As some others from the NW delegation could agree, the end result was a disappointment. The topic, which had to do with the relationship between the Public Office of the Holy Ministry and the Priesthood of all Beleivers, unfortunately was cast from the beginning, by its title, as a kind of power struggle. "Who's in Charge?" the last part of the title read. True, there are real "power struggles" in the church today, but was this the best way to frame the discussion? What about beginning with the "model" of Christ as Servant?

For three days, sheltered from the brutal Arizona heat (it reached over 100), we had a golden opportunity to really wrestle with the key issues affecting Church and Ministry. District presidents from throughout the US were present, as were sem profs and profs from other synodical schools, along with the members of the CTCR, including its director, Dr. Nafzger. Unlike the previous conference three years ago, this one brought together a much more diverse crowd, allowing a chance to hear a variety of view points.

My impression, however, was that instead of truly taking the "bull by the horns," as they say, we took an approach that seemed to almost deliberately avoid a real head on approach to anything controversial. Sure, many of the tables had honest and forthright discussions as DPs, pastors, laypeople and others talked through some issues. Like so much in Synod today, though, I was left with the impression that the key virtue of our denomination is a kind of "reconciled diversity." Let everyone express their opinions and go to the greatest lengths to respect them all. After all, everything is adiophora and nothing is worth getting in a huff over.

But as anyone active in the chruch today knows, we have a real crisis out there. Pastors are being more frequently released (kind word) from their calls, and I am disturbed that the causes tend to lean too often in the direction of most failed marriages: we just don't get along any more. Forget the divinity of the Call. Forget patience in dealing with human weakness and uplifting the pastor in prayer. Just fire the man and all will be well again.

True, pastors bear responsibility as well. After 18 years I have discovered that some fights are not worth it, and causing divisiveness must be a carefully thought out matter. Not every hill is to die on. And we need to realize that congregations are like people, imperfect and always incomplete. We are called to teach the Word so that through this precious means they might grow in their understanding. But it takes time, lots of time. I fear some shepherds become victims of their zeal and short-circuit any good outcome by rash and authoritarian sounding pronouncements.

I am hopeful that our conference in NW will deal with some of the issues Phoenix was reluctant to tackle. And there are many we will undoubtedly never bring up due to the limitations of time. But what about the role of women in the church? There is great diversity and confusion in the church ever since the convention in '04 (and well before this as well.) And what about so-called "lay ministry"? We need a rediscovery of Luther's doctrine of vocation. Then, there is the question of what exactly the pastor is called to do. In a few weeks I will be going to our district's professional church worker's conference. They are bringing in a couple of Evangelical speakers with Fuller backgrounds to teach us about leadership. There has been pressure untold to reshape the Office as CEO, coach, or just divine cheerleader. But what about the Word? We have real problems of definition to wrestle with here. I hope we have the fortitude to still do this.

Do I regret going to Phoenix? Not really. I met some in synod, both pastor and lay, who give me hope for this continued discussion. And I appreciate having been allowed a voice at this level, considering I hold no official office or position in synod today. It has broadened my understanding of what it looks like from that level. No, I'm not satisfied. But I'm still in. May the Lord have mercy on our synod and strengthen courageous voices to sound forth the Truth!

Jay Tolson’s article in the U.S. News & World Report therefore sparked my interest, especially given the tantalizing title “Inside the Masons.” Not that I count myself among the wild conspiracy buffs, of which Mr. Tolson refers, including such well-known ones as Pat Robertson, who propagates his views in his book New World Order. I have long realized that Masonry is a ‘secret society’ with many elaborate and secrete rituals. This is not the core issue. What I was more interested in was how they would deal with the way faith and religion were handled, especially their "secret" worship rituals and their definition of the deity in which they pledge allegience. One objection to Lutheran concerns about their supposed “worship” practices was that it was in the end only a social organization for many. But would this article ‘reveal’ that their religious rituals were truly matters of ‘worship’? Probably hoping for too much from a secular magazine.

Mr. Tolson, unfortuately did touch quite lightly on the faith issue (according to my interests.) Still, he did reveal one aspect of lodgery that like a cult can often deceive the uninitiated and uninformed. According to William Moore, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Masonry in the pre-Civil War era "took on a more evangelical coloring. The books that Masons produced looked like Sunday School manuals with illustrations that looked like engravings from Victorian Bibles." I have not seen or evaluated the materials masons used today, but knowing the way the cults (especially JW's) present their views cloaked in terms and pictures that seem so "evangelcal," I suspect that current members may be seeing lodgery in similarly 'church-friendly' terms.

Overall the article is informative and for those who do not know a lot about the historical origins and background of Masonry, it appears to be helpful. The subtitle states:" The fraternal order has long been the target of conspiracy theories and hoaxes." But then it adds: "Here's the real story." To some degree that is undoubtedly true. But not the FULL story. For those interested in knowing more about the relious background of their practices, I would suggest Concordia Publishing House's HOW TO RESPOND TO THE LODGES, if it is still available.

DVE, September 12, 10:34 a.m.

He said that it was a matter of truth, especially the issue of authority. He knew that the Lutheran pastor presides over sacramental acts but questioned from whence came the authority to do such things. Somehow his Call into the Ministry did not offer him any comfort here (nor the command from Christ) and he continued to seek. And has happens too often the lure of Rome awaited him with its magisterial power.

He did touch on a rub between Rome and Wittenberg, though. And it was on the authority of bishops and popes that Luther struggled greatly. When he realized that these men, like councils themselves, could and did err, he had to turn to the Word alone for comfort and assurance. Catholics do chide Lutherans, however, on the fact that it seems as if we have made everyone their own authority, leaving the business of interpretation and thus truth to be defined by each person who takes to the Bible. I can understand this, and as a pastor have begun to see the lessening of respect and confidence in the parish pastor's authority to expound scriptural truth. The Depression-WWII generation respected the pastor exlicitly at this point. But the Baby Boomers are another story, some willing to outright challenge us because "things seem different to them."

I do not know the ultimate answer to this vexing pastoral problem, and it remains another sub-issue within the Church and Ministry debate. Lutherans must address this, however, or many more searching for the stability of truth will seek other pastures. ELCA is a living example of a church adrift on the issue of truth and scripture. I pray the LCMS does not follow.

Some LCMS pastors have already abandoned the ship Missouri for the Orthodox and Rome, among others. I may not agree with Mr. Holmes and his direction, but he does bring up an isue we may need to give much more attention to within our churches today.

This phrase came to mind as I was thinking about one of my key frastrations in ministry. The illustration doesn't work completely, yet it brings up a point that is too often missed by people in the church when dealing with internal problems. Every day a church member or a pastor may say something that later is dertermined to to ill-timed or simply wrong-headed in its approach. These mistakes, however, are compounded when the party feeling hurt decides that the best way to deal with the situation is to share their frustration with their circle of family and friends before they have confronted the one with whom they are at odds.

Any pastor can testify to the power of networking in an average congregation, a phenemena of tremendous effect in a parish that is small to medium size and is well connected by several families (such as is the case in many rural congregations.) To be charitable I don't think that a lot of these people realize the damage they cause when they pass on their frustrations indiscrimately. Yet, as a pastor, I would only wish that they would pause before doing do and consider the domino-effect of their actions and the damage it often causes to relationships.

We Lutherans talk much of the 8th Commandment and Matthew 18, sometimes in the wrong ways. However, I still see these texts as foundational for interpersonal relationships in the parish. I believe that if our people took them seriously many a parish crisis would be averted, and many a pastorate might be saved. Consider how it might be if a peson who felt wronged by a pastor went to that pastor BEFORE going any further. Or consider how it might be if parishoners really did try "to explain everything in the kindest way" (Luther's explanation - 8th comamndment)as they were relaying their feelings to another family members.

The "loose lips" of carelessly communicated information and in some cases deliberate attempts to discredit, are probably some of the most damaging things that can hit and hurt the "ship" of the church. The enemy Satan relishes in our selfish barbs, as he knows how well it serves his own purpose. As pastors we have much work to do in this area, but laypeople share much of the burden here too.