From October of 2005 through May of 2010, I was a pastor
without a congregation to serve. If you’ve been along for the ride here on my
blog, you know my story. I’ve written a book on the subject. I’ve presented on the subject for the ACELC. I won’t repeat my story yet
again. However, you must know by now that I see this as a serious problem in
the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod in convention thought it was a pretty serious problem too. The 2013
Convention passed a resolution to address the issue, asking the President of
the Synod to form a task force. It finally looked like the problem would be
addressed.
And then the task force met. I was not in the virtual meeting
room (the task force met through conference calls), so I don’t know what was
said or what any of its members were thinking. However, having seen their report, which is now on the LCMS website, I have some concerns.
I’m going to do my very best to give my first-look answer each of the
recommendations made by the task force without violating the Eighth
Commandment. God help me and forgive me where I fail…and I know I will, because my first response was very heated.
I also encourage you to read President Harrison's response to the report.
But before I get to the recommendations, I would answer two points the
report made before the recommendations were offered. Quotations from the report
are indented.
Addendum II to Task
Force Membership: LCMS First Vice-President Rev. Dr. Herbert C. Mueller Jr.
communicated to the task force that he received correspondence from a pastor on
candidate status who expressed disappointment that someone who is, or has been,
on candidate status was not appointed to the task force. Dr. Grimenstein
provided clarification that he was on candidate status following his medical
retirement from the United States Army as a military chaplain and has a fresh
perspective of what it means to be on candidate status.
My
response to Addendum II: As one of
those who spoke to First Vice-President Mueller about the lack of Inactive
Candidate representation on the Task Force, my point was not only that there
should be members of the Task Force with first-hand experience with Inactive
Candidate status—though there should have been more than one—but that the Task
Force must also communicate with men who continuously endured said status for
extensive periods of time. My knowledge of such men is not exhaustive, but even
in my small circle, I’m acquainted with men who have spent eight years or more
without a Call. None of the Inactive Candidate or former-Inactive Candidate pastors
within my circle of acquaintance were consulted directly by any member of the
task force. That doesn’t mean such consultations never happened with others.
Still, if it happened, I’m surprised I didn’t hear of it, having been in
contact with numerous Inactive Candidates and former-Inactive Candidates.
From the report:
“A survey of questionnaires returned from District Presidents reveals…”
My
response: The answers to the questionnaire are most
likely based on a form called the “Explanation of Candidate Status Form,” a
form the Candidate/Non-Candidate/Emeritus pastor must fill out. But what the
pastor fills out must first be approved by the district president before it becomes official. I pretty much had
to lie on my form before my district president would approve it. That makes the
forms a questionable source of information, the data skewed by the bias of the
very people who approve the answers to the questionnaire. Furthermore, collecting such
information from District offices without contacting individual Inactive
Candidates is akin to asking the spider to give information to help the fly
stuck in a web. I wish more Inactive Candidates and former-Inactive Candidates
would have been contacted directly, but I imagine the time such contacts would
take might have seemed daunting.
Now for the Final
Recommendations of the Task Force:
1. Military
and institutional chaplains and returning missionaries should notify their
respective district president as soon as possible when leaving their current
call. Graduate students on candidate status should notify their district president
of their date of availability for pastoral call. The district president will
distribute a list of available chaplains, missionaries and graduate students
(biannually – quarterly—as requested) among other district presidents and
calling agencies where appropriate.
My
response to Recommendation 1: Well
done.
2. District
presidents should guide pastoral candidates who are no longer qualified to be
placed on call lists to explore another vocation.
My
response to Recommendation 2:
Clarification is needed. By what definition are these pastoral candidates “no
longer qualified”?
3. Recommend a
Synod-wide process that utilizes existing resources, such as Concordia Plan
Services, Soldiers of the Cross and professional counseling, to assist and
support candidates while they are in the midst of vocational discernment.
My
response to Recommendation 3: Agreed...with the proviso that counseling is not used as a bludgeon against the Candidate.
4. In
circumstances where a pastor resigns as a result of conflict between the pastor
and members of the congregation, the district president will provide pastoral
care to the congregation and urge that issues be resolved prior to submitting a
call list for future calls. The district president will ensure that the pastor
and his family receive pastoral care.
My
response to Recommendation 4: Clarification
needed: “resolved” by what standard? How will the district president “ensure
that the pastor and his family receive pastoral care”? How will he be held
accountable?
5.
Congregations are encouraged, where appropriate and feasible, to provide the
opportunity for pastoral candidates to provide pastoral functions under a
supervisor who is approved by the district president.
My
response to Recommendation 5: Unless
a supervisor is himself under discipline, this should not require approval from
the district president.
6. Recommend
to the Council of Presidents to discuss and clarify candidate and non-candidate
status and time limits of candidate status.
My
response to Recommendation 6: In my
opinion, asking the district presidents to make clarification on this issue is
asking the blacksmith to give an unbiased opinion regarding his favorite hammer.
Closing
Statement: District presidents are encouraged to provide for the pastoral
support of workers while on candidate status and provide periodic information
that the candidate’s information has been shared with calling agencies
(congregations, schools, Recognized Service Organizations).
My
response to the Closing Statement: The
words “are encouraged” should read “should be required”.
General response:
The list of recommendations is inadequate: skewed toward the power of district
presidents and lacking in adequate specifics for providing for the care,
rehabilitation, and return to Called duty for Inactive Candidates.
That being said, I know that there will never be universal
satisfaction with any report or recommendation. Whether or not I agree with
their recommendations or the information they were given to form those
recommendations, they put in a great deal of work, and I thank them for their
efforts. I hope this report and any response to it will lead to further mercy shown to our suffering
brothers and sisters in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment