When I was fired by LCMS, Inc. in 2008 I had a huge problem.
My problem was, I had a Call.
My Call document was issued by the LCMS Communications department and was signed by its executive director.
I remember, it was me, Jeff Schwarz, our boss, his boss and a nice lady from Human Resources. We sat in a meeting room immediately off the reception desk at the International Center.
My boss’ boss said, “Termination is a harsh word, but I have decided to cancel the show, and as a result, both of your positions are being terminated.”
After that sunk in, my first question was, “Does it matter that I have a Call document?”
He and the nice lady from Human Resources answered almost in unison, “No.”
The answer didn’t surprise me. After all, my Call document had been issued by the LCMS Communications department and was signed by the its executive director. It meant nothing.
But my meaningless Call document was still a huge problem for me.
You see, my meaningless Call document had kept me on the synodical clergy roster for the last 9 years. Now, although it meant nothing, it still meant that my status on the roster was going to change. Now, although it was meaningless, my Call document meant that I was going to be reclassified, and become a “CRM.”
CRM is the synodical acronym for “candidatus reverendi ministerii” which is pious-sounding Latin for “candidate for the reverend ministry.”
“Candidate for the reverend ministry” sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? It usually isn’t.
CRM is very often the bureaucratic no-man’s-land, the ecclesiastical limbo, the official purgatory for pastors. I had been a circuit counsellor, I knew what CRM meant. I knew what often happened to CRM pastors. Believe me, the last thing I wanted was to be reclassified CRM. I even considered resigning from the LCMS clergy roster altogether to avoid it.
That’s why my Call document, as meaningless as it was, was still a huge problem.
The congregation I attended came to my rescue. They called me to be their assistant pastor. That alone kept me off the CRM list.
Thus ends the story of my close brush with CRM status. Many, are not so fortunate.
Almost every week there is a pastor in the LCMS who has a real Call document and yet is told by his congregation and his District President that it means nothing. It happens all the time. Pastors are terminated, their Calls rescinded and their status changed to CRM.
I’m not talking about Pastors who sleep with the choir director, or steal from the offering plate, or teach false doctrine, or won’t carry out their duties. Those guys belong don’t belong on the CRM list; those guys belong off the clergy roster entirely and out of the ministry permanently.
No, I’m talking about Pastors who are doing what their Call document says they should be doing, but are still removed and told that their Call document means nothing. And, if that weren’t bad enough, they are told that their Call document, as meaningless as it is, will nonetheless drag them into the purgatory of CRM.
And, if they don’t know what that means, they soon find out.
The LCMS has a rich doctrine of the Office of the Holy Ministry that should prevent all this. Why doesn’t it?
The problem isn’t meaningless Call documents. The problem isn’t the CRM classification. Whether it is the congregation that fires its pastor, or the District President who lets them do it, the problem is the same. For them, the Lutheran doctrine of the Ministry means nothing.
That is a huge problem for all of us.
***
GJ - Todd is UOJ, like Rolf Preus. But when someone is fired for political reasons, it is bad for everyone.
The day of the synod is over. The LCMS, WELS, and ELS are run by evil, amoral, apostate men (and women!).
5 COMMENTS:
I left very unimpressed.
Mr. Joseph Jewell
Thank you for sharing your observation. Since it was a public meeting, attended by many, would you care to share also the name of the presenter from the TEC? I think it is important to know exactly who is saying what on this issue.
In any case - thanks again for the report.
Pastor Spencer
I found it quite ironic that the tag line publicizing the workshop was Martin Luther's quote about the power of "a simple layman armed with scripture..." Not in the WELS, I guess!
Mr. Joseph Jewell
Here are the facts that those who released this Statement share with everyone equally – facts that they want known about it. This document is available from the CTCR page of the LCMS website, where it is prominently listed under the "Theological Opinions" heading of the "Recent Actions" section. That is, it is publicly labeled by them as an action of the CTCR, not the opinion of a person, and it is distributed by the LCMS CTCR as one oftheir documents, not by an individual. The Statement itself notes that it was issued by "request from the President of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS)," not by request from Paul McCain or anyone else. The Statement declares of itself that it is "an opinion on inclusive language" or "an opinion as to a specific editorial decision which has serious theological implications," as opposed to a formal evaluation of the NIV 2011 in its entirety. Interestingly, the "opinion" is limited to this statement: "In our judgment, this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church." Other than this sentence, this Statement does very little "opining" at all, as its substance rests on profuse quotation from BRIL – a report of the CTCR with official standing, being prepared in response to an official request of the LCMS in Convention (1989). Indeed, a healthy respect for BRIL would make it very difficult to justify any other than the "opinion" this Statement finally expresses.
Continued in next comment...
As for Paul McCain, according to the LCMS document What is the CTCR? (which is also available on the CTCR page of the LCMS website), he has no association with the CTCR. Speculation that he is "behind the whole thing" as a means of dismissing this Statement is either rumour or conspiracy theory. Finally, this August 2012 CTCR Statement is signed, "CTCR Executive Staff," which is different than some of the other documents, some of which are signed "Adopted by the CTCR [on such-and-such a date]." This is a curious difference. Given the prominent placement of this Statement on their website, however, it is difficult to say, without a public explanation from them, what this difference means in terms of its general sanction. One can read What is the CTCR? to determine who the "Executive Staff" might be – but the Statement refers to the signatories as "we" throughout, not "I". Regardless of its status as "an opinion," or the number of people included as signatories, or whether it has the full sanction of the CTCR or not, the substance to contend with isn't really the "opinion" contained in the Statement. The substance to contend with is BRIL, and this CTCR statement makes that clear.
Finally, I think it is important to note the significance of recommending against the use of the NIV 2011. The LCMS CTCR and the ELS Doctrine Committee are not merely saying that other translations are more preferable than the NIV 2011 as a standard translation for use in Synod publications, parish lectionaries and pulpits, and for lay devotional use. What they are saying is far more forceful. They are making a positive recommendation against the use of the NIV 2011 by conscientious Lutherans, the CTCR stating directly that the NIV 2011 isinappropriate for use in the congregation, and cannot even be recommended for lay devotional use due to the "serious theological implications" of adopting a translation rendered "with words derived from common human experience, cultural predilections, or the ideas of philosophers and lawgivers" that are inconsistent with "the language which the biblical authors in fact use," all according to a human ideology which deliberately elevates the former above the latter. The reader must notice that there is nearly an ocean-breadth divide between them and the WELS TEC, and the issue isn't at all a minor one. It is a matter of fundamental Christian doctrine.
My "Opinion,"