an easy DVD to watch. We are all human.
@FrDaniel
Hi. I grew up on a farm but I don’t have much experience with sheep and goats. Back in Jesus time most people would have related to them but with petting zoos and little contact with sheep herds, the average person today might not get the point. I just found out the other day that if you want to breed sheep, you have to have a willing ram because a lot of rams prefer their own kind. 🙂
@FrDaniel
Unfortunatetly the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats is often used as a cudgel to silence dissenting voices. It is used as a fire and brimstone cautionary tale about the “proper way” to live, act lest you be damned for all times. In other words, it is too frequently used as a weapon to assert, I’m right, you’re wrong. I’m big, you’re small. And quite frankly I don’t like how it is used as an eschatology hammer to push an agenda or maintain the status quo.
Now don’t get me wrong. I really like the parable. It’s an edict to provide shelter and comfort to our fellow man where there is none. It is a reminder that if we ignore one, we ignore God, because he is reflected in each of our faces. And it does’t codify any one person into more godly than the next. The charge is to accept and comfort each other. Sounds a lot like love each other as I have loved you.
Ann brings up a great companion to the parable: Galatians 3:28. We are all one in Christ. And it is because of these premises that I left the LCMS in college. How can a church body refuse to raise up half of its population because of the man-made construct of patriarchal bureaucracy? And on the flipside, it is why I stand proudly as a supporter of the ELCA’s 2009 CWA decisions. We are all one in Christ regardless of age, gender, nationality, socioeconomic status or sexual identity or orientation.
Too often people forget that humanity does not decide who sheep and goats are, but those hammering the parable like a mallet tend to think they get to make that decision.
Ann, that would you propose to get the 70 to 80 percent of men missing in our churches engaged? Those of us working and ministering with men have called this the “silent crisis” in our churches. Yes, we are all one in Christ, but our churches do need to model ministries and experiences that will engage men’s hearts and minds.
In most of our churches (all Protestant and RC) IF a man shows up, he is usually asked to be an usher or help with the property committee-when in reality he may want to do something very different, or have very different gifts.
Are churches are not friendly to men as a whole-as much as it is discussed that there is a glass ceiling for women (and there is) , we also have to see that there is a real crisis in the pews when Sunday after Sunday dad is not around-or his son, brother, uncle, or nephew.
I speak across the country about men’s ministries, and how to start them, and grow them, and I am amazed that out of every 100 churches, 99 will have some specialized ministry with women (MOPS for preschool moms, womens studies, etc ), but very, very, few will have ANYTHING for men at all.
It is a real crisis. And won’t be silent for long.
Good point Jeff. A while back a man from the now LCMC church was wondering why more men weren’t interested in the Bible study led by his wife. I said “I don’t think men like to be led by a woman.” He didn’t say much after that. My son-in-law belongs to a mens’ group in Green Bay that meets early at the coffee shop. It is led by one of the pastors. It is social as well as spiritual. Men like to talk “man talk”. Women like to talk about family.
Jeff, what I’m suggesting is that the system of assigning certain traits (spirituality, morality) to one gender and other traits (leadership ability, task-oriented) to another gender and denying to the death that the two could ever meet is precisely what is causing the problem you’re talking about.
As I said, I’ve read the book you recommended. It says that men need leadership roles if they’re going to be involved in church. I am highly suspicious that this particular drive to get men more interested in church is actually designed to reinforce the patriarchal system that already exists in churches.
And by the way, why is it a crisis that men don’t go to church? And what precisely do you envision when you say “men”? Some men are gay, bisexual, or transgender, you know. And I can guarantee you that a lot more than 70% of LGBT people don’t go to religious services in a given week, and yet you have taken actions that would further alienate and marginalize LGBT people in the church. Why isn’t this also a crisis?
I don’t disagree with you that we all have traits that can work together. It is sad that some consider any ministry which gets men more involved, and which helps them grow spiritually, to be reinforcing patriarchy.
It would seem to me any ministry that helps men be better husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, and the like would be welcome, but I am sure it is not in some circles. Sadly, this is why many men are disengaged-and why many churches are not focusing on ministry to the missing 70 percents.
You are serious that it is not a crisis? It is is a crisis when anyone doesn’t go to church . I won’t bother responding to your comments about LGBT folks, our doors are open to all, and there are LGBT folks that worship with us and are members, we do consider it sad when anyone is missing from church.
To address some of the above comments: I just want to note that, officially, the LCMS does allow for congregations to have women serve on councils (or equivalent groups), lectors, ushers, and so forth. Some congregations choose to not let women serve in those roles. Some congregations choose to let women serve in those roles. Of course, throughout the LCMS, women are not allowed to be ordained.
If we’re going to be talking about them, we need to be accurate with what we’re saying.
@Jeff
Ann can certainly speak for herself, but it seems you mischaracterize her comment. She did not say that “any ministry which gets men more involved” reinforces patriarchy. I think she suggested that a specific ministry that is predicated on getting men involved on the basis that they can and should be leaders is inherently patriarchal. I haven’t read the book of which you both speak, but I think she makes a strong point.
@Jeff
See what Obie said above. I am not opposed to all ministries aimed at men.
And I don’t think God compartmentalizes human beings as much as you (or I) do.
What I have taught for years is that both women and men should be spiritual leaders in the home. That is what most mens ministries also have as a focal point, and I am not going to debate the book anymore, but the book suggests the same thing. Both need to be leaders, spiritual leaders in the the home.
The men have largely abdicated this role. That needs to change, but it doesn’t mean he takes over and puts women in a subjective role.
Pingback:We get the fine china. The rest of you can have paper cups and folding chairs in heaven… « Progressively Lutheran
The driving concept is that the Bible is the Inspired and Inerrant Word of God, that is the filter the LCMS uses. However, the concept that rejection of Grace resulting in Faithlessness as the only unforgiveable sin is joined by anyone that is LGBTQ is then defined as being without faith. The problem is the vehemence that is displayed against people. Love your enemies, unless they are LGBTQ.