Cross-Focused Leadership for Missouri

A lot of folks have “spilled plenty of ink,” and pounded at computer keyboards, over what is wrong with the current state of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Much of that has been misdirected, with complaints about this or that individiual instead of the appropriate office, board, or agency of synod. Much of the criticism, fairly or unfairly, has been directed at our current synodical President, Rev. Jerry Kieschnick. We should not blame him for the failures of other synod officials. That is not the Christian thing to do. But we can look at our leaders and ask: are they doing their jobs properly and effectively? And even though the President of the Synod has limited powers (which is a good thing), his is the most influential position in our church body. So with the synod in convention this summer electing a president for the next term, it is time to take a look at this important office.

The President’s Job

One of the problems at the national level of the synod is that there is no agreement about the president’s job. The President’s Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance attempts to solve that problem by making the president a full-powered executive. That means that he would have complete executive powers over all national offices and functions not separately incorporated. The Task Force’s final report, in its Appendix 3 organization chart, makes that clear. President Kieschnick, by the way, was exclusively responsible for appointing the members to this Task Force.

Why does the Task Force propose such an unprecedented consolidation of executive powers in the synod president? It can’t be for reasons of finances. The simple answer for that is for the LCMS Board of Directors to slash the budgets of various boards, until their costs meet their revenue. That is the Directors’ job. We don’t need a wholesale restructuring in order to have a balanced budget.

Why does the Task Force propose such an unprecedented consolidation of executive powers in the synod president? It is not clear from their reasoning. They asked for counsel from two consulting firms, Bredholt & Co., and Epley Research & Consulting that provide counsel for for-profit businesses. Maybe these firms said to do this. We might expect a for-profit consultant to tell the synod to make its president a full-powered executive, i.e., a “CEO.”

But this is a church, not a business. A church, at the level of a national synod, is a community of congregations with equal rights brought together for their common good, not for the profit of shareholders. The “community nature” of the church requires that its governance be communal or collegial, not hierarchical or super-ordinate. This was one of the brilliant insights achieved by Martin Luther and the Lutheran Reformation, and later by C.F.W. Walther and his peers.

The Original “Vision” for the Job of President

Matthew Harrison has done the Lutheran church a great service in translating and publishing essays by the first five presidents of the Missouri synod. The book is titled At Home in the House of My Fathers, and it is available here. We highly recommend the book. It should be on every pastor’s Christmas gift list!

For our present topic, the essay by Frederick Wyneken “Can We Divide and Remain United?” in Harrison’s book is very helpful (see pages 368-375). In that 1853 synodical address, Wyneken explored the issues involved in dividing the synod into districts. One of those issues was the powers of the synod president.

Wyneken proposed, and this was the plan adopted in 1854, that the president would give up his original administrative and executive powers to the district presidents. This would be, specifically: determination of membership in synod by congregations or church-workers, the call process, ordinations and installations, and discipline of the same.

The synod president would retain the office of general oversight, or supervision, which meant that he was the one person in synod who could “see the big picture.” It didn’t mean he had power to control affairs at the district or local level. In order to make this supervision happen, the synod president was given the office of visitor, which meant that he was to visit all districts and agencies of the synod, so he had a “person-to-person” knowledge of things. Finally, the synod president was given a “moral input but in the widest circumstances.” As the Constitution says today, he “always shall have the power to advise, admonish, and reprove.” These are the limited powers that the President still has today, according to the Constitution.

The New “Vision” for the Job of President

The Blue Ribbon Task Force apparently does not like the present limits on the president’s powers. In its Recommendation #18, it proposes that the “program board” structure of the national synod offices be eliminated and all of their powers be vested in the synod president and persons he directly hires (and fires). The Task Force says the current structure is “complex and inefficient,” “unresponsive,” “redundant,” “lacks accountability,” and “expensive.” But they don’t tell you why the synod came up with this structure in the first place.

The reason for having executives and program boards was explained in 1962 by the Synodical Survey Commission (SSC) with these words: “To preserve the historical character of the Synod as a church body founded on principles of representative government for the pursuit of common objectives, adoption of broad synodical programs and policies must remain the responsibility of the convention of the synod. It is the convention of the synod which gives expression formally to the will of its members” (Report of the SSC to 45th regular convention of the LCMS, Dec. 1961, page 21).

“Program boards” have been created by the conventions in order to enact their “synodical programs and policies,” and these programs and policies are the direct expression of the synod’s congregations. The Missouri Synod first created “executives” to fulfill these “synodical programs and policies,” starting with CPH in 1869. It later created “program boards” to supervise executives, staff, and perennial functions. If there are no executives and program boards accountable to the convention, then the national convention is, outside of a few elections, purely advisory. The Task Force Recommendation #18 does not eliminate the national conventions; it just eliminates their ability to do anything significant.

The Missouri Synod over the years kept these various functions, programs, boards, and executives separate from the president, so that he could concentrate on his job of “promoting true unity of spirit.” Until relatively recently, synod bylaws stated the president “shall exercise executive power only when the affairs of the Synod demand it and when he has been expressly invested with such power for such specific purpose” (e.g., 1960 bylaw 2.29.a; my emphasis).

Synod was always concerned that the national presidency “might precipitate and even initiate a power that, instead of promoting true unity of spirit, might turn into a spirit of servitude” (Wyneken, in Harrison, p. 375). Synod’s concern, as expressed by Frederick Wyneken, has now come to pass in the proposals of the Blue Ribbon Task Force pertaining to the national offices.  The Task Force wants the executives and program boards to be subordinate and in servitude to the president, instead of to the synodical convention.

If you don’t understand what we are saying, let us make a comparison. The Blue Ribbon Task Force Recommendation #18 is as if President Obama would propose to the American people that they abolish Congress because it is “complex and inefficient,” “unresponsive,” “redundant,” “lacks accountability,” and “expensive.” Congress is, at times, all these things, but it is the one structure in our government that is strictly democratic. If we had no Congress, we would have no democracy or representative government.

It certainly appears that President Kieschnick wants all of the executive powers that would come his way if Task Force Recommendation #18 is adopted. This is the proposal that he has advocated in gatherings and conventions. We cannot read his heart or mind to know why he wants this, but he appointed this Task Force and he is advocating for these proposals, so we should expect that he wants these executive powers.  The decision before the synod in July thus becomes very simple. Either follow President Kieschnick’s “vision” for this part of the synod or find a new president who accepts the duties of office that are presently in our constitution.

Job One: Unity

What is job number one for the Missouri Synod and its president? “The synod, under Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, shall conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph 4:3-6, I Cor 1:10), work through its official structures toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom 16:17), and heresy” (LCMS Constitution, II.1). This is what the synodical president’s office is really all about in the present Constitution. There is enough in that job to keep ten clergymen fully employed. But that is what we give to the synodical president, alone! He doesn’t have time for anything else!

What is the big deal about unity? Again listen to Frederick Wyneken in his 1853 address: “The unity of the Spirit” in which we stand through God’s [inerrant] Word and grace is what has brought us together outwardly; nothing else. And the purpose of this coming together was nothing other than to achieve the care, maintenance, and promotion of this unity, both inwardly and outwardly. . . . All the ordinances and regulations that the Synod had established when it was founded were put in place to that end” (Wyneken, in Harrison, pp. 371-372).

This what the synodical president has to attend to, for if he doesn’t, then: 1) the clergy will fight each other out of vainglory or excessive zeal for proving themselves right; 2) then interest in national work in missions and human care and church-worker education will decline; 3) then dollars will be kept at home, and fiscal crisis will afflict every sector of the synod; and 4) then laymen will be disaffected toward the synod and its work and its purposes. Then we will have the situation in the church that we have right now! And we are all to blame for that, not just our synodical leaders!

Harrison the Unifier

Can anyone “put Humpty Dumpty together again”? We have found only one potential candidate for synodical president who really understands our ailments and who has proposed a reasonable cure. That person is the Rev. Matthew Harrison, and his cure is outlined in an essay titled “It’s Time: LCMS Unity and Mission, the Real Problem We Face and How to Solve It.” It can be found here. If you care about our synod and its troubles today, you need to read that essay, and make sure your convention delegate does too.

Harrison not only understands the issues of unity and has a practical solution in doctrinal dialogue, he also is supremely qualified for the office of synodical president. In years past, the synod has elected district presidents, presumably because of their experience in a similar office. But that problem with that thinking is they don’t “see the big picture” as the synod president does. They only see their own little picture in their district. So they always spend a lot of time, early in their presidency, getting the big picture.

In years past, the synod has also elected seminary presidents, presumably because of their theological expertise and some administrative experience. But the problem with that thinking is that, again, they don’t “see the big picture” as the synod president does. They only see their own little picture at their seminary and among faithful alumni. So they always spend a lot of time, early in their presidency, getting the big picture.

Matthew Harrison has, unlike seminary presidents and district presidents, “seen the big picture” for the last eight years. He has traveled throughout the United States, and around the world, on behalf of LCMS Human Care and LCMS World Relief. He has seen and comforted the needy, asked for dollars from the rich, worked with the US government and international agencies, and met and worked with all of the Lutheran church leaders that we are in partnership with. In other words, he has done his work on a national and international scale, just like the synod president.

Matthew Harrison also has, throughout his professional career, immersed himself in the writings of our Lutheran theologians and Missouri Synod fathers. His latest book is proof of that, as is his previous two-volume work on Herman Sasse titled The Lonely Way. Sasse, more than any other Lutheran theologian of the 20th century, understood world Lutheranism from the standpoint of the Lutheran confessions. And Harrison knows Sasse like the back of his hand!

Even if he had no other qualifications, we would still recommend Harrison for what ails Missouri, because he knows our sickness and has the cure!