Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: Valpo President/Board Decide to Sell Art Masterpieces to Pay for Dorm Renovation

« on: Yesterday at 09:14:38 AM »

Big deal. Google the same question for Jehovah's Witnesses and you get a very similar response. Non-trinitarian religions are not Christian. Islam is as Christian as Unitarianism.

So, there are folks who believe that UUs and JW and LDS are Christian groups, even if we do not. Among those who claim to be Christian, there are much larger differences between conservatives and liberals than within Lutheranism.


The fact that we consider them non-Christian shows that we are all "conservative." That is, we seek to "conserve" the traditional doctrines of Christianity, such as the Trinity.

The problem, Rev. Stoffregen is not that "some" consider them to be Christian.  The problem is that YOU considered them to be Christian.  You wrote (Post #179 of this thread): "It's all relative. I believe that within the whole spectrum of Christian ideologies, the ELCA is perhaps in the middle. We are not at the liberal end, e.g., U.U...."

I also said that we Lutherans do not. I included myself as a Lutheran, but since I’m ELCA you might not.

No, Rev. Stoffregen, you did not.  At least not until much later, after there were many posts showing that they are not Christian.  However, your initial post -- the one to which I referenced -- did not say that Lutherans (even the ELCA) did not consider them to be Christians.  Instead, that initial post placed them "within the whole spectrum" of Christian ideologies.  And it even began by using the words "I believe...." thereby making it YOUR understanding.

2

Your Turn / Re: Valpo President/Board Decide to Sell Art Masterpieces to Pay for Dorm Renovation

« on: March 22, 2023, 04:33:52 PM »

Big deal. Google the same question for Jehovah's Witnesses and you get a very similar response. Non-trinitarian religions are not Christian. Islam is as Christian as Unitarianism.

So, there are folks who believe that UUs and JW and LDS are Christian groups, even if we do not. Among those who claim to be Christian, there are much larger differences between conservatives and liberals than within Lutheranism.


The fact that we consider them non-Christian shows that we are all "conservative." That is, we seek to "conserve" the traditional doctrines of Christianity, such as the Trinity.

The problem, Rev. Stoffregen is not that "some" consider them to be Christian.  The problem is that YOU considered them to be Christian.  You wrote (Post #179 of this thread): "It's all relative. I believe that within the whole spectrum of Christian ideologies, the ELCA is perhaps in the middle. We are not at the liberal end, e.g., U.U...."

3

Your Turn / Re: Valpo President/Board Decide to Sell Art Masterpieces to Pay for Dorm Renovation

« on: March 19, 2023, 05:31:50 PM »

Wherever the Word is preached in its purity and the sacraments rightly administered/given, the setting is beautiful.

4

Your Turn / Re: Institutional Trust

« on: March 15, 2023, 04:38:14 PM »

Ed,

I think Don’s point is that whether or not the District at the time did due diligence on the man, the fact that it would not admit any culpability or clarify what was known (and when) after his second arrest is what shattered Don’s, Steve’s, and other’s trust in the institution.

From the standpoint of the one in charge, though, there is very little except antagonism in a "what did he know and when did he know it" line of questioning. The questions that needed answering and presumably could have been answered relate to the ongoing spiritual care. If I were a DP and got the 6 point letter posted above, I would have responded to #4-6, but would have ignored #1-3.

"If I were a DP and got the 6 point letter posted above, I would have responded to #4-6, but would have ignored #1-3."  I would have settled for that.  Unfortunately, all 6 items were ignored/unanswered.

5

Your Turn / Re: Institutional Trust

« on: March 15, 2023, 12:39:50 PM »

P.S. I suspect that what has resulted in the silence on the matters of the AD prez is the Synod’s lawyers, but I may be off base. There’s an inherent conflict between fiduciary trust responsibilities of the corporation and the open and clear communication expected and desired in the Church. It’s the struggle of Synod as business vs. as Church.

Similar took place in the Darwin Schauer case, although, as a lawyer, I saw no potential liability on the part of District/Synod. Just playing it safe, I guess.

Here are an email and letter I sent to our district president when the Schauer case came to light.  Nothing was done. And then we wonder why people don't trust synod/district....

----------------------------------------------------------

Dear President Fondow,
I am writing in regards to the recent news of allegations of child molestation by Darwin Schauer while rostered as a lay minister in the MN North District.  According to news reports, the district office has had in its files (for a number of years, apparently) a newspaper article detailing Mr. Schauer's 1983 conviction for similar crimes.  This is horrible and appalling.  I know that the deadline for overtures to the convention is long past, but since this matter has only recently come to the surface I am asking if there is any way for the following two overtures (or memorials or resolutions -- I can never remember the right name) to come forward at the convention.  Thanks.
Steve Bohler (Our Savior's, Crookston/First English, Eldred)
--------------------------------------------
To Reach Out to the Victim(s) of Child Sexual Abuse by a Church Worker
WHEREAS, a tragic and horrible instance of child sexual abuse has occurred within our district; and
WHEREAS, the accused perpetrator of this abuse was at the time of the alleged abuse a rostered lay minister of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod under the ecclesiastical supervision of this district and its president; and
WHEREAS, the accused perpetrator has confessed to sexual contact with the victim; and
WHEREAS, the district had in its personnel file for the accused perpetrator an article from a state newspaper that detailed the confession and conviction of the same individual for similar crimes in 1983, and that this news article was in the said individual's personnel file in the district office for many years; and
WHEREAS, the Scriptures enjoin us to show love and mercy to all, especially of the household of faith (for instance James 2:14ff; Galatians 6:10); therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod formally express our sorrow, shock, and remorse at this terrible and grievous sin; and be it further
RESOLVED,  that the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod agree to pay for all necessary counseling for the victim(s) and their families of child sexual abuse perpetrated by this individual while he served as a rostered church worker in the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that the President of the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod make available, at district expense, resources requested by the congregation(s) served by the accused individual to help them deal with their hurt and confusion.  
 
 
To Assist in Preventing Abuse by Rostered Church Workers
WHEREAS, a recent incident of child sexual abuse has occurred within the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod by one of its (at the time) rostered church workers; and
WHEREAS, the Church ought to do all it can to assure its congregations and members that it is doing what it can to prevent future incidents of abuse by rostered church workers; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota already requires background checks for all pastors and for other church workers who work with children; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the President of the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod review the personnel files of all rostered church workers in the district at least every five years and share any information that could lead to the suspension, restriction, or removal from synodical membership for such rostered workers with the congregations they currently serve; and be it further
RESOLVED,  that the President of the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod also share this information with any congregations that have such individuals on their congregational call lists; and be it finally
RESOLVED, that the President of the Minnesota North District of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod meet with all rostered church workers of the district in a face-to-face meeting within 2 weeks of learning of any behavior on the part of the rostered church worker that could lead to suspension, restriction, or removal from synodical membership.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven W. Bohler
800 Washington Avenue
Crookston, Minnesota  56716


April 19, 2012

Rev. Donald Fondow, President
Minnesota North District, The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod
P. O. Box 604
Brainerd, Minnesota  56401-0604


Dear President Fondow,

I want to thank you for your statement/timeline of events regarding the Darwin Schauer situation at the district convention this past Monday.  Unfortunately, while that did answer a couple of questions, it raised several new questions and totally avoided many old ones.  As you know, this affair has been very troubling to me (and others).  And so, to help me deal with it, I feel I must ask those questions that seem to have been unanswered or ignored.  I will simply list them below:

1. You said that an unnamed assistant to the Minnesota South district president met with Mr. Schauer in 1985 and noted that the accusations against him in the 1983 case had been withdrawn, and that his record had been expunged.  Did this person bother to check with the court of record?  Did this individual simply accept Mr. Schauer's word?  Did anyone ask Mr. Schauer why he had pled guilty to those charges if he was innocent?  Does anyone know who this unnamed assistant to the president is?  Has anyone spoken with this person (if he is still alive, since it was nearly 30 years ago)?

2. If the Minnesota South district was under the assumption that Mr. Schauer was innocent of the 1983 charges and that his conviction record had been expunged, why did it block his earlier efforts at ordination?  Why did it block the efforts of Rev. Kirchner to get Mr. Schauer ordained in 2007?  In the three or four months after Rev. Kirchner wrote you in 2007, seeking to get Mr. Schauer ordained, you stated to him in numerous emails that you were working on it and that you were in contact/consultation with the Minnesota South district.  Did you ever ask them why they had blocked Mr. Schauer's earlier efforts to get ordained?  If you did ask, did they tell you?  If you did not ask, why not?

3. Our district file on Mr. Schauer apparently had a newspaper article detailing his 1983 conviction; it also apparently had a letter which claimed that he had been exonerated and his criminal record expunged.  Did you ever speak with Mr. Schauer about any of this?  When?  Was it before the arrest of Mr. Schauer for this latest accusation?  Did you, or any of your predecessors, ever bother to check with the court to see if any of this was true?  If not, why not?

4. News reports state that Mr. Schauer has been married four times.  Why was nothing done about removing him from the roster on these grounds?

5. There was much talk from you and President Harrison at the convention about Mercy/Witness/Living Together.  In light of that emphasis, what has our district done to show mercy and compassion to the victim of Mr. Schauer's molestation?  What have you done personally as district president?  What has the district done to show mercy and compassion and  koinonia to the congregation(s) served by Mr. Schauer?  What have you done personally as district president?  Has there been an apology to the victim and the congregation(s) for what has happened -- not necessarily that the district or you take blame, but simply sorrow that one of our rostered workers had done this?

6. Why was none of this history told to the congregation(s) that Mr. Schauer served?  What would the district have done if the 1983 conviction had come to light in some other way?

As you can tell, President Fondow, I am having trouble with all this and how it has been/is being handled.  Prior to enering seminary I worked for a number of years in the social service field.  I was the live-in counselor at a boys group home in Green Bay, where a number of the boys had been sexually abused.  I was there even when I was not working.  I know the suffering and pain such abuse causes.  I worked juvenile court in Forest County, Wisconsin and handled abuse complaints and know the problems suffered by the families, as well as the children.  It tears me up to know that one of our rostered workers has done such damage -- not just once, but repeatedly.  And I mourn that we did not do more to prevent it.

Additionally, I know our district has a history in this area (and handled it very poorly then).  I know how this gives our church and the Church a bad reputation in the community.  And I know that unsatisfactory answers, or the appearance of "sweeping it under the carpet", only does more damage.  We need to get all the answers out, and now.  Not to punish anyone.  Not to shift the blame.  Not to protect our assets.  But to show our mercy, our witness, our koinonia.


In Christ,



Steven W. Bohler

cc:    Rev. Matthew Harrison, President of The Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod
   Rev. Donald Kirchner, Pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church of Lake George, Minnesota
   Rev. Timothy Winterstein, Crookston Circuit Counselor

6

Your Turn / Re: Rolling Stone Magazine Article About LCMS LC Controversy

« on: March 12, 2023, 07:38:42 PM »

That’s another vote. I’m not going to mention the erroneous presumptions about “us” that figure in those votes. So far the Biggest Baddest Thing is homosexuality.

But I thought we all believed the same thing?  Isn't that what was claimed above? 

7

Your Turn / Re: What is happening to Maundy Thursday ?

« on: March 12, 2023, 10:52:01 AM »

My vicarage congregation (Our Savior's in Crookston, MN) is the only congregation to which I belonged that had Communion on Good Friday.  When you think about it, it's a great time to have Communion!

It still does.  As does its sister, First English of Eldred MN.  By the way, we were in a blizzard warning here until 7:00 AM this morning.  We only had 12 in worship at the 8:00 service (counting me, the organist, the usher, and the sound person) -- normally we have 70-80; Sunday school is canceled as is worship at First English.  Kind of curious what our 11:00 attendance will be; it is usually the smaller of the two services (usually around 25-30)..

8

Your Turn / Re: Adam and Eve

« on: February 22, 2023, 06:07:14 PM »

All of this arguing over who wrote what is giving me a headache. Here is a short paragraph, written by Father Thomas Hopko of blessed memory, discussing this subject. I copied it from the webpage of the Orthodox Church in America.

             Because the Orthodox Church teaches that the entire Bible is inspired by God Who in this sense is its one original author, the Church Tradition considers the identity of the human authors as incidental to the correct interpretation and proper significance of the books of the Bible for the believing community. In no case would the Church admit that the identity of the author determines the authenticity or validity of a book which is viewed as part of the Bible, and under no circumstances would it be admitted that the value or the proper understanding and use of any book of the Bible in the Church depends on the human writer alone.

The entire article can be found here: https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/doctrine-scripture/the-bible/authorship

I hope this can contribute some to some harmony and peace here.

Boris

Harmony and peace?  In this forum?  I wouldn't hold my breath.  You might also want to consider that we Lutherans, devoted as we are to the sola Scriptura principle, will disagree with what the EO have to say about Tradition and Scripture.  For us, human authorship has a great deal to do with canonicity.  It was questions about the human authorship of certain NT books (antilegomena) that raised doubts in the early church about their apostolicity and thus their canonicity.  We Lutherans don't depend on the church to tell us which books are canonical, and which are not.

Thank you for your response, Pastor Preus.

It just seems to me that since a detailed list of the books in the Lutheran Canon of Scripture is not present in the Augsburg Confession or the Book of Concord, and both of those documents quote freely from the Deuterocanonical books when they want to, and they appear to quote them as having authority and being Scripture, it would appear that the Lutheran attitude toward the Canon is not as rigid as the Church of England (39 Articles) or the Reformed (Westminster Confession) because both of those confessions give a precise list of the books that are considered canonical.  I can only conclude that the Canon must not have been an issue when the Augsburg Confession was written because the Lutherans make no mention of it whatsoever.  If it had been an issue or point of disagreement, it would have been mentioned. It makes me think that in 1530 the Lutherans simply trusted the Canon of Scripture that Holy Mother Church had been using for 1500 years. I wonder if this later somewhat harsh rejection of the Deuterocanonical books in Lutheranism doesn't have its roots in Calvinist sources.

One reason the Book of Concord says nothing of the Apocrypha may be that most Lutherans at that time had already been influenced by Luther's translation and writings about the various books of the Bible wherein he clearly asserts that the Apocrypha are good for historical and devotional reading but are not to be considered on the same level as the OT books accepted as canonical by many of the early Church Fathers.

The fact is that many of the Eastern Fathers did not accept many of the books of the Apocrypha nor did many early Western Fathers - and Jerome certainly did not.  Of course, Augustine DID and it was Augustine's influence that eventually led to the Apocrypha being much more accepted in the West.  But since the Reformers used the early Fathers to show that many of their teachings were not novel it is not not surprising that the Lutherans also adopted the "less than canonical" view of the Apocrypha held by many early Fathers.

I was just researching this a bit for our Sunday morning Bible class (a member asked for more information on the subject).  Here is link to an interesting discussion by JAO Preus: http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/preusjaonewtestamentcanon.pdf

9

Your Turn / Re: Adam and Eve

« on: February 21, 2023, 02:57:05 PM »

Just because language can be literal or figurative doesn’t mean it is arbitrary how we understand it or that interpretation either way is equally valid in any given circumstance. There are perfectly sound theological reasons to understand Genesis literally, including our understanding of the nature and origin of death. The fact that Jesus and St. Paul seem to take it literally gives weight to that interpretation, too. The key is to understand the Scriptures as a unified whole with one ultimate author—God— rather than as an assemblage of disparate writings with human authorship. The latter view renders sola Scriptura theologically, logically, and philosophically indefensible.

And Jesus and Paul thought the flat earth was covered by a big bowl with "heaven/sky" above the bowl and "sheol/hades" below the earth.

Paul may have, but surely the Word made Flesh, who created the universe, did not.

The Word made flesh indicated that he did not know when the end would come. His knowledge as the Son was limited.

Just curious.  What biblical support do you claim proves your assertion?

Mark 13:32: But nobody knows when that day or hour will come, not the angels in heaven and not the Son. Only the Father knows. (par. Matt 24:36)

The Word incarnate was limited in scope of what he knew but of which His Father did know.  The Son is the Son only in his relationship with His Father and vice-versa.

Again, this wrong.  It is not that the Word incarnate is limited (for He is still the Word incarnate and if your statement were true, it would mean He is not fully God even now!) but rather in His state of humiliation, He laid aside full use of His divine abilities.  However, in His exaltation He once again has full use of those abilities.

10

Your Turn / Re: Adam and Eve

« on: February 21, 2023, 08:58:51 AM »

Just because language can be literal or figurative doesn’t mean it is arbitrary how we understand it or that interpretation either way is equally valid in any given circumstance. There are perfectly sound theological reasons to understand Genesis literally, including our understanding of the nature and origin of death. The fact that Jesus and St. Paul seem to take it literally gives weight to that interpretation, too. The key is to understand the Scriptures as a unified whole with one ultimate author—God— rather than as an assemblage of disparate writings with human authorship. The latter view renders sola Scriptura theologically, logically, and philosophically indefensible.

And Jesus and Paul thought the flat earth was covered by a big bowl with "heaven/sky" above the bowl and "sheol/hades" below the earth.

Paul may have, but surely the Word made Flesh, who created the universe, did not.

The Word made flesh indicated that he did not know when the end would come. His knowledge as the Son was limited.

Wrong.  Not "His knowledge as the Son" but rather "His knowledge in His state of humiliation".  If your assertion were true, then the Son would not be true God but only a lesser being. 

11

Your Turn / Re: 2nd Amendment and Lutheran Confessions

« on: February 14, 2023, 10:57:07 PM »

Pastor Bohler:
Not to mention that his claim ("Our nation chooses not to place limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians.") is a lie.  We DO place limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians. Lots of them.  I know of no private citizen who owns a nuclear warhead.  I have not seen too many guys driving tanks down the street.  I have had my desire for hand grenades pretty limited by the government.  And on and on.

Me:
Lord help us! Teach me how to discuss things with brick-butt literalists lacking any sense of context or perhaps willfully ignorant of the real matter.
My dear Pastor Bohler, we are not talking tanks or nukes. But we Are talking weapons designed for military combat.   we are keeping people incapable of driving a car responsibly from having a driver’s license. And there are people who should not be allowed to own firearms.

I am sorry for taking you at your words.  You said that our nation places no limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians. Now you tell me that you OBVIOUSLY mean something other than what those words say.  And yet you freak out that Rev. Preus dares to offer a translation of what you really mean versus what you actually say. 

12

Your Turn / Re: 2nd Amendment and Lutheran Confessions

« on: February 14, 2023, 07:29:09 PM »

You call it bias.  I call it insight.  When it comes to liberal-speak, I have the gift of interpretation.

Native-speakers would call your interpretation into question.

That's the tragedy of lib-speak.  Those who speak this language are blinded by the ideology it conveys.  To quote from your favorite song from 1970: "There is none so blind as he who will not see." 

Not blinded, but humbled by the love of Jesus we seek to emulate him (and usually fail). The ideology is one of love and care and compassion for the neighbor; but I doubt you can fathom that.

Oh, that's nasty!  I point out that lib-speak confuses love and compassion for the neighbor with leftist ideology that assaults our constitutional rights as free Americans, and what do you conclude?  That I cannot understand love and care and compassion!  I reject your political ideology because I am a patriotic American who is jealous of my personal liberties.  I oppose socialism, fascism, communism, and other forms of bullying statism.  Because of my political opinions, you accuse me of rejecting cardinal Christian virtues.  Bait, switch, and accuse.  The bait is talk about Christian love.  The switch is promoting the policies of the Democrat Party.  Then accuse those who reject your political positions of rejecting Christian virtue.

All my life I have heard the Democrat slander of conservatives that we are unloving because we disagree with the Democrats.  That the fruit of Democrat Party policies is more suffering, crime, and violence somehow escapes their attention.

What I conclude is that you cannot understand Christian liberals who are motivated by the love of Jesus for their neighbors. I am not saying that you are not motivated by that same divine love; but by demonizing liberals, you cut off all significant communications between us - even when we are both seeking to bring Christ's love to this sinful world.

Rev. Austin wrote:
“We in the ELCA are a counterculture.
The world always leans towards more and more violence. We speak peace.
Our nation chooses not to place limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians. We  oppose that.”

When he speaks of "not placing limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians," Rev. Austin is espousing the position of the Democrat Party that opposes the rights of individuals to bear arms that will effectively defend them and their families.  He regards gun control as "speaking peace."  Since the gun control position of the Democrat Party opposes the right of the people to defend themselves effectively, I “translated” his position as “We oppose the right of the people to defend themselves.”

This you call “demonizing liberals.”  Apparently this “cuts off all significant communications between us.”  So, if I point out that what Rev. Austin identifies as the ELCA position is fact the position of the Democrat Party, I am demonizing liberals.  No, I don’t think you guys are demons.  I think you are naïve.  I don’t think you understand the law, guns, human behavior, the cause of violence in our society, and how political ideology has captured your theology.  I believe that the second amendment saves lives.  I certainly don’t regard you as demonic.  You’re no more evil than I.  If my asserting that the ELCA’s position on gun control is the position of the Democratic Party cuts off significant communication between us, I’m sorry to hear that.  It shouldn’t.  As you know, the LCMS takes no position on gun control.

Not to mention that his claim ("Our nation chooses not to place limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians.") is a lie.  We DO place limits on military weapons in the hands of civilians. Lots of them.  I know of no private citizen who owns a nuclear warhead.  I have not seen too many guys driving tanks down the street.  I have had my desire for hand grenades pretty limited by the government.  And on and on.

13

Your Turn / Re: 2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

« on: February 07, 2023, 05:40:02 PM »

This today from Christianity Today:  https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/february/lutheran-catechism-concordia-publishing-critics-matthew-har.html

The article takes dead aim at something we hush-hush here - Hello:  It's an election year! 

I see the sides assembling pretty nicely now as we head toward the end of July.  The ACELC, a relatively tiny group out there on the right side of the aisle, is assembling folks from the Preus family and the Fort Wayne Gottesdienst grouping to host a conference just prior to the national convention.  What's that all about? 

I think it's about making sure that the Bad Thing (in these folks' opinion Jerry Kieschnick) that happened in 2001 doesn't happen again - a weakened Matt Harrison doesn't fall to say Pat Ferry because a lot of folks on that patriarchalist, anti-CRT, anti-woke, anti-contemporary worship, anti out-n-about fail to unite sufficiently and fail to get certain resolutions and directions underway.

Recently I parsed through some more of the Twitter-folk list, and wow - these are LCMS people who don't believe, for example, that a a pastor with children of different color should be on the roster of the church body.  Secondly, there are open white Christian nationalists who are swinging their weight now in these LCMS forums.  The thunder from the right is noisy, and there are going to be other agencies, Issues Etc. and all the other conferences of conservatives between now and June, that are going to rattle the cages to keep folks together.  I think the promise is going to be that it's necessary to unite for this one term to get another person ready to take the lead on the patriarchalist anti-this'n'that front.  I believe that person has already been identified. 

I can't comment much on the other side because I'm not hearing very much except through Congregations Matter, which identifies time and again the weaknesses of President Harrison's case for another term.  Pat Ferry and others will be vying for spots on the final ballot.

Anyway, I think those not enmeshed in keeping the churchly leadership cordoned off from the church-political aspect, like Christianity Today, will continue to bring to light what's going on right now in the denomination.

Dave Benke

You owe the ACLEC and the Preus family an apology for this post, smearing them with your tortured link-that-is-no-link with some apparent racist.

14

Your Turn / Re: Stop...Go...Wait...Uh...

« on: February 05, 2023, 07:51:05 AM »

You gentlemen have better souls than I have. I see the strength of the LCMS almost exclusively in the life of the congregation. In our congregation we have had 19 deaths since Christmas and we have one member on hospice. That's good work, hard work and evangelical work. The politics of the synod has absolutely zero effect in terms of this type of ministry.

I too wonder how the Gottesdienst crew walk back their rhetoric, perhaps they will crow fudge, unlike Pontius Pilate who said, "What I have written I have written." or Dr Luther who said something about standing up.

I agree that the strength of the LCMS is in its congregations. That, after all, is where the real work is done. I'm on the opposite coast (just outside of Boston where it is currently -5). I also can say that the politics of synod has almost no effect on our ministry--either here or in our jail ministry.

But, there will be occasions when it will become important. I'm not going to be here forever; where will St. Luke's secure a pastor who will lead them faithfully in the Scriptures and not someone who follows the latest social movement? What if a pastor is leading the congregation wrongly? Who can step in and work with the congregation on removing him?

I could go further, but suffice to say that Synod has its place. Sometimes, the politics are important. I'm convinced that if Jack Preus had not been elected in 1969, then the LCMS would be part of the ELCA today and St. John's, Orange, would be celebrating Pride Sunday in June.

Seriously, if you really believed that what the Synod does has almost zero effect on your congregation, then why did you allow your name to stand for President of the LCMS? Why did you write emails and blog posts about why you should be elected? It's because you know that it does have an effect--and an important one at that.

There have been two course reversals in this, as both the Synod President and Beane & Co. have done the turnabout. 

As one who spent a lot of time inside the national system, the value was support and encouragement for regional and local mission, honest engagement at that level with theological and practical issues of importance, and a sense of direction that was outward bound with the Gospel. 

The only advice I'd have for those charged with it today is to keep the same values. 

What is different, I think, is the overall diminishment and aging of congregational membership.  A recent chart indicates that the denomination with the oldest average age of membership in the US across lines including other faiths is the LCMS, with an average age of over 58.  The ELCA is at 56 and WELS at 53.  That diminishment was exacerbated and accelerated during the pandemic and continues.  From diminishment to thriving cannot be the domain only of larger congregations, which have more diversity of program offerings.  The smaller congregations have to take every opportunity to focus outward with the Gospel, even as the responsible regional leadership assists with honest assessment about viability and future options that make sense, as difficult as some of them might be.  That to me is where the intestinal fortitude and Gospel commitment is actually necessary in the next decade.  That to me is not and will not be a concern of the tinfoil hat brigade and the ultra-confessional brigade.  So in that sense Tim is on point.  It's not the national church level that's bad.  It's a national focus driven by the ultra-confessional brigade that is a distraction from what is of importance.

Dave Benke

I do not think Rev. Beane has done a reversal, merely that he is acknowledging that the process is at an end.  Complaints were made, the synod president reviewed the work but did not find anything to stop distribution of the book, and there is no more in the process that can be done.  Now, it is up to pastors and laity (as I read his post at Gottesdienst) to effect change at a more local level, while keeping the synod and its leaders in their prayers.  What would you have him say/do?  Tell his readers to vote for the Congregations Matter endorsed candidates?  Of course not.  Storm CPH and burn it down?  Lynch the editors/writers of the book? 

15

Your Turn / Re: Adiaphora, Open Questions, or Neither

« on: February 04, 2023, 03:57:52 PM »

I don't want to hijack the thread in any way, but I am curious about something.  In the Eastern churches we tend to discuss things in terms of dogma versus theologoumena.  The former, obviously, is not negotiable and not optional.  The latter is more in the realm of theological opinion -- things Christians are free to disagree about, and of which someone is likely wrong and someone else possibly right, but which may not be imposed on other Christians as if they are required belief since the Church has never dogmatized them.

It seems to me adiaphora is more in the realm of what we call theologoumena rather than what you all consider "open questions."  I base that on the idea, expressed above, that "open questions" are not merely matters of opinion, but matters on which Christians are not free to stake out a position in either direction because neither Scripture nor the apostolic faith answers them.

Is that roughly correct?

I would say, in simple terms: adiaphora are those matters to which Scripture does not speak at all (as far as commanding or forbidding), while "open questions" are those matters where Scriptures speaks but in a less-than-clear way.