ScottG asked before his post vanished:No one knows.
So what will happen to Pastor Kind? If they are selling the property will there still be a ULC in another building? Or is he going to be pushed to take another call? How is this all factored in?
Why couldn't the BOD wait until next year's District Convention to get their approval before selling?
This must be the answer - they want the money, and they don't want the sale stopped.
Moreover, if MNS does not desperately need the money then, given the depressed market climate, is it fiduciarily responsible to sell at this time?
Then why sell the chapel?
Then why sell the chapel?
Because MNS wants to go in a different direction regarding campus ministry.
But that's not the issue. The issue is "Why the big hurry to sell?"
Have either of you addressed this issue with Pres. Fondow?
Because MNS wants to go in a different direction regarding campus ministry.
But that's not the issue. The issue is "Why the big hurry to sell?"
Rev. Kirchner,
Assuming your answer above is correct, then haven't you also answered your own question too?
Have either of you addressed this issue with Pres. Fondow?
Moreover, if MNS does not desperately need the money then, given the depressed market climate, is it fiduciarily responsible to sell at this time?
The one thing I would note is that if he's thinking himself obscure because he's in a small and declining parish, he really is not all alone. In fact, he's in the company of thousands of other pastors.
No, Mr. Erdner, that is NOT his "job". His job is to preach the Word, to baptize, absolve, to commune, to teach. To be a steward of the mysteries of God. If he does that then he is a good and faithful servant, regardless of numbers and dollars.
Mr. Erdner,
With all due respect, if you truly think that preaching the Word, absolving, baptizing, communing, teaching only happens on Sunday then you have no idea what those things actually entail.
That would be a question for Prs. Bohler & Kirchner since they both have MNN DP Fondow's ear as pastors in his district.
I have to agree with you--gladly. And has the MN North District, which put up half of the dough for the U of Minn ministry, been told by MN South why South by itself can sell off your common enterprise?
Peace,
Michael
No, Mr. Erdner, that is NOT his "job". His job is to preach the Word, to baptize, absolve, to commune, to teach. To be a steward of the mysteries of God. If he does that then he is a good and faithful servant, regardless of numbers and dollars.
Some nice thoughts in there, Quenstedt, aime dmostly at level two (middle judicatory, ie District in Missouri). In the world of sauce/goose/sauce/gander, however, when you aim at level one (parishes), you'll find one of the toughest nuts to crack in non-hierarchical denominations is the property attachment that St. John Gaspump has even when its 18 members are three blocks from St. Steven's and its 27 members, with their two big steeples falling down toward one another. Give me a hand with a few of those situations. And any new arrivals, as in the 42,000 from other countries of origin, are not welcome in either place. Or, go to level three (national) and ask how decisions get made on closing a college that's draining the coffers, or consolidating (oh, no, not that!) seminaries that together have $40 million operating budgets. Because the worker "glut" isn't a real worker glut. It's a parishioner/parish debit, a shortfall that is becoming more and more severe.
I was struck on the Prime ThreadLeader on this topic, Steadfast Lutherans, by Pr. Martin Noland's observation about himself - "but I am an obscure and ostracized pastor serving a small and declining parish." That's not a good thing, is it? That's sad. The one thing I would note is that if he's thinking himself obscure because he's in a small and declining parish, he really is not all alone. In fact, he's in the company of thousands of other pastors.
To the side of the thread, I guess, but it's always on my mind from the perspective of an ardent local practitioner signing folks up for catechesis.
Dave Benke
Although I'm going to opine that the real consolidation issues are at level one and I won't let go of it, my response to your query, SW, is that the people who seemed most opposed to the consolidation of districts prior to the last convention were folks from the Waltherian side of the aisle who wanted 100 districts of 60 parishes with part-time ecclesiastical supervisors. A nightmarish scenario in many ways, but nonetheless the one desired by the ultra-Waltherians.
Dave Benke
I have no mouse in this maze, but was a little uncomfortable when the fast-talking pastor (a former sideshow barker? a side job making infomercials for 3 a.m. TV? "But wait! There's more!") used Luther's hymn to call the district officials "the old evil foe," (and we know who that is). But maybe that's more common among you guys than among the rest of us. ;D ;D
Checking young Pr. Fisk's parish assignment in Pa. at lcms.org, his video skills apparently haven't yet translated into any gains in the worshiping assembly, or maybe better have grabbed time away from turning in any of that pesky data. One never knows when that time spent commenting on goings-on in Minnesota will pay off in Pennsylvania, though.Gee, I thought we were called to be faithful and spread the Word. Rev. Fisk does an excellent job of using new media (YouTube) to do just that. The numbers are up to God, not us.
Dave Benke
There is the appearance of "circle the wagons" when one of our own is under fire. And I'm not talking about folks defending Fisk - as if he honestly needed ANY defense.I agree with your comment. So, what would be a better approach?
I'm on this site for the same reason you are, to engage that "world" with the Gospel of hope.
That's interesting, Deaconess - I absolutely get that in terms of the reach of the web/youtube, and the etherworld in general. I'm on this site for the same reason you are, to engage that "world" with the Gospel of hope. And the edgy Pr. Fisk communicates with beats and vibes that are useful and which I myself use. This is all good.I recommend you read the following:
What I wonder about is the connection to life on the streets in Pa., that's all. Because whatever I do here pales dramatically in comparison to hanging out with 100 sets of parents from Brooklyn who come to "Meet/Greet" nite as they did yesterday evening. The immediacy of the personal touch and the real--life relationship is still at the heart of it as far as I'm concerned.
There is grounds for dialog there, of course, because it's easier for me to have an online conversation with the Bklyn young people on my Facebook friends list or by text than it is to get them to communicate in person. Weird (I think) but true. But as I tell them, to recieve the Body and Blood of Christ at the altar, you have to show up in person.
Dave Benke
Pastor Fisk is the Directory of Mission Development for Philadelphia Lutheran Ministries as well as pastor of St.John Springfield.
The desire to take on the role of the accuser of the brethren comes straight from the pit of hell. See Revelation 12:10. Both conservatives and moderates can be tempted to take on this role. I have no dog in this fight, but do note that a number of posts (from both points of view) appear to be influenced by the accuser of the brethren.
FWIW, a post that attributes activities of others to Satan, the "accuser of the brethren," should not be made anonymously.
QuoteFWIW, a post that attributes activities of others to Satan, the "accuser of the brethren," should not be made anonymously.
I'm sure that it is even possible that my own post was influenced by the evil one. So, you might be right. Mea Culpa! The human heart is the most deceitful of all things, and desperately wicked. Who really knows how bad it is? (Jeremiah 17:9) I stand at the cross of Jesus pleading for forgiveness and mercy.
Actually George,
I believe my sin was to usurp the position of the moderator of this Forum.
Actually George,
I believe my sin was to usurp the position of the moderator of this Forum.
I don't think so. I suspect you are mistaken about that. As someone who has been participating in here for years, and who is therefore reasonably familiar with common attitudes and perceptions of other long term members, I am more inclined to believe that the participant who called you to task for posting what you posted anonymously meant what he said, with no hidden meanings laid between the lines.
That's merely my impression. I do not claim infallibility.
Of course, if Johannes Andreas Quenstedt is not your real name, and you have been a participant in the forum under another name and created an alias account using that name, then you have a hell of a lot of nerve to even mention correcting anyone about 8th commandment violations. On the other hand, if you are not a former participant joining under a new alias, then that observation would not apply to you.
Maybe this is what Pastor Benke had in mind in regards to our use of YouTube...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMkLUzssMFU
Bear with me it's my first one.
Pax,
Scott+
He does a great job of reaching today's youth especially.
The reason provided is that the mission budget is tight and the district wants to take campus ministry in a new direction, away from dedicated campus ministry congregations with facilities on the campuses they serve. Instead, they propose providing $5,000 grants to congregations near campuses to come up with means to minister to college students. This new system would be administered at the district level by a Campus Ministry Facilitator. Since dedicated congregations would not be needed in the new system, the proceeds from the sale of the current properties would be used to fund this system and its staff.
In the district's materials on the financial reasons for this move, it appears as though the two MN-S campus ministries are a huge drain on the district mission finances. However, the spreadsheets fail to account for the rental income received on the ULC property which almost completely offset the expenses for that campus ministry. CLC's pastor is called by MN-S and his salary package is paid for out of district mission funds. ULC's pastor is called by ULC and his salary package is paid by the congregation. When it comes down to brass tacks, ULC costs the MN-S a net expense of less than $15,000. It can hardly be said that ULC is any sort of financial drain on the district mission funds.
Thanks; this is helpful. I have no dog in this hunt but ask from curiousity, "Who pays for the maintainence of that $3.2M property?" Given the age and value, I would think mainainence costs could be substantial.
This doesn't follow. Not, that is, unless current levels of spending at district are a non-negotiable, that the shrinking of the district budget (without shrinking the total support for missions, since the congregations send the funds directly) is unthinkable. Only then "must" they recoup the money.
What has been suggested is that because confessional congregations and individuals have stopped giving to MN-S District mission funds (and have been giving directly to the organizations they choose to support instead), that there is a financial crisis (which the Treasurer denied last spring was the situation, mind you). And unfortunately, ULC (and CLC - though ULC has a much higher market value) must be sold to recoup those losses.
Nothing at all is wrong. Nor is it wrong for the district to invest in something else.
If the property is such a drain on the district, why doesn't the district simply give the property to the congregation and let THEM deal with the expenses?
ULC's building is a district asset. The district is being offered $3,200,000 for the ULC property. According to the article I read, ULC reaches 50 students a year. That amounts to a subsidy of $60,000 per student per year. 50 students, out of 30,000 students on the campus.
Well, not really. At a $15,000 net annual cost to the District,
Truly, we have forsaken our "first love."
Is that all it costs the district? While we are in a much different climate, and have, I presume, less building space, our utilities are about $18,000. Where does the pastor's salary/housing/pension, etc. come from? That certainly would be more than $15,000 -- and not something that 50 students could afford.
I don't think that our "first love" is supposed to be a building or maintaining a building.
I don't think that our "first love" is supposed to be a building or maintaining a building.
Exactly my point, Pr. Stroffregen. Thank you.
Well, not really. At a $15,000 net annual cost to the District,
Is that all it costs the district? While we are in a much different climate, and have, I presume, less building space, our utilities are about $18,000. Where does the pastor's salary/housing/pension, etc. come from? That certainly would be more than $15,000 -- and not something that 50 students could afford.
According to the article I read, ULC reaches 50 students a year.
And then there is this: does the Minnesota South District have the legal right to dispose of the University Lutheran Church without a concurrent resolution from the Minnesota North District?
According to the article I read, ULC reaches 50 students a year.
According to the article I read:
"More than 100 University of Minnesota students regularly visit the church, making up roughly half of the congregation’s members."
http://www.mndaily.com/2011/09/19/dinkytown-church-close-make-room-new-complex
According to the newspaper article, there are 200 people in worship, 100 of which are students.
Still, my argument stands. The property is worth a lot of money. The question the District Board needs to ask is: is this the right use of a valuable resource? Is this good stewardship? Is this the best model for campus ministry?
The question the District Board needs to ask is: is this the right use of a valuable resource? Is this good stewardship? Is this the best model for campus ministry?
Is there a better model for campus ministry among Lutherans than to have a chapel, served by a full-time pastor, where students can regularly and readily be fed and nourished by our Lord?
The contemporary ones. The students seem to prefer the liturgical orthodox services that they get at ULC.
Which of those are not suitable for LCMS college students to worship at?
According to the LCMS website, these congregations are within 5 miles of the Zip Code where the University of Minnesota is located.
Emmaus Lutheran Church, SAINT PAUL, MN
Evangelical Mekane Yesus Church Fellowship in Minnesota, SAINT PAUL, MN
Faith Lutheran Church, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Grace International Lutheran Church, ROBBINSDALE, MN
Holy Cross Lutheran Church, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Jehovah Lutheran Church, SAINT PAUL, MN
Midway Mission Lutheran Church, SAINT PAUL, MN
Peace Lutheran Church Of Robbinsdale, ROBBINSDALE, MN
Saint James Lutheran Church, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Saint Matthew Lutheran Church, Columbia Heights, MN
Saint Peter Lutheran Church, SAINT PAUL, MN
The Alley Midway, Saint Paul, MN
Trinity First Lutheran Church, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Trinity Lutheran Church, ARDEN HILLS, MN
University Lutheran Chapel, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
Jehovah, St. Paul is a liturgical parish of the first order, served by Pr. Robert J. Benke.
Dave Benke
There is another issue, that is rarely talked about and that is what campus chapels tend to do to area churches. A campus chapel model of ministry attracts students that could be participating in area churches. As a result, local churches in the area are often deprived of the valuable gifts and talents that these young people can provide.
I'm intolerant of members of my parish going off to school somewhere and not being able to find a congregation that just uses the book, thus robbing them of the very liturgical heritage in which they were nurtured and which they value and love.
College students are far (FAR!) more likely to go to Divine Service at campus chapels, and participate in that chapel's activities, than to do so at other churches in the area. When this is not available to them, the vast majority won't make it a point to search out, attend, and get involved in area churches. Just doesn't happen.
I don't believe that it is always the case. And, it is my experience that when it does happen, it is often because the local churches are not doing intentional campus outreach like they should - e.g. how many offer free student transportation to events? If you visit churches of other denominations near any given campus many of them will have strong vibrant ministries that attract campus students. Campus chapels are not always the most effective way of doing outreach.
It's because the chapel is, um, right there. Location, location, location - as Pr. Kirchner pointed out.
Yes, there are 30,000+ students, but they come from varied places and stay on campus for varied times before returning to a dorm, apartment or a home in the suburbs. The campus is not one but three, spread out on the East Bank, West Bank, and St. Paul campuses.
Mr. Erdner,
It is not that any of those churches you listed are inferior in their worship, but the simple obvious fact that people are less likely to travel 5 miles than a couple of blocks. Driving 5 miles in the Twin Cities is not just a couple of minutes (5 miles for me in Crookston is no big deal -- no traffic, 55 MPH speed limit, etc.). Isn't it just common sense that you'll get more students if they don't have to have a car, board a bus, catch a ride from a friend, etc but only have to walk 5 minutes?
My first year of college I attended UW-Whitewater. I attended church at the local LCMS church (it was a bit of a hike as I had no car). I was just about the only student there. The pastor was kind, but I never felt like anything more than a visitor. The next year I transferred to UW-Stevens Point, where the LCMS had a campus ministry. Just a couple of blocks from my dorm. Virtually everyone there was a student (there were a couple of families too). It was an entirely different dynamic.
Yes, there are 30,000+ students, but they come from varied places and stay on campus for varied times before returning to a dorm, apartment or a home in the suburbs. The campus is not one but three, spread out on the East Bank, West Bank, and St. Paul campuses.
Make that 50,000+ students. Yes, the St. Paul campus is not within walking distance from the Minneapolis campus, but the East and West Banks are. The Washington Avenue Bridge crossing the Mississippi River provides access between the East and West Banks, either on foot, designated bike lanes, or via free shuttle service. Nearly all of us at the undergrad level had classes both on the East and West Banks, and walked between them. Dinkytown and ULC, therefore, are within easy walking distance from both the East and West Banks.
I am an alum of the U of Mn - Twin Cities. I am familiar with how students get around.
Given the temperatures in January, I would not describe walk anywhere "easy", unless a person learned to take advantage of the extensive tunnel system.
My hope is that you got the point of the entire paragraph, that the U of M is large and spread out, that the student body isn't concentrated in any one area, making campus ministry challenging. That ULC could get from 50-100 students together for any event is impressive. The good people at LCM-TC (ELCA) never managed even half that in my time worshiping with them.
I do challenge the assumption that it is an automatic "given" that having a congregation on campus is unquestionably the only way that campus ministry should be done.
Does anyone have any hard stats on how many college students would just stop going to church completely if they had to go to a regular congregation that was off-campus?
So, it should be reconsidered at some future point if the transportation ministry does not equal or exceed 50 students in regular worship in the next five years.
Why not start it now and run them concurrently?
If the current fund raising drive is successful and supporters of ULC buy back the chapel from the developers,
Some other thoughts on the District's needs (and applicable to many Districts):
Can we have a realistic evaluation of what we actually need the Districts to do?
How much of current structure seeks to find a way to justify its own existence rather than being actually useful?
Might we be in a situation where we have District bureaucracies we cannot afford doing things that we actually no longer need?
Here's a thought experiment: if we were to start our Synodical structures from scratch, given today's media options, and put in place only what we needed to get the jobs done that congregation's simply can't do effectively on their own, what would that structure look like? What might we be able to do to nudge our Synod in that direction?
Might we be in a situation where we have District bureaucracies we cannot afford doing things that we actually no longer need?
Organ driven? What an odd way of putting things. You can do a traditional Lutheran liturgy without any organ at all. The organ in no way "drives" the liturgy. If used, it ornaments the liturgy. Frankly, DS III in 4 part harmony with no organ whatsoever totally rocks. Spirit driven, you know, dude?
...at the time of the split was that the LCMS owned the building but the pastor and the congregation were effectively ELCA (pardon the anachronism). No one was happy when the congregation was evicted by the LCMS...
I don’t know anything about how supportive or resistant to the MNS district was to Pr Pless’s efforts to revive ULC as a liturgical congregation rather than the CoWo one it had been. But with Pr. Pless, LBW was out and TLH was in. I never heard a guitar again in ULC,...
I’m sure the data is out there, but I am quite certain that the numbers of LCMS students who attended ULC when it was a CoWo congregation in the early 80’s were much less than when it was revived as a liturgical congregation under Pr Pless and continued with Pr Kind.
QUOTE:
John, Why would a congregation send money for missions when that money is then used to fund Community Church of Hope or Crosswalk Ministries? (Notice what name is missing in those titles of churches?) Or to buy an antique firetruck for use in a parade? (Nothing says Proper Distinction of the Law and Gospel like an antique firetruck.)
And if a congregation can give directly to ministries, what's the harm in that?
Jeremy
----------------
Nothing at all is wrong. Nor is it wrong for the district to invest in something else.
This has been an adversarial relationship between one representative of the so-callled "confessionals" and the MN-S District. There is more or less equal responsibility on both sides. I suspect that its been brewing for some time.
Saddening.
Peace, JOHN
Given the temperatures in January, I would not describe walk anywhere "easy", unless a person learned to take advantage of the extensive tunnel system.
Then you must not be from Minnesota, you wuss! ;) Up at UND and here at BSU the guys wear walking shorts throughout the winter!My hope is that you got the point of the entire paragraph, that the U of M is large and spread out, that the student body isn't concentrated in any one area, making campus ministry challenging. That ULC could get from 50-100 students together for any event is impressive. The good people at LCM-TC (ELCA) never managed even half that in my time worshiping with them.
If that was your point, then yes, I got it. And I agree that ULC's track record is impressive.
Reading some of the comments about ELCA and LCMS ministry at the U of M made me think that people might be interested to know that ULC used to be a joint ministry of the ELCA predecessor bodies and the LCMS, as I hadn't seen this acknowledged previously.Prior to that it was a Synodical Conference endeavor. I had MN WELSian cousins who supported the building project and their children attended ULC while attending the school.
Bishop,
I know this will sound like fawning, but it's true. You remain my picture of the possible. I hope YOU will become more the norm and less the exception.
In this situation everyone wants the same thing - to share Jesus Christ. It's just a matter of how to go about doing that. Is it what would be dubbed the more traditional Lutheran way or the more evangelical way which may still bring the kids to Word and Sacrament? But we'll see.
What I meant by "more evangelical" is that which is akin to a non-denom/church growth approach to ministry. I did not mean it in the way that I think you think I meant it. :o Maybe I should have capitalized "evangelical"?
Self-serving, dishonest, self-justifying nonsense will get a chilly reception here as well.
I have not been asked to be that facilitator. Currently I make synodical guidelines for a pastor living in Mankato having 24 yrs of experience. I am on plan C of the health plan.
Self-serving, dishonest, self-justifying nonsense will get a chilly reception here as well.
Matthew: Please explain the above. Thanks!
Marie Meyer
My name is Monte Meyer and I am currently called as the Campus Missionary to the Campus Lutheran Chapel in Mankato. My building is also on the block to be sold…As for the Campus Lutheran Chapel - I am proud of how our students and alumni have responded to the challenge. We have attempted to be very proactive in our approach to the proposed sale and we feel our best days are ahead of us.
the salary/benefits package for this new position would start at about $100,000/year
I have not been asked to be that facilitator, although I have expressed my ideas to Peter Meier on how I would do that job with recruiting peer ministers to raise money and work with the local congregations for a year with the students - funneling them to the local Word/Sacrament ministry. We'll see if that's how this works and if this happens - although I have some other things in the works, helping a local rural congregation which is struggling and perhaps expanding our own campus work into a church plant in town targetting the 35 and under crowd. But all that is still theoretical as of now. My work is somewhat up in the air - and it would be nice to get it settled sooner rather than later.
Dear Deaconess,
I can't really answer that first question because my model is MY opinion - not necessarily the district. That's what I suggested they do.
Two - as far as the church plant - this is just a plan - and not the district's plan - again it's mostly my idea which is just in the talking stage with a local congregation. So just let me dream and try to figure things out here - my vocation is a little up in air.
Maybe I can consult you to help me with the business side of the church plant - while I have some experience in the ministry side - I'm not too proud to solicit good ideas from others with more expertise.
No - the model is not moving away from a called pastor - in MY MODEL - the peer ministers would be used to funnel people to pastor-led w/s ministry.
It works - because we train students to funnel people to W/S ministry - plus it gives people a great opportunity to learn how to share the faith - teach a bible class - etc. This nonsense about wrecking their vocation as a student is silly. Would you say that same thing to a farmer - "oh, don't help out with sharing the faith - that will interfere with their vocation of plowing." I don't buy it - and I feel some are trying to make a theological argument out of thin air.
Monte
It works - because we train students to funnel people to W/S ministry - plus it gives people a great opportunity to learn how to share the faith - teach a bible class - etc. This nonsense about wrecking their vocation as a student is silly. Would you say that same thing to a farmer - "oh, don't help out with sharing the faith - that will interfere with their vocation of plowing." I don't buy it - and I feel some are trying to make a theological argument out of thin air.
Monte
Pr. Meyer,
If you would actually listen to the theological argument, perhaps you wouldn't dismiss it as nonsense and claim that it's being made out of thin air. A student's vocation is to be a student. A farmer is a farmer. A mother, a mother; a father, a father; a factory worker, a factory worker, etc. And while a student, farmer, mother, father, factory worker, etc. may have multiple vocations, not a one of them is a minister (unless, of course, one of them has been called and ordained to serve in Christ's stead and by His command). Your idea to raise up students to be "peer ministers" not only takes them out of their God-given vocation(s) to be students (son or daughter, etc.), but places them into a vocation that has not been given them by God. It's one thing to encourage students to get involved in the activities of campus ministries (volunteering for service projects, inviting others to come to the Services and events, confessing their faith to their peers as the Holy Spirit gives them opportunity, and so forth); it's quite another thing to deem them "ministers" and have them doing what has not been given them to do (lead worship, teach Bible Studies, be "missionaries," etc.). The former fits well with our theology; the latter does not. This is theological, like it or not. Contrary to popular belief among many these days, Lutherans do not go for the whole "everyone a minister" thing. Doesn't jive with our theology. It's what modern "protestants" and "evangelicals" do, to be sure, but not us. When we entice students to take a year off so that they can become "missionaries," we are misleading them, and we have abandoned our theology. I'd suggest you give "Luther on Vocation" a good read before you simply dismiss the arguments against your ideas as nonsense and thin-aired theology.
Deaconess, I can't answer those questions because I have not been offered the position.
Let me know if I can help or give some insight.
I really have no insight into what the district is planning - outside of what I asked directly and suggested myself.
We live in difficult times - and since MN South District is not responding to questions - I'm going to stand up and try to shed some light from my opinion - and perhaps defend myself from some of the shots I've taken since everything blew up at the Joint Spring Pastor's conference in Brainerd.
It's been a LONG summer!!
We live in difficult times - and since MN South District is not responding to questions - I'm going to stand up and try to shed some light from my opinion - and perhaps defend myself from some of the shots I've taken since everything blew up at the Joint Spring Pastor's conference in Brainerd.
It's been a LONG summer!!
I don't know what happened in Brainerd, nor do I need to. "A blow up" suggests that there has been a long standing adversarial relationship and that the campus ministries have become pawns in that.
If so, I would urge all evangelical catholics to stand aside from this dog fight. We are never going to advance in adversarial situations. We only give reason for folks to reject evangelical catholic interests.
I don't know what happened in Brainerd, nor do I need to. "A blow up" suggests that there has been a long standing adversarial relationship and that the campus ministries have become pawns in that.
We live in difficult times - and since MN South District is not responding to questions - I'm going to stand up and try to shed some light from my opinion - and perhaps defend myself from some of the shots I've taken since everything blew up at the Joint Spring Pastor's conference in Brainerd.
It's been a LONG summer!!
On that "other" site, it was reported that one of the outcomes of the MNS's plan is that the new district facilitator (which would be [Monte Meyer], I understand) would become a part-time campus pastor and would spend the rest of his time working with other churches and their outreach to college students. And that the salary/benefits package for this new position would start at about $100,000/year and increase to $162,000 in a couple of years.
Rev. Messer - if you said not everyone is a pastor - hey no problem - full agreement.
But minister? diakonos? Seriously? That is our vocation - all our vocation.
By the way, in case your want to claim this isn't Waltherian, consider:
“Here then we are again assured that a Christian does not only have the right and authority to teach the Word of God, but also that he is in duty bound to do so at the peril of losing his soul and God’s grace. You may say: ‘But how? If he has not been called to do so, as you yourself have often taught, he dare not preach.’ To this I reply: Here you must place a Christian in two places. First, if he is where there are no Christians, he needs no other call than that he is a Christian, inwardly called by God and anointed. There he owes it to the erring heathen or non-Christian to preach and teach them the Gospel, moved by Christian love, even though no Christian has called him to do so. Thus St. Stephen did, as we are told in Acts 7:1–53; though the apostles had not entrusted him with the office of preaching, yet he preached and performed great miracles among the people (Acts 6:8). So also did Philip, the deacon, Stephen’s partner (Acts 8:5), though also to him the ministry had not been entrusted. So also did Apollos (Acts 18:25–26). In such cases a Christian out of Christian love has compassion on the distress of the poor, perverted souls and does not wait until he receives a command or letter from a prince or bishop, for necessity ignores all laws and recognizes no law. Hence Christian love makes it one’s duty to help, where otherwise there is no one who helps or should help. :
C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry : Witness of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on the Question of the Church and the Ministry, electronic ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 163-64.
Deaconess - I agree with your statement on service - that's a huge part of this. The leadership part of the equation is that they would lead by example. Being invitational, caring and giving are also learned responses, I believe. We want something that is able to be duplicated by the students they interact with.
The other side of this is that we are bringing these "Peer volunteers" into an environment which is positive and outreach - oriented. Already we are able to duplicate these attitudes pretty well - but I'm 50 yrs old and my inroads to the student population is limited by age. Empowering and equipping same aged peer ministers would help us just by their increased interaction with the students who attend the CLC. It's amazing how well it works with the Roman Catholic ministry. Our peer volunteers are able to set the tone for our other students to "come and hear the Good News".
By the way - they won't be paid - they will raise their own money to work with us for a year - like people do with short term mission work overseas.
I am only going on your comments about receiving district guidelines and then JAQ's conjecture that the $162,000 figure was district guidelines for salary/benefits plus travel.
By the way - they won't be paid - they will raise their own money to work with us for a year - like people do with short term mission work overseas.
Pastor Messer - I think dropping the term "ministers" is helpful. Thanks for the clarification. I think this would create less confusion.
Who ever said anything about them leading worship???? Name one single time that was mentioned. You're trying too hard.
And so is it wrong for them to lead a bible class among a small group of friends. really?? You want to stick with that.
Let me know the names of your kids and I promise to mark and avoid them for recruitment. I will tell you that many students take time off to study abroad, or just travel. If you really think what I am planning is wrong, oh well. So we disagree. Don't let your kids go. That's totally acceptable.
Don't try to make a theological argument just because you don't agree with an action taken by the mns district. I understand your feelings, just stop trying to justify them with some reach where you interject things like "students leading worship" when that is not the case at all. Lying won't make your case.
Makes me wonder how far your type will go....
Oh yeah, I understand the threat implicit by some other posters ,who pretty much claim that any one tied to the sale and redirection of campus funds will be in for more trouble. I'm tired of the threats. And that's what they are, threats. Who do you think you are, the Godfather?
A better option, to my way of thinking, would be for the district to sell the property to ULC, financing it themselves. Each month ULC would make a payment to the district which could be used to extend student ministry. (There might not be money for a full time student ministry facilitator in such a model, but most congregations tend to be a bit leery of increasing the size of district staff anyway. Does Minnesota South District really need a full-time staff person whose sole responsibility is student ministry?) The benefit of this option would be that the ministry of ULC can continue in its current location while at the same time the district has a stream of income to designate toward a new model of ministry to university students. If it turns out the model's a bust, ULC hasn't been undermined in the process. It still remains on the Minneapolis campus of the U of M. If the new model works, a steady income stream continues for the foreseeable future. A decade or two from now ULC' s equity would perhaps enable them to get a loan to fully buy out the district's remaining interest.
Who ever said anything about them leading worship???? Name one single time that was mentioned. You're trying too hard.
And so is it wrong for them to lead a bible class among a small group of friends. really?? You want to stick with that.
Let me know the names of your kids and I promise to mark and avoid them for recruitment. I will tell you that many students take time off to study abroad, or just travel. If you really think what I am planning is wrong, oh well. So we disagree. Don't let your kids go. That's totally acceptable.
Don't try to make a theological argument just because you don't agree with an action taken by the mns district. I understand your feelings, just stop trying to justify them with some reach where you interject things like "students leading worship" when that is not the case at all. Lying won't make your case.
Makes me wonder how far your type will go....
Oh yeah, I understand the threat implicit by some other posters ,who pretty much claim that any one tied to the sale and redirection of campus funds will be in for more trouble. I'm tired of the threats. And that's what they are, threats. Who do you think you are, the Godfather?
Oh, my, apparently you didn't really come here for honest dialogue. Unfortunately, this display confirms my worst fears about this situation. My prayers go with you through this time of transition.
Who ever said anything about them leading worship???? Name one single time that was mentioned. You're trying too hard.
And so is it wrong for them to lead a bible class among a small group of friends. really?? You want to stick with that.
Let me know the names of your kids and I promise to mark and avoid them for recruitment. I will tell you that many students take time off to study abroad, or just travel. If you really think what I am planning is wrong, oh well. So we disagree. Don't let your kids go. That's totally acceptable.
Don't try to make a theological argument just because you don't agree with an action taken by the mns district. I understand your feelings, just stop trying to justify them with some reach where you interject things like "students leading worship" when that is not the case at all. Lying won't make your case.
Makes me wonder how far your type will go....
Oh yeah, I understand the threat implicit by some other posters ,who pretty much claim that any one tied to the sale and redirection of campus funds will be in for more trouble. I'm tired of the threats. And that's what they are, threats. Who do you think you are, the Godfather?
He expresses anger at threats -- after quite a few fairly calm posts -- and you say he did not come here for honest dialogue?
What is more honest than admitting that you recognize threats but are unfazed by them? ???
Mike
He expresses anger at threats -- after quite a few fairly calm posts -- and you say he did not come here for honest dialogue?
What is more honest than admitting that you recognize threats but are unfazed by them? ???
Mike
If you train them to lead worship and teach Bible Studies, etc., they will naturally think that they are, well, "ministers." I, and many others, contend that this is not only wrongheaded, but that it is inconsistent with our theology.
He expresses anger at threats -- after quite a few fairly calm posts -- and you say he did not come here for honest dialogue?
What is more honest than admitting that you recognize threats but are unfazed by them? ???
Mike
Mike,
Where, on this board, has anyone threatened Pr. Meyer? Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any.
I do appreciate your willingness to answer these questions. I have to agree with my brother dgkirch that if summer seemed long, the next year and beyond will not bode well for some who find themselves in positions that are richly rewarded financially at the expense of a viable campus ministry program.
I'm not saying change wasn't the District's to make, but the way they went about this without helping the existing congregation at ULC possibly purchase the building themselves is questionable in the minds of many. The next District convention ought to be very interesting. My prayers are with everyone involved. In the end, God's will shall be done despite what any of us might do to get in the way of it.
Well, go back to the Reformation when it was basically a student movement and there were lay theologians that taught students. How do you explain that?
If this type of anti-laity theology was something that the ULC was pushing, than it is no wonder the District made the decision to pull the plug on its subsidy.
Rev. Messer - if you said not everyone is a pastor - hey no problem - full agreement.
But minister? diakonos? Seriously? That is our vocation - all our vocation.
By the way, in case your want to claim this isn't Waltherian, consider:
“Here then we are again assured that a Christian does not only have the right and authority to teach the Word of God, but also that he is in duty bound to do so at the peril of losing his soul and God’s grace. You may say: ‘But how? If he has not been called to do so, as you yourself have often taught, he dare not preach.’ To this I reply: Here you must place a Christian in two places. First, if he is where there are no Christians, he needs no other call than that he is a Christian, inwardly called by God and anointed. There he owes it to the erring heathen or non-Christian to preach and teach them the Gospel, moved by Christian love, even though no Christian has called him to do so. Thus St. Stephen did, as we are told in Acts 7:1–53; though the apostles had not entrusted him with the office of preaching, yet he preached and performed great miracles among the people (Acts 6:8). So also did Philip, the deacon, Stephen’s partner (Acts 8:5), though also to him the ministry had not been entrusted. So also did Apollos (Acts 18:25–26). In such cases a Christian out of Christian love has compassion on the distress of the poor, perverted souls and does not wait until he receives a command or letter from a prince or bishop, for necessity ignores all laws and recognizes no law. Hence Christian love makes it one’s duty to help, where otherwise there is no one who helps or should help. :
C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry : Witness of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on the Question of the Church and the Ministry, electronic ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1999), 163-64.
J & S,
Apples and oranges, much like the comparison you have made here and elsewhere to congregations and schools being closed and the selling of ULC. When I refer to the "everyone a minister" theology employed by modern "protestants" and "evangelicals," do you really not understand what I mean? And, do you really believe that this little quote from Walther may be used to defend that theology? Seriously?
We're not talking here about Christians finding themselves where there are no Christians and, thus, taking it upon themselves to preach and teach the Word to heathens. We're talking here about whether or not it is appropriate, according to our Lutheran theology, to develop and implement a plan which deliberately raises up students to be "ministers." Big difference there.
A better option, to my way of thinking, would be for the district to sell the property to ULC, financing it themselves. Each month ULC would make a payment to the district which could be used to extend student ministry. (There might not be money for a full time student ministry facilitator in such a model, but most congregations tend to be a bit leery of increasing the size of district staff anyway. Does Minnesota South District really need a full-time staff person whose sole responsibility is student ministry?)
Neo-Waltherianism as you advocate is not anything close to Church and Minsitry, or Walther.
As to you apples and oranges - you are right - those churches closing are often those where there is no other church within commuting distance, and word & sacrament is not found in those areas afterward. Schools closing because there is no money to support their minstries - working with families that desire their kids to have a good Christian education - those are tragedies. Loosing an entitlement, not so much. Not even an orange - more like a prune.
A better option, to my way of thinking, would be for the district to sell the property to ULC, financing it themselves. Each month ULC would make a payment to the district which could be used to extend student ministry. (There might not be money for a full time student ministry facilitator in such a model, but most congregations tend to be a bit leery of increasing the size of district staff anyway. Does Minnesota South District really need a full-time staff person whose sole responsibility is student ministry?)
The current plan is for only a part-time student ministry facilitator in any case. (Nothing is being said about how that person will earn the rest of their salary. Having had split responsibilities myself, I know that both halves of any ministerial responsibility want to take one's time over completely.)
Peace,
Michael
I'm confused and befuddled by how often people are strong advocates of making specific decisions about specific situations in specific places at specific times, but when a specific decision they disagree with is made about a specific situation in a specific place at a specific time, then they want to use broad, sweeping generalities as arguments against the specific decision.
Thanks for the correction, Fr. Slusser. I either misread on am reflecting an earlier version of the plan.
If the compensation package is $100k going up to $160k just a few years down the road for a part-time position, though, the cost of living in Minnesota must be far higher than I imagined!
If the compensation package is $100k going up to $160k just a few years down the road for a part-time position, though, the cost of living in Minnesota must be far higher than I imagined!
Oh yeah, I understand the threat implicit by some other posters ,who pretty much claim that any one tied to the sale and redirection of campus funds will be in for more trouble. I'm tired of the threats. And that's what they are, threats. Who do you think you are, the Godfather?
Take it easy, Monte. No one is threatening you. You seem still to be affected by feelings of self-importance, thinking that people are talking about you and taking shots at you, that you've somehow become the whipping boy because of the proposed sale of ULC. It's not about you.
Man, those dudes at the time of the Reformation must have been pretty schizophrenic - on the one hand,…there were lay theologians that taught students"; on the other hand, they came up with AC XIV. However shall we reconcile this schizophrenia?Indeed, Phillip Melanchton even wrote the preface to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. He taught theology, yet he was not an ordained member of the clergy. How do you explain that?
QuoteIf the compensation package is $100k going up to $160k just a few years down the road for a part-time position, though, the cost of living in Minnesota must be far higher than I imagined!
Actually, the chart contains the number 100%, which clearly shows that it is not budgeting for a part-time position. Also, the $160k (that is not written down, but can be extrapolated) a few years down the road assumes a worse case inflation (COLA) rate of 8%. It is not locked into stone, but is subject to the variables of the economy. Nor is the money set aside in the budget necessarily what they will end up spending. It looks like the total of 100k includes the Concordia Health Plan. The CHP would run around $24,000 or more, in my estimation. I figure a realistic traveling and food allowance for fund raising would be around $10,000. So, the base number is more like $65,000. This is hardly extravagant for a ministry position that works in a missional realm where local churches need to have help and support.
QuoteIf the compensation package is $100k going up to $160k just a few years down the road for a part-time position, though, the cost of living in Minnesota must be far higher than I imagined!
Actually, the chart contains the number 100%, which clearly shows that it is not budgeting for a part-time position. Also, the $160k (that is not written down, but can be extrapolated) a few years down the road assumes a worse case inflation (COLA) rate of 8%. It is not locked into stone, but is subject to the variables of the economy. Nor is the money set aside in the budget necessarily what they will end up spending. It looks like the total of 100k includes the Concordia Health Plan. The CHP would run around $24,000 or more, in my estimation. I figure a realistic traveling and food allowance for fund raising would be around $10,000. So, the base number is more like $65,000. This is hardly extravagant for a ministry position that works in a missional realm where local churches need to have help and support.
Matt Jamison - see the following on any given Sunday - have you visited any of these mission locations? You give evidence of your experience, so just checking:
St. John the Evangelist, Brooklyn
St. Paul, Brooklyn
St. Peter's Brooklyn (3 language worshiping groups)
Christ, Woodside (4 language worshiping groups)
Christ Assembly African Immigrant, Staten Island
Trinity, Bronx
Redeemer, Bronx
Our Saviour, Bronx
Holy Trinity, Brooklyn
Immanuel, Whitestone (5 language worshiping groups)
Grace, Queens Village
to name a few.
All of these Atlantic District congregations celebrate the Eucharist weekly with people from between ten to twenty-five countries of origin in attendance. At our national mission gathering just now the folks at our table including me spoke at length about aligning ourselves strategically with the threefold emphasis - Mercy, Witness, Life Together - so that we might evidence One Voice, One Love, and One Heart and thus engage the world through the local axis mundi where the grace of God is released into the world through Word and Sacrament
Thanks for the opportunity to share the grace of God at work. We pray of course that this is being accomplished powerfully in Philadelphia as well.
Dave Benke
I think whenever we substitute our own ideas for the Lord's gifts of Word and Sacrament, we end up being sorry in the long run. His gifts are always the best - and foolish as they may seem to us, they still are how He chooses to gather and hold to Himself a church. Give me on campus Word and Sacrament ministry any day.
What chart do you have in mind? Slide 22: Campus Ministry Facilitator • Part-time position…Go to page 28 for the budget. Part time positions do not appear to be in operation until the second year of the plan. I would argue that, from a hermeneutical point of view, what is contained in the budget should be used to determine the sequence of events described in the rest of the document. For example, in the budget during the year 2013 there is clear distinction that is made between the campus pastor and part time facilitators.
Redeemer Presbyterian alone has planted 75 new congregations in the city since its founding in 1989. And Redeemer is a member of the PCA, the smaller, more conservative, more southern Presbyterian church body. They do not hide the name "Presbyterian" and they make no bones about their conservative Calvinist theology.So are you suggesting that the AD start being less traditional like the Presbyterians in their liturgy? Should they start casting away their albs, chasubles, stop chanting and concentrate on having more philosophically oriented lectures and seminars – around the coffee pot? Perhaps AD LCMS churches could put more of an emphasis on God doing the work in election, so that there is less of a shame based focus on feeling guilty about not effectively witnessing to those who are unbelievers –as was sometimes the case with the Ablaze movement? Perhaps the AD should also be more expansive in how they relate to the culture around them – e.g. helping people be more successful in their everyday vocations, with a 7th commandment application emphasis? Perhaps a focus on election should be not whether we get to heaven, but how God has elected the church to bring a bit of heaven on this earth – i.e. a Christ transforming culture ethic? Perhaps, a little bit of all of the above in moderation is the key to more effective outreach? Perhaps being an evangelical catholic in doing the liturgy is a nice thing to do with a few people, but not the best use of one's gifts and talents as a full time approach to effective ministry?
Tom Schmidt is organist at St. Peter's Citicorp even unto this very day, Pr. W.
Dave Benke
I muse:
Maybe because he's new and is a little shaken up by the "we're gonna getcha" remarks so soon in the discussion.
Lord, have mercy, Deaconess. Let's sincerely hope that's not what this is about. But the point Pr. Messer made about students having the vocation of being students is really easy to overlook. I think that teaching that classic Lutheran doctrine of vocation is one of the strong points of the ministry of ULC. Sort of a Pless heritage...
Can anyone, ANYONE, familiar with and supportive of the aforementioned model of campus ministry explain how students are actually funneled into a Word and Sacrament ministry? I've asked this question about 3 times now I think, and have not received a clear answer as of yet.
Lord, have mercy, Deaconess. Let's sincerely hope that's not what this is about. But the point Pr. Messer made about students having the vocation of being students is really easy to overlook. I think that teaching that classic Lutheran doctrine of vocation is one of the strong points of the ministry of ULC. Sort of a Pless heritage...
Has there been any further word from President Seitz or the Board that sheds light on their decision? President Seitz is not known to take action without careful consideration of various alternatives nor is he known to be partisan. In the past the same was true for the MNS Board.
Marie Meyer
I spent 17 very good years (1983-2000) as campus pastor at ULC . . . The Gospel has produced fruit out of ULC's location on University Ave SE and it would be a shame to forfeit it on account of a flawed and ideologically biased decision of the district's current leadership.
JTP+
Marcus,
I'm not sure I see what you think is crazy about the idea. The student's primary vocation is as student. Certainly in that vocation they will seek ways to confess Christ, they will intercede for others, they will join the whole royal priesthood of the baptized in singing praises to the Triune God. But their primary vocation there is nothing less than learning.
I was a mission developer right out of seminary, so my salary was paid by the district. After a little while our average Sunday attendance was well over fifty, and within two years was right around 100. Yet the district held the loan on our building and continued to have to partly subsidize our mission. I can imagine scenarios in which they just couldn't afford it anymore and I would have had to scramble for a place to lead worship. But what I can't imagine them doing is basically saying they have the money, but think it would be better spent training and equipping the 50-100 people there in personal evangelism. I would have taken that as a decision against Worship/Word/Sacrament.
A church is not the same thing as a youth group. I can imagine a struggling inner city parish needing to be subsidized by wealthier congregations more or less indefinitely, but I can't imagine those wealthier congregations deciding not to subsidize the congregation and instead send the money to equip the members to invite their friends to other churches. At least, I wish I could not imagine that.
A campus ministry that is an actual church has many similarities to an inner-city congregation. Very little money, lots of coming and going, difficult to establish "regulars", tough mission field environment, etc. Efforts to justify this switch in mission emphasis should bear that in mind.
Can anyone, ANYONE, familiar with and supportive of the aforementioned model of campus ministry explain how students are actually funneled into a Word and Sacrament ministry? I've asked this question about 3 times now I think, and have not received a clear answer as of yet.
So: you have a floor of guys & girls. All mixed up, as they are these days — both on the floor and mentally. You have a peer minister — maybe a girl, maybe a guy — and they are organizing a clean-up at a local house of some grandmother. They invite their friends to participate in this event that is sponsored by their campus Lutheran activity.
Hey, who doesn't want to help out? Plus, they have lunch. So guys & girls go.
Next month, they are headed to the battered women's shelter's transitional housing. Once again, why not, let's help out. But by now, they know one another, they can talk about faith issues, about what they believe/don't believe.
So, the peer minister says "Look, my pastor leads a Bible study at the local bar. Want to come?"
There you go. Could happen any other way as well. Maybe peer leaders have the Bible study; maybe they invite the friends to church; etc. Any number of ways.
This isn't rocket science. It is exactly how ordinary, non-student people get connected to W&S ministries as well. It is just that they don't all live on the same hall...
There is no "primacy" of vocation Wil. All vocations make equal demands upon us. I know that Wingren says that.
Would you say that your member's jobs are their "primary" vocation over being a "spouse"?
Do you mean, Pr. Messer, that the students who attend ULC might be doing that and more WITHOUT the District benefiting from a $3.2 million dollar windfall. Well, how utterly rude of them!
Can anyone, ANYONE, familiar with and supportive of the aforementioned model of campus ministry explain how students are actually funneled into a Word and Sacrament ministry? I've asked this question about 3 times now I think, and have not received a clear answer as of yet.
So: you have a floor of guys & girls. All mixed up, as they are these days — both on the floor and mentally. You have a peer minister — maybe a girl, maybe a guy — and they are organizing a clean-up at a local house of some grandmother. They invite their friends to participate in this event that is sponsored by their campus Lutheran activity.
Hey, who doesn't want to help out? Plus, they have lunch. So guys & girls go.
Next month, they are headed to the battered women's shelter's transitional housing. Once again, why not, let's help out. But by now, they know one another, they can talk about faith issues, about what they believe/don't believe.
So, the peer minister says "Look, my pastor leads a Bible study at the local bar. Want to come?"
There you go. Could happen any other way as well. Maybe peer leaders have the Bible study; maybe they invite the friends to church; etc. Any number of ways.
This isn't rocket science. It is exactly how ordinary, non-student people get connected to W&S ministries as well. It is just that they don't all live on the same hall...
Someone's going to win - someone's going to lose...
So, the peer minister says "Look, my pastor leads a Bible study at the local bar. Want to come?"
There you go. Could happen any other way as well. Maybe peer leaders have the Bible study; maybe they invite the friends to church; etc. Any number of ways.
This isn't rocket science. It is exactly how ordinary, non-student people get connected to W&S ministries as well. It is just that they don't all live on the same hall...
Immanuel. Was that where Ray Schulze (sp?) served. He was another fine preacher. If that's the one I'm thinking of, the altar sported several statues, including a curious one of Moses? Ah, you guys are bringing back "old memory" days for me.
I still think the idea of building a worship area on the 1st floor of that complex would be a nice compromise to a difficult situation.
I am having trouble getting to the CCM opinion that is mentioned. Can someone post it?
It is interesting that the document states:
The Board considered the prospect of aging properties, which could require substantial capital improvements within the next 2-5 years. They also recognized favorable market conditions at the U of M in particular at the present time.
So, it is a money pit and that is why it needs to be sold. My initial analysis was correct. Perhaps what could be done is that money that is generated from the John the Steadfast group could go towards putting a beautiful chapel on the top/ground floor of the new proposed student housing. Scholarships could than be made available for students to encourage them to live there.
Unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies...
Wouldn't this work just as well (maybe even better) if that "peer leader" could invite the friends to church right on campus, where they meet regularly for Bible study and then go and grab a beer at a nearby bar, or they could could drop in any time during the week to chat with Pastor, or to have a quiet place to study or hang out together?
So, the peer minister says "Look, my pastor leads a Bible study at the local bar. Want to come?"
There you go. Could happen any other way as well. Maybe peer leaders have the Bible study; maybe they invite the friends to church; etc. Any number of ways.
This isn't rocket science. It is exactly how ordinary, non-student people get connected to W&S ministries as well. It is just that they don't all live on the same hall...
Wouldn't this work just as well (maybe even better) if that "peer leader" could invite the friends to church right on campus, where they meet regularly for Bible study and then go and grab a beer at a nearby bar, or they could could drop in any time during the week to chat with Pastor, or to have a quiet place to study or hang out together?
I just don't understand why this model requires that ULC and CLC need to be eliminated in order for it to work.
Well said, Fr. Weedon. The mother or father who changes a baby's diaper is living in their vocation of father/mother and is doing so to the least of his brethren. They are in fact changing Christ's diapers.
When a student goes off the college, their first priority is to learn. If, while in a study group, they have opportunity to talk about God while studying WWII than it's all good.
President Harrison should really appoint someone like Gene Veith or John Pless to write a series of papers on the doctrine of vocation (or those that are so confused on the topic should just read one of their books or articles on said topic).
Sigh. I'm not sure the vocation conversation is honestly worth continuing. I could say: "You're wrong, Marcus" and you could say: "No, you're wrong, Will." I don't think that would bear any worthwhile fruit. My last word on the topic: all of life is meant to be a sacrament; and joy can meet us at every opportunity when we do not confine the living out of our faith to what folks consider "religious" activities.
Marcus,
My primary vocation at the moment - the one that requires the most time and attention - is that of pastor. Even though I am also husband and father (and impatiently waiting to be grandfather!), my relationship to my children and wife has always also included that component. I'm not only their dad. I'm their pastor. At least for the time being.
College students are obviously under no divine law about continuing in college; I'm not sure how you'd get that I'd even think that. But when a student heads off to college they are doing something that requires them to prioritize their time towards its demands - and that is learning. As Fr. Michael said well, don't burden them with the task of missionary. They are not being called to that by being sent to college. When they study, when they write well, when they master a topic - they are doing a good and godly work all in itself. And there should be no sense of it being "secular" or anything less than a true good work that is God pleasing. Look, it's the same as when the frazzled mom who is busy taking care of her children, is made to feel guilty because she's not volunteering for some churchy duty. Pity sakes, she's tending at that moment to her primary vocation. It's full time and more. It doesn't need to have something churchy attached to it to make is holy and a good work.
Let the students study, for pity sake, and don't lay a guilt trip on them for focusing on that.
I looked up the map of the university in question. It covers a lot of territory. A location just outside of the moat that surrounds the campus could actually be closer to many points on the campus than an on-campus location at the far edge of the campus.
I'm giving students who take time off from school to be a peer volunteer the opportunity to work with a dynamic, fast growing - mission oriented campus ministry - and experience many opportunities to share the faith with their contemporaries - help lead bible classes…It's being done by the RC's right now - and they are making a HUGE difference on campus. They went from 40 a sunday to 300 in about 2 yrs.The problem is, that for the so-called confessionals, they view lay led Bible studies as forms of conventicles that are to be forbidden by orthodox Lutherans. Until you get over that hurdle, your plan will never fly. Advocating the concept that students should teach and lead Bible studies is the kiss of death in any new campus plan that you want the so-called confessionals to buy into.
QuoteI looked up the map of the university in question. It covers a lot of territory. A location just outside of the moat that surrounds the campus could actually be closer to many points on the campus than an on-campus location at the far edge of the campus.
That is a good point. I think what you are trying to say is that there is no magical vortex that necessitates a chapel be situated on the corner of 11th Ave and University Ave in Minneapolis. A campus chapel could be built in any number of places - where students could have easy access.
QuoteI'm giving students who take time off from school to be a peer volunteer the opportunity to work with a dynamic, fast growing - mission oriented campus ministry - and experience many opportunities to share the faith with their contemporaries - help lead bible classes…It's being done by the RC's right now - and they are making a HUGE difference on campus. They went from 40 a sunday to 300 in about 2 yrs.The problem is, that for the so-called confessionals, they view lay led Bible studies as forms of conventicles that are to be forbidden by orthodox Lutherans. Until you get over that hurdle, your plan will never fly. Advocating the concept that students should teach and lead Bible studies is the kiss of death in any new campus plan that you want the so-called confessionals to buy into.
Peter,
Mark, the fact remains that saying students can me missionaries is no different than saying truck drivers should be missionaries
Exactamundo. I think rather, this is what the entire issue boils down to—is it legit to say that a truck driver is a missionary? Do Christians have a call, a vocation, to share their faith with others—to see themselves as sent ones, going out and bringing Christ to others.
Or, is that only the work of the pastor? Does the college student/truck driver have a vocation to be seeking to share their faith—or, is it really not their vocation, and their call is merely one of passive response—if someone asks them about what they believe, then they share. Otherwise, that is not their vocation.
So yes, Peter, this is absolutely-dutely correct.
Has there been any further word from President Seitz or the Board that sheds light on their decision? President Seitz is not known to take action without careful consideration of various alternatives nor is he known to be partisan. In the past the same was true for the MNS Board.
Marie Meyer
Every news report I've seen indicates something like this: There was no response to a phone call and email to the board. (http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2294889.shtml?cat=1)
I don't know President Seitz or any of the district executives, but the lack of any response from an MNS spokesman to requests for comment from the news media doesn't reflect well on the district. Indeed, I can't understand why they wouldn't at least have prepared talking points a spokesman could repeat ad nausium. As Dr. Gard notes, the MNS district is coming across in a very negative light.
Peter,
Mark, the fact remains that saying students can me missionaries is no different than saying truck drivers should be missionaries
Exactamundo. I think rather, this is what the entire issue boils down to—is it legit to say that a truck driver is a missionary? Do Christians have a call, a vocation, to share their faith with others—to see themselves as sent ones, going out and bringing Christ to others.
Or, is that only the work of the pastor? Does the college student/truck driver have a vocation to be seeking to share their faith—or, is it really not their vocation, and their call is merely one of passive response—if someone asks them about what they believe, then they share. Otherwise, that is not their vocation.
So yes, Peter, this is absolutely-dutely correct.
I wonder why no one ever posts anything like that when I suggest that evangelism outreach should be deliberate and proactive, and I get jumped on by pastors who insist that all evangelism comes from their parishioners living their lives in Christian example and witness.
I wonder if any of the pastors who raked me over the coals for not agreeing that it's enough that their congregation members are inspired to spread the word and no other evangelism is needed or even a good idea will jump in and disagree with what you wrote. (That's a rhetorical statement. I'm confident that they won't.)
QuoteI looked up the map of the university in question. It covers a lot of territory. A location just outside of the moat that surrounds the campus could actually be closer to many points on the campus than an on-campus location at the far edge of the campus.
That is a good point. I think what you are trying to say is that there is no magical vortex that necessitates a chapel be situated on the corner of 11th Ave and University Ave in Minneapolis. A campus chapel could be built in any number of places - where students could have easy access.
Likewise, it could also be integrated into an existing congregation that's in close proximity to the campus, where students would have easy access and integration into a full, diverse congregation rather than a specialized little academic microcosm.
Are there people whom you identify as confessional who view lay-led Bible studies to be forbidden? If so, why?
ULC had resisted the not so subtle attempts of some leaders in the district to move us into contemporary worship, cell groups and the like.
QuoteI looked up the map of the university in question. It covers a lot of territory. A location just outside of the moat that surrounds the campus could actually be closer to many points on the campus than an on-campus location at the far edge of the campus.
Well - I would like to comment. IN my 24+ years as an LCMS pastor, I have noticed one common thread - many, maybe even a majority, of Lutherans are AFRAID to give testimony to the hope we have in Jesus Christ for fear that THEY WILL SAY SOMETHING WRONG. We have become so clergy-centric and scared that we don't put together the exact doctrinal formula that we seem to all but shut people down.
When they date and treat their dates well and right, that is a good and Godly work.
When they call home and keep in touch with their moms & dads, that is a good and Godly work.
When they share Christ with their friends and those around them, that is a good and Godly work.
When they keep in touch with their siblings and offer advice and help, that is a good and Godly work.
When they take care of their bodies and exercise and compete, that is a good and Godly work.
Just to set the record straight - as far as this particular evangelical catholic is concerned - I have no opposition to well-prepared and mature laity leading studies; I next to never share my Sunday Bible Class as I regard that a primary feature of my calling here, but have on occasion, last one I think was a dear lady who is a Bible translator and works in areas hostile to Christianity; our LWML always meets without the pastor and engages in Bible Study and discussion; opposition to small group ministry (i.e., conventicles) as it was at one time being pushed is not at all the same thing as saying that a student cannot lead a Bible study. Most pastors I know would be delighted to hear of students getting together to study the Word of God; provided, of course, that it didn't BECOME a conventicle by substituting for the regular nourishment of the congregation gathered around the table of the Lord's Word and Meal.
Regarding rock’em, sock’em worship, that was tried at ULC with a major financial investment prior to Pr. Pless’s arrival on campus as I’d pointed out quite a few posts back. A curious thing I’ve noticed is that defenders of ULC here and on BJS are from the early 60’s or from the Pless/Kind years, but I’ve not seen anyone from ULC’s cutting edge CoWo years defend it in that form.
Just to set the record straight - as far as this particular evangelical catholic is concerned - I have no opposition to well-prepared and mature laity leading studies; I next to never share my Sunday Bible Class as I regard that a primary feature of my calling here, but have on occasion, last one I think was a dear lady who is a Bible translator and works in areas hostile to Christianity; our LWML always meets without the pastor and engages in Bible Study and discussion; opposition to small group ministry (i.e., conventicles) as it was at one time being pushed is not at all the same thing as saying that a student cannot lead a Bible study. Most pastors I know would be delighted to hear of students getting together to study the Word of God; provided, of course, that it didn't BECOME a conventicle by substituting for the regular nourishment of the congregation gathered around the table of the Lord's Word and Meal.
Wow. This is unexpected and welcoming to hear from you.
I'll just have to say that in my experience those who participate in small group lay-led Bible studies tend to attend services MORE often and appreciate the Sacraments MORE deeply.
I've yet to come upon any small-group Bible study group which has taken it upon themselves to take up the water crackers and Riesling set out for snacking and think "Hey, who needs our church? We can do this ourselves." ::)
Mike
Maybe the ULC needs to get a new place with a basement where the kids can jam out with the electric guitars and be seeker friendly, while upstairs on the top floor they can play good old fashioned Gregorian chant and do contemplative praying with incense, candles, icons, etc. and show Godly reverence with frequent participation in the Eucharist? With the ministry/apartment development combo concept, the District could actually support two ministries - where different pastors do different things and all live in peace and harmony.
I don’t know if the ULC would be sold if they had offered more of variety of styles – such as a contemporary worship blend with a traditional liturgical framework.
I've yet to come upon any small-group Bible study group which has taken it upon themselves to take up the water crackers and Riesling set out for snacking and think "Hey, who needs our church? We can do this ourselves." ::)
But to the highlighted portion, you need to get out more Mike :P
Just to set the record straight - as far as this particular evangelical catholic is concerned - I have no opposition to well-prepared and mature laity leading studies; I next to never share my Sunday Bible Class as I regard that a primary feature of my calling here, but have on occasion, last one I think was a dear lady who is a Bible translator and works in areas hostile to Christianity; our LWML always meets without the pastor and engages in Bible Study and discussion; opposition to small group ministry (i.e., conventicles) as it was at one time being pushed is not at all the same thing as saying that a student cannot lead a Bible study. Most pastors I know would be delighted to hear of students getting together to study the Word of God; provided, of course, that it didn't BECOME a conventicle by substituting for the regular nourishment of the congregation gathered around the table of the Lord's Word and Meal. Next straw man, please?
First toleration; then equality; then extermination. Yup, Krauth was bang on right.
Every Lutheran congregation I've belonged to (including a couple next door to universities) was family-focused. Unmarried young people were invisible. Basically none of the non-worship activities were relevant to college age singles.
Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I tend to doubt it.
For what it's worth, I just received an email from the district office with a FAQ page on the sale of the campus properties. I assume it was sent to everyone in the MNS district...
I just found the link to the actual letter I received. Here it is...
http://mns.lcms.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Vq-gxLbP3os%3d&tabid=206&mid=791
Just to set the record straight - as far as this particular evangelical catholic is concerned - I have no opposition to well-prepared and mature laity leading studies; I next to never share my Sunday Bible Class as I regard that a primary feature of my calling here, but have on occasion, last one I think was a dear lady who is a Bible translator and works in areas hostile to Christianity; our LWML always meets without the pastor and engages in Bible Study and discussion; opposition to small group ministry (i.e., conventicles) as it was at one time being pushed is not at all the same thing as saying that a student cannot lead a Bible study. Most pastors I know would be delighted to hear of students getting together to study the Word of God; provided, of course, that it didn't BECOME a conventicle by substituting for the regular nourishment of the congregation gathered around the table of the Lord's Word and Meal. Next straw man, please?
Mike Gehlhausen,
(whose primary vocation right now is cheering on the Rangers who are up right now, 2-1)
You cheer because, unlike the Yankees, they have not clinched the division. :)
People who don't cheer for the Yankees are more likely to kick small animals, trip blind people, and scratch DVDs. That is just part of their vocation...
George Erdner,
I wonder why no one ever posts anything like that when I suggest that evangelism outreach should be deliberate and proactive, and I get jumped on by pastors who insist that all evangelism comes from their parishioners living their lives in Christian example and witness.
Well, I am sorry for not backing you up. Once again, when you argue that the only evangelism that laity need to do is really to be a passive witness to their faith...
Yup, you are right, President Benke.
A congregation that averages attendance of 80/Sunday gives $6,000/year to District/Synod. A congregation that averages 1500/Sunday gives $10,000/year to District/Synod.
You are correct. In "raw numbers" the megachurch gives more.
For what it's worth, I just received an email from the district office with a FAQ page on the sale of the campus properties. I assume it was sent to everyone in the MNS district...
I just found the link to the actual letter I received. Here it is...
http://mns.lcms.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Vq-gxLbP3os%3d&tabid=206&mid=791
Here is ULC's response to this letter:
http://www.ulcmn.org/Files/Save%20ULC%20Files/MNS%20Dist%20FAQ-Notated-2.pdf
Interesting- it looks like the District is giving the same opportunity and financing any church plant in our district receives, plus the potential of $250,000. (most of the church planters I've met would love to have that financing!
Now based on the conversations around here, it sounds like there is a non-student base of 100+ regular attenders, which means there is additional income to that which the district is considering giving. Again - most missions I know would love to have that kind of financing.
Even so, the claim is made that this will kill off the congregation, that moving to a store front, or renovating some other facility will not be the same. Interesting, because I have seen churches convert modular buildings, gyms, restaurants, and office spaces etc into serviceable sanctuaries that still maintain a sense of reverence. I even know one church that took over and older automotive repair facility and used it for 10 years as a sanctuary, where communion was held weekly.
If such a hardship would close down this congregation, I wonder what would happen if there was real tribulation?
I'm not sure why it appears to be so difficult for some to understand that if the District indeed needed out from under the expense of this building, the meet, right and salutary thing to do would have been to assist ULC purchase the building themselves at a fair value that the church could afford over the needed length of time (or if the District was to act in a truly merciful way, at the original purchase price). We have the Church Extension Fund for this very purpose. Because that didn't happen and because it appears it won't happen, there can be nothing else to conclude but that eyes are set on that $3.2 million only. Tetzel would be so proud. :P
George Erdner,
I wonder why no one ever posts anything like that when I suggest that evangelism outreach should be deliberate and proactive, and I get jumped on by pastors who insist that all evangelism comes from their parishioners living their lives in Christian example and witness.
Well, I am sorry for not backing you up. Once again, when you argue that the only evangelism that laity need to do is really to be a passive witness to their faith...
That has never been my contention. I've said that it should be planned and deliberate, not something that everyone hopes simply happens. Clergy and laity alike need to be involved.
George Erdner,
I wonder why no one ever posts anything like that when I suggest that evangelism outreach should be deliberate and proactive, and I get jumped on by pastors who insist that all evangelism comes from their parishioners living their lives in Christian example and witness.
Well, I am sorry for not backing you up. Once again, when you argue that the only evangelism that laity need to do is really to be a passive witness to their faith...
That has never been my contention. I've said that it should be planned and deliberate, not something that everyone hopes simply happens. Clergy and laity alike need to be involved.
Sorry, my post was a bit unclear. I did not mean to suggest that this was your opinion. The fact that the position is there is what is annoying and we ought to push against that.
I think that the "everyone hopes simply happens" is quite the passive attitude that I don't think should fly. Evangelism—just like pastoral care—ought to be intentional.
I am mildly supportive of the new mission direction -- if it is even really new rather than just more explicit and intentiional.
Pastor Messer,
What one must need a degree in rocket science to understand is why we need to sell the campus properties and use the proceeds to establish a new district position to enact a new campus ministry plan which involves encouraging students to do what you're talking about here.
Well, first, that was not the question I was asked, right? I mean, my point was how the peer minister thing could work.
Second, you don't need a degree in rocket science: money. All campus ministries cost money. They don't bring money to the district.
That is the way it is. We've all seen it.
I doubt -- as I should per the Eighth Commandment -- that MNS is calculating enough to do so, but it is interesting to see how in the face of ULC being sold out from under those using it, the prospect of ULC buying out the property from the district is now so strongly endorsed. I wonder whether people might have come out with analogies of MNS holding the chapel for hostage if it had just come out with that plan at first.
Now, if MNS finds a good way to save face, it can indeed get its $3.2 million or close to it from supporters of ULC, have all cheer them for doing it, and start up the new ministry direction. Not a bad outcome if the pending deal can be backed out of somehow.
And if the deal cannot be backed out of, then is all of this outrage to any effect?
Mike
So stop all the foolishness about college students having some vocation that excuses them from other vocations. They don't. They simply don't.
Pastor Messer,
What one must need a degree in rocket science to understand is why we need to sell the campus properties and use the proceeds to establish a new district position to enact a new campus ministry plan which involves encouraging students to do what you're talking about here.
Well, first, that was not the question I was asked, right? I mean, my point was how the peer minister thing could work.
Second, you don't need a degree in rocket science: money. All campus ministries cost money. They don't bring money to the district.
That is the way it is. We've all seen it.
Pr. Louderback,
I understood your point. What I don't understand is why it is necessary to sell the campus properties to do the peer ministry thing you describe. It seems to me that if the peer ministry thing simply involves what you describe, the District could implement this plan without having to sell the campus properties. Plus, it seems very odd to me that the District would even consider messing with the campus ministry being done at ULC and CLC, where the things you describe are already happening, in order to expand the peer ministry thing to other campuses in the District. But, then, I do lack a degree in rocket science, so I suppose this will remain over my head.
I can even understand how selling ULC to obtain these funds might be one solution.
What I cannot understand is MNS not giving ULC more of a chance to finance purchasing the property themselves.
Mike
I can even understand how selling ULC to obtain these funds might be one solution.
What I cannot understand is MNS not giving ULC more of a chance to finance purchasing the property themselves.
Mike
I think they may. How would you give them more of a chance?
But legalese aside, it seems clear what was the intent of the 1963 resolution. And it was not to give MNS control over the property for any other purpose but for campus ministry at THAT campus.
I think they may. How would you give them more of a chance?
Mr. Gehlhaussen,
You wrote: "... if MNS finds a good way to save face, it can indeed get its $3.2 million or close to it from supporters of ULC.." The problem with that is it is NOT MNS's 3.2 million dollars. The property in question was not a gift to MNS for it to dispose of as it wished; it was entrusted to MNS to maintain as a campus ministry. Elsewhere Rev. Kirchner rightly reminded me that "trustee" language is legal language that may not apply in this situation. But legalese aside, it seems clear what was the intent of the 1963 resolution. And it was not to give MNS control over the property for any other purpose but for campus ministry at THAT campus.
Your attitude towards this seems every bit as post-modern as Pr. Stoffregen's often is on theology. Your interpretation of what is "clear" is obviously not the interpretation that seems to be prevailing.
Your attitude towards this seems every bit as post-modern as Pr. Stoffregen's often is on theology. Your interpretation of what is "clear" is obviously not the interpretation that seems to be prevailing.
Can you explain what you mean by this? It read like a cheap shot, but I could have missed something. It's not like you to do such a thing. I'll be PMing you shortly on my personal experiences with campus ministry done the "post-modern" way. :) Perhaps it will help you see why some of us are so adamant about what ministry should entail.
I'm sorry if it seems like a cheap shot. It is not meant to be.
I just disagree with people asserting that matters that are anything but clear are in fact clear, and everyone else should simply bow to their opinion.
That happens a lot in Internet forum discussion, and it seems to be happening more here on ALPB than it used to.
Mike
I'm sorry if it seems like a cheap shot. It is not meant to be.
I just disagree with people asserting that matters that are anything but clear are in fact clear, and everyone else should simply bow to their opinion.
That happens a lot in Internet forum discussion, and it seems to be happening more here on ALPB than it used to.
Mike
Do you believe that transparency in this situation was lacking?
Do you believe that transparency in this situation was lacking?
Yes.
Have I said anything to make you believe otherwise?
Mike
Do you believe that transparency in this situation was lacking?
Yes.
Have I said anything to make you believe otherwise?
Mike
No, I'm just not following what you're insinuating is happening with those of us who have expressed our concern over how this situation has played out. I'm sure the fault is mine, but maybe you could clarify.
Pastor Messer,
What one must need a degree in rocket science to understand is why we need to sell the campus properties and use the proceeds to establish a new district position to enact a new campus ministry plan which involves encouraging students to do what you're talking about here.
Well, first, that was not the question I was asked, right? I mean, my point was how the peer minister thing could work.
Second, you don't need a degree in rocket science: money. All campus ministries cost money. They don't bring money to the district.
That is the way it is. We've all seen it.
Pr. Louderback,
I understood your point. What I don't understand is why it is necessary to sell the campus properties to do the peer ministry thing you describe. It seems to me that if the peer ministry thing simply involves what you describe, the District could implement this plan without having to sell the campus properties. Plus, it seems very odd to me that the District would even consider messing with the campus ministry being done at ULC and CLC, where the things you describe are already happening, in order to expand the peer ministry thing to other campuses in the District. But, then, I do lack a degree in rocket science, so I suppose this will remain over my head.
So stop all the foolishness about college students having some vocation that excuses them from other vocations. They don't. They simply don't.
Stop the foolishness of purposely misinterpreting what others, including myself, have said about students and vocations. No one has said that a student's vocation as student excuses them from other vocations. You have effectively knocked down the straw man of your own creation, Pr. Louderback (much like your continued harping about election and evangelism, per Pr. Curtis' paper/presentation, which you misunderstand and misrepresent).
I"m going to throw this out again, since it was ignored the first time.
I did a search for colleges in Minneapolis, MN and got 351 hits. In that regard, it would appear that the Twin Cities are not that much different from other metropolitan areas, in that there are more institutions of higher learning than just the University of Minnesota. So, what of the needs of students at those other schools? Below are just a few I pulled off of the first few pages from the on-line Yellow Pages of colleges and community colleges in the Twin Cities.
Century College
Chad College
Chopper College
College Arch & Landscape Arch
Community School of Excellence
Dunwoody College of Technology
Hamline University
Inver Hills Community College
Kaplan Professional Schools
MacAlester College
Mc Nally Smith College-Music
Metropolitan State University
Minneapolis College of Art and Design
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
National American University
Normandale Community College
North Central University
North Hennepin Community College
St Paul Center-Inver Hills Community College
St Paul College
University of Phoenix
University of St Thomas
Vesper College
That's only a few of the other institutions of higher learning. It's a small sample. What about their students? What are they? Chopped liver? Don't they need some sort of "campus" ministry? Are their needs unimportant? Is it that students who have to get their educations from places like the University of Phoenix don't deserve the same ministry outreach as students at a university with a big-time football team? Don't students learning to be veterinary technicians or medical technicians or paramedics or draftsmen or administrative assistants or any of the hundreds of other careers that only require a two-year Associates Degree have ministry needs? What about people in their early 20's taking vocational apprenticeships? Don't electricians or plumbers or carpenters need ministry?
What sort of "campus ministry" programs does the LCMS (and ELCA, for that matter) have in place for students who are on campuses other than the BIG school in town?
I just disagree with people asserting that matters that are anything but clear are in fact clear, and everyone else should simply bow to their opinion.
I just disagree with people asserting that matters that are anything but clear are in fact clear, and everyone else should simply bow to their opinion.
We're likely talking past each other. I didn't know what you meant by this statement above.
If you can't see why a large student body with a large campus which many students may rarely have need to leave might benefit from an on-campus ministry where a smaller college which serves only commuter students and which may not even have a campus or housing would not, I don't know how to persuade you on that point.
Mike
Likewise, it could also be integrated into an existing congregation that's in close proximity to the campus, where students would have easy access and integration into a full, diverse congregation rather than a specialized little academic microcosm.
Every Lutheran congregation I've belonged to (including a couple next door to universities) was family-focused. Unmarried young people were invisible. Basically none of the non-worship activities were relevant to college age singles.
Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I tend to doubt it.
Besides, please note what Robert Johnson pointed out:
Likewise, it could also be integrated into an existing congregation that's in close proximity to the campus, where students would have easy access and integration into a full, diverse congregation rather than a specialized little academic microcosm.
Every Lutheran congregation I've belonged to (including a couple next door to universities) was family-focused. Unmarried young people were invisible. Basically none of the non-worship activities were relevant to college age singles.
Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I tend to doubt it.
I note you didn't disagree with him when he posted that. So, regardless of whether the students go to some lesser school that is inferior to the mighty U of M, the local churches are still geared towards families, not students of ANY particular institution.
Mike,
What is the magic number for the Rangers now? My Yankees are starting to dial in it...getting set for the play-offs...
I can only hope that as we go into the district conventions and then the synodical presidential election positioning, I do not hear the "we need to consider selling a seminary (StL since FtW cannot be sold)" talk again.
Why not? Things are changing Mike. We can pretend as though they are not, but our Synod is a shrinking Synod. The Church in America is getting smaller. How long do we need to keep two Sems open?
I'm not in favor of selling and closing one—for many reasons—but we can't pretend as though these things are not on the table.
When you don't have money, you have to make cuts. Things have to change. So let's keep all options on the table.
I'm not following you at all. This seems to me a reason for on-campus ministries on large campuses where they can be feasible. Such ministries are intentionally student-focused.
Yeah, it would be cool to do that for the DeVry's of the world too since so many congregations suck at student ministry and perform it with a patronizing attitude if at all, but that just does not seem feasible in this sinful fallen world of limited resources.
Mike
Mr. Gehlhausen,
You do not think the 1963 resolution was clear that the intent was for the maintenance of a campus ministry at the U of M at that given location? If not, then I do not know what to say.
Rev. Kirchner,
Thank you again for correcting my sloppy/errant writing.
Mr. Erdner,
Because if you totalled the student bodies of all those other institutions together, they still would not equal the number that attend the U of M. It is really quite simple.
So stop all the foolishness about college students having some vocation that excuses them from other vocations. They don't. They simply don't.
Stop the foolishness of purposely misinterpreting what others, including myself, have said about students and vocations. No one has said that a student's vocation as student excuses them from other vocations. You have effectively knocked down the straw man of your own creation, Pr. Louderback (much like your continued harping about election and evangelism, per Pr. Curtis' paper/presentation, which you misunderstand and misrepresent).
Bah! Re-read what was written and see if I really got it wrong. Shoot re-read Pr Curtis' paper and see if I got it wrong!
Your position is not the same as Pr Weedon's I believe though—yours is more of a "they are not missionaries" sorta argument right? Missionaries = pastors sorta thing? I could be wrong about that....I'm not wrong about Pastor Curtis.
But hey—I've got a paper on it! You can always write a response! :) That's how it works.
Bishop and George,
The Lord's leaving the 99 to hunt for the 1 ad then taking extreme joy and celebration over the finding of that single one never makes sense to those who are into watching the numbers for measuring effectiveness and evaluating the worth of a ministry upon that. I'm glad we have a Lord who does the illogical with the numbers and turns them on their head.
Pr. Messer,
Rest assured; we're agreed. On both points.
Just a quick anecdote between classes-
I mentioned upstream that I met my wife at ULC. She was not a U of M student but was invited to attend by a friend she had made at her fitness club who was a ULC member. She thought it would be fun to attend a congregation with a younger demographic than the church she grew up in. So she first showed up for a service project at ULC, followed by a movie, but as she didn't have a car (it took two bus transfers to get to ULC, so she had to be pretty motivated to get there) and by the time we all got back to ULC her buses weren't running any more. So Pr. Pless asked me if I could drive her home - she hadn't noticed me up to that point, though I had noticed her. And the rest is history...
Steve
Bishop and George,
The Lord's leaving the 99 to hunt for the 1 ad then taking extreme joy and celebration over the finding of that single one never makes sense to those who are into watching the numbers for measuring effectiveness and evaluating the worth of a ministry upon that. I'm glad we have a Lord who does the illogical with the numbers and turns them on their head.
Pr. Messer,
Rest assured; we're agreed. On both points.
AMEN! (from someone who eats, drinks, sleeps and breathes numbers)
Numbers should never be the sole arbiter of ministry, and usually never the primary - but they shouldn't be cast aside, either. If numbers were so unimportant (especially regarding evangelism), then why does Luke always mention numbers - both using specific terms and general terms - in the book of Acts?
One of these little ones is worth more than all the world.
Bishop and George,
The Lord's leaving the 99 to hunt for the 1 ad then taking extreme joy and celebration over the finding of that single one never makes sense to those who are into watching the numbers for measuring effectiveness and evaluating the worth of a ministry upon that. I'm glad we have a Lord who does the illogical with the numbers and turns them on their head.
In that case, WWTGSD? What would the Good Shepherd do? Maybe appoint 70 elders, or something like that - send them out 2 x 2. No conventicles though.
Dave Benke
Mr. Erdner,
I thought you had wondered why it was important for ULC to be located as near as possible to the U of M campus, considering all the other institutions in the Twin Cities.
Well, I wouldn't say that they are equally valuable; as in, one is worth no more than the other. I'd say that they are each, in their own individuality, infinitely precious. For each of them an infinite ransom has been paid; and so each one is worth more than the universe itself. That's, I believe, to look at things God's way; where measuring is always the measuring of the gift that Christ gave: i.e., measureless.
P.S. I'm aware that the above makes no logical sense; I still think it's true in God's economy.
You make a valid point, George, but with a relatively obvious illustration. Should we fund the mission that works among people of other religions or no religion more so than the mission designed to work among people who are already Christian or already Lutheran? What do you think?
Dave Benke
You make a valid point, George, but with a relatively obvious illustration. Should we fund the mission that works among people of other religions or no religion more so than the mission designed to work among people who are already Christian or already Lutheran? What do you think?
Dave Benke
I view chaplaincy to university students much the way I view chaplaincy to military service men and women: they are people who have already demonstrated superior qualities and who are facing unusual challenges to themselves as Christians and human beings. The church should make every effort to be there to help them.
Peace,
Michael
You make a valid point, George, but with a relatively obvious illustration. Should we fund the mission that works among people of other religions or no religion more so than the mission designed to work among people who are already Christian or already Lutheran? What do you think?
Dave Benke
I view chaplaincy to university students much the way I view chaplaincy to military service men and women: they are people who have already demonstrated superior qualities and who are facing unusual challenges to themselves as Christians and human beings. The church should make every effort to be there to help them.
Peace,
Michael
I view chaplaincy to university students much the way I view chaplaincy to military service men and women: they are people who have already demonstrated superior qualities and who are facing unusual challenges to themselves as Christians and human beings. The church should make every effort to be there to help them.
Peace,
Michael
I can't even begin to respond to that. Equating students to soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen just boggles my mind. I'm totally flabbergasted that anyone could possibly equate the two.
Checking young Pr. Fisk's parish assignment in Pa. at lcms.org, his video skills apparently haven't yet translated into any gains in the worshiping assembly, or maybe better have grabbed time away from turning in any of that pesky data. One never knows when that time spent commenting on goings-on in Minnesota will pay off in Pennsylvania, though.I'm super late here, but I must defend Pr. Fisk, for even though his own congregation may not be growing numerically, I have actually baptized people because of his videos. He is providing quite a service to the church.
Dave Benke
I view chaplaincy to university students much the way I view chaplaincy to military service men and women: they are people who have already demonstrated superior qualities and who are facing unusual challenges to themselves as Christians and human beings. The church should make every effort to be there to help them.
Peace,
Michael
I can't even begin to respond to that. Equating students to soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen just boggles my mind. I'm totally flabbergasted that anyone could possibly equate the two.
They're 18, 19, 20 year olds, encountering challenges to their faith that they had never imagined before. I've worked with that age all my life. They're all worth the effort. Especially if they've chosen military service or qualified for university education.
Peace,
Michael
I view chaplaincy to university students much the way I view chaplaincy to military service men and women: they are people who have already demonstrated superior qualities and who are facing unusual challenges to themselves as Christians and human beings. The church should make every effort to be there to help them.
Peace,
Michael
I can't even begin to respond to that. Equating students to soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen just boggles my mind. I'm totally flabbergasted that anyone could possibly equate the two.
They're 18, 19, 20 year olds, encountering challenges to their faith that they had never imagined before. I've worked with that age all my life. They're all worth the effort. Especially if they've chosen military service or qualified for university education.
Peace,
Michael
That is a crock. All 18, 19, and 20 year old encounter challenges to their faith. It comes with the territory. It's no different for college students or kids going straight to asking people if they want fries with that.
But to equate getting accepted into college, which nowadays usually means little more than being able to qualify for a student loan, with making the decision to put one's life on the line in defense of one's country is up with some of the worst insults to military personnel I've ever read. How dare you equate going away to college with joining an organization which includes among its requirements accepting the fact that other people are going to be making a deliberate effort to kill you, but you have to continue to do your job anyway?
If you can't see the obvious difference between the challenges of joining the military compared with going to college, how can your judgement on any other such issue be trusted?
But to equate getting accepted into college, which nowadays usually means little more than being able to qualify for a student loan, with making the decision to put one's life on the line in defense of one's country is up with some of the worst insults to military personnel I've ever read. How dare you equate going away to college with joining an organization which includes among its requirements accepting the fact that other people are going to be making a deliberate effort to kill you, but you have to continue to do your job anyway?
If you can't see the obvious difference between the challenges of joining the military compared with going to college, how can your judgement on any other such issue be trusted?
While the personal risk may not be equal, each person deals with the challenges and risks of growing up and moving on differently. And, college life isn't that cushy these days. I guess you didn't hear of the 19-yr-old freshman girl stabbed to death by her roommate just because of the music coming out of her iPod.
Art
(reminded of that old saw, "Better to be silent and thought a fool....")
I view chaplaincy to university students much the way I view chaplaincy to military service men and women: they are people who have already demonstrated superior qualities and who are facing unusual challenges to themselves as Christians and human beings. The church should make every effort to be there to help them.
Pr. Hebbeler, I guess some people on this Forum can't tell us apart. Maybe we're having more fun than is allowed by law.
Peace,
Michael
It doesn't change my objection to calling university students "superior". Nor does it change my objection to equating students to those who enlist in the military, regardless of who makes the comparison.
The meeting of LCMS district leaders responsible for North American missions has concluded. From what my husband heard in St. Louis there is concern about internet misinformation regarding decisions related to the University Lutheran Chapel. Some statements on various blogs may in fact be slanderous. I hope this forum is not a place where misinformation has or will be passed on.
The meeting of LCMS district leaders responsible for North American missions has concluded. From what my husband heard in St. Louis there is concern about internet misinformation regarding decisions related to the University Lutheran Chapel. Some statements on various blogs may in fact be slanderous.
It doesn't change my objection to calling university students "superior". Nor does it change my objection to equating students to those who enlist in the military, regardless of who makes the comparison.
Students have to show superior qualities in order to get into college. They aren't selected randomly. Many or most of them are surprised that they have to work a lot harder than they did in high school to get good grades; in high school they were often admired or resented for their ability to learn.
One last thought. The Church needs to be there for young people wherever they are. On campus? YES! In the military? YES! On the streets of our cities and villiages? YES! In prisons and jails? YES!
The meeting of LCMS district leaders responsible for North American missions has concluded. From what my husband heard in St. Louis there is concern about internet misinformation regarding decisions related to the University Lutheran Chapel. Some statements on various blogs may in fact be slanderous. I hope this forum is not a place where misinformation has or will be passed on.
Fr Kind has been careful to relate only the facts on the ULC website:
http://www.ulcmn.org/Files/Pages/SaveULC.html
That is some of the most elitist blather I've ever read The words "elitist blather" are resonant, aren't they? There's a whole thread waiting to happen on ministry to young adults apart from the current topic which is more controverted. And inside that thread would be a sub-unit on the culture of college/certification/qualification/delayed adolescence/elitism that would delve into whether college is even good for much of anything any more for most students.
That doesn't make your point valid, George - I'm sure you're aware that Luther was a Campus Pastor/Professor. Wittenberg? Castle Church? Lectures on Galatians? Don't shoot the Founder, for Pete's sake.
Dave Benke
The meeting of LCMS district leaders responsible for North American missions has concluded. From what my husband heard in St. Louis there is concern about internet misinformation regarding decisions related to the University Lutheran Chapel. Some statements on various blogs may in fact be slanderous. I hope this forum is not a place where misinformation has or will be passed on.
The meeting of LCMS district leaders responsible for North American missions has concluded. From what my husband heard in St. Louis there is concern about internet misinformation regarding decisions related to the University Lutheran Chapel. Some statements on various blogs may in fact be slanderous. I hope this forum is not a place where misinformation has or will be passed on.
Anyway, with vocation, I'd point to my initial post:
http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4114.msg238650#msg238650 (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=4114.msg238650#msg238650)
That was my original thought. I think I stand by it—it neatly covers the peer minister idea. (so helpful to have things written—and hyperlinks!)
Students have a vocation the same as any lay person has a vocation. And that includes being a Christian.
That is the vocation that is important here. What does it mean to be a lay Christian? That is the issue. Y'all confuse it with your "student is a student, farmer is a farmer" talk. The vocation of a Lutheran student is to be a Lutheran. What does that mean? That's the issue. Not that a student is a student.
Now, as to the last comment:
But, I'll stop now, because I know that, whether or not Pr. Weedon and I are in complete agreement regarding the doctrine of vocation (which I'm pretty sure we are), I do completely agree with him that it would be rather fruitless to carry on this discussion with you.
I must say, I look forward to the Koin. Because there, we are not going to be able to walk away from one another when the going gets tough. We are not going to be able to ignore comments and throw up our hands and say discussion is "fruitless".
Nope. Things will be different then. I look forward to it.
Gee, back again to the original topic - the sinful sale of the ULC property by MNS - Lutheran Satire has now weighed in:
http://youtu.be/9nbZgWa5G6I (http://youtu.be/9nbZgWa5G6I)
Gee, back again to the original topic - the sinful sale of the ULC property by MNS - Lutheran Satire has now weighed in:
http://youtu.be/9nbZgWa5G6I (http://youtu.be/9nbZgWa5G6I)
Am I correct in understanding that this incident is simply an isolated thing that is happening in a vacuum, and discussion of the larger issues raised by this incident are therefore off-topic? Does this incident have nothing to do with larger plans for stewardship of resources for ministry and outreach?
The meeting of LCMS district leaders responsible for North American missions has concluded. From what my husband heard in St. Louis there is concern about internet misinformation regarding decisions related to the University Lutheran Chapel. Some statements on various blogs may in fact be slanderous. I hope this forum is not a place where misinformation has or will be passed on.
New editorial in the Minnesota Daily:
There goes the neighborhood
Development companies are destroying the character of student neighborhoods.
http://www.mndaily.com/2011/09/27/there-goes-neighborhood (http://www.mndaily.com/2011/09/27/there-goes-neighborhood)
Do you really think that this congregation can afford $3.5 million for a new space?
What do you mean by "character" of student neighborhoods? And, I thought this controversy was over the requirement that there must be a Lutheran church on campus. That implies that off-campus, in the "student neighborhood" that surrounds the campus, is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable, George. The cross of Christ stands before the eyes of every student that goes onto that campus. Now the cross might be hidden in an office building away from the campus, presuming that affordable rental space can be found.
Do you really think that this congregation can afford $3.5 million for a new space?
But it has been good stewardship for 50 years. The chapel sanctuary is nearly full every Sunday. It wasn't designed to seat much more than that. It's not like they're having services in a space they're barely filling. Yes, there is additional office/classroom space available in the building, but those spaces have been rented out in the past and could be again. They were even used as District offices for a time.
Even if this was the ultimate result, the District has handled this whole thing VERY poorly.
Mr. Erdner,
I disgaree with your math. If you want to put a price tage on preaching the Word, on administering the sacraments, on proclaiming the Gospel to the world, then the 3.5 million figure should not be divided by the 99/week in attendance but rather by the hundreds and thousands of students who have attended over the past decades (and those that would have attended in the future). Perhaps you should also include those who were touched by former students who had attended there as well -- what is it, something like 26 LCMS future pastors attended there when served by Pless and Kind? How many other church workers? My wife, for instance, who teaches 1st and 2nd grade in our parochial school, has said that ULC was a lifeline to her faith when she was a student at Concordia -- St. Paul. And what about students who grew spiritually while at the U, who did not enter professional church work? Men and women who are pillars of their congregations, impacting lives with what they saw and heard at ULC? Money well spent, if you ask me.
Selling assets is idiotic.
Mr. Erdner,
I disgaree with your math. If you want to put a price tage on preaching the Word, on administering the sacraments, on proclaiming the Gospel to the world, then the 3.5 million figure should not be divided by the 99/week in attendance but rather by the hundreds and thousands of students who have attended over the past decades (and those that would have attended in the future). Perhaps you should also include those who were touched by former students who had attended there as well -- what is it, something like 26 LCMS future pastors attended there when served by Pless and Kind? How many other church workers? My wife, for instance, who teaches 1st and 2nd grade in our parochial school, has said that ULC was a lifeline to her faith when she was a student at Concordia -- St. Paul. And what about students who grew spiritually while at the U, who did not enter professional church work? Men and women who are pillars of their congregations, impacting lives with what they saw and heard at ULC? Money well spent, if you ask me.
I think that congregation can find an excellent space for much less than $3.5 million dollars. With an average attendance of 99 people per week (according to the LCMS website), I think $35,353 dollars worth of assets per average worshipping might not be the most prudent stewardship of resources.
Tell me, George, how much are 100 college students each week worth? How much is the Gospel worth to you?
Selling assets is idiotic. Money disappears. Assets remain in perpetuity. Money can be replaced. Assets cannot.
Sandra, I believe that good stewardship includes adapting to changing times.
Mr. Erdner,
ULC cost the district less than $15,000 per year...
Just out of curiosity, how many people in this rather bitter and contentious discussion are actually in the district involved or directly connected to the campus ministry being discussed?
I think that congregation can find an excellent space for much less than $3.5 million dollars. With an average attendance of 99 people per week (according to the LCMS website), I think $35,353 dollars worth of assets per average worshipping might not be the most prudent stewardship of resources.
Tell me, George, how much are 100 college students each week worth? How much is the Gospel worth to you?
Selling assets is idiotic. Money disappears. Assets remain in perpetuity. Money can be replaced. Assets cannot.
As for stewardship over time, the physical value of any building includes both the building and the land it sits on. While buildings seldom increase in value, the land that they sit on usually does. Land is, after all, a finite commodity. God stopped making new land a long time ago.
In addition, I have been in a congregation where members stated that their purpose was to maintain their building.
In addition, I have been in a congregation where members stated that their purpose was to maintain their building.
And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
In addition, I have been in a congregation where members stated that their purpose was to maintain their building.
And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Part of my response to the general statement that buildings are assets.
Buildings are assets, until they begin to deteriorate, then they are a liability.
In addition, I have been in a congregation where members stated that their purpose was to maintain their building.
And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Part of my response to the general statement that buildings are assets.
I understand that it was part of your response. The question is what does a statement by members in a congregation where you were have to do with the issue at hand?
IOW, how is that part of your response relevant?
President Harrison requested a face to face meeting with the MNS District Board of Directors on the proposed selling of the chapel. The meeting was (is) to take place in a few weeks. It appears that the district leadership moved quickly to sell the building before the meeting could take place.
JTP+
In addition, I have been in a congregation where members stated that their purpose was to maintain their building.
And what does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Part of my response to the general statement that buildings are assets.
I understand that it was part of your response. The question is what does a statement by members in a congregation where you were have to do with the issue at hand?
IOW, how is that part of your response relevant?
As relevant or perhaps more so than your comments about how irrelevant my comments are.
As for stewardship over time, the physical value of any building includes both the building and the land it sits on. While buildings seldom increase in value, the land that they sit on usually does. Land is, after all, a finite commodity. God stopped making new land a long time ago.
I quickly scanned the posts here but I don't see that you've withdrawn this statement, yet. If you have, I apologize for bringing it up. The statement, buildings seldom increase in value might be true for abandoned buildings and unused warehouses, but its a fundamentally flawed premise. As a rule, given time, the exact opposite is true. 100 year old buildings, 50 year old buildings, and 25 year old buildings (or houses) etc., nearly always sell for more money than they were worth when built. 10k houses built fifty years ago sell for 100k now, with essentially no upgrades, and when the recession is over, they'll be worth 75 k ;) , but it's still more than they were sold for when they were brand new.
First, you're talking about inflation, not just appreciation. Second, you are referring to the increase in price of the total package of building and land. Yes, $10k houses built 50 years ago (in 1961 dollars) now sell for $100K now (in inflated 2011 dollars). But you cannot buy a house without also buying the land it sits on, can you? Adjusted for inflation, the building materials and labor of a house 50 years ago is about the same today, adjusted for inflation, and adjusted to take into account the improvements in HVAC and other systems. But a vacant lot you could have bought in 1961 has usually appreciated well beyond the rate of inflation, at least in desirable neighborhoods. That's where the increase in "value" is coming from. And, that's what's losing value in the current housing market collapse.
Just out of curiosity, how many people in this rather bitter and contentious discussion are actually in the district involved or directly connected to the campus ministry being discussed?
First, you're talking about inflation, not just appreciation. Second, you are referring to the increase in price of the total package of building and land. Yes, $10k houses built 50 years ago (in 1961 dollars) now sell for $100K now (in inflated 2011 dollars). But you cannot buy a house without also buying the land it sits on, can you? Adjusted for inflation, the building materials and labor of a house 50 years ago is about the same today, adjusted for inflation, and adjusted to take into account the improvements in HVAC and other systems. But a vacant lot you could have bought in 1961 has usually appreciated well beyond the rate of inflation, at least in desirable neighborhoods. That's where the increase in "value" is coming from. And, that's what's losing value in the current housing market collapse.
I'm sorry, you're still mistaken. Yes, the value of the property (land) has gone up, but you dismiss the value of the building as inflation only, that's not at all correct. The "real" price, in economic terminology "real" prices are prices that have been adjusted for inflation, house values have gone up 500% more than inflation has gone up in the last forty years. A house worth approx., 25k in 1970 would have an equivalent value of 140K in "real" price, however, the same house is now valued at 175k. Real price increased from 140 to 175 and is the inflation rate, however, the nominal house price has gone from 25k to 175k, 500% higher than the inflation based real price.
I wouldn't push the real estate prices in this thread topic except it's directly pertinent to the topic, the value of the ULC building will increase over time, not decrease, in less than another 50 year the value of the building will likely be more than twice the 3.5 million it is worth today.
Just out of curiosity, how many people in this rather bitter and contentious discussion are actually in the district involved or directly connected to the campus ministry being discussed?
I was a member of ULC from about 11/03-3/06. I've also been a member during the interim of my move this summer, from May to the present. I moved into my home in Fort Wayne, IN last week, but haven't had the heart to ask Pastor Kind for my transfer with all the turmoil going on right now.
I respond:
No, dgkirch, I am not in the discussion
No, dgkirch, I am not in the discussion and have not expressed an opinion here, nor do I intend to do so. How the LCMS structures an independent campus ministry is none of my business and I will not butt in.
Has it been established that the building is an asset to the campus ministry or to the district or a liability?
Has it been established that the building is an asset to the campus ministry or to the district or a liability?
Accounting 101
An asset = something you OWN.
A liability = something you OWE.
There is no existing mortgage on the building, so it's pure ASSET.
. . . which was that a liability is something that costs us money -- which properly fall under expenses.
Get real, folks...
No, dgkirch, I am not in the discussion and have not expressed an opinion here, nor do I intend to do so.
So there is yet another nasty swipe, but the swiper ignores the truth of my statement. I have not commented on your campus ministry dust-up.
Except for this brief, one-time statement, which I make now:
Close it down. We in the ELCA will be happy to take care of LCMS students. We're probably doing that already.
Pastor Engebretson writes:
Really? What indicates that the ELCA has been assuming pastoral care for LCMS students?
I comment:
Common sense. Many of our young people care less about the denominational pedigree than some of their elders.
There are two ELCA congregations with actual churches on or adjacent to the East Bank campus (Grace Lutheran Church http://www.graceattheu.org (http://www.graceattheu.org) and University Lutheran Church of Hope http://ulch.org/ (http://ulch.org/)) and adjacent to the West Bank dorm complex is Augsburg College, where in addition to the College's own campus ministry there is the home of another ELCA congregation that was displaced to build one of the new University buildings, Trinity Lutheran (http://www.trinity-lc.org/ (http://www.trinity-lc.org/)), which has been given space on the Augsburg campus.Pastor Engebretson writes:
Really? What indicates that the ELCA has been assuming pastoral care for LCMS students?
I comment:
Common sense. Many of our young people care less about the denominational pedigree than some of their elders.
Well, that answers my question. It's just an assumption at best. We might assume the opposite just as well.
There are two ELCA congregations with actual churches on or adjacent to the East Bank campus (Grace Lutheran Church http://www.graceattheu.org (http://www.graceattheu.org) and University Lutheran Church of Hope http://ulch.org/ (http://ulch.org/)) and adjacent to the West Bank dorm complex is Augsburg College, where in addition to the College's own campus ministry there is the home of another ELCA congregation that was displaced to build one of the new University buildings, Trinity Lutheran (http://www.trinity-lc.org/ (http://www.trinity-lc.org/)), which has been given space on the Augsburg campus.
The ELCA has far and away the best coverage at the U of M in terms of presence. Let's hope they're caring for a lot of students.
Peace,
Michael
If the conservatives cried out like this for every church that closed, for every missionary and DCE that was laid off, I could appreciate the over the top reaction that is apparent here. But that's not the case, this place is being glorified more than Solomon's Temple, as if no other facility, as if in no other place could the mercy of God be poured out on His people.
If you are trying to make this the rallying cry for a takeover of the BOD - do yourselves a favor - look in the mirror first, ask why a building is more important to you, than the kids it is supposed to serve. Ask why the inflamed rhetoric is necessary, and whether it is conducive to koinonia.
and ask if money and a building haven't become your idols.
Then perhaps, come back, the logs out of your eyes - and focus on helping the pastor find a new location (say perhaps in the storefront at the bottom of the housing complex? anyone think of that? It could be written into the developer's plans and would be a great option for ministry)
...just as they have an opportunity to learn to love football[/b]." [/color]
...just as they have an opportunity to learn to love football[/b]." [/color]
Someone can learn and love football at the U of Minnesota? ???
...just as they have an opportunity to learn to love football[/b]." [/color]
Someone can learn and love football at the U of Minnesota? ???
They learn football and the theology of the cross at the same time, though the football knowledge comes mostly from watching what the visiting teams do....just as they have an opportunity to learn to love football[/b]." [/color]
Someone can learn and love football at the U of Minnesota? ???
If the conservatives cried out like this for every church that closed, for every missionary and DCE that was laid off, I could appreciate the over the top reaction that is apparent here. But that's not the case, this place is being glorified more than Solomon's Temple, as if no other facility, as if in no other place could the mercy of God be poured out on His people.
Again, either show us the congregation that is self-sustaining and has a vibrant Word and Sacrament Ministry serving hundreds, which has been closed by a District against the will of the congregation, or quit making this idiotic comparison. And, should you manage to show us such an example, I'm quite sure we "conservatives" would cry out just as vehemently in protest.If you are trying to make this the rallying cry for a takeover of the BOD - do yourselves a favor - look in the mirror first, ask why a building is more important to you, than the kids it is supposed to serve. Ask why the inflamed rhetoric is necessary, and whether it is conducive to koinonia.
and ask if money and a building haven't become your idols.
Then perhaps, come back, the logs out of your eyes - and focus on helping the pastor find a new location (say perhaps in the storefront at the bottom of the housing complex? anyone think of that? It could be written into the developer's plans and would be a great option for ministry)
Ask yourself if you have honestly listened to those protesting this move by the MNS District and whether or not your conclusions, that their protesting is about money and a building, are accurate. Ask yourself why your inflamed rhetoric ("conservatives," "over the top reaction," accusing those opposed to this of idolatry, etc.) is necessary and conducive to koinonia. Then, come back, the logs out of your own eyes, and maybe we can actually discuss why a great many of us are outraged over this situation.
Rev. Messer,
Just curious - have you some inside knowledge where Rev. Kind has been told his congregation is being "closed"?
As to another ministry - equally vibrant - how about the other Chapel up for sale?
There are a number of churches out there because of the downturn on economy and the congregations are going into default because of high unemployment. This week I heard of two such incidences, and I know of a couple more. Congregations of 200+ - with mostly new Christians in them.
And if you look outside the LCMS - there are many more. Perhaps the most famous church in California is facing such a situation, even as they have made a turn to a far more Christ centered message.
Rev. Messer,
Just curious - have you some inside knowledge where Rev. Kind has been told his congregation is being "closed"?
J & S,
No, I have no inside knowledge that Pr. Kind has been told his congregation is being closed, nor have I a clue why you would ask if I did. You are the one who brought up the closing of congregations ("If the conservatives cried out like this for every church that closed . . ."). My point, which I think I've made with you at least three times now, is that your comparison is ridiculous. What you really want to say is that you think "conservatives" are meany, poopie heads, who only cry out when they feel one of their own is being wronged. You are free to think such things. I think you're wrong. I think we "conservatives" would be equally upset if a District in our synod sold any thriving congregation's property out from under them against their will. But, that's a moot point, since you have yet to point to something specific to support your theory. Again, where are these congregations that are self-sustaining and have a vibrant Word and Sacrament Ministry serving hundreds, which has had their property sold by the District against their will?As to another ministry - equally vibrant - how about the other Chapel up for sale?
How about it? What's your point? The pastor there seems to be all for the sale and the direction the district is taking regarding campus ministry. Different story. Apples and oranges. But, you know that.
There are a number of churches out there because of the downturn on economy and the congregations are going into default because of high unemployment. This week I heard of two such incidences, and I know of a couple more. Congregations of 200+ - with mostly new Christians in them.
How this has anything to do with the MNS District selling the ULC is beyond me. Are any of these congregations being forced out of their buildings by their Districts selling the building and property where they're doing Word and Sacrament Ministry against their will?And if you look outside the LCMS - there are many more. Perhaps the most famous church in California is facing such a situation, even as they have made a turn to a far more Christ centered message.
Again, how this has anything to do with the MNS District selling the ULC is beyond me.
Of the several concerns raised by the then-impending sale of the University Lutheran Chapel property, President Fondow and I were in agreement that it was unwise to disregard the resolution of the joint pastors’ conference requesting that any decision to sell the property be made at the Minnesota South District Convention. We were seeking to share this and other information directly with the board.
1. ULC is not losing its ministry, just the place it met in. But according to the accusations hurled against the BOD - you would think they were taking Pr. Kind and de-frocking him, and closing down the entire ministry. They have been called everything from heretics to having Psalms quoted out of context about them, as if they are tearing down the Temple and desecrating the Holy of Holies. Or do you think threats voiced over the internet is the best strategy for working with those you don't agree with?
2. Vibrant growing ministries - ministering to those they were sent are being closed down all around the country. Buildings are being sold out from under ministries all around the country. Name one that BJS and yourself have protested as much as this one.
3. I think you need to check with Monte - he's never said he's in favor of selling the chapel - matter of fact he's said just the opposite - in this thread. But he also sees the reality of it, and is willing to work with it, trusting that God will still gather His people around W&S. The apples and oranges isn't the ministries - it is the reaction to it.
I have a question related to the LCMS President’s letter, where he writes:QuoteOf the several concerns raised by the then-impending sale of the University Lutheran Chapel property, President Fondow and I were in agreement that it was unwise to disregard the resolution of the joint pastors’ conference requesting that any decision to sell the property be made at the Minnesota South District Convention. We were seeking to share this and other information directly with the board.
My question is related to what exactly was contained in the resolution made at the joint pastors’ conference. It would be helpful to have the "whereas" and "resolved” clauses laid out for all to see – along with a preamble.
The resolution may be found here:
http://www.ulcmn.org/Files/Save%20ULC%20Files/MNS%20MNN%20Maddens%20Resolution.pdf
It may interest the readers that it has happened in the past that others have earmarked/restricted gifts to the MNS district for ULC and that money has not increased the amount ULC has received from the district. Instead, either it sits on the district books without ever be disbursed, or it is considered disbursed because the district spends more than the amount of the gifts on the property used by ULC.http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=15886
QuoteThe resolution may be found here:
http://www.ulcmn.org/Files/Save%20ULC%20Files/MNS%20MNN%20Maddens%20Resolution.pdf
Thanks for the link. You really can't tell why the pastors wanted to wait before the next Convention before making a firm decision to sell the property. Was it because the real estate market was considered to be in a high state of flux or were there other reasons for wanting to wait? What were some of the comments made at the time of the vote? How close was the vote? Why was it an oral vote, rather than by secret ballot? Obviously, what should have been done by those who did not want the chapel sold, would be to add in the resolution that the campus ULC should not be sold - period. That would have put more teeth into the resolution. It is interesting that, according to the LCMS President, the decision to sell the property comes as no surprise. If it really came as no surprise, why than was there not a firm resolution at a previous convention brought out to be voted upon that would have locked the ministry into place so that the chapel could not be sold by the District Board - period?
By the way, there was no "let's wait for a better market to sell" stance taken that I recall. It was basically a plea for the district BOD not to take this burden onto itself, knowing how divisive it could/would be. I do not recall anyone saying that now was not the time, market-wise, but in the future it would be a good idea.
On the Brothers of John the Steadfast site, I came across a claim made by a former Board Member of the District:QuoteIt may interest the readers that it has happened in the past that others have earmarked/restricted gifts to the MNS district for ULC and that money has not increased the amount ULC has received from the district. Instead, either it sits on the district books without ever be disbursed, or it is considered disbursed because the district spends more than the amount of the gifts on the property used by ULC.http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=15886
Now that is quite a claim. Was this brought to President Harrison's attention?
...when economic times get tough, and when operating resources become scarce, then decisions have to be made about allocating those scarce resources. Often those decisions are hard. And often those who favor one particular activity over another will advocate for retaining the resources for the activity they favor over other activities.
I have to say that I agree 100% with Pr. Wilken on the matter of defunding those who continue to support and fund parishes that will not identify themselves as Lutheran and will not commit to use doctrinally pure Agenda and Hymnbooks
I have to say that I agree 100% with Pr. Wilken on the matter of defunding those who continue to support and fund parishes that will not identify themselves as Lutheran and will not commit to use doctrinally pure Agenda and Hymnbooks (with appropriate diversity). I think that's kind of a no-brainer. I do not regard that as political maneuvering. I regard it as simply good stewardship of the resources God has given us.
Indeed, I wonder if the clergy associated with the ULC took a similar public stance against The Alley church and were also striving to make public attempts to defund The Alley on a District level? If so, it would be hard to defend why the ULC should be allowed to receive District funds at all - now that the new pro Alley leadership is in place on the Board of Directors.
QuoteI have to say that I agree 100% with Pr. Wilken on the matter of defunding those who continue to support and fund parishes that will not identify themselves as Lutheran and will not commit to use doctrinally pure Agenda and Hymnbooks
Wow! I assume that you are currently in the ecclesiastical process of making charges that The Alley is guilty of false doctrine? I look forward to hearing how your case is decided. However, I doubt your stance is going to ever prevail in the LCMS.
Warning, Sarcasm Ahead:
It is amazing how the early church survived for decades, after the New Testament was composed, without an Agenda and Hymnbook that contained the various parts of the full and complete liturgy that the LCMS now has in the LSB. And to think that the Apostle Paul himself never received such an Agenda and Hymnbook that was so fully developed and pure as the LCMS has! What a great sin of omission that that the Apostle Paul made in not writing down what he knew deep in his heart what the church should be doing. And to think that Martin Luther himself once made the great doctrinal mistake of not wanting his followers to call themselves after his name and even had the audacity to change the agreed upon Ecumenical Creed into something (e.g. We All Believe in One True God) that could be sung with entirely different words!
Those who desire to work with an early 2nd century primitive church liturgy (which, by the way, also did not have the name Lutheran), should be given the freedom to do as they desire. For true confessional Lutherans, it is a matter of adiaphora. But if you must fight a battle for tradition, think about how there is much more evidence from tradition to argue a strong case that the Eucharist should be held every Sunday than to argue that the various parts of the LSB were always around in their full form and richness in the early pre-Reformation church.
Pastor Engebretson writes:The dozen or so university students who worship/bible study/fellowship with us care very much that they are attending an LCMS parish.
Really? What indicates that the ELCA has been assuming pastoral care for LCMS students?
I comment:
Common sense. Many of our young people care less about the denominational pedigree than some of their elders.
Perhaps I should not even comment on this, but I am on Pastor Weedon's side in this matter. Is its REALLY such a big deal to ask a Lutheran Mission to boldly identify itself as Lutheran? Why would any honest Lutheran pastor not want the parish he served to be identified as Lutheran, unless, of course, he was secretly (or not so secretly) ashamed of his Lutheran heritage? Does anyone besides me see this as a form of 'truth-in-advertising"? How could a person really trust a parish that was deliberately concealing and hiding its identity from inquirers? I know I wouldn't trust them. And to what end is this concealment of identity? Could it be to bring more non-denominational types into the LCMS? And to what end is that? Could it be to make the LCMS into a copy of Joel Osteen's "church" that just happens to preach Law and Gospel? I sincerely hope not.
From afar, I hear the sound of bridges being burned.
It's nice to see that your non-participation and your non-opinions are continuing.
George,
If congregations want to mimic non-denoms in their attempt to reach people with the Gospel, they are perfectly welcome to do so.
Just don't ask me to fund it.
Sorry for the grumpy tone of the post, but I honestly don't get why you would object to an LCMS congregation refusing to fund a so called mission start that my congregation couldn't even recognize AS Lutheran. YOU go give to them, George.
Perhaps I should not even comment on this, but I am on Pastor Weedon's side in this matter. Is its REALLY such a big deal to ask a Lutheran Mission to boldly identify itself as Lutheran? Why would any honest Lutheran pastor not want the parish he served to be identified as Lutheran, unless, of course, he was secretly (or not so secretly) ashamed of his Lutheran heritage? Does anyone besides me see this as a form of 'truth-in-advertising"? How could a person really trust a parish that was deliberately concealing and hiding its identity from inquirers? I know I wouldn't trust them. And to what end is this concealment of identity? Could it be to bring more non-denominational types into the LCMS? And to what end is that? Could it be to make the LCMS into a copy of Joel Osteen's "church" that just happens to preach Law and Gospel? I sincerely hope not.
Did you ever consider that in some circles, the term "Lutheran" contains a great deal of unfortunate baggage? Did you ever think that in some circles having the name "Lutheran" on the door means "Sorry, you can only watch the rest of us take communion, you aren't welcome"?
When one's mission is reaching out to people, which is more important, reaching them with the Gospel as Lutherans understand the Gospel, or maintaining the name "Lutheran" on the sign in front? If the latter is an impediment to the former, which takes priority?
Perhaps I should not even comment on this, but I am on Pastor Weedon's side in this matter. Is its REALLY such a big deal to ask a Lutheran Mission to boldly identify itself as Lutheran? Why would any honest Lutheran pastor not want the parish he served to be identified as Lutheran, unless, of course, he was secretly (or not so secretly) ashamed of his Lutheran heritage? Does anyone besides me see this as a form of 'truth-in-advertising"? How could a person really trust a parish that was deliberately concealing and hiding its identity from inquirers? I know I wouldn't trust them. And to what end is this concealment of identity? Could it be to bring more non-denominational types into the LCMS? And to what end is that? Could it be to make the LCMS into a copy of Joel Osteen's "church" that just happens to preach Law and Gospel? I sincerely hope not.
Did you ever consider that in some circles, the term "Lutheran" contains a great deal of unfortunate baggage? Did you ever think that in some circles having the name "Lutheran" on the door means "Sorry, you can only watch the rest of us take communion, you aren't welcome"?
When one's mission is reaching out to people, which is more important, reaching them with the Gospel as Lutherans understand the Gospel, or maintaining the name "Lutheran" on the sign in front? If the latter is an impediment to the former, which takes priority?
As far as that is concerned we might also say that the term "Christian" also contains a lot of baggage, with people attaching all kinds of impressions and caricatures to it. In the Muslim world the term "Christian" can even be a dangerous label with which to be identified. Should we therefore avoid this term? The fact that some people would interpret "Lutheran" as exclusionary in an uncaring and arbitrary fashion does not deter me from using that term. People attach misguided and inaccurate ideas to many terms, but if we avoided these terms (such as Lutheran) for this reason we would also miss the opportunity to enlighten people on the truth rather than reinforce their misinformed impressions.
Perhaps I should not even comment on this, but I am on Pastor Weedon's side in this matter. Is its REALLY such a big deal to ask a Lutheran Mission to boldly identify itself as Lutheran? Why would any honest Lutheran pastor not want the parish he served to be identified as Lutheran, unless, of course, he was secretly (or not so secretly) ashamed of his Lutheran heritage? Does anyone besides me see this as a form of 'truth-in-advertising"? How could a person really trust a parish that was deliberately concealing and hiding its identity from inquirers? I know I wouldn't trust them. And to what end is this concealment of identity? Could it be to bring more non-denominational types into the LCMS? And to what end is that? Could it be to make the LCMS into a copy of Joel Osteen's "church" that just happens to preach Law and Gospel? I sincerely hope not.
Did you ever consider that in some circles, the term "Lutheran" contains a great deal of unfortunate baggage? Did you ever think that in some circles having the name "Lutheran" on the door means "Sorry, you can only watch the rest of us take communion, you aren't welcome"?
When one's mission is reaching out to people, which is more important, reaching them with the Gospel as Lutherans understand the Gospel, or maintaining the name "Lutheran" on the sign in front? If the latter is an impediment to the former, which takes priority?
As far as that is concerned we might also say that the term "Christian" also contains a lot of baggage, with people attaching all kinds of impressions and caricatures to it. In the Muslim world the term "Christian" can even be a dangerous label with which to be identified. Should we therefore avoid this term? The fact that some people would interpret "Lutheran" as exclusionary in an uncaring and arbitrary fashion does not deter me from using that term. People attach misguided and inaccurate ideas to many terms, but if we avoided these terms (such as Lutheran) for this reason we would also miss the opportunity to enlighten people on the truth rather than reinforce their misinformed impressions.
I'll answer if you'll be more specific about what level of avoidance you're talking about. For example, most Lutheran churches I know don't include the word "Christian" in their names or on their main signs. The same goes for churches of almost every other faith tradition, except those denominations that actually include the word "Christian" in their name, like the First Christian Church.
And please, tell my just how explicit we should be in using the "opportunity" we get by chasing people away from our churches before they even set foot inside to hear whatever enlightenment is in store for them once they cross the threshold. Just how much "opportunity" do you encounter on a regular basis to enlighten the people who won't set foot in your church?
most Lutheran churches I know don't include the word "Christian" in their names or on their main signs.
...could it be as simple as one word in the sign that keeps people from "setting foot in my church"? And how many of these people are there?
Quotemost Lutheran churches I know don't include the word "Christian" in their names or on their main signs.
That is a good point. The church I went to this morning had the word Lutheran plastered on the sign out front without the word Christian mentioned at all. During the worship service they never mentioned the word Christian - except during the Creed, which (when you think about it) was changed for branding purposes from the original word catholic. The pastor’s sermon quoted Martin Luther and the Lutheran Catechism many times more than the Bible itself. Now, I don’t think that is wrong. However, I do wonder if visitors from outside the Lutheran Church might think that our church is some kind of cult - because of the heavy emphasis on Martin Luther and the name Lutheran.Quote...could it be as simple as one word in the sign that keeps people from "setting foot in my church"? And how many of these people are there?
Yes, there are probably people who do discriminate on the basis of signage. That can be good or bad, depending if you want transfer growth from other Lutheran churches or visitors from generic churches. It is not a matter of doctrine, as the phrase Lutheran is more of a recent American phenomena. It is a simple matter of branding.
Why would folks not want to go to a Lutheran church?
Well, the most likely scenario these days is that many folks are homophobic and because they have heard a lot of news about LGBT acceptance in the Lutheran church they have a difficult time stepping into the door of any church that has the label Lutheran.
A New York pastor once contended that in his context, he feared that "Lutheran" meant "German" and that meant "anti-Semitic," not a good thing in NYC. I did not agree with him, but it was how he saw it.
And that was why I disagreed with my NYC friend. I contended that we should be lifting up those people, that part of our heritage and not apologizing for being "Lutheran" or underplaying that distinguished name.
My question was more of a rhetorical nature. I wasn't thinking specifically of church signs, but of terms in general. Perhaps your world is different than mine, but I am not aware of people feeling "chased away" from my church because of the word "Lutheran" on the sign out front. But I wonder if people who were specifically turned off of because of the name Lutheran on my sign aren't carrying a lot of other baggage as well. In other words, could it be as simple as one word in the sign that keeps people from "setting foot in my church"? And how many of these people are there? I just don't see how there is a huge number of people who would boycott my church just because of the name "Lutheran." Maybe your experience is different.
Why would folks not want to go to a Lutheran church?
Well, the most likely scenario these days is that many folks are homophobic and because they have heard a lot of news about LGBT acceptance in the Lutheran church they have a difficult time stepping into the door of any church that has the label Lutheran.
And that was why I disagreed with my NYC friend. I contended that we should be lifting up those people, that part of our heritage and not apologizing for being "Lutheran" or underplaying that distinguished name.
14%
And that was why I disagreed with my NYC friend. I contended that we should be lifting up those people, that part of our heritage and not apologizing for being "Lutheran" or underplaying that distinguished name.
14%
WDTM?
I respond:
No, dgkirch, I am not in the discussion
Really? A full 10% of your last 100 posts (10/100) have been on this thread. Granted, you don't say much of substance, but you certainly have joined in the discussion! So, to your question: Are you actually in the district involved or directly connected to the campus ministry being discussed?
To respond to the annoying needle, I repeat: I have not expressed any opinion on your campus ministry situation, other than to ask a question, wonder whether the level of language in the sermon quoted would make reconciliation difficult and muse that if you guys have to pull out or weaken your campus ministry, we in the ELCA would be glad to take care of LCMS students at the university.
As to the issue itself, was it right or wrong, evil or prudent, yellow or blue to sell the building: don't know, don't care, can't comment.
I'm sympathetic to Pr. Kind and his congregation's cause, but I have severe reservations about his not only making the point but reiterating and emphasizing it, that the congregation is being sinned against by the district. At a practical, business level the move may be unwise and not likely to bear fruit, but that makes it a competence issue rather than a moral/sin issue. Preaching from the pulpit, where one must be able to say "In the Name of Jesus, Amen" Pr. Kind needs clear evidence of what he is saying, and I think he says too much. To accuse the district of serving God and mammon is a pretty serious thing indeed. It seems to me quite possible that at least some people in the district were sinned against in this sermon.
Several times and in several different forms the question has been asked, "How have the district officials acted in a Christ-like manner toward ULC?" No one has stepped forward to answer that question yet, and I suspect the reason why is because everyone knows that what they did was sinful. The "strongest" argument that anyone has been able to muster is that this move might be more beneficial to an unknown, unidentified number of people who are currently not being served by the Gospel. Therefore, it is a Christ-like move to help these unknown, unidentified people at the expense of these known, identified people.
So I guess I would ask you the same question: in what way(s) was/were the district's actions NOT sinful against ULC? And don't just look at the fact that they are selling the building. Look at the entire picture. Look at how they attempted to do all of this without involving ULC. Look at how they ignored the resolution of the joint MN North and MN South pastors. Look at how they notified Pr. Kind. Look at how they ignored Pres. Harrison. Look at the totality of the FACTS behind this entire situation and then tell us how they acted in a Christ-like manner.
How much time was spent raising money - like every other mission congregation does. (and there is a stable congregation there - is there not?)
...just as they have an opportunity to learn to love football[/b]." [/color]
Someone can learn and love football at the U of Minnesota? ???
...just as they have an opportunity to learn to love football[/b]." [/color]
Someone can learn and love football at the U of Minnesota? ???
Not this year 8)
I'm sympathetic to Pr. Kind and his congregation's cause, but I have severe reservations about his not only making the point but reiterating and emphasizing it, that the congregation is being sinned against by the district. At a practical, business level the move may be unwise and not likely to bear fruit, but that makes it a competence issue rather than a moral/sin issue. Preaching from the pulpit, where one must be able to say "In the Name of Jesus, Amen" Pr. Kind needs clear evidence of what he is saying, and I think he says too much. To accuse the district of serving God and mammon is a pretty serious thing indeed. It seems to me quite possible that at least some people in the district were sinned against in this sermon.
Several times and in several different forms the question has been asked, "How have the district officials acted in a Christ-like manner toward ULC?" No one has stepped forward to answer that question yet, and I suspect the reason why is because everyone knows that what they did was sinful. The "strongest" argument that anyone has been able to muster is that this move might be more beneficial to an unknown, unidentified number of people who are currently not being served by the Gospel. Therefore, it is a Christ-like move to help these unknown, unidentified people at the expense of these known, identified people.
So I guess I would ask you the same question: in what way(s) was/were the district's actions NOT sinful against ULC? And don't just look at the fact that they are selling the building. Look at the entire picture. Look at how they attempted to do all of this without involving ULC. Look at how they ignored the resolution of the joint MN North and MN South pastors. Look at how they notified Pr. Kind. Look at how they ignored Pres. Harrison. Look at the totality of the FACTS behind this entire situation and then tell us how they acted in a Christ-like manner.
Are mistakes sins?
George Erdner, I commend your words on this thread. I'd say something, but you have rendered it superfluous.
Sin is transgression of the Law. (1 John 3:4). We are on the hook for our sins, and God doesn't view us as innocent misguided victims of our "mistakes" any more than he buys Flip Wilson's old quip: "The devil made me do it!"
Sin is transgression of the Law. (1 John 3:4). We are on the hook for our sins, and God doesn't view us as innocent misguided victims of our "mistakes" any more than he buys Flip Wilson's old quip: "The devil made me do it!"
Are all mistakes sin? That is what you seem to be saying. So if I put down that Thomas Jefferson was the first president of the US instead of George Washington, is that a sin?
Whether sins or mistakes at the end of the day what is disturbing about this whole situation is a lack of transparency which has led to suspicion and therefore more sinning. I empathize with ULC and was really pulling for Pastor Kind and the congregation to raise enough money to buy the property but clearly that hasn't happened. In a Synod that is rampant with distrust this just doesn't help. There's truth in the light and that's something that needs to be emphasized by all of us. I don't know any of the people involved nor do I have a side that I support but such situations really do bring out the worst in our Synod. When transparency is lacking it can only cause sin to fester and build up more and more. This is a pattern that can be found in our Synod for awhile now (some might argue since its founding). Clearly, it's not a good one.
Scott+
Actually, this is why many missionaries in the US use the term "follower of Jesus" to replace the term "Christian" because of the baggage that is there.
QuoteActually, this is why many missionaries in the US use the term "follower of Jesus" to replace the term "Christian" because of the baggage that is there.
At what point do we jettison things because of the negative baggage there? The liturgy, the hymnody, the name Lutheran... all have baggage, we all admit it, but so does the cross, sin, repentance, faith, etc... Maybe the safest mission is no mission at all -- lest we offend by preaching a crucified Savior who suffered and died for the terrible and death incurring sins of all sinners and whose grace, inclusive as it is, is available only in this Gospel and only by faith?!
I think it is all balderdash. The Gospel has and always will be offensive. Its baggage cannot be avoided. It brings faith not because it is palatable or reasonable but because the Spirit is attached to this Word and God has determined to work through the Word to accomplish His saving purpose... messy, yes, indeed, but the only way God works...
Paul's all things to all men has become the grape kool-aid of a people all too willing to ditch everything to please everyone but end up with nothing at all...
“Our churches also teach that one holy church is to continue forever. The church is the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly. For the true unity of the church it is enough to agree concerning the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions or rites and ceremonies instituted by men should be alike everywhere. It is as Paul says, “One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” etc. (Eph. 4:5-6).”
..the Baptist brand has been tarnished by controversial congregations like the antigay (and independent) Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas...."A number of churches on the left and the right are concerned that people are turned off by the Baptist name," Leonard said. "They believe that in the public square Baptists have looked shrill, unwelcoming, sectarian."
Many people won't attend [Reformed churches] based on preconceptions of what Reformed means," Demers said. "The whole stigma of denominations has proven divisive."
Agreed. I travel alot and, if I am free on a Sunday, I look for a parish where I can be fed with Word and Sacrament. If a LCMS parish does not have Lutheran in its name and does not identify itself as LCMS in the phone book and/or on their sign, I look for another one that does.
However, to those who worked to build it up, those who are personally invested in the place, it is an obscene question, like a man pawning his wife's wedding ring on the theory that the family benefits most by having the cash.
Okay, I'll accept that as a better analogy (though many of those who are upset might be a little put off by the idea of the district being the father and the congregation being the children) but the point of my question remains. If the scenario I outlined above took place, would those who are upset use the 3.5. million to repurchase the building? All the question does is give people a chance to see it from the other side. If it is a choice between 3.5 million and this building, which is better for the district to have? That is the question facing the board. They might have gotten the choice wrong. They might have gone about it in an unprofessional manner. They might have a vision for student ministry that is entirely bogus. But to claim in a sermon to the congregation that the sale is an example of the district falling prey to the allure of mammon and seeking to serve two masters, etc. is, well, a pretty bold thing to say, since you have to know their hearts and be able to say, "thus says the Lord," to your judgment. Maybe it is spot on. But from my perspective as a sympathetic onlooker from afar, it comes across as saying too much in the context of a sermon. As a private opinion, sure, but as the Word of God to the congregation, I don't know if I would go there.However, to those who worked to build it up, those who are personally invested in the place, it is an obscene question, like a man pawning his wife's wedding ring on the theory that the family benefits most by having the cash.
A better analogy might be that a father buys a farm and asks his sons to work it. Under an agreement that the father will own the farm for their benefit, the sons give up the opportunity for other careers, they establish roots, they sacrificially work the farm for decades, they have families that live on the farm and help with the work, they make improvements, they put their sweat and blood into that farm, making it very productive. They, in turn, raise sons who also work the farm, establishing roots, and the farm prospers even more.
Suddenly, aware that the price of farmland has increased greatly, the father decides to sell the farm and sends them an email telling them so. Knowing that his sons would like to buy the farm so that they can continue to earn incomes, not have to uproot their families, and can continue doing what they love in a community that they love, he instead refuses to meet with them and enters into a sale with little warning. When the sons ask him what they and their families are now going to do, the father tells them that he is going to invest his money from the sale in farm-related stocks, and maybe he'll give them a bit of the proceeds so that they can maybe get a new start. He'll have to see.
"But Father, this is our home. You agreed to keep the family farm for our benefit so that we could work it, raise families, and earn incomes. Why did you not talk to us about this and give us the opportunity to work out a way to buy the farm and remain here?" the sons ask. The father's response to his sons: "It's my farm. I'll do with it what I wish. Consider yourselves lucky that I might give you a stipend so you can continue to farm in some manner- maybe tenant farming. If you have any other questions talk to my attorney. Oh, by the way, start packing."
Wow, just WOW! A fitness franchise ministry for a church plant at the same time as the ULC debacle. Lord have mercy!
Minutes
Board of Directors
Minnesota South District
Monday-Tuesday, September 12-13, 2011
AmericInn, Owatonna, MN
http://www.mnsdistrict.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=o97tfLR5Qzs%3D&tabid=59&mid=789
The question should be asked of those backing the ULC as well.
I don't accept your misdirection. You avoided answering the question (though, in all fairness, I didn't ask it of you) and began spewing accusations at ULC. That was not the question. The question was how the BOD has acted in a Christ-like manner. Calling someone else a sinner is not an answer to the question at hand.
Did I read those minutes right? MSU-Mankato's building will not be sold at this time? And did you read the resolution about the selling of ULC-Minneapolis? The MNS district will give them "up to" $250000? ULC-Minneapolis "may" have to relocate? And that the final "Resolved" was struck, that ULC will not be given the organ or any of the furnishings which will be helpful to them?
Here's what I am more disturbed about:QuoteI. Devotions – Mr. Will Bartley led the opening devotion. His devotion was based on Ephesians 2:8-10. “Works, Attitude, and Forgiveness.” He led the group in confession of sins, confession of faith, and prayer.
I don't know who "Mr. Will Bartley" is, but he does not show up on the LCMS' "Find a Worker" website. So why is "Mr. Will Bartley" "[leading] the group in confession of sins" when there are ten ordained men who are listed as being present in the roll call and an additional two listed as staff?
Prayer is one thing. Confession and absolution?
Oh sorry. Confession without absolution. Like Rome, I guess...:)
QuoteActually, this is why many missionaries in the US use the term "follower of Jesus" to replace the term "Christian" because of the baggage that is there.
At what point do we jettison things because of the negative baggage there? The liturgy, the hymnody, the name Lutheran... all have baggage, we all admit it, but so does the cross, sin, repentance, faith, etc... Maybe the safest mission is no mission at all -- lest we offend by preaching a crucified Savior who suffered and died for the terrible and death incurring sins of all sinners and whose grace, inclusive as it is, is available only in this Gospel and only by faith?!
I think it is all balderdash. The Gospel has and always will be offensive. Its baggage cannot be avoided. It brings faith not because it is palatable or reasonable but because the Spirit is attached to this Word and God has determined to work through the Word to accomplish His saving purpose... messy, yes, indeed, but the only way God works...
Paul's all things to all men has become the grape kool-aid of a people all too willing to ditch everything to please everyone but end up with nothing at all...
Okay, I'll accept that as a better analogy (though many of those who are upset might be a little put off by the idea of the district being the father and the congregation being the children) but the point of my question remains. If the scenario I outlined above took place, would those who are upset use the 3.5. million to repurchase the building? All the question does is give people a chance to see it from the other side. If it is a choice between 3.5 million and this building, which is better for the district to have? That is the question facing the board. They might have gotten the choice wrong. They might have gone about it in an unprofessional manner. They might have a vision for student ministry that is entirely bogus. But to claim in a sermon to the congregation that the sale is an example of the district falling prey to the allure of mammon and seeking to serve two masters, etc. is, well, a pretty bold thing to say, since you have to know their hearts and be able to say, "thus says the Lord," to your judgment. Maybe it is spot on. But from my perspective as a sympathetic onlooker from afar, it comes across as saying too much in the context of a sermon. As a private opinion, sure, but as the Word of God to the congregation, I don't know if I would go there.However, to those who worked to build it up, those who are personally invested in the place, it is an obscene question, like a man pawning his wife's wedding ring on the theory that the family benefits most by having the cash.
A better analogy might be that a father buys a farm and asks his sons to work it. Under an agreement that the father will own the farm for their benefit, the sons give up the opportunity for other careers, they establish roots, they sacrificially work the farm for decades, they have families that live on the farm and help with the work, they make improvements, they put their sweat and blood into that farm, making it very productive. They, in turn, raise sons who also work the farm, establishing roots, and the farm prospers even more.
Suddenly, aware that the price of farmland has increased greatly, the father decides to sell the farm and sends them an email telling them so. Knowing that his sons would like to buy the farm so that they can continue to earn incomes, not have to uproot their families, and can continue doing what they love in a community that they love, he instead refuses to meet with them and enters into a sale with little warning. When the sons ask him what they and their families are now going to do, the father tells them that he is going to invest his money from the sale in farm-related stocks, and maybe he'll give them a bit of the proceeds so that they can maybe get a new start. He'll have to see.
"But Father, this is our home. You agreed to keep the family farm for our benefit so that we could work it, raise families, and earn incomes. Why did you not talk to us about this and give us the opportunity to work out a way to buy the farm and remain here?" the sons ask. The father's response to his sons: "It's my farm. I'll do with it what I wish. Consider yourselves lucky that I might give you a stipend so you can continue to farm in some manner- maybe tenant farming. If you have any other questions talk to my attorney. Oh, by the way, start packing."
From: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=15913
Resolution
MNN District Fall Pastors Conference
October 4, 2011
WHEREAS, the Minnesota South District (MNS) Board of Directors (BOD) has recently taken actions and executed an agreement to sell the property on the campus of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, used for the past 62 years by University Lutheran Chapel (ULC); and
WHEREAS, the Joint Minnesota South/Minnesota North Districts Pastors Conference (May 11, 2011, Brainerd, MN) had requested that the MNS BOD bring this entire matter before the MNS District in convention to deliberate and determine an appropriate course of action regarding the sale of the ULC property; and
WHEREAS, the decision to sell the Lutheran Student Center by the MNS District BOD has resulted in tension, divisions, and a disruption to our life together; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Minnesota North District (MNN) 2011 Fall Pastors Conference humbly express its sincere sadness at the outcomes of these actions of the MNS BOD; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the MNS BOD be urged to communicate caringly and clearly and further explain its rationale, and, if at all possible, reverse or delay its recent decisions regarding ULC, so that the matter may considered by the MNS District Convention; and be it further
RESOLVED, that encouragement be given to individuals, congregations, circuits, and districts across the LCMS to offer solutions to sustain the ongoing ministry and mission of ULC; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that the MNN 2011 Fall Pastors Conference encourage all to fervently pray that the Lord of the Church bless the outcomes of these deliberations and decisions concerning ULC.
Action: Adopted
If this means being aware of how others perceive us and taking care in how we act, why not do so out of love? It is a kind and loving thing to do.
Now, we can debate whether it is best to drop the name "Lutheran" or not—I know there was some question about my own church's name when it was started—but we can put these discussions simply in the situation of "How are we best to engage our people?"
Newly incorporating congregations within the LCMS are required to include the words "Evangelical" and "Lutheran" in their legal names.I am assuming that the requirement wasn't in place when "The Alley" incorporated.
Now, we can debate whether it is best to drop the name "Lutheran" or not—I know there was some question about my own church's name when it was started—but we can put these discussions simply in the situation of "How are we best to engage our people?"
Newly incorporating congregations within the LCMS are required to include the words "Evangelical" and "Lutheran" in their legal names.
Newly incorporating congregations within the LCMS are required to include the words "Evangelical" and "Lutheran" in their legal names.I am assuming that the requirement wasn't in place when "The Alley" incorporated.
Now, we can debate whether it is best to drop the name "Lutheran" or not—I know there was some question about my own church's name when it was started—but we can put these discussions simply in the situation of "How are we best to engage our people?"
Newly incorporating congregations within the LCMS are required to include the words "Evangelical" and "Lutheran" in their legal names.
Evangelize at MMA fights, fitness clubs, coffee houses, strip clubs (probably best to let a Deaconess handle this one, guys ;))
Evangelize at MMA fights, fitness clubs, coffee houses, strip clubs (probably best to let a Deaconess handle this one, guys ;))
You probably don't want to linger on this image too much, but guess how I paid my way through seminary? Came out debt-free!
Jeremy (frequently requested I humbly add)
I don't know why any church would want to drop the name "Lutheran" from their signage, etc.
I also don't know why anyone would wish to plant a church using gimmicks.
Perhaps that's because you favor keeping the Lutheran faith tradition as a (mostly) "tribal church" for persons of German and Scandinavian ancestry.
I also don't know why anyone would wish to plant a church using gimmicks.That's because you can't spread your mind beyond the usual list of over-the-top, outrageous and inappropriate innovations properly called "gimmicks", and refuse to recognize that not all innovations are like the straw men you listed.
For the record, at one time installing pews so worshippers could sit down some of the time was once a "gimmick". So was using pipe organs to accompany hymns and other liturgical music. So, I suggest that all who are dead set against all "gimmicks" put their money where their mouths are and remove all pews and all musical instruments from your churches. Or, if you're unwilling to get rid of those particular gimmicks, then at least show some restraint in denounce other gimmicks.
The deaconess writes:
People come to church to escape the world, not remain a part of it. Let the church be the other-worldly place God designed it to be.
I muse:
Not necessarily. To "escape the world" is to fail to recognize that this world, its blessings and ills, is the place and time that God has given us. I do not want to "escape the world;" nor do I want to keep "the world" out of my faith and church. Redeemed people of God live and move in "the world," why would I want to escape it and them?
The people I know live fully in "the world," and find that their faith must be fully connected to that world. To "escape the world" into faith renders that faith of no earthly good.
Perhaps that's because you favor keeping the Lutheran faith tradition as a (mostly) "tribal church" for persons of German and Scandinavian ancestry.
George...you know that's not true. Why do you say such things??? Honestly!
My favorite part of the minutes was when they voted to increase their base salaries and list their housing allowances. Combine that with the sale of the chapel and the fact that some of those housing allowances are more than my total compensation, it is pretty unreal.
Which is why the "brand name" denominations in the US, including Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, and all the rest are in a perpetual state of decline, and the self-styled "non-denominational" churches are the only Christian churches showing consistent growth.
The deaconess writes:
Actually, much in my world "comes close" to what I receive in an hour of WORSHIP. Friendship, love, the delight of creation and its plants and animals (especially Sally Pearl, my cat), what I am privileged to see in the personal, intellectual and spiritual growth of friends and colleagues. Such things are connections with God, are they not? They are different from what I may receive in WORSHIP, but they ain't cheap peanut butter.
And if my world, its problems and promises, is not present in my WORSHIP, then all I would have would be some privatized, personalistic ecstasy. Don't want that.
I once stopped visiting a church because the pastor and the worship service were so "focused" on narrow theological and pious targets that we never ever heard anything about the world we would live in as soon as we walked out the church doors. Don't want that.
My favorite part of the minutes was when they voted to increase their base salaries and list their housing allowances. Combine that with the sale of the chapel and the fact that some of those housing allowances are more than my total compensation, it is pretty unreal.
Some of those housing allowances (not one more than $50,000) is more than your total compensation? Are you in a part time call or full time call?
Which is why the "brand name" denominations in the US, including Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, and all the rest are in a perpetual state of decline, and the self-styled "non-denominational" churches are the only Christian churches showing consistent growth.
Well, if it's all about growth and numbers and not faithfulness, then sure, drop the name. Why do you think those churches are growing so fast George? Could it have something to do with this (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Timothy+4:3&version=ESV)? That has been my experience with the non-denoms. They can't tell Law from Gospel as a starter.
My goodness, I am so sorry for you that your experience within Lutheranism has soured your opinion so much. It has done the exact opposite for me, and I continue to see it working wonders towards freeing people from their burdens and sins.
BTW, claiming that churches are in decline simply due to a commitment to a name is, at best, overly simplistic. I think we can agree that the reasons for denominational decline are a bit more complex than that.
My favorite part of the minutes was when they voted to increase their base salaries and list their housing allowances. Combine that with the sale of the chapel and the fact that some of those housing allowances are more than my total compensation, it is pretty unreal.
Some of those housing allowances (not one more than $50,000) is more than your total compensation? Are you in a part time call or full time call?
I am full time.
It's not only about growth and numbers, though bringing increasing numbers of people to God's house to hear God's word is not a bad thing. Growth and faithfulness are not mutually exclusive things. It is not an either/or choice. And, it's not about that quote from Timothy.
I'll repeat this again, for the umpteenth time. I'll use short words. I'll use short sentences. OK?
1. Hearing the Gospel rightly preached is good for people.
2. For people to hear the Gospel rightly preached they have to walk in through the front door.
3. If something makes people not want to walk through the front door, then they won't walk through the front door.
4. A denominational "brand name" like "Lutheran" sometimes makes some people not want to walk through the front door. (see #3. And please note, I did not say that it always makes all people. So don't respond as if that is what I said. That would be insulting.)
5. It is extremely important that we remain Lutheran inside the doors of our church.
6. It is less important that we present ourselves as Lutheran outside of the doors of our church.
7. What name is displayed outside the church doesn't change what goes on inside the church. A discussion of what name to display outside of a church is only about what name to display outside of a church. Dragging in things about what is preached inside the church in a discussion of what name is displayed outside of a church is a red herring. Those are not good things.
8. Any argument about how wonderful the things are that go in inside the church doesn't mean anything when talking about what is outside the church in terms of identification on the building. That's also a red herring, which, as I said earlier, is not a good thing.
9. No one, including me, is saying that no Lutheran church should call itself "Lutheran".
10. Some Lutheran congregations find that they get more people to come inside if they keep the name Lutheran inside instead of outside.
11. Some Lutheran congregations don't.
12. If your congregation is identified by line 11, that doesn't negate the experiences of the ones identified with number 10.
BTW, claiming that churches are in decline simply due to a commitment to a name is, at best, overly simplistic. I think we can agree that the reasons for denominational decline are a bit more complex than that.
Complexity is usually the result of a combination of many simple things. It can be very beneficial to address complex issues by examining each individual simple thing first, then assmble the simple pieces back into a complex system again. When I repaired complex computer equipment, there might be several flawed components and many, many other components that worked just fine. The only way to repair them was to take each component one by one and examine it for proper operation. Then the broken bits were fixed and the working bits were simply cleaned and lubricated.
Of course, assuming that because only one component of a complex system is mentioned in a discussion that includes discussing that one component means that only that one component mentioned is in need of attention is making an unfair assumption. Wouldn't you agree?
The deaconess writes:
I come to worship to have my problems taken away (sins absolved) and receive His promises and gifts (Word and Sacrament).
I comment:
I come to worship because God has already forgiven me and brought me into the Body of Christ where I can continually hear that good news. Attending worship does not take away all my other problems, nor allow me to "escape the world," although it does give me a new perspective on the world.
The deaconess writes:
Sounds like your worship is something altogether different, at least it would seem that way given how you explain it. My world IS the Biblical world . . . there are ample enough stories in Scripture to relate to modern problems, that's for sure.
I comment:
No, your real world is the 21st Century, unless you are here as some spectre from another age and living out a sci-fi plot.
The deaconess writes:
Do you not approach the communion rail knowing the other half of the circle is completed by the saints who have gone before you? Surely that isn't just LCMS theology?
I comment:
That is a good ol' Augustana image, too. But I also approach my daily life knowing that the Sunday service is not the only place where I encounter God's grace or meet with fellow Christians. The Body of Christ isn't just Sunday. That may not even be the most important place to encounter the Body of Christ.
The deaconess writes:
I can't think of anything more "otherworldly" than communing with the angels, archangels and the whole company of heaven. I don't get to do THAT in my every day routine, that's for sure.
I comment:
See above. I can think of numerous times when I have known the presence of "angels, archangels and the whole company of heaven," not to mention the grace of God and Body of Christ, outside that Sunday morning experience. If you don't, I feel sorry for you.
And in a world where some people can't distinguish between a Lutheran and a Lexus, let alone a Lutheran and a Presbyterian; I'd rather they think of me first of all as a Christian.
The deaconess persists:
Clearly we have different theologies of worship.
I comment:
Actually, we probably don't.
The deaconess:
As for feeling sorry for me, don't cry for me Argentina . . . I have objective proof that I'm encountering angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven at worship every Sunday--God's Word.
Me:
And what makes you think that I don't?
The deaconess:
I can't think of anything more helpful for a grieving loved one than to be reminded that on this very Sunday (and every Sunday) they will be kneeling at the throne of the Almighty along with their dearly departed loved one while at the communion rail.
Me:
You have such a gloomy side! How many Sundays am I grieving for one departed? Why bring that into the picture? And for the real world - the one we live in, remember - usually I'm more interested in the connection with the people on my left and right rather than those on the "other side".
The deaconess:
I'm pretty sure we're not always quite aware of when we might be entertaining angels (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13:2&version=ESV) outside the realm of worship.
Me:
Not always, but sometimes we are aware. Why do you disparage the real world and the joy and inspiration that it offers? Your posts are so packed with an emphasis on doom, death, destruction and sorrow.
We live in two different worlds of Lutheranism, I'm afraid. I especially take exception to your #6. We have a doctrine of vocation (http://www.cranach.org/vocation.php) within Lutheranism that begs to differ with your claim. But that's OK, George . . . I get it that you have a different opinion than me. I see people all the time getting past the name Lutheran, getting past the "stodgy" old liturgy and "funeral dirges" for hymns . . . because we reach out authentically and sincerely to invite them to come and see (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1:46&version=ESV). Many stay. Perhaps in your world this doesn't work; in mine, it does.
I come to worship to have my problems taken away (sins absolved) and receive His promises and gifts (Word and Sacrament).
Peter writes:Eh . . . the "good news" for this world IS CHRIST IN WORD AND SACRAMENT. Nothing else . . . but that is enough.
The beauty of the world-- autumn leaves, kids growing up, good friends sitting around a bonfire, etc. etc. does not really enter into a Christian worship service except among the list of many things we give thanks for.
I comment:
And why is that?
Peter writes:
Worship itself-- the one or two hours a week we focus on receiving forgiveness, life, and salvation-- necessarily brings into focus sin, death, and the power of the devil.
I comment:
So it that all? sin, death, the power of the devil and the possibility that when we die we are free of all that?
Peter writes:
The "real world" is always there. To the degree it is beautiful and lovely, we give thanks for it.
I comment:
"To the degree it is..." means that it really isn't. So we're back to sin, death and the devil.
Peter writes:
But for the hour or two of worship, we focus on forgiveness, life, and salvation overcoming sin, death, and the power of the devil, which means we're either focused on Christ in Word and Sacrament or the fallenness of the world.
I comment:
So where is the "good news" for this world? Where is the joy in living? Where is the celebration of the life we have as children of God? These exist, but lie submerged, I fear, under the emphasis on sin, death, and the power of the devil.
So where is the "good news" for this world?
Eh . . . the "good news" for this world IS CHRIST IN WORD AND SACRAMENT. Nothing else . . . but that is enough.
Eh . . . the "good news" for this world IS CHRIST IN WORD AND SACRAMENT. Nothing else . . . but that is enough.
The "mutual conversation and consolation" is something different than the word preached in church -- and probably takes place outside of the worship service.