Lead Time
Lead Time
What Does It Mean to Be Lutheran? Intellectual Hospitality with Rev. Dr. Matt Borrasso
What if our disagreements could actually bring us closer together? Join us for an enlightening discussion on the art of disagreeing agreeably with our special guest, Matt Borrasso, pastor at Trinity Lutheran in Lexington Park. Drawing from the works of Diana Glyer, Matt shares his insights on fostering intellectual hospitality and cultivating curiosity over condemnation within the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Listen as we explore practical ways to ask better questions and engage constructively in debates, using real-world examples like the reactions to a vice presidential nominee's Lutheran identity.
Embark on a journey through history and theology as we dissect the challenges of empathetic dialogue within the LCMS, particularly around contextual and residential education. Learn from historical figures who navigated theological disagreements while maintaining unity and respect. Our conversation reveals the detrimental effects of passive-aggressive behavior and tribalism, and how leaders like District President Mike Gibson are working to bridge divides. We even ponder whether Martin Luther himself would feel at home in today's church body, considering the legacy of mistrust from past theological conflicts.
Dive deep into the complexities of trust and reconciliation within the Lutheran community. Through personal anecdotes and theological reflections, we discuss the importance of confession, forgiveness, and mutual trust as cornerstones of our faith. Hear about the balance needed between traditional and contemporary worship expressions and the call for greater transparency in church leadership selection. By fostering open conversations grounded in our shared belief in Christ's resurrection, we advocate for a more united and trusting LCMS community. Don't miss this thought-provoking episode on building a more inclusive and understanding faith community.
Do you have a dream to reach people with the gospel, but feel stuck? There is hope for you.
Join us on an incredible learning journey to discover, develop, and deploy your calling to bless the world around you with the love of Jesus!
All NEW ULC Missions Class
For a 10% off discount - use code LEADTIME10
Join the Lead Time Newsletter! (Weekly Updates and Upcoming Episodes)
https://www.uniteleadership.org/lead-time-podcast#newsletter
Visit uniteleadership.org
This is Lead Time.
Speaker 2:Welcome to Lead Time, tim Allman, here with Jack Kauberg. I am so excited for this conversation today. We've been talking about disagreeing agreeably, setting up space for diverse conversations, people in a variety of different contexts listening deeply to one another, agreeing on the main things and then, in areas of Adiaphora, hopefully having charity one for another as we unite in mission in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. I have a brother who's on for the second time with us, matt Barrasso. He's a pastor at Trinity Lutheran in Lexington Park just outside of Washington DC and he sent me an email saying you know, you've been talking about kind of disagreeing agreeably, setting up a space, and there's just very few forums where people are actively talking slash maybe with brotherly love, sisterly love, debating some of the struggle points, pain points in the LCMS, and Matt said that's all well and good, but I don't think people know how to do that. So, matt, thanks for hanging with us today on Lead Time and we're going to be talking all about cultivating intellectual hospitality. How are you doing, matt?
Speaker 3:I'm all right. I'm getting over a cold, so you can probably hear it in my voice a little bit. So just give a little space for that, but on the whole I'm doing well.
Speaker 2:I love it. So Matt has written a lot about this topic and he's taken a lot of his cues from a gal by the name of Diana Glyer, and Glyer has written a lot on cultivating intellectual hospitality. How did you kind of fall in love with this topic in particular? Tell that story, matt.
Speaker 3:Well, it comes out of looking for something to do after my PhD, right.
Speaker 3:So, I finished that and it's one of those like now I need to fill time, because I got some time to fill and I needed to scratch an intellectual itch.
Speaker 3:So I got sort of deep into the work of Malcolm Gite, who's an Anglican priest and poet, and he referenced some of Glyer's work because of her work with CS, an Anglican priest and poet, and he referenced some of Glyer's work because of her work with CS Lewis and the Inklings and all that kind of stuff. So I just on a whim, listened to one of her presentations and it was the second of two she had done on intellectual hospitality, and I was just sort of blown away by her, her ability to speak into our cultural moment with something of value, something of of worth, something that I think we need. And then I realized that she had, like first written about this like 10 years prior and I was like, oh well, she's, she's been at this for a while, and so I went and listened to her other one and read her her work on it and that just sort of opened up other doors. But that's kind of how I got into it, just by accident, as it were so good, so good, fostering a posture of curiosity rather than condemnation.
Speaker 2:We need handles, though, and she says we need to ask better questions. This is one of the. I think it's simple, certainly not simplistic, but it's three primary questions that we must ask if we're going to be intellectually hospitable. So talk about that a little bit.
Speaker 3:Yeah. So she, she offers in these two presentations and I can give you the links that we can put in the show notes or something for people who want to go watch them, because they're both available free on YouTube. She, the first one, she sort of establishes like what intellectual hospitality is, and the second one she wants to really give legs to it, like how do we do this? And so she says we need to start by asking better questions. And and she is an English professor she worked at Azusa Pacific, she still does, I believe she's on the faculty there and her work on intellectual hospitality grows out of the classroom and trying to teach students. How do we who come from various backgrounds sit down around a text and have a conversation when different things are jumping out at us? No-transcript places to go in a conversation.
Speaker 4:Well, I think that's fascinating because it helps you start to see maybe somebody that you're debating with in a different light. Right, you might actually find that there's more merit to a person's position than what you start off with in the conversation.
Speaker 3:Oh for sure, Go ahead, tim, you look like you're going to say something no, no, no, matt, yeah, go off.
Speaker 3:No, I mean, we're recording this. The day after, you know, a vice presidential nominee has been named for the Democratic Party and as soon as, as soon as people say he's a Lutheran right, all of the people in my circles are saying, well, he's not really a Lutheran. And the first question I want to ask is well, what do you mean by Lutheran Right? I think like in our moment, these, these questions could really help us sort through things, because, well, it's true that he may be a member of an ELCA congregation and there's all sorts of issues connected with that right. Simply throwing out statements doesn't actually help generate a conversation. It typically just closes it off.
Speaker 3:So, rather than be the guy that just sort of dismisses it or ignores it, like I, I want to ask well, what do you, what do you mean by he's not a Lutheran? Like what do you? How are you judging what it is to be Lutheran? And and and this sort of suggests to me that, like, maybe we don't even know sometimes. Now, like what? I mean?
Speaker 3:I don't mean that we don't know what it is to be a Lutheran, but I wonder if we've lost the ability to, like, make arguments.
Speaker 3:We know how to argue from positions, but I don't know if we know how to argue to them anymore.
Speaker 3:And, and in asking questions of people and how they come to the positions, we can start to see how arguments are actually built and we can start to see what's at stake for the person. We can, we can understand where they're coming from and and even if we don't agree with them, that actually might help us understand where we're coming from too. So what is it about the ELCA that we would say well, actually we have issues with them calling themselves Lutheran or it's not Lutheran. How I would understand it. And that actually opens up the opportunity for us to say well, here's something that matters to us, and when I say Lutheran, this is what I mean. Right, and to build forward to something, to create something positive, rather than just react negatively and shut down the conversation or act dismissively, which I don't think is all that helpful, even though that's the tenor of the conversation in the culture today. It's just reactionary, it's sarcastic, it's soundbites and it's not conducive to speaking into the lives of people and building something of value.
Speaker 4:Maybe just for the benefit of people who might be listening, because you're going to have all different kinds of people listening right now. So when we say, what do you mean? What does it mean to be a Lutheran? I think right off the bat there's different ways that people define that word and what might some of those kind of key ways that people define it? One is confessional, the other might be more historical, liturgical expression. Right?
Speaker 3:Well, I mean, just like at a base level, historically speaking, it was. It was a like the Augsburg Confession before it was this devotional document, this, this, this theological treatise that we always go to. I mean, it was this devotional document, this, this, this theological treatise that we always go to. I mean it was a legal document, right, right.
Speaker 4:So we forget that that to be lutheran at some point was like a legal category, like this was a protected religious position um, right now, do you like a lot of treaties that were going on, and who was the lord of your country and all that kind of stuff, right, right. So do I mean that when I say that? Well, no, no.
Speaker 3:Like, I mean something completely different. I mean the heart and soul of the Augsburg Confession right, article four. Right, I mean the word and the sacraments are the way that create and sustain faith. I mean that the scripture is breathed out by God and that, actually, you know, that's the way we get into the scriptures. We've got to divide law and gospel, like you say, tim, and that's that's only taught by the Holy spirit in the school of experience, which is Walther channeling Luther. So, like I'm, I'm through a very specific strain there, right, and that's that's not the same strain that everybody comes through. So we've, we've, we've got to ask what it, what do we even mean when we say Lutheran? Because you're going to get a myriad of answers, both historically speaking and and in this moment, Right.
Speaker 4:There are Lutherans that adhere to the entire book of Concord and there's Lutherans that adhere primarily to the Augsburg confession.
Speaker 3:Right, well, and I, I, so I'm, I confession, right well, and and I, I, so I'm. I'm lutheran, not because I'm german, but because I have scandinavian in my blood, and and the formula for scandinavian lutherans is a german problem right, it's not our problem right.
Speaker 3:Um, now I wholeheartedly, I wholeheartedly confess the formula. Do not come at me and say, because I come from a scandinavian background, I don't wholeheartedly do. I confess the formula but, like at different times, it's meant things. So, even something as simple as saying I'm a Lutheran, you can ask those three questions and open out a conversation that actually builds toward greater understanding of who the person is sitting across from you, but also who you are and what you value it's. It's it's a way to actually connect with people on a different level.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and just like, like historically speaking, I know we're getting into some, we're geeking out on Lutheranism right now, but in the time of the formula, there was different factions of people calling themselves Lutherans and this was a very intentional process to try and bring unity to the church, where there was actually already some preexisting division on some doctrinal issues amongst people that called themselves Lutherans. So that's a that and that's relative to a certain point in time Right now. If, if a formula were being written right now, I would expect there would be a big section in there about gender and marriage.
Speaker 1:Right, that wasn't an issue Depending on who's writing it.
Speaker 4:Right. Well, what I mean is I'm sure it would be addressed. It would have to be addressed. It would be addressed either way, but depending on who's writing it, it would be written differently, yeah.
Speaker 2:Right, and that's largely what the work in the large catechism with annotations and notes that came out gosh a year or two ago, was attempting to do, that came out a year or two ago was attempting to do. Let's respond confessionally to some of our more modern day opportunities for long gospel to be shared. Yeah, I don't know that we come at like we can make arguments, but what is it about it, matt? And we can get into some of your work the letter you wrote, the forum letter that you wrote and you shared it at the Concordia Seminary in St Louis, a symposium in 2003 on this topic. You also wrote in the Journal of the Lutheran Historical Conference. I think that we can talk, so let's just go into those three questions what do you believe? But then, on what information is what you believe based on? And then, what's at stake for you?
Speaker 2:I think we get lost in two and then we don't even have the relational capability to enter in, to empathize with what's at stake on a variety of topics. I mean, my mind goes to trying to set up conversations with people that radically disagree on residential to more contextual formation. Right, there are different things that are at stake if you're connected to an institution and if you're connected to the local church, can we? Can we sit and empathize with one another and and say, wow, yeah, I'm biased toward this end, like I will wholeheartedly say that I have a tilt because I'm a parish pastor. We got a big vision reaching people here.
Speaker 2:I have a bias toward more contextual formation, and it's for our purposes to advance the gospel here. It may come across, then, as competing or maybe even condemning residential education. That's certainly not my intent, but I'm tilted. Why am I tilted? Because I'm in a context, matt, right, because I locate myself here. Anything more to share, though, as we enter into the LCMS context and some of the debates that take place or really non-debates, I would say because we're in our echo chambers. Anything to say there, matt?
Speaker 3:Yeah, I mean when I think about the email I sent you and how we don't know how to do it. What I meant was I don't think we remember how to do it, because I think there was a time at least when one of our primary theologians could sit down at a table with somebody he vehemently disagreed with and create space for him. And this is where my work comes in. The thing that's going to be published in the Journal for the Lutheran Historical Conference, the sectional I did at the 23 CSL Symposium, was about Martin Fransman. Now I have a history with Fransman in that my STM work is all on Fransman and it's his life and work. It got published by Wiffenstock in 2019. It's called the Art of Exegesis.
Speaker 3:In fact, I'm fairly certain that when Lyman Stone was on your show a few weeks ago at least when I watched it that he was referencing some of the stuff that I drew out from Fransman's own life, because he actually does end up sort of dying of exhaustion, trying to bring the two, choose one side over the other. He is there, sort of brought out of retirement, to speak to the church that he loves, the synod that he loves, and not let go of any brother at the table. This is something he had done before, though, and so the work that I did recently connecting intellectual hospitality connects back to something he did in the early 60s with a professor by the name of Norman Hobble. Now, hobble was an Old Testament guy. Hobble is infamous in terms of just go Google him. His perspective is wild. It's out there as far as the Missouri Synod today is concerned, and the Missouri Synod back then would be most wholeheartedly concerned about it too.
Speaker 3:So Hubble writes what becomes known as the Green Dragon because of the cover on it, and it's the Green Dragon. It's dealing with the fall narrative in Genesis 3. And so he takes all the historical critical tools at his disposal and he puts them to work, and he creates this essay and he presents it to the joint faculties, the college presidents at the least of which, because he's like well, you know, mortality is is, is not something that we were created with Um. He says, like the, the proto-evangelion, the first promise of the gospel, there in Genesis 315, and he kind of waffles on it, at best, like I mean, he, he takes some shots that would put anybody um who had grown up in the Missouri Synod at at at ill ease. I mean he, he takes some shots that would put anybody who had grown up in the Missouri Synod at at ill ease. I mean, like this is not OK.
Speaker 3:So Fransman is, is tasked with responding a year later and, and the way Fransman handles it is a master class in churchmanship. It absolutely is. And you can. You can read some of the work I've, or you can actually go to the library at the Semin St Louis, you can go to CHI and you can pull Fransman's words out and read them by saying all of the things that that Hobble and he have in common. He talks about how they are, that everybody at the table Hobble, fransman, all the university presidents, all the theological faculty members who are there they are all oriented eschatologically to one another, diaconally to one another, sacramentally to one another. We're all connected by our baptism is what he means. We're all connected in service to the church and all of us recognize that we have to stand before the Lord on the last day and give an account for the words that we're using. And he includes hobble in this, like he, he, he is. He's saying hey, this guy whom I disagree with vehemently on some issues, and he gets to the issues. But this guy, he belongs at the table. We have shared presuppositions and he goes into them and the and the presuppositions. They're worth reading on your own, just for your own sort of devotional thought about how to enter into the text.
Speaker 3:Right, because Fransman is this great exegete of the New Testament and actually of the Old Testament too. He's no slouch there. He actually writes all the minor prophet commentary that comes out in the 70s for that Concordia self-study thing that they put out. But he begins with saying what we share in common. He says Habbo believes these things. And then, before he goes into attacking Habbo and the issues with the argument, he says here are all the things he gets right. But the way he says it, it's not that he just gets him right. He said these are all the places where he is speaking in line with the church that has come before him. Here are all the places. And he doesn't just say this is it. He then goes and backs it up, like he's quoting Hubble, saying and here's where you can go find where he's actually on our side with this Right. And it's only after that, after he creates space at the table, after he says all of the things that that Hubble is saying, in line with the traditional interpretation of the church. It's only after that where he says here are some issues and. And then he goes to town on the issues, like he doesn't hold back.
Speaker 3:And and part of the reason why I think he he's able to do this is not just because Fransman has this reputation for being ironic and peaceful and loving, but I actually think he is loving, I actually think he cares about Norman Hobble and the perspective that he's trying to work through in that essay. And I say that in part because of what happens, sort of toward the end of Fransman's essay. Fransman says I think I caught him in a logical misstep. I think I've caught him, so we're going to hold judgment about this in abeyance until he's had a chance to think through it. In other words, I'm not going to drop the hammer, I'm not going to come down and say look, I gotcha, which is what our inclination naturally is to do. Right, to play the. I caught you in the trap, right? Not Fransman. No, I think I've caught him in a contradiction. I'm going to give him space Now.
Speaker 3:What's interesting is, after all this happens, hobble's document gets published with a foreword from Hobble, where he explains the background and talks about Fransman and his interaction. And he says you know, actually I've modified the position somewhat because of my interaction with him. Now he doesn't modify it enough for my own personal liking, but he modifies it. But beyond that he says you know, there were actually some issues that Fransman didn't even address publicly but he dealt with me personally and to me that suggests again that Fransman actually gave a rip about Norman Hoppe, that it wasn't just words.
Speaker 3:If Fransman was just interested in being right, he only needed the last third. He didn't need to set up the presuppositions, he didn't need to show where hobble was, was around, in concert with the traditional interpretation of the church. You didn't need to do any of that. He didn't need to hold his judgment in abeyance when he caught him in a logical contradiction. He didn't need to keep things private. But he does those things because he actually cares about the guy across the table and cares that that guy has a seat, that that guy has a voice, that that guy has a seat, that that guy has a voice, that that guy is allowed to actually like speak and not just be cast out.
Speaker 3:And so fast forward 12 years when the synod is in an uproar, and and Fransman's there trying to hold the sides together. He's just doing what he's always done Um, and and, and, and Fransman doing it with Hobble. That's not the first time he had to do it. I mean, he's got like this history of of trying to be the guy in the middle pulling people back together, um, and so I mean it might my, my work with Fransman just leads me to believe that we've sort of um, we used to know how to do this and, for whatever reason, we've just sort of forgotten um thanks for sharing that story, matt um, it's powerful and I don't.
Speaker 2:So let's get into maybe some of the why and uh, I don't think we fully grieved. Uh, the, the struggles, the division of seminex. I I'm friends with a lot of guys that are in retirement right now that just have a lot of wounds on either side. Right, it's the wounds that you know, we lost certain folks and there's the speaking from fear because, man, we never want to do that again. But I think, at the end of the day, ministry is about people and I like losing my brother and or my sister like this displeases the Lord. Right, like we should fight for one another way harder, and it has to start with a place of agreement on what we confess, and there's no one in the Missouri Synod. Could we talk about the 10 different things? I don't know, and I'm just again, I'm not in the room right now.
Speaker 2:Things start with leaders in rooms together. I don't know and I'll just speak in love. This is an invitation, this is all in love. I don't know and I'll just speak in love. This is an invitation, this is all in love. I don't know that we're disagreeing agreeably, that varying opinions are being held in our two seminaries and in the Council of Presidents. I don't know that we're making that space.
Speaker 2:If it doesn't start in those rooms, intellectual hospitality, caring for one another, we're going to become more and more tribal and really we just live with passive aggressive, we're just allowing passive aggressive behavior. And passive aggressive behavior means yeah, I've got this thought about you, I've put you, I've labeled you. Probably you're guilty by association because you've got a friend here. I don't actually know what you believe, but I've heard you know you roll with certain people and so I just don't have, don't have time for you. So collar guys, go to collar guys and other more. You know liberal edgy around the coast.
Speaker 2:They end up hanging with one another and I will give, I will give a shout out to my district president here, mike Gibson. He is working. I know there are other district presidents, but he is working very, very hard to bridge that divide, to listen twice as much as he speaks, and when he speaks he's trying for a uniting word there's just a fair amount of. We just lack trust. The building block for all relationships is trust, man. I think cultivating intellectual hospitality is the best way, fransman attempt. That's the best way for us to agree on what is most important, jack, anything to add to?
Speaker 4:that before we get back to Matt. So this is a question I ask myself a lot. This is strange, but I keep asking myself this question and I don't know the answer to it. But the fact that it's a question that bugs me all the time I think is important to note. Would Martin Luther himself be welcome in our church body? Is there enough intellectual hospitality that even Martin Luther himself, with his positions, would have been welcomed in this church body? And that's something that I keep asking myself. Are, you know, are our confessional positions so rigid that Martin Luther would struggle to fit into this church body? That's, I asked that question. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's an interesting question that we ought to ask ourselves when we think about how we deal with the positions that we hold we think about how we deal with the positions that we hold.
Speaker 3:I mean it's um, it's interesting because I think about my time at seminary and, um, my journey through seminary was a little different, right, because I went um, I did two years and got fed up and quit and then came back um two years later, did a quarter, went on vicarage and came back for my last two quarters. So I didn't have the normal sort of like these are my guys from first year and we're all going together. Right, the class I graduated with is not the class I started with. Now I have relationships throughout my time, don't get me wrong but but I don't have the same sort of like oh, these are my brothers from first year that all a lot of guys coming out of seminary have. Right, I mean, this is the sort of the one of the selling points on residential education, the bonds you make, the relationships you form, it and and and they are they, they, they, they go with you. I mean all my kids' godparents are pastors, like that's not by accident, right, I mean those relationships are fundamental. And so I think about, like my own time at seminary and the relationships I have, even being different than most guys. And then I think about what I learned at seminary, specifically with regard to Seminex and I'm not going to name the professor, but, but he said the result of Seminex is basically this Congratulations, you're right. Now no one trusts anyone, and that's basically sums it up, right? I mean when, when, when we solve theological debates through political means, right, when we say we're just going to fire you, and then for the next, like 20 years plus sort of joke, that like well, if you had stuck around, maybe you could have fought more, like, if we're just going to act that way, congratulations, you're right. If we're just going to act that way, congratulations, you're right. Like, the side that did not walk, theologically speaking, is the side that I'm on by virtue of the fact that I'm part of the Missouri Synod. So theologically I have a stake in this Right. But but the heritage I have from it is now, well, pastors don't trust each other unless they really knew each other at SEM. And even then, right, even then it's a question mark because of the things that are allowed to fester. And then when you look at Missouri Synod history, post-walkout, like the fallout, with the district presidents being removed, and then you fast forward to the 80s and the issues that were coming to the fore toward the end of the 80s with Fort Wayne and what happens with Robert Price and his forcible retirement, and the way that we carry narratives through actually influences how people see one another. And, and unless we're going to like be open and honest about the uglier parts of history too, we're never going to move on from sort of the result that that came in the wake of certain decisions, unless we actually like have it out and say, okay, yes, the conservative side is right, but actually they had some dirty pool too, and I'll put this out there right.
Speaker 3:I, in my time as a pastor, serve I serve north of Baltimore. Now I serve south of DC, but I've been in Maryland the whole time and there are groups that are inter Lutheran groups and one of the we don't pray together. This is not worship service stuff, this is like mercy work type of stuff. And so early on I was at a meeting of one of these groups and I saw someone I recognized but I couldn't quite put his face, and then I figured it out. This is somebody who is instrumental in the walkout on the student body side. I'm not going to tell you his name because I haven't told him that I'm telling the story. But I walk up to him I say, hey, are you? And he's like, yeah, I am. And so we started having a conversation and and he tells me that he and others were called in to um, the, the, the synod president's office on jefferson avenue at the time, and said and we're told that they would be given really nice calls if they rolled over on professors, if, if they, if they sold them out, they'd be given calls.
Speaker 3:Now I have no way to verify this story and if people want to come at me for breaking the Eighth Commandment, you'll have my email at the end of the show. But the point is, this is the story he's telling and this is why I'm telling the story, right, this is his perspective as somebody who was a student at the time. And if we're not willing to admit that even the side that we think is right has some dirt under their fingernails, how are we ever going to like have a hope of trying to repair any trust If we won't even admit that we sinned and I say we because I'm on that side Yep, right, so we, if, if we're going to rebuild trust, we have to start by saying, okay, yeah, everybody's got some dirt under their fingernails. If we're actually going to rebuild trust, we actually have to, like, open out and care about the other person and care about ourselves enough to say this was wrong. Now, how do we build out from here? How do we actually cultivate trust?
Speaker 2:Yes, yes, I agree, and this was a struggle in the. I mean, let's talk about Jesus, let's talk about the early church. I was reading through Romans today and it's such a masterful letter on so many levels, obviously theological, but also sociological. We're talking about merging Jew and Gentile and I love in Romans I think it's 13, right, and maybe it's the end of 12 into 13. But Paul's talking about the eating meat and he said let those who if it's their conscience not to eat meat, if it's going to hurt my brother, like that's fine.
Speaker 2:Anything that does not flow from faith is sin. I love that statement. Right, if it doesn't flow from faith, it's sin. So we all, if we've got a problem with our brother, we've got. We are dirty Like I have sin.
Speaker 2:All of life is confession and absolution. I don't know why this is so. This should be like the easiest thing for us as confessing Lutherans. I, a poor, miserable sinner of sin and thought, word and deed by what I've done, let me say this by what I've done and I think we got way more sins of omission and by what I have failed to do, failing to go to my brother, failing to go Matthew 18 with him and failing to work toward unity, work toward reconciliation.
Speaker 2:This is the work of Jesus, reconciling us to God. We didn't do the work. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. If we can't get this right, we're not church right, I give you, let's just go to the office of the keys. I've given you this gift of forgiveness to be shared one to another, as I've forgiven you gift of forgiveness to be shared one to another, as I've forgiven you, go and forgive one another. So there is this, and a lot of times we think theologically well, this is a passive thing, this is an emotional thing. If you don't deal with the matters of the heart, the matters of offense, um, you're, you're not, you can be. Last statement here you can be right in all of the wrong ways. In 1 Corinthians 13,. We should read it love is patient, love is kind, patient with one another, and the Fransman story just highlights that to the nth degree, anything more, matt on Jesus' approach and the approach of the early church toward theological hospitality church towards theological hospitality.
Speaker 3:One of the reasons I love the fact that my kids are in church with me leading every Sunday is they get to hear their dad say I, a poor, miserable sinner, I'm the one that leads the confession. Right? So, like I want to model for my kids that, hey, it's okay to confess, especially in this space. Right, if anybody, if any denomination, if any label, should not be afraid to confess their sins.
Speaker 3:It's us right, I mean flat out if we actually believe that Article 4 of the Augsburg Confession is the thing on which the church rises or falls, then confession should not be an issue at all. And so I'm glad my kids get to hear their dad say that and recognize that they may love their dad, but they know he's a sinner more than anyone and and and I know it too Right, um. But like to to go back to the the. The point you made about um, like you, can be right in all the wrong ways. This, this is something, um, I picked up from St Augustine or St Augustine, depending on who you're voting for, right. So, st Augustine, he, he said something to the effect of if you read the scriptures and you get the right meaning, but it hasn't shaped your love in the right way, you have not understood them Right. But if you've read them wrong and your heart has been shaped for love in the right way, well then, actually you're further ahead. It's almost as if. It's almost as if the church fathers, it's almost as if Luther himself, in talking about the Holy spirit, rightly dividing law and gospel, and and like having to go to work on you. It's almost as if we believe that the text is supposed to shape us Like and and this is the thing where, where we sort of like miss the point on question, on like discussions about inerrancy, and and we reduce it to like intellectual things. The whole point about saying the text is given by god is that god's got some work to do on you, like, and if you're starting from a position of I'm the master of the text, either in terms of I'm the master and telling you what's right and that it is the inspired and errant word of God, or I'm the master telling you how all of this was put together over the course of time, and I can, you know, jdep with the rest of them Like missing the point. The point is the text reads you, it calls you out, it shapes you, and if it's not doing that, maybe you need to start reading a little slower. Um, the problem's not the text, the problem's you. And and this is this is the other thing that franzman draws out, not in in the interaction with Hobble, but in an interaction he has like a decade earlier.
Speaker 3:So Fransman comes to the Missouri Synod from Wisconsin. He's a product of the Wisconsin Synod, but he comes into the Missouri Synod in the late 40s. He becomes a professor of New Testament, at the 7th St Louis, and in the 50s, wisconsin and Missouri. They're still in the Synodical Conference. We're still saying we're all on the same page together. Right, we're still walking together as the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of North America, right, well, the rumblings are there, right, the struggles are there, the struggles over. You know. Know, should we remain in fellowship? Um, are, should we allow boy scouts? Should we allow prayer? Felt like all these things are starting starting to come up and there's, there's tension at that synodical conference meeting.
Speaker 3:And so franzman is brought in to speak, to give the doctrinal essay at the convention, and he does it on Ephesians 4, maintaining the unity of spirit and the bond of peace. And he's got this extended section where he goes off on forbearing with one another in love, and he has this line that love is the beginning of heaven on earth. Right, and he sort of waxes poetic, as he often does, because he's a poet, about love and what it does. And and then he, he sort of then goes to work on his hearers and says all of us like we, we do things so by the book, they're so correct, and yet they're so wrong and none of us is really taking seriously the other guy as a brother. And then he tells a story and he says to begin, at home, I know a man with horn-rimmed glasses, a tall, thin man with horn-rimmed glasses, and it's clear he's talking about himself.
Speaker 3:And even though Fransman is like rightly calling people out, he starts with himself that actually I had no right to call the guy across the table my brother because I wasn't forbearing with him in love. I wasn't actually like in prayer for him, I wasn't actually like thinking about him, talking to him. I knew that he belonged to another synod and his school had a really annoyingly good basketball team. I mean, this is what he says, but but I wasn't actually like caring about him, I had no right to say he was my brother. And so Fransman like then puts it. After starting with himself, he puts it to the assembly. Do we have any right to call each other brother if we're not actually like loving one another, if we're not actually engaged with one another? And while his words are not necessarily available online, if you reach out to me I can tell you where you can find them because it's worth reading.
Speaker 3:The whole section is worth reading, sections worth reading. It's just, it's again. It's a masterclass in churchmanship and saying if we're going to fix things, it begins with me. Which is why I love the questions from Goliath, because they're framed in such a way to say help me understand what I am missing. So often in conversations we jump to the person across the table being the problem. What if I'm the problem? Have I stopped to consider that If I confess every Sunday that I'm a poor, miserable sinner, well then chances are I could be part of the problem For sure? So maybe I need to stop and listen and learn something new. Maybe something needs to like start to go to work on me too, and this is why I found Franzman so utterly valuable, just personally is it?
Speaker 4:is it possible that the fact that there's so much closeness on certain things within Lutheranism, let's say that when there are some distinctions or divisions, it makes it that much more painful to deal with for people?
Speaker 3:oh, I think so, think so, I mean I.
Speaker 3:So, um, I am the associate editor of the um the forum letter, which also means I get to moderate their online, the ALPB's online forum, which is just wild, um, I mean it's, it's, it's fun, um, but you get to see all sorts of Lutherans interacting right, lutherans in the ELCA going after other Lutherans in the ELCA, lutherans in the LCMS going after other, and then in between Right, and in all of my journeys, whether that was doing my STM at an ELCA seminary or in my interactions with folks in the ELCA or outside of the ELCA, because I have sort of a wider birth than just the Lutheran circles that I've taken a dip in Every time I step into circles that are not the LCMS. I am so utterly grateful to be part of the LCMS because we are so unbelievably close on so much on the things that matter beyond all others, like when I was at Northern Seminary doing an MA, there was a guy in my class who was an avowed Arian in terms of like Arius and the Council of Nicaea.
Speaker 2:Wow, Can't do that. And it's like, yeah, no man.
Speaker 3:The church sort of already had a conversation about this and your side lost. Um, yeah, but like when I'm in lcms circles, it's, it's almost like, at the same time, that much more infuriating, because I don't think we see it. I don't think we see how close we are. I mean, the ELCA is. The ELCA is a massive tent. It's a big tent. Everybody, everybody's welcome, unless you're not. But like, right, it's it. Every position can carve out space, which is why just saying an ELCA congregation is X, y or Z is problematic, because a lot of ELCA congregations don't actually jive with what's going on at the national level.
Speaker 4:You've actually got to like it's a big spectrum.
Speaker 3:It's a massive spectrum we are, so we are like find me a pastor in the LCMS that denies the resurrection. Good luck, You're not going to find it.
Speaker 4:You could in the ELCA, though Theoretically yeah.
Speaker 3:Theoretically, yeah, going to find it because you could in the elca, though. Theoretically, yeah, theoretically, yeah, I I mean right, but we are so close and and and I, I think, I think you're right to point it out jack, that when there are differences, they become magnified to really unhealthy levels. Right, rather than seeing that like, hey, this is, this is my brother in christ. I mean like the fact that we won't have conversation, or like like the fact that, um, you know, theoretically speaking, anybody on the roster could come fill my pulpit, right, but I might have reservations about a few guys. I mean, are we a senate or not? Right, like, oh, he's together, it's like it's, it's, it's, it's. It's the question of if we believe that or not. Do we actually believe that we're all on the same page? Because, uh, from where I sit, in terms of what augsburg confession of confesses, in terms of what the apology defends, in terms of what the the formula actually uplifts as the right interpretation of Augsburg, we are so close it's not even funny.
Speaker 4:Right. So let's give an example. Two pastors in our synod could both eagerly say I agree with the entire Book of Concord, no problem, no reservations. And yet they have different worship styles, more traditional, more contemporary. And somebody may say, well, that's just not the right way to do worship and I feel like nobody should do it that way. Right, and there can be a lot of division on that topic, Right, and people can get angry about that topic, despite the fact that both pastors eagerly you know very, very eagerly say I adhere to the entire book of Concord, no reservations whatsoever, right.
Speaker 2:Role of women Right the administration of the Lord's table. There's some diverse opinions there.
Speaker 4:The role of the pastor, the fact that you adhere to that confession. I don't think people realize how much unity that is. That is a tremendous, tremendous, tremendous.
Speaker 2:What I'm saying is we love to talk about those issues, those, and it's like I think there's a lot of Christian freedom on a number of those issues and there should be a lot of conversation that takes place, but we should be super charitable. Go ahead, matt.
Speaker 3:Well, I mean, this is, this is where those questions come in, right? So so so the the guy who's who's Uber, um, you know, uber contemporary in terms of his instrumentation or order of service, and the guy who's the exact opposite. Help me understand what's at stake here for you, right? Why do you react so vehemently against the other? And now, when it comes to worship my own personal piety, I lean high church. I do, and that doesn't mean I can't find value in other expressions. For me, the thing that drives worship, whether I'm high church or not, is what Norman Nagel has to say about worship, and that is you know, christ speaks and we listen. His word bestows what it says. So if this is the thing that's guiding, well then, hey, I recognize that certain people connect other ways and other people connect other ways. If the whole point is, on either end of the spectrum, this is the way we have to do it, because of the law, or whatever, well, we need to have a conversation. If it's this is the way we have to do it because of the law or whatever, well, we need to have a conversation. Um, if, if it's this is the best way to attract people, we need to have a conversation right, if it's christ and his gifts are coming, that's where we need to start, and if we can start from that basis, well then we can have a fruitful conversation.
Speaker 3:Because some, some brothers, might see in, you know, fog, machines and lights, um, a distraction of, of, uh, you know, veering away from looking at Christ and what he has to give, and I can, I can understand that.
Speaker 3:At the same time, people who are too wrapped up in 16th century expressions can obscure Christ, as funny as that may sound to their ears, if they're speaking a language that is different from the language today. To be truly Catholic in the universal sense is to welcome expression across all time. All time. It's not just me and my moment here now. It's actually with the church at all times and all places, which is the church yesterday, today and tomorrow, and there are going to be expressions of the faith and of worship that you and I are not going to see that we might have issues with. That actually still might be in line with Christ delivering his gifts to the people on a Sunday morning, which is the whole point of why any of us are there anyway to receive from Christ what he has to give disconcerting areas um not in fear, but in, in the confidence that that actually we're on the same page here, so like hey, you know go ahead, go ahead.
Speaker 3:No, no, no.
Speaker 3:Finish the thought it's cool I'm just saying like, if, if we operate in a place of fear, there's an issue, and I wonder what we're afraid of. There's no pastor in the LCMS who preaches that the tomb is closed, that the tomb had a body in it, that Christ is not ascended and sitting at the right hand of the Father. From thence he will come to judge the living and the dead. There is no LCMS pastor who doesn't preach that, who doesn't believe that, and if there are, we would all be the first to say that's a problem. So if we actually believe that Christ is Lord of his church, if we're all on the same page there, why can we not have these discussions? If the tomb's empty, we've got nothing to be afraid of. If the tomb's empty, we've got nothing to be afraid of Amen.
Speaker 2:Well so, well said.
Speaker 2:One of the biggest struggles today and this has fed the lack of trust is the prior approval process, and so I want to close just talking about that.
Speaker 2:You've you've written a resolution that may get into your district, other districts, to bring more transparency to the prior approval process, because I know, I know brothers in the circles that I've run in that are just remarkable leaders churchmen, theologians but because they didn't check all of the whatever boxes that that group is kind of, you know, from an identity bias, you're not in the right group, so you can't be a part of the search for whatever the position happens to be and there's just a lack of transparency. I think and this is not so. Let me just be very blunt. This is not an assault on President Matthew Harrison. This is just a conversation about how the process has been set up, but we're not here to demonize him or anybody else. That's a part of it. We'd just love to have more transparency so that the breadth of leaders can serve the breadth of the LCMS. So say more about that, matt, the breadth of the LCMS.
Speaker 3:So say more about that, matt. Yeah, so I mean, I've I've had, I, I've known people who have gone through the process and they've been denied and and and. When I, when I hear their story, it leaves me with questions. And and I'm not trying to undermine anyone in the process, with, with the creation of this resolution what I'm what I'm trying to say is I recognize the need to have it right, like we should be concerned about who's preaching and teaching. This is part and parcel to the LCMS, this is part and parcel to our DNA. Like, yes, we should always be concerned about who's teaching whom. Right, fair enough. How do we go about having the conversation about who's fit for that? That's what I'm interested in. I'm not interested in undoing prior approval, I'm interested in supporting it. So let's have a public conversation about the standards that we are attaching.
Speaker 3:And here's what this comes down to. I don't understand how someone who is deemed not theologically sound enough to teach at a school, teach at a Concordia, teach at the seminary, somebody who is not deemed worthy of that, why would we let them be in a congregation? Sure, like, if they're not theologically sound enough to teach other people how to do it? Why are we okay with them hanging out in congregations? This seems to me to be speaking out of both sides of our mouth, and it seems to me that prior approval might actually not be about theological purity. It might be about something else. What thing is? I don't know, um, but if, if, if we're, if we're actually concerned that the truth is is what's being taught, and that's the reason why the guy's not getting through well then why are we letting him stick around in a congregation where he could really do some damage right, where he could actually affect someone's, someone's soul? So the the resolution as a whole, it's not um dismissive. I'd be happy to share a copy with anybody who wants to see it.
Speaker 3:Um, I'm not dismissive of anything in terms of the work that goes into it. I, I, I, I. I do not want to sit on the prior approval panel and be the guy making these decisions. That sounds absolutely horrible and a no win, no matter what you do, right, Um, I, I do not envy Matt Harrison's job in the least and I I regularly pray for him publicly in the assembly because he is the president of my church body. Right, I would gladly kneel at the rail alongside him and listen to him preach, because he is a brother in Christ. This is not about him in the least. This is asking the question why is it that we have one standard for one office and another standard for another, when actually the people in all of these offices have promised to preach and teach in accord with the confessional standard of our church body? So either you don't believe they're doing it, in which case we need to like involve the dp why are they still go through the process?
Speaker 3:exactly, or or we need to codify the standards and say this is what's going on. So that's my concern. But again, this comes from a position of I'm assuming the assumption I make about you. Tim Jack, I can't make the assumption about you yet because you're not ordained the assumption.
Speaker 4:I make about you.
Speaker 3:Tim, is that you actually believe what you've professed in your ordination vows Facts? That when you were installed you weren't lying, Right that's?
Speaker 4:a good assumption.
Speaker 3:So of every other church worker. I'm making the same assumption that you actually believe your ordination vows and seek to live by them, that you believe your consecration vows and seek to live by them. So if we're starting from that position, then then yeah, prior approval, okay, good. If we're starting from a different position, maybe we need to have a conversation publicly, because it's the church that has entrusted to the synod this work. It's the church body as a whole has entrusted a few people with this. It's not these people get to do whatever they want. It is the synod in convention. It's the church in convention that that gets to speak to these issues.
Speaker 3:So I would like to see the church, you know, gathered in convention, outline the process publicly so we can know what we're, what we're, what we're empowering people to do and how we're empowering them to do it, and that we're not undercutting the very thing we believe we have. If we actually believe that everybody on the roster, who has been looked at, who's been examined, who has has, you know, been put through their, their paces to be able to be on the roster at all, like we do actually trust them or not and and the fact of the matter is, we know trust is at an all time low generally speaking. But if, if, if somebody like says something that sounds a little off, I would hope that we take Fransman's approach and give them a chance to explain themselves that that we would actually like engage in dialogue and not just be dismissive that maybe they are trying to express something we hold dear in a different way, because that's possible too.
Speaker 4:Right, yeah, let me ask you a question, and it's a little bit of a question of ignorance on my part because I'm not an insider to the, to the, to the process. So the prior approval process right now is vetting people theologically, is that correct?
Speaker 3:It's vetting people for positions.
Speaker 4:I think that's about all you can say, but the positions they vet for are presidents and theological faculty Gotcha, so they're not saying this person's not fit because they don't know how to do budgets or something like that.
Speaker 3:So far as I know. Yes, so far as I know.
Speaker 2:Gotcha, no-transcript.
Speaker 2:The prior approvals should take a look at their track record to be sure and if something comes out that there is a violation of those said vows, they and I love this, it's in your resolution they should have the opportunity to speak, for them to defend themselves, and it should be.
Speaker 2:We've got a very public process. If you look in the Constitution of the Senate I mean the resolution the reconciliation path is very well articulated and I've talked to district presidents that are like, yeah, that's really, really helpful. It becomes public and there is an opportunity for defense and if they have sinned or if they've gone against our common confession, they don't agree with their ordination vows, then there is an opportunity for them to move into another sin or whatever right. I mean there's a process that's analyzed there. Unfortunately, it's taking place without a lot of justification for why said person was removed from said list and it can be frustrating for presidents and those trying to lead in various, not just in our universities or seminaries, but also in terms of leadership positions in Senate in general. So yeah, it's just a call for more transparency. Transparency will build trust, that's for sure.
Speaker 4:So transparency would be. We're going to reveal why this person has been considered if you move them up and maybe this is where my ignorance.
Speaker 2:Maybe, maybe the committee and I'd love to get someone from the prior approval committee to just come on and help where we don't understand. Clearly, this would be wonderful, but maybe the conversation is had with said Concordia University president and that just needs to remain confidential. If that's actually happening, I'd love to hear that as well. So, matt, anything more to say there, as we're coming down the tail stretch here.
Speaker 3:I mean, it's just it's. It's one of those things like the the prior approval process becomes gatekeeping in in really problematic ways, because it doesn't. I don't think the intent is of the, the the process to say this is the person you have to choose, right, that that should be left to the university, right?
Speaker 4:exactly so, like the budget skills thing.
Speaker 3:I don't think that should factor in. I mean, like that, right, that should be something that's handled the the process, the whole point of prior approval is to say, yeah, generally speaking in the church, this person is fit for this kind of service. Not you have to pick this person, but like, let's say, you put five names out there and only one goes through. Well, they just picked right. Yeah, right, they just picked the person. And I, and I think that usurps a little of the local power, um, and maybe usurp is too strong a word, I'll, I'll, I'll, take it my flack for that, rightly. But but I think, if, if you, you know, if 11 names are going in and only two are coming out, well, then you're playing hiring committee, you're not, you're not yeah, that and that's what I'm getting at.
Speaker 4:So like, would there be a position regarding missions, for example, that that goes to the prior approval process, right, and maybe there's a pastor on there that that's nominated but he's got no, really like he's not really done a lot of mission, that we would say? So they may say, well, this doesn't seem like a good fit, even though he's a faithful pastor. Still, um, you know, that seems to be more of an administrative thing, more than a theological issue I would hope that those who make hiring decisions that we've empowered to make hiring decisions we trust to do their job on that basis.
Speaker 4:Yes, yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, amen, all right. Well, this has been good. I appreciate your work. We need more intellectual and theological hospitality. If people want to connect with you, matt, how can they do so?
Speaker 3:I'm on Facebook, I'm on Twitter you have to follow me on Twitter and I have to approve you. But or you could just email me mattborasso B-O-R-A-S-S-O at gmailcom, and I'm happy to interact with anybody. If you cuss me out, I probably won't respond, but I'm happy to interact with anybody. If you cuss me out, I probably won't respond, but I'm happy to have a conversation and to try and put into practice the things that I'm advocating for. I mean, I don't just think it's like historically interesting. I think this stuff could actually, like you know, help us and that doesn't mean I'm perfect at it, by no means. But but like I I see in Fransman somebody who could teach us to do the kinds of things we need to be doing in this cultural moment, in this moment in the life of the Synod. So the more I can commend him to you, the more I will go. Just go read him, don't? I mean, listen to this one, listen to this podcast, listen to to lead time, but then, like, go read Fransman and he'll just he'll help us out tremendously.
Speaker 2:Amen and just so you're. You can hopefully just take these three questions. This is kind of the main intent. What do you believe? So help me understand better on. What information is that based on? I need to broaden my awareness and what moral priorities is that built upon? Help me understand what is at stake from your perspective. This is lead time. We're trying to set up more and more conversations. If you've got diverse opinions regarding something we've said or not said, we'd love to have you hit us up my email talman at cglchurchorg. Talman at cglchurchorg. I'm a pastor at Christ Greenfield in Gilbert, Arizona, and you're free to listen to us and provide opportunities for us to grow, just so we can kind of do the same for you and your context. We're better together.
Speaker 2:Collaboration in ministry takes all the different kinds of churches to reach all different types of people. Why? Because the United States of America is very diverse. We need all different sorts of leaders under the one common confession Jesus Christ is, is Lord. It's a good day. Go and make it a great day. This is lead time. Thanks, Jack, Thanks Matt, Good work.
Speaker 1:You've been listening to lead time, a podcast of the unite leadership collective. The ULC's mission is to collaborate with the local church to discover, develop and deploy leaders through biblical Lutheran doctrine and innovative methods to partner with us in this gospel message. Subscribe to our channel, then go to theuniteleadershiporg to create your free login for exclusive material and resources and then to explore ways in which you can sponsor an episode. Thanks for listening and stay tuned for next week's episode.