Readers react to guardian/missionary distinction

By David Luecke

The missionary/guardian distinction has generated good discussion.  Here are some of the reactions.

One pastor writes that he does not know whether he is a missionary or a guardian.  His ministry practices are cautious, yet he actively participates in outreach to Hispanic people in his circuit.  He can’t identify with either the fears of the missionaries or the fears of the guardians, as developed in the December issue.  Is he missing something?

Yes, to see the distinction as either one or the other is to miss much of the complexity of the situation in our church body.  Most pastors in the LCMS are both guardian and missionary.  The issue is which perspective dominates their reaction to the ambiguities of change.  Is the stronger instinct to hang on to the known and safe or to accept the risks of proceeding into the new and unknown?

Another pastor writes, “One crucial difference you haven’t mentioned yet is that the ideology of the guardians almost necessarily puts them at odds with the non-guardians.  If their number one objective is to preserve the treasure, then they have to expose and expel all those who are not guarding the treasure as they do.  This is an essential part of their ideology.

“The missionaries on the other hand have no similar crusade against the people who are not in their camp.  Expelling others has no necessary part in their mission.  So the guardians will always be fighting somebody and ejecting them.”

This pastor suggests, “The deepest difference between the two camps in the synod is over the role of doctrine in the life of the church.  The main reason for our division is that we have not thought deeply about this.  The Gospel is not first of all a logical doctrinal argument.  It is a promise

“Doctrine’s role is supportive.  It helps to insure that the promise is not changed into a message that is something other than the Gospel.  For this reason doctrine is important, but it is not the end.  It is possible to have the purest doctrine in the world and still not proclaim the Gospel.”

Pastor Stephen Updegrave challenges the way the current polemic has developed.  He explains, “In Luther’s time, particularly as the Reformation worked through its infancy, the way theologians disagreed was through polemics.  Luther rarely saw the need to be civil in debate.  As a matter of fact, he seemed to revel in the outrageous, suggesting that it would be appropriate to break wind in Pope Leo’s face. 

“During my seminary training (FW ’89), several of my professors implied that this is the preferred  method for dealing with those with whom we have theological differences.  These profs also insisted that style and substance are the same thing. 

“I certainly would never attempt to go one on one with any of the great minds at the seminary, but somehow this whole scenario does not seem to resonate with the Jesus we learn about through the Holy Scriptures.  Other than during the cleansing of the temple, the only time we see Jesus ‘waging warfare’ on those who disagree with him is in dealing with the keepers of the law and traditions.

“If we as a synod are to survive we need to start practicing apologetics in the spirit of 1 Peter 3:15-16.  Is this “good Lutheran” tradition?  No. Is it Christian behavior?  Yes. ”