That is the question facing some in the LCMS. Unlike in this letter to the editor, President Kieschnick in this letter mentions that there is disagreement withing the Synod on some issues mentioning some he stated at the 2007 Convention:
Close Communion – There is little if any disagreement among us on the doctrine of theLord’s Supper as a sacramental gift of God’s grace for repentant Christians wherein the body and blood of our Lord are truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine for the forgiveness of sin and assurance of life eternal. But there is significant disagreement regarding the policies of admission to Holy Communion, namely, who should be allowed or even encouraged to receive the Sacrament at the Altar in our congregations, campus ministries and military chaplaincies.
Church and Ministry – Despite our theological clarity on the subject, there exists in some corners of our Synod a lack of agreement regarding the role, responsibility, authority and accountability of both the office of pastor and the role of laity in the church.
The Service of Women in the Church – Since 1969 our Synod has expressed its collective belief on the teaching of Holy Scripture, allowing women to vote and hold congregational offices, but not to occupy the pastoral office. Yet some in our Synod would severely restrict the involvement of women in the church at many levels, while others would favor no restrictions at all.
Worship – Disagreement exists on whether certain contemporary worship expressions employ doctrinally pure resources faithfully and whether certain traditional worship expressions do so meaningfully and effectively.
He goes on to add:
To that list of issues on which currently there is disagreement or divisiveness in our Synod, I would add today the specific matters of inter-Christian relationships, differing understandings of what constitutes unionism, syncretism, specific issues relating to participation in civic events, etc.
Why this couldn’t have been mentioned in the WSJ letter to the editor is not clear. Unfortunately in pointing out the importance of accountability and discussing disagreements President Kieschnick seems to again use the 8th commandment as a shield.
Such disagreements, properly expressed and discussed, are indeed appropriate. Elected and appointed leaders are always accountable for their decisions and actions. However, there is a propensity in the Synod for some to exercise the freedoms of speech and of the press in expressing their opinions in a manner that contributes to a spirit of distrust and division in our Synod.
My fraternal counsel is that you join me in encouraging those who disagree with actions or decisions of those appointed or elected to positions of responsibility in our districts and in our Synod to express such disagreement in a manner that honors the 8th commandment and the words of St. Paul:
“But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
“If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another” (Galatians 5:25-26).
As Pastor Cwirla points out in a post about the COP letter, division and conflict “just might be necessary.”
Dissensions and divisions have their root in our old Adamic flesh (Gal 5:20; 1 Tim 6:4; Titus 3:9). The old Adam loves to stir up trouble wherever he can find it. Dissensions and divisions in the church arise from false teachings and false teachers who subvert the Gospel (Rom 16:17; Jude 19). Paul’s desire for the Corinthian congregation is that it be united, of the same mind and judgment (1 Cor. 1:10). Yet Paul goes on to make this remarkable statement: “It is necessary that there be divisions (Gk: heresies) among you so that those who are proven might be manifest among you” (1 Cor 11:19). In other words, the soundness of a teacher is tested in the face of controversy, and divisions serve the purpose of showing who is proven.
Now that would cast a slightly different light on things. Division and dissension are bad; no doubt about it. They are of the flesh and arise out of Spirit-less unbelief. Yet God uses these things, as He uses all things – the good, the bad, and the ugly – to work His ultimate saving purposes.
…
Church history bears this out as well. This history of the church is not a picture of great, peaceful unanimity with everyone holding hands and singing Kum-ba-yah, but of sharp conflict. The first such conflict was the emergence of Christianity from Pharisaic Judaism, which was no small feat. The NT is the historic record of that tension between a Torah of works and a Torah of faith. Were it not for this tension, the book of Romans might never have been written.
The great creeds of Christendom were similarly forged in controversy. The Nicene Creed was written specifically to condemn and exclude Arius and his followers who denied the full divinity of the Son. The third article of the Nicene Creed, added at Constantinople in AD 381, was written to ward off those who made the Holy Spirit less than a full Person of the undivided Holy Trinity. The great doctrines of the two natures of Christ and the triunity of God were all hammered out in, with, and under controversy. The central article of justification by grace through faith was brought to marvelous light by the conflicts of the Reformation. Doctrine is forged in the crucible of controversy.
This is the reality of the Church’s life under the cross. There will be conflicts because there will always be denials of the Gospel. The theology of glory would view all conflict as bad and something to be avoided at all costs. But viewed through the theology of the cross, conflict is the fever of the Church’s immune system at work, isolating and killing off internal threats to the Gospel. Just as state and religious persecution are the twin engines of church growth in the book of Acts, conflict is the wet stone on which the church’s doctrinal sword is sharpened.
So we know division and conflict are inevitable even within the Church. The cancellation of “Issues, etc.” has shown many that there is sharp disagreement (division?) within the LCMS. Perhaps it is even present within the COP. Despite the “without dissenting vote” tag on the COP letter there have been BOD resolutions regarding the cancellation. But the issue is larger than a radio program. For those who realize the Lutheran identity is being lost the question has been posed.
Okay, we’ve spent more than enough time figuring out that we’ve got some problems on our hands.
We tried many good faith efforts to get the LCMS leadership to listen to us and they decided not to.
So what do we do? Do we sit around and keep complaining? Or do we work to retain our Lutheran identity?
What is the best way to do this?
As a layperson still learning about all of this but starting to see where my beliefs are I’d second that question.
