2023 LCMS Convention news, notes, and hard-hitting commentary

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

LCMS declared altar and pulpit fellowship with ALC in 1969 and withdrew from it in 1977.

This was the most ecumenical movement made by the LCMS.  What caused breakup
was the approval of ordination of women in the ALC beginning in 1970.  So altar and
pulpit fellowship was short-lived with the ALC.  By 2001, the President of the LCMS
would declare that the ELCA (a merger of the LCA & ALC) was heterodox.

I saw these posts about the ecumenical contributions of the various Lutheran bodies earlier today but could not post due to a heavy schedule. I'll share a few thoughts about what I saw above. My perspective is shaped by a graduate class on the Ecumenical Movement with Ron Feuerhahn and my own research as a worker at Concordia Historical Institute, as well as I remember.

The debate above about which church body contributed most reflects the perspectives of the different groups involved. Churches that merged to form the LCA and ALC had long experience with mergers, having gathered up many of the little ethnic Lutheran churches to form larger groups.

The LCMS  did not have this experience. There are few mergers in LCMS history,  just the German and English halves of the synod, plus the Slovak Synod, and maybe one more. The LCMS did participate in the Synodical Conference but that was a conservative fellowship that came apart as LCMS leaders sought fellowship with the ALC.

Feuerhahn, as I recall,  called the LCMS leaders frustrated ecumenists. The wanted to merge with the ALC to form a large conservative-right Lutheranism in America.  But all fell apart since they lost the Synodical Conference and the ALC. The hymnal was part of this effort for conservative-right Lutheranism,  I think.

After the Walkout, the AELC split from LCMS provided an important impetus toward forming the ELCA. So indirectly through the AELC, the LCMS  had a significant influence on the development of the ELCA. But overall,  I think the congregations that became ELCA had a much longer history of ecumenism than did the LCMS.

[Michael Slusser]

TRIGGER WARNING

The first reading at RC Mass this morning, the 6th Sunday in Year A, is Sirach 15:15-20, which begins:
"If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live...."

I was offering Mass about a mile from St. Olaf College in Northfield MN, but no tremors were discernible. There may, however, have been shocks in Yuma.

Sirach 15:15-20 is an option in the Revised Common Lectionary. It's part of the pericope studies I led in the congregation. However, I used the CEB translation which follows:

   15   If you choose to, you will keep the commandments,
         and keep faith out of goodwill. [footnote: Gk uncertain]   
   16   He has put fire and water before you;
         you can stretch out your hand for whichever you choose.
   17   Life and death are in front of human beings;
         and they will be granted whichever they please,
   18      because the wisdom of the Lord is great;
         he’s mighty in authority, he sees everything,
   19   his eyes are upon those who fear him,
         and he knows every human action.
   20   He doesn’t command anyone to be ungodly,
         and he doesn’t give anyone a license to sin.

This section, which actually begins at v. 11, is about pushing the responsibility for oour sin and evil back onto God. We cannot blame the Lord for our sins. We made the choice to disobey. Verse 14 states: He created humanity at the beginning, and he left them to the power of their choices." However, Luther argues that though we have been given free choice, we, like the first humans, even when they were still perfect, will chose to disobey God.

This passage is much like Deuteronomy where God tells the people that they have a choice.

I checked my files and I have preached a sermon on Sirach. One sermon over 43 years of active ministry.

Thank you, Pr. Stoffregen. I found that helpful.

Peace,
Michael

[Jim Butler]

LCMS declared altar and pulpit fellowship with ALC in 1969 and withdrew from it in 1977.

This was the most ecumenical movement made by the LCMS.  What caused breakup
was the approval of ordination of women in the ALC beginning in 1970.  So altar and
pulpit fellowship was short-lived with the ALC.  By 2001, the President of the LCMS
would declare that the ELCA (a merger of the LCA & ALC) was heterodox.

I saw these posts about the ecumenical contributions of the various Lutheran bodies earlier today but could not post due to a heavy schedule. I'll share a few thoughts about what I saw above. My perspective is shaped by a graduate class on the Ecumenical Movement with Ron Feuerhahn and my own research as a worker at Concordia Historical Institute, as well as I remember.

The debate above about which church body contributed most reflects the perspectives of the different groups involved. Churches that merged to form the LCA and ALC had long experience with mergers, having gathered up many of the little ethnic Lutheran churches to form larger groups.

The LCMS  did not have this experience. There are few mergers in LCMS history,  just the German and English halves of the synod, plus the Slovak Synod, and maybe one more. The LCMS did participate in the Synodical Conference but that was a conservative fellowship that came apart as LCMS leaders sought fellowship with the ALC.

Feuerhahn, as I recall,  called the LCMS leaders frustrated ecumenists. The wanted to merge with the ALC to form a large conservative-right Lutheranism in America.  But all fell apart since they lost the Synodical Conference and the ALC. The hymnal was part of this effort for conservative-right Lutheranism,  I think.

After the Walkout, the AELC split from LCMS provided an important impetus toward forming the ELCA. So indirectly through the AELC, the LCMS  had a significant influence on the development of the ELCA. But overall,  I think the congregations that became ELCA had a much longer history of ecumenism than did the LCMS.

The LCMS also merged with the National Evangelical Lutheran Church, a Finnish body, in the 1950s. It was because that body lost its identity when the local churches were merged into the LCMS districts that the SELC wanted to remain its own district.

The desire to merge with the ALC was big in the 1930s, beginning with ALC fellowship (the ALPB was pushing for it).  But the Synod rejected fellowship with the ALC. That led to the publication of the Statement of the 44 in 1945.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The desire to merge with the ALC was big in the 1930s, beginning with ALC fellowship (the ALPB was pushing for it).  But the Synod rejected fellowship with the ALC. That led to the publication of the Statement of the 44 in 1945.

To clarify, the ALC of 1930 was the coming together of German Lutherans:
• the Lutheran Synod of Buffalo that began in 1845
• the Evangelical Synod of Iowa and other States that began in 1854
• the Joint Synod of Ohio and Other States that began in 1818


The Iowa Synod and the Missouri Synod had some common roots.


The "new" ALC (originally TALC) was formed in 1960 from German, Norwegian, and Danish synods.

[peterm]

Peter:
Maybe not formally, but the LCMS was part of the LBW project, which was the precursor to unity.
Me:
Wrong again. There were no unity discussions connected to the LBW project. And the LCMS broke all good faith at every step of the LBW way, pulling out after the rest of us made considerable concessions to accommodate the LCMS need for including certain hymns already rejected by the project.

Whether there were formal unity discussions connected to the LBW project or not, it was assumed that with the LCA, ALC, and LCMS sharing the same hymnal, this would contribute to their eventual union into one church body.  Indeed, it was the LCMS fear that many LCMS congregations that were adopting LBW might eventually leave the LCMS for the new Lutheran church body that led to rushing the LW into production, thus afflicting Missouri with liturgical confusion for decades.  When I hear of ELCA complaints about the Lutheran hymns the Missourians wanted in their Lutheran hymnal it makes me smile.  It was a gift!  And what did we get out of the deal?  A second rate hymnal that probably did more to advance CW in the LCMS than anything else.

Yes, there was talk that a joint hymnal could lead to mergers. It had happened in the past. The SBH came out in 1958 which led to the TALC in 1960 and LCA in 1962.


The LCMS's "liturgical confusion" began long before the LBW. Norman Habel had his Create in Me Mass at least by 1969 when I got a copy of it in his Joy Noise: A New Hymnal for Young Churches. Rather than compose new music, he used popular folk songs and reworked the words for the liturgy, e.g., The (paraphrased) Words of Institution and Agnus Dei are sung to "Blowing in the Wind." This was before Contemporary Worship 4: Holy Communion was published in 1970 that included trial/experimental communion liturgies prior to being published in 1978 in LBW.


I believe that Contemporary Christian Worship began with Maranatha Music coming out of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA, formed in 1965. It grew out of the charismatic movement. Coming out of non-denominational church, it had little to do with the traditional mass. It was/is often performance driven. That is, written for and performed by a soloist or ensemble while a congregation might sing along with the performers.


Vatican II opened the door to what I call, "Contemporary Liturgical Music." Marty Haugen is probably the best known composer of this genre., but there are many others especially in the Roman Catholic tradition. It is contemporary music (usually for an ensemble accompaniment, written for (a) congregational singing, and (b) for the ordo of the mass. Haugen has composed a number of musical settings for Roman Catholic Mass; and a few for Lutherans, Now the Feast and Celebration, was composed for Pacific Lutheran University. Setting Two in ELW is a Haugen composition.

Brian, back in 1999 I accepted a Call to a congregation in the St. Louis area.  Unknown to me was that they had a local tradition where every 5th Sunday they used a "special liturgy" - which was none other than the one you mentioned above by Habel.  I REFUSED to sing a paraphrase of the Verba to the tune of "Blowing in the Wind."  Habel did other weird stuff, too.

Back in my internship days (1992-93) My internship congregation used to do this liturgy once in awhile.  I never could listen to it with a straight face.  It is stuck in my brain though and surfaces every now and again.

[The Yak]

Brian, back in 1999 I accepted a Call to a congregation in the St. Louis area.  Unknown to me was that they had a local tradition where every 5th Sunday they used a "special liturgy" - which was none other than the one you mentioned above by Habel.  I REFUSED to sing a paraphrase of the Verba to the tune of "Blowing in the Wind."  Habel did other weird stuff, too.

I always hated that Sunday.

[Chris Schelp]

Brian, back in 1999 I accepted a Call to a congregation in the St. Louis area.  Unknown to me was that they had a local tradition where every 5th Sunday they used a "special liturgy" - which was none other than the one you mentioned above by Habel.  I REFUSED to sing a paraphrase of the Verba to the tune of "Blowing in the Wind."  Habel did other weird stuff, too.

Back in my internship days (1992-93) My internship congregation used to do this liturgy once in awhile.  I never could listen to it with a straight face.  It is stuck in my brain though and surfaces every now and again.

I've never had the "pleasure" of hearing that liturgy, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was actually literally illegal, unless (which seems unlikely to me, though I could be wrong) Bob Dylan gave permission for his tune to be used in that way. I know for a fact this is the case with the "Benediction" that's floating around out there to the tune of Edelweiss; the use of that tune was never authorized by the estate of Rodgers and Hammerstein, and they are quite adamant about that to this day.

[Dan Fienen]

Brian, back in 1999 I accepted a Call to a congregation in the St. Louis area.  Unknown to me was that they had a local tradition where every 5th Sunday they used a "special liturgy" - which was none other than the one you mentioned above by Habel.  I REFUSED to sing a paraphrase of the Verba to the tune of "Blowing in the Wind."  Habel did other weird stuff, too.

Back in my internship days (1992-93) My internship congregation used to do this liturgy once in awhile.  I never could listen to it with a straight face.  It is stuck in my brain though and surfaces every now and again.

I've never had the "pleasure" of hearing that liturgy, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was actually literally illegal, unless (which seems unlikely to me, though I could be wrong) Bob Dylan gave permission for his tune to be used in that way. I know for a fact this is the case with the "Benediction" that's floating around out there to the tune of Edelweiss; the use of that tune was never authorized by the estate of Rodgers and Hammerstein, and they are quite adamant about that to this day.

I don't know that I ever worshiped using that liturgy, but I may well have at a District Walther League convention. In that era, such copyright ignoring was quite common. Still was illegal. I wrote a "folk" mass myself back in the naughts but I was careful to use British, Irish, and Appalachian folk tunes that were long, long out of copyright, if they ever were copyrighted in the first place.

[Dave Benke]

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

https://machairaaction.noblogs.org/post/2023/02/10/dismantling-the-fortress/

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

https://machairaaction.noblogs.org/post/2023/02/10/dismantling-the-fortress/

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

I openly called Corey Mahler a moron with a Twitter account in this forum. I also criticized CUW for having a Black Student Union. Your broad brush is disturbing. Again, Dave Benke and the people who took over Portland are similarly linked.

[Chris Schelp]

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

(EDITED to remove link)

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

With respect, I don't think you gave enough consideration, if you actually posted this link anyway, thereby broadening its reach. Whatever you may think of the "analysis" given therein, the tactics used are those of cowardly terrorists who are doxxing any and all names they can come up with. It's shameful on its face, and I'm frankly appalled that you would give these cowards any more reach than they already have by linking to them. (Yes, I'm being rather strident here; maybe you would too, if you had some skin in the game.)

[Rev. Edward Engelbrecht]

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

(EDITED to remove link)

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

With respect, I don't think you gave enough consideration, if you actually posted this link anyway, thereby broadening its reach. Whatever you may think of the "analysis" given therein, the tactics used are those of cowardly terrorists who are doxxing any and all names they can come up with. It's shameful on its face, and I'm frankly appalled that you would give these cowards any more reach than they already have by linking to them. (Yes, I'm being rather strident here; maybe you would too, if you had some skin in the game.)

Are you surprised that people are researching those who attacked a project worth tens of thousands of dollars (at least) and the personnel who made it? You can't be that nieve, Chris.  If you are, you're in for a rough ride.

[Chris Schelp]

After some consideration I'm putting this link on the LCMS Convention site thread, with the proviso that I do not know who Machaira Action is -

(EDITED to remove link)

This is very thorough in analysis of some of those on the White/Christian Nationalist Patriarchalist front who have been highly active in and around the Large Catechism issue, taking credit for getting President Harrison to flinch, and now I am very sure reacting in a strongly negative way to the continuation of the project without changes.  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.

However, my reaction is that this behavior is described as being assisted by the attitudes propounded inside the LCMS, and the potential for the fomenting of the Nationalist types to find not only safe haven but ample ground for recruiting within the LCMS.

As examples, there is the clergy-driven Gottesblog, which threw the same shade as the Twitter folks with regard to the catechism on grounds of wokeness, and has in addition walked right up the Anti-Woke trail for months and years point by point.  There are those, many connected to Gottesdienst and also rostered clergy, who sponsored and elevated the Anti-Woke campaign at CUW for months and months including condemning the Black Student Union.  There are those who are on other lesser sites who can't get enough Anti-Woke on a daily basis.

Whatever is thought and said about those described in this link, attention must be paid to the pastors and professors who have taken a very similar tack to Mahler and Co.

Dave Benke

With respect, I don't think you gave enough consideration, if you actually posted this link anyway, thereby broadening its reach. Whatever you may think of the "analysis" given therein, the tactics used are those of cowardly terrorists who are doxxing any and all names they can come up with. It's shameful on its face, and I'm frankly appalled that you would give these cowards any more reach than they already have by linking to them. (Yes, I'm being rather strident here; maybe you would too, if you had some skin in the game.)

Are you surprised that people are researching those who attacked a project worth tens of thousands of dollars (at least) and the personnel who made it? You can't be that nieve, Chris.  If you are, you're in for a rough ride.

Please believe me when I say that I truly ask you this now not to be mean or snarky in any way, and not as a way of "scoring points" in an online argument or of being rude or disrespectful: if a member of your congregation came to you distraught over either themselves, or one of their friends or family, being slandered in a public forum, is this the sort of counsel or response you would give to them?

[Charles Austin]

There is a group of people, perhaps several groups of people, who are planning to do major changes within your church body, some of them specifically directed at particular leaders. You want to handle this as if it were a dispute within a congregation? Very bad idea.

[Dave Benke]

There is a group of people, perhaps several groups of people, who are planning to do major changes within your church body, some of them specifically directed at particular leaders. You want to handle this as if it were a dispute within a congregation? Very bad idea.

This has taken on a new level of high concern at the national level of our denomination within the last 12 hours.   I wrote this yesterday afternoon:  I would not be surprised if all kinds of threatening gestures are taking place, because this is a very dedicated tribe.  I have heard now that those words were somewhat prophetic.

The analysis provided in the link is that the LCMS has been selected by this "dedicated tribe" because of perceived alignment on issues of Christian Nationalism and Patriarchalism as they have appeared in other settings and venues articulated by clergy and other leaders.  That assessment is most difficult to deny.

Dave Benke