Missionaries and Guardians view risks differently

By David S. Luecke

The vote for president and first vice-president at the 2001 synodical convention revealed how closely matched are two groupings of pastors and congregations in this church body.  The candidate for president of one side was elected by only a few votes, and the other side’s candidate for vice president won by only a few votes.  Since September 11 the two very different perspectives between these leaders and their constituencies have become apparent.

How can these different perspectives be described?  Language of the “far right” suggests there is a “left.”  But the left really does not exist in the LCMS with anything approximating its meaning in American Protestantism.

The desired descriptors should be terms that each group finds acceptable; thus neither term should be pejorative.  Neither term should be exclusive, as if sharing the perspective of one group excludes you from the perspective of the other.

I propose the vocabulary of “missionaries” and “guardians.”  Both perspectives are important and have ample scriptural support for their necessity in God’s church.  To be for one does not mean you are against the other.  Leaders can be guardians and have great interest in missions, and to describe other leaders as missionaries does not mean they have abrogated guardianship of Scriptural truths.

The difference between guardians and missionaries in our church body is a difference in attitude toward risk in ministry and church life.  Guardians tend to be risk aversive; in the face of ambiguity their instinctive response is to stay close to historic formulations and practices.  Missionaries are risk takers; in the face of uncertainty their instinct is to stretch traditional understandings for the sake of greater effectiveness. 

Is either position wrong?  Of course not.  Both are necessary to be a church body worthy of our heritage.  At issue is which orientation should take lead as the LCMS moves into the 21^st century.  Only the next convention can break the current deadlock.

How much risk should the LCMS take on for the next decade or so?  The answer depends on which outcome is seen to be the greater threat to this church body.  On the one hand, to compromise the wonderful truths of the Gospel, as declared in our basic confessions, would sap spiritual strength and compromise faithfulness to God’s mission for his church.  On the other hand, our strength is already waning; we are a church body in decline.  Unless something changes we will compromise our effectiveness in carrying out God’s mission for his church.  To avoid risks in mission is to risk unfaithfulness.

Perhaps the best way to spend the two years before the 2004 convention is to work together toward defining what can and cannot change.  What is our unchangeable substance?  What are the styles of application that can be changed by those who want to take the risk?

These discussions would be especially fruitful if we could talk about the fears that motivate guardians and missionaries.  What precisely are the missionaries in danger of compromising?  Where do guardians become overly and unreasonably cautious?

Which dangers do you fear the most?