Revisiting a Point in the BRTFSSG

On page one of the "final report" of the BRTFSSG (here after "final report") we read the following:

"Why is it necessary at this time to evaluate the structure and governance of the LCMS? It should be understood that the Synod has done this many times during its 162-year history. As the church body grew in the early years, it was necessary to implement additional systems of operations, accountability, and organization. Occasionally, the Synod in convention implemented changes in its system of governance and structure without recognizing the effect on the whole. As a result, the church has had to make adjustments in order for its complex ministry divisions to work together more effectively. In recent years, as Americans have changed their views regarding the practice of religion, the LCMS has struggled with how to accomplish God‘s mission most effectively. Toward that end, the time is now to audit the Synod‘s structure to eliminate duplication of efforts to enable our being more faithful stewards of the limited resources supporting our local, district, and national entities in carrying out mission and ministry."

The "final report" has been dissected and analyzed by far more capable laymen than myself, so I am not going to get into the report in much depth.

What I do want to rehash is the point on missions raised in the above quote. Namely, an issue I see with the statement, "In recent years, as Americans have changed their views regarding the practice of religion, the LCMS has struggled with how to accomplish God‘s mission most effectively." What I am reading in that sentence is a claim provided by church growth and seeker sensitive adherents that we have failed to reach our communities. Now, I could leave it at that and most of my readers would likely nod their heads in agreement; while understanding that following after the idols of church growth is a grave mistake and not a real answer to the "problem" should it even exist. But, I am not going to leave it alone at that point. I think there is a greater issue that should be addressed.

What concerns me is that if the truth of the aforementioned statement is granted, then we institutionalize missional relativism. That means we are not only giving SP Kieschnick and his supporters what they want in liberalizing the synod, but the very germ of missional relativism becomes part of the synod structure itself. Another way of thinking about the point I am raising is that all the cookie-cutter Willow Creek congregations, all the seeker-sensitive church plants modeled after the thinking of Emergent Church gurus, and all the Purpose Driven, Rick Warrenesque LCMS churches will finally be legitimized. We will be "walking together" by synodical fiat.

To see the problem it may help to understand just what is missional relativism. In short, "missional relativism" is the view that the church must be permeable to the culture around it. In order to engage the culture we have to let it inside the Church (see my post here for a full explanation). As the culture changes, or as we read in the "final report" Americans have changed their views, then so must the LC-MS in order to be "effective" at missions.

One of the largest problems with "missional relativism" is that it confuses the absolute mission of the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit with changing behaviors and what we should do in response. In other words, the missional relativist confuses what is with what the Church ought to do. If the American people are changing, then we must also change how we reach them with the gospel, so they believe. We often hear this expressed with comments such as "Get with it! This is the twenty-first century! It is the post-modern age!"

The problem with thinking like a missional relativist is that it really denies the absolute truth of scriptures such as,

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

Jesus has all authority in heaven and on earth and he gives the imperative, "make disciples... baptize... teach them to observe....". He then provides us with another absolute truth that changing cultures cannot touch: "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

The command given to the Church to "make disciples" has not changed, but apparently the perceptions of some on how to go about baptizing, teaching, and observing the doctrine given to us by Jesus through the Apostles, has changed. Indeed, the values of some of those struggling with how to accomplish mission have changed. The "struggle" is over how to obtain a general "buy in" into the values of missional relativists in the face of absolutes such as found in Matthew 28. There in is the problem. How does synod convince a majority of congregations to accept that what we ought to do is really what people actually do, or what the culture around us is doing? What this means is that part of the restructuring involves bringing a majority of congregations into a shift in paradigms on how mission is viewed. If synod members buy into the notion that there is a "struggle" in how the Gospel is disseminated through out the world, then they are likely to accept a change in structure is necessary on pragmatic grounds. They are likely to tolerate any congregational structure (e.g. Willow Creek, Saddleback Church, etc.) the synod promotes in the name of change. Currency is given to change for the sake of connecting with the "unChurched" or however else one wants to describe the unrepentant.

The bottom line is that adoption of the proposed changes in the "final report" give assent to a "problem" as defined by the missional relativist. We are being told that there has to be a shift in our thinking, that what we ought to do to accomplish mission is to conform with what is already being done in the world. We are being led to believe that somehow, the Holy Spirit has failed to act upon His preached Holy Word and the Sacraments. We are being told in the "final report" that effectiveness in mission rests upon our shoulders. That couldn't be further from the truth.