1. Community Involvement – this is care for the community we are seeking to evangelize in a simple way, what are the felt needs and can we address them. 2. Indigenous Leadership – the goal is to find, teach and place leaders from the community itself, the faster the better 3. . . . → Read More: Here is a question/challenge to LC-MS folks – Feedback wanted]]>

LINC-Rochester (yes, its still moving) has three principles:

1. Community Involvement – this is care for the community we are seeking to evangelize in a simple way, what are the felt needs and can we address them.
2. Indigenous Leadership – the goal is to find, teach and place leaders from the community itself, the faster the better
3. Church multiplication – the goal is not just to plant a church but to plant multiple churches and to create churches that have planting in their DNA

Those principles are part of LINC-Houston that I witnessed and they don’t seem too far off from the apostolic church observed in Acts and Paul’s letters. The early church was renowned for taking care of the “widows & orphans”. The first fight in the church was over the distribution to the widows (Acts 6:1). Paul sends Titus around to appoint elders in each church (Titus 1:5) and just the amazing fact of the early church talks about church multiplication. That was the mission they were involved in. The first place they were called Christians, Antioch, set aside Paul and Barnabas to plant more (Acts 13:1-3). This is solid biblical ground.

I hope I’m not stepping too far out in saying that the group meeting for LINC is looking to encourage congregations to behave in such a manner themselves. It is an embarrassment that there is not an LC-MS congregation in the City of Rochester proper. Even stepping away from the denominational definition it is something of an embarrassment that a group of congregations around the city supposedly working together have only a marginal mission in the city (important but in the grand scheme marginal, it effectively does one of the three principles of LINC).

In putting together an organization and a budget the question ultimately is what level of support can be generated for such a mission? This is what I proposed.

In the Rochester circuits the last reported average attendance was just over 2800 people on any given week. (That is an attendance number and not a membership number which would be roughly 3-4x the attendance). The total combined budgets of those congregations is just under $5 Million per year. My initial proposals for funding the mission in Rochester were to aim for $10 per individual attendee. Over 5 years as hopefully we proved effective, I hoped to grow that to $25 per attendee. I also put into the budget the thought that congregations would start (in 2013) appropriating 0.5% of their budget to local mission. Again hopefully proving success along the way growing that congregational support for local mission to 2% of budget. Two separate streams. Individuals buying into the mission of the church in Samaria/Judea and Congregations doing the same.

Here is the question: do those assumptions seem pie in the sky? If you were trying to fund local mission work where would you start for funding assumptions? Do you agree or disagree that we should first look at ourselves (as opposed to an outside grant source)? This is a sincere bleg.

I’m not really sure what to say about it. The good I would think is that he is passionate and smart. Two characteristics that even when you might disagree on some things makes you willing . . . → Read More: Interesting (at least to me) talk given by Pres. Harrison]]>

Kinda a “state of the union” address by the LCMS president. Here is the site I caught it on.

I’m not really sure what to say about it. The good I would think is that he is passionate and smart. Two characteristics that even when you might disagree on some things makes you willing to think you are heading in the right direction instead of into the ditch. Let me talk about this in a couple of ways. First, he is not afraid to talk about serious things. Although I do wonder if he would grant that same right to those who might disagree. Dialog is only tested when the one out of hierarchical power is allowed to debate. Otherwise it is just a clever inquisition. Second, as he alluded to in the talk, his audience was highly made up of those agreeing with him. And he challenged them to put up or shut up in regards to church planting. That crowd has “great expectations” of his presidency and he has consistently challenged them back instead of trying to just deliver the goods (which he can’t do anyway, at least not a keep his job.)

There are also a couple of items that gave me the willies. The fact that a synodical president in the midst of a rant on preaching felt free to call out his only bad example being seminarians or implying that the young are the worst talks to me of someone used to our system that blames and eats the young. Nothing was said about the generation or two still in pulpits that put us in this situation. But only those without homiletical sin should cast the first stone, so I’ll stop now after a pebble and freely admit that I am over the top about “protecting the least among us”. The second thing is the whole treatment of women and the conflation of women with the homosexual issue. First that is shoddy tarring with the same brush two vastly different things. (If you want the popular treatment of the complexity of women’s ordination check out Scot McKnight’s Blue Parakeet Even if you end up disagreeing, you will never just dismiss this issue so lightly). Second, he felt compelled to bring up the answer du jour for confessional church growth – more kids. Is there some truth to the argument that we are shrinking because we aren’t having enough kids? Yes. But as a local “prophet” ask me constantly – “What would you do with them if you were given them?” In his own talk he concedes that we lost something like 75% of those we are given. What I hear (not what he said, but what I hear when the things are put together) is something along the same lines as picking on seminarians. Instead of seminarians this time its those darn women not having enough kids that are giving us such trouble. Lets just say I don’t think that is a winning message.

So, like I said, I’m inclined to say right track, but man, there are just some things that made me cringe. I guess what I’d chalk that up to is that even at almost 40 I’m much younger than the ministerium that elected him, and I’ve grown up and worked in a much different environment that just hears different things to those spots.

Below is the talk. I’d encourage anyone to judge for themselves. I hope I haven’t been too negative. As I said, more positive, and the negative is probably more about me.

Part #1

Part #2

Part #3

In our prior posts we talked about three things: 1) Stewardship or how we use our possessions is part of the sanctified . . . → Read More: Stewardship 5: The Tithe – where it comes from and what it means]]>

This is a link to post #1 in this series.
This is a link to post #2 in this series.
This is a link to post #3 in this series.
This is a link to post #4 in this series.

In our prior posts we talked about three things:
1) Stewardship or how we use our possessions is part of the sanctified life. Christians strive to be faithful in their walk with God.
2) A key part of faithfulness in stewardship is the concept of “firstfruits”. The offering to God comes from the first part, not the remainder.
3) The final goal of stewardship is for Christians to recognize and trust God’s providence.

Now in this post I promised to look at some brass tacks. One of the toughest words to mention in many churches is tithe. What is a tithe and why is it so contentious? Simply put, a tithe is a tenth or 10% of the income or increase in any given period. As we will see, in its original usages, the time period was usually a harvest season. Probably your grandfathers, could still relate to that. I remember my grandfather’s stories of bringing in the tithe at harvest season. For him that meant dropping a large check into the plate once a year after he had delivered the crop to the mill. He would joke about 90% of his rural church’s offerings coming in on three Sundays. By the end of his farming career with the advent of futures much of that had changed. More so with regular salaried work, but I do wonder given the increase in freelancing and other forms of self-employment if the next generations will look more periodic in income.

But none of that explains the source or purpose of a tithe. The Ur-stories or deep bedrock stories of the tithe come from Genesis. Abraham in Gen 14:20 is reported to have given a tenth of the spoils of war to Melchizedek – the priest of God Most High from Salem (Ur-Jerusalem). It is interesting the writer of the book of Hebrews in the new testament also mentions and interprets this story in Heb 7:1-10 where Melchizedek is a picture of Christ. So, the first recorded tithe is from Abraham – the father of all the faithful – to an obvious Christ figure. It was given as a recognition of victory and who the victory came from. The second Ur-story of the tithe is Gen 28:22. Jacob, on the run from Esau after tricking his Father, sees his vision of the ladder. But the real import is not that image but the promise and the response. God promises Jacob the same thing he had promised the other patriarchs – descendants, land, and blessing. When Jacob awakes he is a new person in regards to God. A boy who had grown up in the tents of the Patriarchs declares – “Surely the Lord is in this place and I did not know it”. Jacob has received the promise and now believes it. The first thing Jacob does in the morning is build an altar and make a vow to return a tenth a tithe. The response of faith is worship and faithful stewardship. A tithe or 10% becomes a symbol of that faithfulness.

Now that isn’t the only place a tenth or a tithe appears. In Leviticus 27:30-34, as part of the Sinai covenant, God claims a tithe or a tenth of the grain and the tenth of the herd. Since everyone was a farmer or a herdsman that is a tenth of all produce. This tithe was given to the Levites – the priest clan. Levi did not receive an allotment of land when Israel entered, but instead lived dispersed as the local priests. (This is found in Numbers 18:20-32). The Levites themselves were not spared the tithe. They gave 10% to the Aaronic (what would become the Temple) priesthood. Also look at Deut 14:22-29 where some regulations regarding the tithe are put in place. At the initial gift all Israel shares a festival meal. The remains (i.e. the majority) is for the Levites. But, every third year, from that tenth the Levites were to care for the aliens, the fatherless and the widows. Unlike the tithes of Abraham and Jacob, these tithes were part of the Law of Sinai.

None of that mentions the offerings commanded as part of the sacrificial system. Those are listed in the first 5 chapters of Leviticus: Burnt offerings, grain offerings, fellowship offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. Those were in addition to the Levitical tithe and were given directly to the temple. They were also largely consumed in the altar fire, although parts would be saved for the temple priests.

So, that is an OT overview of tithes. When stewardship is being talked about, churches talk about tithes because it is deeply grounded in the Old Testament. We take the law as the way that God intended things to be. We cannot fulfill the law, but it is still good and wise. The law demands a tenth of the income for God. Read Malachi 3:1-12 to get a glimpse, even at a late prophetic date, what God felt about those tithes. Not bringing them in was stealing from God. So the tithe was a part of the law, but it was also a part of the gospel. Abraham was not commanded to give 10%, nor was Jacob. Both freely brought 10% as a response to the grace of God.

There are a bunch of smaller questions regarding the tithe that often get asked. A popular one: Is it on the gross or the net? That makes sense in a modern salary world. And you can read about God warning about a second tenth being taken by the government in 1 Samuel 8:15-17, but that Kings’ tithe doesn’t remove the responsibility for God’s tithe. The OT tithe is clearly talking about the full harvest or the gross. 10% would be given to God, some would be taken in taxes, some would need to be set aside as seed for the following year and the rest consumed.

I’ve gone exceedingly long here, so I will continue next time with a new testament view. Review Acts 5 and the story of Ananias and Sapphira, take a quick look at Matt 23:23, but focus on 2 Cor 8-9, with the core passage being 2 Cor 9:6-11.

Ok, now that football is out of the way. One of my favorite sarcastic sayings that has some . . . → Read More: Monday quarterbacking…]]>

First, Teeeee-bowwwww! Don’t you just love it when a guy gets beat up for 4 hours and gets told he’s basically just above a slime mold and then that slime mold has the audacity to win ugly?

Ok, now that football is out of the way. One of my favorite sarcastic sayings that has some deep insight is that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Churches, both congregations and even more so larger organizations, do this all the time. And they do it amp’ed up on crack. Churches tend to give a theological polish to the way they do things. Over time that theological polish builds up and becomes God told us to do it this way. Cross reference Eve’s answer to the snake (Gen 3:3), “God said we shouldn’t eat that fruit, and not to even touch it.” God said the first, but not the second. Theological polish build up.

Here is one place where the Lutheran Confessions are incredibly useful. Augsburg Confession article 7 defines where you see the church. The church is where you hear the gospel preached and the sacraments administered. Staying at the local congregation – the kingdom of the gospel is found in the preached word and the sacraments. When the called pastor steps out of those rolls, he or she is in the kingdom of the law. That is one of the reasons that I’m a big stickler for preceding any congregational meeting presentation I give with something along the lines – “you are completely free to disagree with what I’m saying here.” And I make sure the signs of the office (stole, alb, etc.) are put away. I don’t want to add Theological Polish. But we have probably all been part of situations or congregations where there has been theological polish build up, where decisions properly in the realm of debate and governance are given sacramental importance.

Now move that to a larger grouping level. We call these synods which is a great old name and captures the true nature. It means walking together. Groups of congregations that share a confession agree by human right to organize themselves. (The confessional document Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope is all about this. The reformers were happy to have a Pope as long as it was admitted that his office was what we would call secular.) But when you get to such bodies you tend to get Theological Polish build-up of staggering proportions. Whether that is actual or de facto infallible doctrines, fancy titles and the whole mess. Or just what we all know as the arrogance of office and the hostility and closed ears to dissent. All backed up and supported with the general sense that this is how God ordained it.

So, if you dare to suggest that something isn’t working, maybe we should take a closer look at it and change something, you usually get a dumb-struck reaction. What this really is, is a deep seated personal response by the authority. What do you mean it isn’t working, this is the system that produced and promoted me?!? Here is the CEO of google Eric Schmidt showing some self knowledge and an ability to see this problem.

“Regulation prohibits real innovation, because the regulation essentially defines a path to follow,” Mr. Schmidt said. This “by definition has a bias to the current outcome, because it’s a path for the current outcome.”

Now I’m going to give you a hypothetical title, a C.V. background and ask a question. It is not a big secret that there are a number of congregations is rough shape. In response to that a larger body decides to establish a office of Congregational Turnaround to help the struggling congregations. Now the C.V.
B.A. in Liberal Arts from Synodical College (~35 years ago)
M.Div. from Synodical Seminary (~30 years ago),
S.T.M. (advanced Theological degree) from Synodical Seminary (~20 years ago)
D.Miss. (specialized professional degree) from Synodical Seminary (~15 years ago)
Parish pastor in out of region (i.e. mid-western) parishes (30 – 20 years ago, and 10 years ago)
Foreign Missionary/Seminary Professor (between parish stints)
Mission Executive in a small (in-region) district (recently)

Now the question. Would such a hypothetical CV and hire for such a hypothetical office represent doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes?

There is a reason we have Occupy Wall Street, Tea Party Candidates, candidates for president who have never held office before and a bunch of other things. Andrew Sullivan nails it in Newsweek.

The theme that connects them all is disenfranchisement, the sense that the world is shifting deeply and inexorably beyond our ability to control it through our democratic institutions. You can call this many things, but a “democratic deficit” gets to the nub of it. Democracy means rule by the people—however rough-edged, however blunted by representative government, however imperfect. But everywhere, the people feel as if someone else is now ruling them—and see no way to regain control.

Now a hierarch would point out all kinds of theological problems with that. Many correct. But that response would just be adding to the feeling at large. The deeper question is can we remove enough of the polish build-up to respond as a group, or is this a new wine in old wineskins case?

It would be heartening if more presidential candidates understood the urgency. But there is a strange lack of boldness in most of their proposals. They, too, seem victims of that 1950 moment, and assumptions of its permanence.

It is kind of funny – I’m constitutionally conservative. I’m a numbers . . . → Read More: A Strange Lack of Boldness…]]>

That title is from this Mark Steyn article.

It would be heartening if more presidential candidates understood the urgency. But there is a strange lack of boldness in most of their proposals. They, too, seem victims of that 1950 moment, and assumptions of its permanence.

It is kind of funny – I’m constitutionally conservative. I’m a numbers guy after all. But the one thing that finance does teach you if you are paying attention is that you don’t get a return without a risk. The bigger the risk usually the higher the potential return, but also the likelihood for losing all goes way up. What people forget is that taking no risk is just death by a thousand cuts of inflation and obsolescence. We looked earlier this week at the parables of the talents. The one thing in those parables that gets punished is putting the talent in the ground or putting the mina in a cloth. Risk is part of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Although nobody in those parables ever loses, an interesting fact.) But why it is funny is that this in the bone conservative (like Mark Steyn) thinks this is a time that requires some bold action.

The Church at Sardis

I’m not talking about and I want to get out of the political sphere. That will be what it will be. And I’m not really talking this congregation. I think we are running a few good risks already. We are trying to live the vision statement and be actively engaged. I’m talking about the larger church. The two answers that I have consistently heard from current leadership are: a) what we have is good, its the best we can do and we should like it and b) all we really need to do is go back to {Walther, the 16th century boys, the church fathers} and do exactly what they did. Neither of those recognize the situation (Rev 3:1-2). At least the second starts with good advice if it is way to simplistic. What scares me the most about both those situations is that strange lack of boldness and the fact that the clock is running out. That church in Sardis is far more fragile, too comfortable in its assumptions of permanence, for reality.

Each generation lives the faith. Some add something. Others are strangely silent. What I wouldn’t want to be is the one on whom it started to look like the picture somewhere nearby.

Congregational . . . → Read More: Congregational Meeting – Presentation Material]]>

The files below contain the congregational presentation from 9/25/11. If you were present you heard the discussion and presentation. If you couldn’t make it, but have questions or concerns please contact pastor or our congregational president. Going along with the sermon of the day – the presentation is a challenge to the congregation.

Congregational Update Sept 2011 – Powerpoint File

Congregational Update Sept 2011 – PDF file