Filling Future Pastoral Vacancies

[Mark Brown]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demure.

This is pretty much where our folks come from in terms of working together locally.  As to Mark's comment - And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless., these endeavors are in fact savory, and bring opportunity in the doing to witness Christ.

Dave Benke

Dave, we have no problem working with Evangelicals.  We are a drop off location for the shoeboxes and have been for about 5 years.  We significantly support a crisis pregnancy center which is Evangelicals and Catholics largely.  We have in the past helped get a hospice off the ground.  We have helped with the local food bank which once upon a time was religious, but now is just a community endeavor.  Those are things that fall either in the worthwhile secular that doesn't say it is anything but civic good works, or are truly of the church without confusion.  These things are salty, and you know so because they are often hated.  Or they are just civic works.

Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.

I understand that pain of admitting failure. Decades of effort that have proved fruitless in the deep things. People that supposedly shared a confession and name are in reality on opposite sides of a chasm that is only growing.  And the investment in any joint institutions at this point has to be considered a loss. Sometimes you only escape as from a burning building.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don't know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don't know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

So one view is that Christianity is incompatible with the pro-choice position. The contrary view is that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. So to accommodate both views, we should compromise and agree that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. Seems reasonable.

Nope. Christianity is about the forgiveness of sinners by God through Jesus Christ. Pro-choice people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Pro-life people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Neither position is the way, the truth, and the life. When you make either position an essential mark of Christianity, the Gospel is destroyed.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don't know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don't know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

So one view is that Christianity is incompatible with the pro-choice position. The contrary view is that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. So to accommodate both views, we should compromise and agree that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. Seems reasonable.

Nope. Christianity is about the forgiveness of sinners by God through Jesus Christ. Pro-choice people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Pro-life people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Neither position is the way, the truth, and the life. When you make either position an essential mark of Christianity, the Gospel is destroyed.

And when you openness to either position an essential mark of Christianity, the Gospel is destroyed.

More seriously, the catechism gives us the basics of Christianity. Being a sinner in need of forgiveness is the universal human condition, not a mark of the Church. By your view, St. Paul destroyed the Gospel over and over again when he said that people who do not provide for their own households have denied the faith or that the congregation should expel the (unrepentant) sexually immoral person from among them, and Jesus did likewise when he said in Matthew 18 to treat the one who refuses to repent of his sin as being outside the Church. Everything except pure universalism denies the Gospel in your view because you think it makes God's grace somehow less than universal and over-arching.

[Dan Fienen]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don't know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don't know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

So one view is that Christianity is incompatible with the pro-choice position. The contrary view is that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. So to accommodate both views, we should compromise and agree that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. Seems reasonable.

Can this ALPB on line forum function with such incompatible positions as whether or not Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position on abortion with advocates from both sides being represented?


What is the function of the ALPB on line forum? We here are not a church, nor is it a function of the forum to decide or take a position on what is and what is not Christian. This is a forum for discussion where people can state and advocate for the position that they take on a topic and also argue against contrary positions. It is the nature of discussion that people will disagree, even disagree vehemently and contradict each other. Unlike debate forums, no one will declare one side the winner and the other the loser of the debate.


My understanding of the role of a moderator on this forum is that the moderators are to enforce the rules that are agreed upon when one joins the forum and which may be restated or modified from time to time. It is not the role of the moderators to rule on whether or not a position is correct or who has the superior position or argument.


It is a feature of this forum that moderators may also participate in the discussions. Thus they may state positions that they hold as participants even if those positions are contradictory to the positions taken by other participants. As participants they need not be impartial. What they may not do is to use their position as moderator to favor their position or censure the on line behavior of those in opposition more harshly or strictly than they do that of those they agree with. It is a delicate balance to maintain.


I'm not going to try to assess how well Moderator Speckhard has maintained that balance of impartial moderating with  passionate participation. I will note, that there have been a number of participants in this forum that have opined that some positions not their own are incompatible with the Christian faith, the Lutheran faith, or even common humanity. Or that one or another of those they disagree with could not possibly be living in the same world they do and since they themselves live in reality, those they oppose must be in some way delusional. Seems to me that those who would question his conduct as a moderator should show how Peter has been biased in his moderating.

[Jim Butler]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don't know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don't know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

Are you really sure that "tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions"? Is there a poll somewhere that shows that? Does that poll show how active those people are in worship?

When I was in Rockford, a lot of the leadership of our local branch of Lutherans for Life was ELCA. Rockford Lutheran High had a pro-life club at the time with several ELCA youth involved.

If you don't like the way Peter moderates, then go start your own board. You can be the moderator.

BTW, how much is a "tmillion"?

Also, have you figured out the definition of the word "still" yet? You seemed to think it was something that referred to something that only happened in the past.

[DeHall1]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don't know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don't know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

So one view is that Christianity is incompatible with the pro-choice position. The contrary view is that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. So to accommodate both views, we should compromise and agree that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. Seems reasonable.

Nope. Christianity is about the forgiveness of sinners by God through Jesus Christ. Pro-choice people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Pro-life people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Neither position is the way, the truth, and the life. When you make either position an essential mark of Christianity, the Gospel is destroyed.

Forgiveness Requires Repentance

Jesus is clear about repentance as the necessary condition of forgiveness in Luke 17:3-4.

[Brian Stoffregen]

More seriously, the catechism gives us the basics of Christianity. Being a sinner in need of forgiveness is the universal human condition, not a mark of the Church. By your view, St. Paul destroyed the Gospel over and over again when he said that people who do not provide for their own households have denied the faith or that the congregation should expel the (unrepentant) sexually immoral person from among them, and Jesus did likewise when he said in Matthew 18 to treat the one who refuses to repent of his sin as being outside the Church. Everything except pure universalism denies the Gospel in your view because you think it makes God's grace somehow less than universal and over-arching.

The catechism gives us the basics of living a life as a Christian.


There's a difference between keeping peace and order within a community of believers and being saved by God's grace. The intent in Matthew 18 is always to restore the one into the community. Note also that the issue is not described as "a sin against God," but when a fellow Christians "sins against you." (see also Luke 17:2 about someone sinning against you seven times in one day!) The way we treat our family, neighbors, and enemies is a witness to the faith God has given us.


I find 1 Timothy 5:8 quite interesting: εἰ δέ τις τῶν ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα οἰκείων οὐ προνοεῖ, τὴν πίστιν ἤρνηται καὶ ἔστιν ἀπίστου χείρων. The word translated "provide" (in boldface) is the word, νοέω = "to comprehend something on the basis of careful thought and consideration - to perceive, to gain insight into, to understand, to comprehend" (Lowe & Nida) + the prefix προ- = before, in terms of place (e.g., before or in front of other people) or time (e.g., earlier).


It is similar to the origins of the word "provide," which comes from the Latin: pro- = "before" + videre = "to see."


It's about seeing or knowing beforehand what people might need (and then doing something with that knowledge).


What I find quite interesting is that the root of this Greek word: νοέω; is also the root of the word usually translated "to repent," μετανοέω. The "change in thinking (and acting)" that is part of being a repentant person; includes "thinking (and acting) beforehand" for the needs of the people around us.


It's a round-about way of saying something I've said for years: the real question is not "What do you believe?," but "What difference does it make in your life that you believe?" How we treat our family members (and I would add, our neighbors and our enemies) is a witness to our faith: the grace that God has shown us in Jesus; and also a witness and an understanding that God's grace in Jesus extends also to all those other people. If that doesn't affect the way we treat others; then it's likely that we don't really believe it.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter, given your views which you so frequently express, I don't know how you can be a moderator under the auspices of the ALPB, an organization which accepts and welcomes the participation of ELCA folks as Lutherans. Because you do not. I and tmillions of my fellow members in the ELCA accept, welcome, and want to preserve our current laws concerning the availability of abortions. So do millions of Christians in our partner churches of other denominations. You declare that we are not Christians, and one of your number has a resolution declaring that you and your fellows should not even speak with us.
I don't know why you want to be here among us, and I fear your presence will poison this place as far as other ELCA participation is concerned. Just my humble opinion.

So one view is that Christianity is incompatible with the pro-choice position. The contrary view is that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. So to accommodate both views, we should compromise and agree that Christianity is compatible with the pro-choice position. Seems reasonable.

Nope. Christianity is about the forgiveness of sinners by God through Jesus Christ. Pro-choice people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Pro-life people are sinners in need of forgiveness. Neither position is the way, the truth, and the life. When you make either position an essential mark of Christianity, the Gospel is destroyed.

Forgiveness Requires Repentance

Jesus is clear about repentance as the necessary condition of forgiveness in Luke 17:3-4.

First point: Luke 17 is about us forgiving a fellow Christian who has sinned. There are a number of manuscripts that add: "against you" to verse 3. This makes it match Matthew 18:15 and Luke 17:4. There's also Peter's question in Matthew 18:21 about another Christian sinning against him. Thus, the passage is not so much about declaring God's forgiveness for the sinner, but how we are to forgive a fellow believer who has sinned against us.


Second point: while Luke 17 certainly calls for repentance by the sinner; the somewhat parallel passage in Matthew 18 never calls for repentance of the sinner. When Jesus prays: "Father, forgiven them. They don't know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34); there is no indication that anyone in the crowd had repented of the evil they had done.


In actual experiences, forgiveness is about my own attitude towards others. The opposite of forgiveness is holding a grudge; thinking or planning to get even. That's not healthy. An oft repeated quote: "Keeping resentments is like swallowing poison and expecting the other person to die." Forgiveness is letting go of the resentment, which is only harming the resentful person.


A lady in a Bible study illustrated this truth when she said that it was when she decided to forgive her cheating ex-husband that she got peace for herself. He never repented of his evil. (He just repeated it with subsequent wives.)


If God weren't forgiving humanity, that is: if God were to get even with us for our sins, we wouldn't survive.

[Dave Benke]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demure.

This is pretty much where our folks come from in terms of working together locally.  As to Mark's comment - And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless., these endeavors are in fact savory, and bring opportunity in the doing to witness Christ.

Dave Benke

Dave, we have no problem working with Evangelicals.  We are a drop off location for the shoeboxes and have been for about 5 years.  We significantly support a crisis pregnancy center which is Evangelicals and Catholics largely.  We have in the past helped get a hospice off the ground.  We have helped with the local food bank which once upon a time was religious, but now is just a community endeavor.  Those are things that fall either in the worthwhile secular that doesn't say it is anything but civic good works, or are truly of the church without confusion.  These things are salty, and you know so because they are often hated.  Or they are just civic works.

Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.

I understand that pain of admitting failure. Decades of effort that have proved fruitless in the deep things. People that supposedly shared a confession and name are in reality on opposite sides of a chasm that is only growing.  And the investment in any joint institutions at this point has to be considered a loss. Sometimes you only escape as from a burning building.

I don't know what those former church charities are doing now that you won't do with them, so it's hard to comment directly.  However, taking an example from relatively recent history, when Superstorm Sandy hit with full force, a group of people who were of no particular belief but were primarily young adults with diverse lifestyles and beliefs/non-beliefs made a big impact in the tough neighborhoods, which was where we - Atlantic District and St. Peter's Brooklyn - were going.  So we collaborated.  They were called Occupy Sandy (after Occupy Wall Street).  They got a lot of stuff, as did we, they helped whoever needed help, as did we, they shared space and broke bread with us.  Out of that came a connection to some folks who to this very day supply us with Thanksgiving meals/turkeys.  My estimation is that on the Missouri Synod values scale they were at level one to our perfect ten.  Did we bring Jesus into the conversation?  Did we pray?  Yes.  Did we make that a factor in whether people received assistance?  No.  Did the Occupy Sandy people bring Jesus into the conversation and pray?  No.  It seemed to us to be a good partnership.  Would it not have seemed to be to you?

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demure.

This is pretty much where our folks come from in terms of working together locally.  As to Mark's comment - And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless., these endeavors are in fact savory, and bring opportunity in the doing to witness Christ.

Dave Benke

Dave, we have no problem working with Evangelicals.  We are a drop off location for the shoeboxes and have been for about 5 years.  We significantly support a crisis pregnancy center which is Evangelicals and Catholics largely.  We have in the past helped get a hospice off the ground.  We have helped with the local food bank which once upon a time was religious, but now is just a community endeavor.  Those are things that fall either in the worthwhile secular that doesn't say it is anything but civic good works, or are truly of the church without confusion.  These things are salty, and you know so because they are often hated.  Or they are just civic works.

Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.

I understand that pain of admitting failure. Decades of effort that have proved fruitless in the deep things. People that supposedly shared a confession and name are in reality on opposite sides of a chasm that is only growing.  And the investment in any joint institutions at this point has to be considered a loss. Sometimes you only escape as from a burning building.

I don't know what those former church charities are doing now that you won't do with them, so it's hard to comment directly.  However, taking an example from relatively recent history, when Superstorm Sandy hit with full force, a group of people who were of no particular belief but were primarily young adults with diverse lifestyles and beliefs/non-beliefs made a big impact in the tough neighborhoods, which was where we - Atlantic District and St. Peter's Brooklyn - were going.  So we collaborated.  They were called Occupy Sandy (after Occupy Wall Street).  They got a lot of stuff, as did we, they helped whoever needed help, as did we, they shared space and broke bread with us.  Out of that came a connection to some folks who to this very day supply us with Thanksgiving meals/turkeys.  My estimation is that on the Missouri Synod values scale they were at level one to our perfect ten.  Did we bring Jesus into the conversation?  Did we pray?  Yes.  Did we make that a factor in whether people received assistance?  No.  Did the Occupy Sandy people bring Jesus into the conversation and pray?  No.  It seemed to us to be a good partnership.  Would it not have seemed to be to you?

Dave Benke

I'm not seeing anyone opposing working together with outside groups on human care issues like food pantries. While many LCMS churches do things on their own, that doesn't mean they refuse on principle to do things with others, assuming those things don't involve joint leadership of worship. Where are the churches that resemble the straw man you seem to be arguing against? No matter how often conservative (arch, uber, hyper, super) pastors talk about the ways they cooperate with other groups, both religious and secular, you keep implying that such churches oppose cooperation in externals for doctrinal reasons. It isn't true. What is true is that they cooperate more often with Catholics and Evangelicals or secular organizations rather than mainline Protestant groups, largely because the mainline groups so often take concrete positions on the sort of social issues under discussion that are directly at odds with our goals. 

[PrTim15]

Seems like every ministry in a local area has something unique to contribute. LCMS may not have pastors, may not have money, or lots of people, but we are property rich. It makes a huge difference to have property in neighborhoods and cities that are impacted by crowding and high property values. Why not figure it out and work together? Every brings something.

[Dave Benke]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demure.

This is pretty much where our folks come from in terms of working together locally.  As to Mark's comment - And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless., these endeavors are in fact savory, and bring opportunity in the doing to witness Christ.

Dave Benke

Dave, we have no problem working with Evangelicals.  We are a drop off location for the shoeboxes and have been for about 5 years.  We significantly support a crisis pregnancy center which is Evangelicals and Catholics largely.  We have in the past helped get a hospice off the ground.  We have helped with the local food bank which once upon a time was religious, but now is just a community endeavor.  Those are things that fall either in the worthwhile secular that doesn't say it is anything but civic good works, or are truly of the church without confusion.  These things are salty, and you know so because they are often hated.  Or they are just civic works.

Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.

I understand that pain of admitting failure. Decades of effort that have proved fruitless in the deep things. People that supposedly shared a confession and name are in reality on opposite sides of a chasm that is only growing.  And the investment in any joint institutions at this point has to be considered a loss. Sometimes you only escape as from a burning building.

I don't know what those former church charities are doing now that you won't do with them, so it's hard to comment directly.  However, taking an example from relatively recent history, when Superstorm Sandy hit with full force, a group of people who were of no particular belief but were primarily young adults with diverse lifestyles and beliefs/non-beliefs made a big impact in the tough neighborhoods, which was where we - Atlantic District and St. Peter's Brooklyn - were going.  So we collaborated.  They were called Occupy Sandy (after Occupy Wall Street).  They got a lot of stuff, as did we, they helped whoever needed help, as did we, they shared space and broke bread with us.  Out of that came a connection to some folks who to this very day supply us with Thanksgiving meals/turkeys.  My estimation is that on the Missouri Synod values scale they were at level one to our perfect ten.  Did we bring Jesus into the conversation?  Did we pray?  Yes.  Did we make that a factor in whether people received assistance?  No.  Did the Occupy Sandy people bring Jesus into the conversation and pray?  No.  It seemed to us to be a good partnership.  Would it not have seemed to be to you?

Dave Benke

I'm not seeing anyone opposing working together with outside groups on human care issues like food pantries. While many LCMS churches do things on their own, that doesn't mean they refuse on principle to do things with others, assuming those things don't involve joint leadership of worship. Where are the churches that resemble the straw man you seem to be arguing against? No matter how often conservative (arch, uber, hyper, super) pastors talk about the ways they cooperate with other groups, both religious and secular, you keep implying that such churches oppose cooperation in externals for doctrinal reasons. It isn't true. What is true is that they cooperate more often with Catholics and Evangelicals or secular organizations rather than mainline Protestant groups, largely because the mainline groups so often take concrete positions on the sort of social issues under discussion that are directly at odds with our goals.

Sometimes I'm not sure you're reading what I'm writing or responding to, Peter.  This is what Mark wrote and what I responded to:  Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.  "Things you won't find us doing" was the lead phrase.    You're the moderator.  Read the posts before commenting.

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

I guess I just don't see that attitude in too many places. We're going from running a small food pantry (inefficiently) to hosting Northwest Indiana Food Bank, a secular charity that needs a building with a parking lot like ours and some able bodies to load food into cars periodically, along with whatever donations people offer. They aren't Lutheran or even religious, nor are they a government program. She'll use whatever church has a suitable facility, and they do all the work of screening the clients, working with wholesalers to get perishables, and letting the clients know when and where to ick up the food. All we have to do is put out cones for the line of cars, direct traffic, load trunks, and do so without blocking any streets. So if the goal is to get food to people who need food, you can't do it more efficiently than that. But I guess we're cooperating in externals with atheists and pagans and anyone else who might donate food to a food pantry.

Many conservative LCMS churches work with 40 Days for Life, founded by an Evangelical with events featuring mostly Catholics and Evangelicals. Or Crisis Pregnancy Centers, same deal. We host AA, Al-anon, and Teen Al-anon in our building without any religious tests. The only time people bristle about working together is when something presents itself as a Christian thing and the togetherness aspect is the real point rather than the food distribution of help for young mothers or whatever. When people who don't think our differences are church-dividing invite us to an "isn't this neat that we're so united despite our differences" event, we generally demure.

This is pretty much where our folks come from in terms of working together locally.  As to Mark's comment - And cooperating in externals at this point is basically flavorless., these endeavors are in fact savory, and bring opportunity in the doing to witness Christ.

Dave Benke

Dave, we have no problem working with Evangelicals.  We are a drop off location for the shoeboxes and have been for about 5 years.  We significantly support a crisis pregnancy center which is Evangelicals and Catholics largely.  We have in the past helped get a hospice off the ground.  We have helped with the local food bank which once upon a time was religious, but now is just a community endeavor.  Those are things that fall either in the worthwhile secular that doesn't say it is anything but civic good works, or are truly of the church without confusion.  These things are salty, and you know so because they are often hated.  Or they are just civic works.

Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.

I understand that pain of admitting failure. Decades of effort that have proved fruitless in the deep things. People that supposedly shared a confession and name are in reality on opposite sides of a chasm that is only growing.  And the investment in any joint institutions at this point has to be considered a loss. Sometimes you only escape as from a burning building.

I don't know what those former church charities are doing now that you won't do with them, so it's hard to comment directly.  However, taking an example from relatively recent history, when Superstorm Sandy hit with full force, a group of people who were of no particular belief but were primarily young adults with diverse lifestyles and beliefs/non-beliefs made a big impact in the tough neighborhoods, which was where we - Atlantic District and St. Peter's Brooklyn - were going.  So we collaborated.  They were called Occupy Sandy (after Occupy Wall Street).  They got a lot of stuff, as did we, they helped whoever needed help, as did we, they shared space and broke bread with us.  Out of that came a connection to some folks who to this very day supply us with Thanksgiving meals/turkeys.  My estimation is that on the Missouri Synod values scale they were at level one to our perfect ten.  Did we bring Jesus into the conversation?  Did we pray?  Yes.  Did we make that a factor in whether people received assistance?  No.  Did the Occupy Sandy people bring Jesus into the conversation and pray?  No.  It seemed to us to be a good partnership.  Would it not have seemed to be to you?

Dave Benke

I'm not seeing anyone opposing working together with outside groups on human care issues like food pantries. While many LCMS churches do things on their own, that doesn't mean they refuse on principle to do things with others, assuming those things don't involve joint leadership of worship. Where are the churches that resemble the straw man you seem to be arguing against? No matter how often conservative (arch, uber, hyper, super) pastors talk about the ways they cooperate with other groups, both religious and secular, you keep implying that such churches oppose cooperation in externals for doctrinal reasons. It isn't true. What is true is that they cooperate more often with Catholics and Evangelicals or secular organizations rather than mainline Protestant groups, largely because the mainline groups so often take concrete positions on the sort of social issues under discussion that are directly at odds with our goals.

Sometimes I'm not sure you're reading what I'm writing or responding to, Peter.  This is what Mark wrote and what I responded to:  Things you won't find us doing? There is a long laundry list of former church charities that are basically NGOs these days.  If it requires a DEI statement signing, no.  If it says it is Christian or of the church, but you'd never see an evangelical as its head or the rainbow flag proudly flies at its events or the fungible money sometimes supports "family planning" lines out of sight, or any number of other things, no.  All these things do is support confusion and cause the church to lose its saltiness.  "Things you won't find us doing" was the lead phrase.    You're the moderator.  Read the posts before commenting.

Dave Benke

"However, taking an example from relatively recent history, when Superstorm Sandy hit with full force, a group of people who were of no particular belief but were primarily young adults with diverse lifestyles and beliefs/non-beliefs made a big impact in the tough neighborhoods, which was where we - Atlantic District and St. Peter's Brooklyn - were going.  So we collaborated.  They were called Occupy Sandy (after Occupy Wall Street).  They got a lot of stuff, as did we, they helped whoever needed help, as did we, they shared space and broke bread with us.  Out of that came a connection to some folks who to this very day supply us with Thanksgiving meals/turkeys.  My estimation is that on the Missouri Synod values scale they were at level one to our perfect ten.  Did we bring Jesus into the conversation?  Did we pray?  Yes.  Did we make that a factor in whether people received assistance?  No.  Did the Occupy Sandy people bring Jesus into the conversation and pray?  No.  It seemed to us to be a good partnership.  Would it not have seemed to be to you?"

That's what I was responding to (after having read it). The point I made, that cooperation is more difficult and less likely with mainline bodies than with Evangelicals and Catholics, is perfectly on point with the prior post you were responding to. Mark said he is fine with cooperation as long as the other groups aren't actively contradicting LCMS doctrine (say, with the pride paraphernia, etc.).

You're the president of the ALPB. Get a clue before accusing your own moderator of not reading your posts before responding to them.

[Dan Fienen]

An example of what those narrow minded LCMS types might do. After the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting one of the groups that responded and offered help to the gay community was the Lutheran Church Charities K-9 Comfort Dogs, an LCMS  RSO.

[Charles Austin]

It has been said here before by several people. If an organization, however "charitable," happens to be active in a "pro-choice" or gay affirming way, LCMS should be shaking dust off its collective sandals. The LCMS has Some voices asking it to withdraw from LIRS, not over immigration policy, but just because ELCA is part of it.
And I don't think the pooches trained as comfort dogs are catechized into the LCMS.