Missouri's Horse Race

[Dave_Poedel]

While not wishing to speak for my younger brother Andy, Pastor Bohler, I believe it's less about the attributes of Pastor Kieschnick or Pastor Harrison as persons. As Andy says so clearly, he (and I) are, for a whole myriad of reasons some of which fall into that old 70's category called the "affective domain", finding that the current environment of the LCMS is one that we are thriving in.

I will gladly concede that President Barry had an excellent emphasis on evangelism, and would even concede that his emphasis led to some or most of the acceptance in the Synod of Ablaze! (though I do have doubts that many of his supporters would object to tying his program to the current one). That is not the issue to me.  We are not trying to raise one over the other from my viewpoint.  I stated (and continue to state) that from the diaspora in the desert where I have spent my entire time of service to the Church, I am encouraged by Ablaze! even though I can find much that I don't like at all. 

Side benefit of Ablaze! I am leading one of 18 or so teams of folks making 10 day mission trips to Poland this summer. I believe that our goal of sharing the Gospel with however many millions of people by 2017 that motivates this "German" church to go to a land where Germans have a negative history, at best. And, yes, it is an opportunity for this non-Germanic LCMS Pastor to go and do mission work in the land of my roots.  I think that is COOL, and I am convinced that without Ablaze! we would not take risky and very different initiatives like this one.

I am certain that someone can show me where I am clueless about the wonderful things the LCMS has done in outreach under any prior "Confessional" President of the Synod. That is not my point.  The point that I am making is that this initiative got this Pastor out of his comfort zone to encourage and now lead an overseas mission trip that I guarantee you I would not have done under the auspices of the LCMS in my years of service.  Personal story?  You bet; such are the times we live in.

In writing my article for the Forum Letter, my zeal is not to support Jerry Kieschnick as much as it was to say "stay the course, steady as she goes".  I have no interest in promoting a candidate, as I stated, but to give witness to the fact that these years have been the best of my ministry and I would very much like for this to continue.  The fact is that our every-3-year-apocalypse-cycle of the LCMS is an amazing waste of time, money and energy that I have witnessed only since 1976, but in those years we have lost many opportunities to "wake" our sleeping Synod, and even something as small as making it every 4 years is a welcome piece of reform.

Enough....my granddaughters await me after a 2 hour drive to Tucson...high-oh.....on the road to hugs of beautiful little girls who miss their grandpa only a sliver of how much I miss them.

[swbohler]

Ah, so it is not so much a statement of support for Dr. Kieschnick (and even less of a statement against Rev. Harrison), but simply a matter of preferring the status quo -- is that more what you are saying?  A "why fix it if it ain't broke" kind of thing?

[Dave Benke]

I think it's two things, SW, from my conversations.
a) no lurches off the track being taken. That's a statement not for or against either candidate per se, as you indicate.  However, there is no question from the people conversing with me that there is an ultra-conservative contingent with an agenda that is backing Matt.  That doesn't mean Matt is 100% with them, but that they would in the perception of many seek enforcements that would be deleterious to moving down that track unencumbered.
b) the track being taken is unabashedly involved in Gospel outreach as a first priority.  That is a definite Kieschnick central agenda item.  So that's a pro-incumbent position.  And it is not perceived that the dialogical portion of the Harrison piece is prioritized that way - rather, a lot of time would be spent among ourselves discussing doctrinal positions.  That makes it also an anti-Harrison position.

Dave Benke

Off thread, but who is Oliver K. Olson?  In the just-now-received Lutheran Forum he puts a major beat-down on the eucharistic prayer. 

[swbohler]

Dr. Benke,

1) And there is certainly an ultra-liberal (for the LCMS) contingent with an agenda that is backing Dr. Kieschnick.  That doesn't mean that Dr. Kieschnick is 100% with them, but.... (see, this works both ways, doesn't it?  And it is wrong to impute the positions of supporters to the one they support, in both cases).

2) So discussing doctrine is now bad?  Or somehow interferes with (or even precludes) evangelism?  How so?

3) Oliver K. Olson is the author of a scholarly study of Matthias Flacius ("Matthias Flacius and the Survival of Luther's Reform" -- I think the title tells you more than a little about his position).

[Karl Hess]

One of Oliver Olson's "things" is busting the eucharistic prayer in the chops.  One time I tried mentioning him in David Scaer's class, and he turned his head from across the room, glared at me and spat, "Oliver Olson is a protestant."

[Dave Benke]

Ultra-liberal and the Missouri Synod, SW.  Find 10.  The guy they used to pin all the ultra-liberal stuff on went to the ELCA recently.  Who's left?  I mean far left?  I can see determining an evangelical protestant agenda somewhere, but that's not "liberal" on social or bible issues.  I guess I'm the remaining lefty, only because I bat and throw left.  And bowl.  And write. 

I have received an unbelievable gift today, so I'm a happy guy.  Over 20 ecclesiastical garments including copes, chasubles, stoles, gowns for all liturgical seasons and occasions.  Many with the Slabbinck label.  I will not be accused of being underdressed from this day forward.  Oliver Olson - be upset, dude.  Be very upset. 

It was interesting that Oliver Olson's article appeared in Lutheran Forum not long after Paul Sauer's calling for a contextual eucharistic truce in the Missouri Synod, highlighting the reclamation of the word "sacrifice."  Ollie Ollie oxen-free, for sacrificial purposes.  The oxen, that is.

Dave Benke

[grabau14]

Bishop, Olson wrote a book on Flacius which is "weak" as he used seconday sources as his main source instead of the primary material.  You will find that the non-eucharistic prayer people will cite him as authoritative since he held the Tappert seat in PA (my memory may be foggy).

[swbohler]

Which is why I wrote "ultra-liberal (for the LCMS)", Dr. Benke.  I am sure that everyone here recognizes that, in comparison with the ELCA (for instance), it would be hard to find liberals of the most extreme and radical sort (although they may exist).  But I would think that even you would have to agree that folks of the Day Star ilk would be considered "ultra-liberal" by the average LCMS congregtional member.

[vicarbob]

I have received an unbelievable gift today, so I'm a happy guy.  Over 20 ecclesiastical garments including copes, chasubles, stoles, gowns for all liturgical seasons and occasions.  Many with the Slabbinck label.  I will not be accused of being underdressed from this day forward......    Be very upset. 

Dave Benke

Oh my goodness Bsp Benke, the MNYS will need to increase its budget for ecclesiastical garments for our bishop, the Rev. (soon to be Dr., thanks to General Seminary) Robert Rimbo! We will however, pass on the "gowns" as we also shun "robes"

Pax
The PiT

[Dave Benke]

Parentheses noted, SW.  

On the other side of the aisle, I was alerted to something pertaining to the Council of Presidents over at Steadfast.  There the headline is "LCMS Council of Presidents Chooses to Focus on a Functionally Non-Lutheran Parish as a Model for the Synod."  This was
a) an open session of the COP
b) a session of the COP at which I was in attendance.   The former is pretty much the norm, the latter is not.  

The headline honks with agenda-driven hype.  

But first, there's a concatenation in the article of a visit by St. Louis Sem Prof Tony Cook with the parish from Carmel, IN, as though the parish were somehow contracting Prof. Cook, who spoke on the topic of "emerging/emergent church," very interestingly, I might add.  But not Lutheran-ly enough for those looking in on the COP meeting, even though they weren't there.  However, Cook's presence is used somehow against the parish.  Inaccurate, and wrong-headed to boot.  I had not heard of Prof. Cook, but he spoke eloquently and from a strong Law-Gospel framework about a generation of Americans not by and large in our Missouri pews - the kids of people my age.  What - we don't want anyone on our seminary faculties with this perspective and interest, because they use words like "emergent" and "emerging?"  

To the main point, however, the three pastors from the parish in question, including the son of one of our district presidents, were anything to this listener but "functionally non-Lutheran."  Their commentary, vision for mission and ministry, and description of parish worship and activity were to my ears exemplary, pastoral in nature, and instructive.  They have and use LSB.  They have plans they have initiated for a half dozen mission enterprises in that part of Indiana, with the involvement of the wider church all along.  The pastoral office is appropriately engaged in proclamation, sacramental administration and pastoral care.  "Functionally non-Lutheran" is
a) baloney, in my opinion
b) what I perceive as an attempt at a double smear headline, against the parish and against the Council of Presidents.  

Dave Benke

Bob, you will note that neither headgear or staff were included in the gift, so I have a long way to go to catch up with MNYS.

[janielou13]

Ah, Bishop, you have pointed out the elephant in Mother Mo's living room, the " ultra-conservative contingent with an agenda",,,, or the supra orthodox brethern as they were known is yesteryear,,,,, no sisterns, though, that would be a no no.

There is no moral or idiological equivanency between them and any moderate or imaginary Liberal "ilk" in the LCMS body politic, and never has been.   Anyone who thinks there are Liberals in LCMS should treat themselves to a sabbatical for a term's study at Eden Seminary and find out what Liberal theology really is.

As it is, lurking Liberals and Roger the Lodger have worked well in the past for the " ultra-conservative contingent with an agenda" in the past, and here we go again.

[FrPeters]

Last week we received 30+ new members -- majority from adult confirmation and affirmation of faith for lapsed and a few transfers -- so I am not for growth...but what scares me about Kieschnick's vision of growth is his willingness to let new missions go without the name Lutheran, without any liturgical service, and with the language of conversion from fundamentalists and evangelicals (decisions for Christ)... and his willingness to embrace those who would hide or distort their Lutheran identity in order to grow (a deceptive track to say the least).  If Kieschnick's vision of outreach was distinctly Lutheran, celebrating Word AND SACRAMENT, flowed from the liturgy, and sought to bring people into the fullness of the Confessional Lutheran identity (evangelical and catholic), I would be all form him.... but, Bishop Benke and Padre Poedel, can you show me where this is what Kieschnick's vision of Missouri's growth is about???  Take St. John, Ellisville, which determined to minimize the Lutheran identity in its name and outreach for the sake of growth.... when a premiere Lutheran congregation in St. Louis does this, a congregation attended by Kieschnick types, what does that say for the vision of growth and identity being raised up for Missouri?

The old Lutheran Hour slogan had it right... Bringing Christ to the nations... but also bringing the nations to the CHURCH... meaning the Pulpit and the Table.... where baptismal identity flows, forms, and shapes the life of God's  children...

[Dave Benke]

While I understand your concern, Fr. Peters, taking the COP and a parish in Indiana to task for being "functionally non-Lutheran" when they're not is a sign, to me, of the desire of the overzealous to circumscribe almost anything out there that doesn't meet whatever standard they are raising.  It is not neither an evangelical nor catholic standard.  This is unhealthy.  See Paul Sauer's article in the current Lutheran Forum regarding Eucharistic formation and the cessation of the worship wars around mission sent from the altar.

And not by the way , thanks be to God for what's happening by His grace at your parish!  You, of course, are an old-school Atlantic District export, and therefore, along with the most-rapid numerically increasing district in baptized membership in the Missouri Synod, grandfathered into authentically evangelical and catholic patterns of growth.

Dave Benke

[swbohler]

Dr. Benke,

In the words of Ronald Reagan: "There you go again..."  What does the Steadfast Lutheran site/article have to do with Rev. Harrison?  Did he write it?  Did he endorse it?  If I pointed out that an advocate of women's ordination within the LCMS endorsed Dr. Kieschnick, would you say I was justified in somehow linking Dr. Kieschnick to women's ordination?

[Dave_Poedel]

While I haven't read the "Steadfast" page on Carmel LC (I don't need the angina) I had a dear friend who served, until his recent death too early in his young life, as the staff Pastor of Pastoral Care there.  While he described some of the services that I am less than enthused about, I can assure you that Don was anything but "functionally non-Lutheran", from my many years of service in neighboring parishes in Tucson.

My point all along Pr. Bohler & Fr. Peters is that the person is less the issue than the atmosphere they help foster.  As I have repeatedly stated I see more excitement and activity in the LCMS in the past 8 years is unlike anything I have experienced in my 25+ years in the Synod.  Maybe it's also that I am older and more secure and settled in the Synod and not fearful of what "they" could do to me, but I am a very happy and moderately effective and productive parish pastor. This is what I have wanted to be since I was 7 years old. What I am experiencing now is that, even though my DP is in a totally different book than I am regarding how to "do" church, I have his respect as a Pastor, and that is what I describe as "leaving me alone"...he doesn't force his TCN and other new and exciting approaches on me, even though I know he wishes I would get with his program.  I feel no pressure to compromise.  Now, when the Lord calls me home or somewhere else to serve, I cannot be concerned with what He does with Mt. Calvary as far as Pastor and style.  My Call to Mt Calvary is until I die or when God calls me elsewhere.  While my ego wishes that all of the clergy of the OHCAC were just like me, who am I that anyone should emulate what I do?

If my brothers, in their attempt to be faithful adopt methods and approaches like TCN that I find logically useful but of only superficial theological significance, and they adopt a style that makes my straight hair curl.....well, I'm not Pope.

After all, from a Church History, this Evangelical Catholic thing is an innovation, and this little band of folks called the LCMS are not even on the historical time line yet.