Mollie,

What did Kieschnick supporters have to say?

At bedtime, my teenage son often asks for “just ten more minutes.”

I tell him, “You’re only delaying the inevitable.”

TW

Even if i didn’t, sinner that I am, immediately dismiss just about everything politicians say as expedient lies, who could believe the assurances of one as to what will happen in three years?

It would not affect my vote one way or another.

We (delegates) are voting for the person we believe to the best president of Synod from 2010-13.
There are five people nominated for that position. If a delegate thinks Pres. K is the best, then he or she should vote for him.

The forum on which Rev. Mueller raised the notion of “one more Kieschnick term” has an apologetic thread for ‘UsFirst propaganda letters, including Us1st’s Letter No. 9, on which the apologists have been busily tapdancing, and ‘Us1st’s appropriately numbered letter, “No. 2,” on the BRTFSSGBS.

With the convention soon to start, I think the appraisals from Kiley Campbell and Jim Pierce are right on target. Rev. Mueller’s silly suggestion is simply another sign that the liberals in the Missouri Synod have powered up the fan of desparation and are shoveling everything they have into it.

It is time for SP Kieschnick to retire. We need a new president and Pastor Matt Harrison is the man of the hour. He will be a true shepard of this Synod.

I have seen a lot of different things tried at conventions, but I have to say that this has to be at the top of the list as desparation. A good question might be, “How stupid do they think we are?” Even if this ploy were to be tried nobody can gaurantee the outcome. I hope nobody fails for this, we need to stick together and support Rev Harrison.

If they try this then we know they believe that they think they likely won’t win. It would be funny if he goes against the Task Force which hopefully would have people ask why he would go against his own task force and why did he all of sudden change his mind since he publicly supported it in the Reporter Q and A.

Is the Task Force scheduled to be voted on first?

Task force is scheduled for discussion on Sunday and voting on Monday. This also is a change from previous conventions when the first business is elections. There is also a rumor of changing this to have the elections first because if Harrison is elected the libs don’t want the new structure which gives more power to the president.

Why did they schedule the vote on task force first? Is the election Tuesday? Do we have a time on the vote? I would like to watch the vote live.

The sidebar on http://2010convention.com has the convention schedule .. a convenient place to locate it if you can’t find it easily.

There may be a motion to change the orders of the day and move the election to Sunday. Harrison supporters should vote yes to change the orders of the day. This move may come from Harrison supporters, Kieschnick supporters or both. It is a good thing. Harrison supporters would favor it to lessen the “gavel effect.” Kieschnick supporters would support it because if Harrison wins the election, they want to vote down the structure proposals so that Harrison would not have the greater authority and power granted the president via the structure proposals.

Whatever the reason, it is right to move the agenda because this is the standard procedure for elections and it is what we have grown used to in the LCMS. It is bad enough that the sitting president gets to give his report before the election (this is an unfair advantage) and would be even worse to have two days of the gavel before the election.

TR

Brothers and sisters –

I haven’t been checking on your BJS writings regularly for a couple of weeks now — just home for the day and WOW! Have you guy gotten pretty far out there.

You’ve created a rumor, then called delegates to ask them their opinion on the rumor, and now are reporting their responses to a rumor you made up as news?!?!

I know of no one who has ever spoken of a “one last term for Jerry then Matt for sure” — and I know a lot of people in the LCMS. I just took a deeper look and see that Todd took a phrase I wrote on ALPB — removed it from its context — and suggested on an earlier post on BJS that this is President Kieschnick’s agenda!?!? It’s frankly incredible — and that’s what these postings have become: unbelievable.

Instead of musing on what I might have said and who I might be representing by my comments, let me help you by making some clear statements.

1. I do not speak for President Kieschnick. In fact, I don’t speak with him very often at all. I think the last time I spoke with him was at the NID/Wisconsin Delegate forum when I greet him and shook his hand. I don’t speak for Jesus First — I just speak for me.

2. My writings on ALPB were in defense of the statements of Jon Coyne in a delegate newsletter, which I believe were fair and accurate (all agree that the numbers where right). My comments went further to explain that I personally believe Matt Harrison — while he seems to me to be good, pastoral man, an engaging speaker (I’ve hear him), an adequate writer (I’ve read him), and a good translator of others writings (read that, too) — is not ready because of lack of experience to be President of Synod. That doesn’t mean that he could never be Synodical President — but that is not an endorsement of his candidacy either.

3. I can’t imagine an instance when I would cast a vote for Matt Harrison for Synodical President in the future, given that we have so many better qualified and more experienced pastors in the LCMS, but I will work to support our elected Synodical President after this convention and next convention and the following convention, no matter who is elected. Won’t you?

4. Matt Harrison is inexperienced in many areas necessary for success as our president. Because of that, he is not the best candidate for the office. Just one example: Matt Harrison has no more experience in ecclesiastical supervision than I do — or Pastor Rossow does — or Mollie Ziegler — or Todd Wilken. If ecclesiastical supervision is one of the “hot issues” that the vocal minority in our Synod has with the Synodical President, is it wise for us to put into the office someone with no experience? Why not support President Herb Mueller, Jr. (no relation) who has lots of supervisory experience? Does this mean that Matt Harrison supporters are dropping their concerns regarding ecclesiastical supervision that our Synod in the last two conventions has addressed in President Kieschnick’s favor? Should I start the rumor? Of course not!

Brothers and sisters — just stop making things up!

I am a pastor that preached five times this weekend, played on our float in the 4th of July Parade in Bartlett, and am in the “catch-up” week between a mission trip and serving as a delegate to the convention. I am trying to fulfill a promise by putting out “Some Delicate Delegate Help” on a variety of issues (Special Standing Rules, Amendments and Speaking at the Convention, Omnibus Resolutions A, B, C, D — the last one was about where to eat).

I just can’t keep up with your rumor mills, so if you decide to put more words in my mouth this week, just call me before you write. I’m available — and I’m in the book! Pastor Rossow, I’ll send you my cell phone number again so you can get in touch with me wherever I am 24/7.

You are doing a disservice to the Body of Christ in creating and passing on rumors prior to the convention. I preached this weekend on Luke 10 and Galatians 6. I believe you need to be “restored gently” on this one. I encourage you to stop.

Peace! Chuck Mueller, Jr.

Peace! Pastor

“They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially,
Saying,

‘Peace, peace,’

But there is no peace.

The thing is our current President didn’t have much experience when he became President.

Regarding Pr. Mueller’s fourth point above in comment #14: The exact same charge could have been made about WELS President Mark Schroeder prior to his election in 2007. Yet his confessionally-minded leadership and service to the synod in which I serve has been a tremendous blessing over the past three years — and, Lord willing, many more to come. His lack of prior “ecclesiastical supervision” experience has not kept him from being a faithful synod president, and I can see no reason why that won’t also be the case for Matt Harrison.

Pastor Mueller,

I didn’t take your statement out of context. The immediate context of your statement was,

…as far as I know, Matt Harrison has never been elected to an office, had ecclesiastical supervision responsibilities, or had to coordinate the efforts of Foundations, Worker Benefit Plans, a Publishing House or Universities.  He’s served faithfully as a man in the silo of WR/HC, but to say it colloquially, “a silo ain’t no farm.”  

That is the context.

So, what, exactly did you mean when you wrote in direct reference to Pastor Harrison,

“I just don’t think right now is the time for on the job training.  Maybe in a few years.  Not now.  We need the steady, experienced hand of President Kieschnick right now.  In three or four years we will need to find a new leader who may need that kind of training.

TW

Jeremiah 6:14

“They have healed the brokenness of My people superficially,
Saying,

‘Peace, peace,’

But there is no peace.

Pastor Mueller,

It is clear that their is no peace in our synod. Do not falsely proclaim peace at the end of your post. From what I have seen and read from your posts, here of late, it is your political party that is doing a disservice to the church. Structural solutions to our problems mandated by convention are appeals to the law to impose your groups misguided goals. The overhaul of governance will only be a superficial bandage on the wounds of God’s people.

Pastor Harrison is THE most qualified man to be our Synodical President because he is a biblical and truly confessional Lutheran theologian whose desire it is to truly unify our people through the Word of God. It is the Word that can heal our beloved synod and bring to us lasting peace – peace that is everlasting – the forgiveness of sins won for us by Christ on the cross.

Peace,

Pastor William Orr

Grace – Willow Springs, IL

LOL! Look who’s is talking about “making things up”! Charlie JR, no less!

Matt Harrison has not spent people’s money (designated gifts for other things)
in pursuit of his own glory/comfort.
That’s reason enough to vote for him, if there weren’t many others.

Things will not turn around overnite if Harrison wins
because he’ll have Charlie & Co. to deal with for quite some time.
But let’s give him a chance!

And, as for rumor mongering…

I was very careful to qualify my belief that President Kieschnick would ask the delegates for one, final term, as nothing more than my personal belief.

Twice in my original post I wrote, “I could be wrong, but I believe…” and ”I could be wrong, but I expect”

Who did create the rumor that Pastor Harrison was a poor steward of WR/HC finances?

TW

@Chuck Mueller #14
Rev. Mueller,

You wrote,

“I know of no one who has ever spoken of a “one last term for Jerry then Matt for sure” — and I know a lot of people in the LCMS.”

and over at ALPB you wrote,

“Just back from a mission trip to Guatemala or else I would have been in on this conversation earlier.

1. No one is suggesting Matt Harrison isn’t a fine speaker, translator, or author. In fact, I’d like to ask you where exactly any of you you feel there is an “attack” of Matt Harrison or data is falsified in Jon Coyne’s piece. Everyone is talking about it — no one seems to be citing which words are the attack.

2. In his Q&A in the Witness, Matt Harrison alluded to his administrative ability and his ability to “lead the Synod…in stewarding its resources and people.” He suggested that WR/HC is “always in the black” and that the BoD and LCMS World Mission needed to change how they did business. Check it out.

3. The figures that JF used in Newsletter #9 are the right figures. Even in the WR/HC response from Edson, he says the numbers were right. In fact, they are their own.

4. I can read spreadsheets, balance sheets and multimillion dollar budgets and understand them. Jon Coyne can, too. Others in finance (not in the president’s office) that we showed these figures — including the detail — and graphs to agreed with Jon’s summary of the facts.

5. Simple things that could have been included that could have another explanation were avoided. For instance, CPH printing for WR/HC has gone from $212K in 03/04 to $408K (estimate) in 09/10. External printing over the same period has grown from $30K to $346K (estimate). Is it possible that CPH, our publishing house, could not have printed whatever these documents are? And exactly what is being “externally” printed for $750K? Maybe these are overseas print jobs. Maybe there’s something WR/HC needed to be printed that was beyond CPH’s capability. Details like that could have been used pejoratively, but were left out because there could be another reasonable explanation. Had Newsletter #9 done that, I would agree with many of your criticisms.

6. But you can’t miss the big issues that show up in the past 8 years: personnel costs have risen significantly (just under $1.3M to just over $2.6M) and grants have gone from just under $6M to just over $3M. The numbers just don’t lie.

7. To be sure, it seems that WR/HC has picked up some Level 1 development costs and seemed to have done well with that over the past three years — and one also has to see the huge “bump” in grants that are related to the great heart all of us in the LCMS have for Katrina, Rita, Kenya and Haiti victims. Disasters bring in gifts from God’s people. We have a heart of mercy put there by the Holy Spirit. But the numbers don’t lie. Nor do the graphs.

8. The simple truth is more of the gifts God’s people give to our WR/HC are going to personnel and operational costs not related to the “ups” and “downs” of a disaster-related arm of our Synod. One would expect proportionately higher expenses during a disaster response — just as one would expect disaster-related gifts would be higher. For instance, the Haiti disaster has “bumped up” this year’s gifts for mercy beyond what was expected for this year.

9. The simple truth is despite all the PR to the contrary, the real budget numbers show a decline in grants in percentage and number to be given in support of WR/HC’s programs.

10. The simple truth is while the expenses of WR/HC are below that of 03/04, it seems to have been done by decreasing the grants that are given to the work of the Lord, not operations or personnel.

While Matt Harrison and others may believe he is the best candidate for president, the numbers associated with his budget don’t show it. If there are those in Synod that think we should have a smaller IC (and that includes me), what in Matt Harrison’s track record suggests he can accomplish this? He may be able to, but he hasn’t done so up to now.

Jon Coyne’s article doesn’t attack Matt Harrison, but it does tell some of the story no one else is speaking. Everywhere I see videos everywhere of Matt Harrison as a Bible study leader, as a speaker, as a man about town and here and there explaining a theology of mercy. He’s good at that. He presents himself well as an engaging commentator and historian. I’ve been given books of his translations, vision documents of the church he hopes the LCMS to be, DVDs of presentations he’s made to all kinds of groups. Many have concluded that since he can do this, he can do all things well. But as far as I know, Matt Harrison has never been elected to an office, had ecclesiastical supervision responsibilities, or had to coordinate the efforts of Foundations, Worker Benefit Plans, a Publishing House or Universities. He’s served faithfully as a man in the silo of WR/HC, but to say it colloquially, “a silo ain’t no farm.”

I just don’t think right now is the time for on the job training. Maybe in a few years. Not now. We need the steady, experienced hand of President Kieschnick right now. In three or four years we will need to find a new leader who may need that kind of training. But we’ve got a restructuring job to do that the 2007 Convention delegates gave us and our current financial circumstance requires. That needs to be done no matter who delegates choose to serve in the President’s office: Kieschnick, Harrison, Mueller, Fickenscher or Gard. I’m going for a proven theologian (elected by his peers to chair the CTCR), an able churchman, a confessional pastor, an excellent administrator and a proven leader elected again and again to the office: Jerry Kieschnick.
“I just don’t think right now is the time for on the job training. Maybe in a few years. Not now. We need the steady, experienced hand of President Kieschnick right now. In three or four years we will need to find a new leader who may need that kind of training.”

OK, so you didn’t say “Matt for sure” but you are saying only one more term for President Kieschnick. Why only one more term? Why not let him be president until he dies, kind of like the Pope?

I appreciate your reminder of yesterday’s text. It made me think about how I need to practice gentleness when I try to restore those who have have sinned and how I too need to be restored daily. And I pray that more people may be restored through confession and absolution in the churches of the LCMS.

.

Michael :The thing is our current President didn’t have much experience when he became President.

Well, I’m no fan of PK, but PK was not without experience in 2001. He had been president of the Texas District, and I believe Chairman of the CTCR. The main reason he was elected in 2001, besides the death of Al Barry, was that several DP’s had given him lots of exposure at their District Conventions. At our district convention, he was openly critical of the administration of Barry, especially in regards to that Barry’s administration of ecclesiastical supervision, among other things. Our DP at that time also later told our delegates to vote for Kieschnick in a delegate meeting I attended, saying, “He will bring us together and unite us.” GK’s criticism of Barry with respect to ecclesiastical supervision was predictive of how he would administer that presidential function, as events have borne out.

Now that PK has nine additional years of experience, our experience of his presidency has not been helpful, especially in uniting the Synod. He was chairman of the CTCR, yet he claimed “I’m no theologian.” Matthew Harrison is a theologian of the first rank, and he can claim, “I’m no politician.” That’s good enough for me.

Wouldn’t you say the experience of 2 were similar at the time they decided to run? What I meant was his experience level was similar to rev Harrison

@Chuck Mueller #14

Two items:

1) You still haven’t answered my question from an earlier post about JF Letter #9. Who is lying, JF or the Vice Chair of the WR&HC?

2) How can you say you do not speak for JF when you are the administrative contact for the domain name?

Kiley Campbell
Wyoming Lay Delegate

@Chuck Mueller #14

One more item: You stated on ALPB and here that you are looking for a candidate who is a proven theologian. Dr. K himself stated he IS NOT a theologian. If you are clearly wanting a proven theologian, then Rev. Harrison fits what you are looking for in a SP.

I await your answer…

Kiley Campbell

Michael :
The thing is our current President didn’t have much experience when he became President.

Depends what you mean by experience. Pres. Kieschnick had served as Texas District President from 1991-2001. The Texas District is one of the largest Districts in the Synod (behind the Michigan District). So he did have a good bit of experience in an ecclesiastical supervisory capacity, as well as administration. He also was leader of the Council of Presidents for a time.

Was Pres. Kieschnick a Synod leader prior to his election? No. But he was somewhat experienced in administrative matters that a Synod President may face. [In some ways, it is similar to a long-serving Governor who also chaired the National Governors' Association being elected President of the United States.] This is why Pr. Mueller raised the issue why some are not promoting DP Herbert Mueller for Synod President. Like Pres. Kieschnick, DP Mueller has long experience as a District President (1994-Present).

But the questions should be asked: Do we need someone with great experience in the Synod or District administration to lead the Synod now? Is that what the Synod is crying out for? Is that what this new era facing the Church will require of a Synod President, especially the opportunities linking up with Lutherans worldwide? Or do we need a person whose experience isn’t in Synod or District administration, but in working with government and parachurch organizations, melding deep theology with practice, providing inspiration and guidance by communicating well with both clergy and laity? Different questions will bring different answers: wisdom will determine which are the right ones to ask in July 2010.

Michael :Wouldn’t you say the experience of 2 were similar at the time they decided to run? What I meant was his experience level was similar to rev Harrison

No. Harrison has a wealth of administrative experience, but he has not been a DP, as GK had been. I give the edge to PK in that area. However, as I implied above (#24), we’ve given PK enough experience, and his considerable political skills notwithstanding, his power-mongering has not brought the synod together. It’s time for him to gain some other kind of experience, that of a former synodical president.

If elected, Harrison is sure to encounter much of the same opposition Barry experienced, only in spades. The intertia of synodinc, and the current president’s entrenched loyalists make that a distinct probability.

j

I agree with Todd–that a “government” should not be streamlined for too much effieciency. Too much consolidation of power under one man will be bad for us in the future. If I am correct about this, even Martin Luther did not want people to pay too much attention to his writings. But to use the Holy Word alone. The Word gives freedom. And I pray that “The Reformation (will not be over)”–that we revert to the authority under one (man). http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/02/26/is-the-reformation-over/

Isn’t it strange that President Kieschnick’s supporters are saying that we need radical changein synod, while emphasizing President Kieschnick’s incumbency?

TW

No it’s not strange Todd. It’s typical and predictable. What else do they have?
The LCMS was not a major player in the “world” stage, so that is the rally cry that goes up, with every area, person, place, or thing, that would choose to be “noticed, relevant, & hold power or position”.
After a decade of “jockeying for position”, it’s all they know how to do.
God Himself decides, guides, allows, and breathes Life into His Church. They think they do.
No, not strange in the slightest.

@CS #23
@Chuck Mueller #14

“We need the steady, experienced hand of President Kieschnick right now. In three or four years we will need to find a new leader who may need that kind of training.

Here, it might appear that you want 3-4 years and then 3-4 more for “someone” to serve an apprenticeship to the “Master President”. You get more and more “interesting”!
Has GK told you he’ll quit, then?

@Dutch #32
“The LCMS was not a major player in the “world” stage”
Actually, Dutch, the LCMS is quite well known in the world stage… because of Fort Wayne Seminary’s training of Pastors and seminary professors for former Russian entities, and for their similar work in Eastern Europe. A couple of CTS professors are over there now.
It is known in Haiti because of the sainted Pr./Prof Kurt E. Marquart’s work there and because of the endowment fund which continues it.
It is known world wide for the many language translations of Lutheran teaching materials supplied by Lutheran Heritage Foundation.
In this decade, it is known in Asia, Sri Lanka and Haiti because of “Human Care”
It is known all over the world because of Issues, Etc. !

Now, I’m sure you can see the common thread in all of this.
None of it was initiated, administered or encouraged by the SP whose first notable acts were to bring professional missionaries home and replace them with “vacationaries.”

[Before Charlie tells you, I will. GK has one "world" accomplishment: he has secured himself a place on the ILC.... because "running things" is so much more important than serving people.]

And that, Charles Henrickson, is probably why he wants sole authority to invite new “pulpit and altar fellowship” connections. Had you thought of it?

Chuck,

Ecclesiastical supervision is not a matter of experience. I know countless pastors and DP’s who have all sorts of experience and have never used the responsibility to exercise authority.

Ecclesiastical supervision is a matter of doctrinal conviction and guts. Some pastors and DP’s have one or the other or neither. Matt Harrison has both.

TR

It’s time to look to the future. Three more years of the same old leadership isn’t going to bring about any more positive change. The incumbant president’s ideas are predictable, and we have a chance at this juncture to go with the bold vision of a tested and well-respected leader: Pastor Matt Harrison. Pastor Harrison is not merely change for the sake of change–he’s well grounded in Holy Scripture, and he’s a theologian that sound theologians respect, but he can also connect with the common lay-person. He’s humble, has a genuine pastor’s heart. How can we pass up such a wonderful opportunity? Forget “three more years”…the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod can truly benefit from Pastor Harrison’s leadership NOW! We should also remember to thank God for raising up new leaders to benefit His church, and to keep our focus where it needs to be.

The more such like Pastor Chuck Mueller protest about the lack of experience for Rev. Harrison, the more convinced I am that they are simply scared! They are scared that if someone such as the current SP is not elected they may be call to account for their lack of good theological motives for the way they run the church. I have never understood why, even since 1974, those who disagreed with the theological stance of the LCMS—-just did not leave. I went to Junior College and senior college with many of those who walked out. They doubted much of Scripture as being inspired and still do. I am convinced that those who are like minded still would consider Adam and Eve a myth and not factual! Now I won’t say all, because just as soon as I do, Chuck will get back on and say that he believes that Adam and Eve is a true historical account. In fact I am waiting for Chuck to hit me with his belief that the entire Scriptures are inerrant and true in all their parts including history, biology, physics, etc; that he firmly believes and practices with pure doctrinal agendas and hymnals–which I believe is still part of the current constitution.

Chuck, I will admit that I don’t know you and am not too sure that we would ever get to know one another. And that is alright with me. And I have said enough for now!!!

Why don’t we all go to the forum on the JF website and discuss their different interpretations of things like WR-HC numbers, the Lutheran Confessions, The Bible, Dr K’s accomplishments, etc, etc.

Oh yeah, the party of “we don’t like anonymous critics” has no provision for criticism/correction of their sometimes erroneous, sometimes intentional, maybe even damaging (to WR-HC, for example) opinions.

As I’ve said many times, they want it both ways – do as I say, not as I do.

How telling !!!!

Kyrie elieson!!

Gents,

What LCMS needs is someone who is PASTORAL.

Pastor Harrison is a theologian, a scholar, and his administration in LCMS WR HC speaks for itself. However, his most important experience is his pastoral experience in the farmland to urban ministry. What a contrast. It covers the spectrum.

His ecclesiastical supervision as the president of the synod will be above all – pastoral.

Blessings in Christ, Mark Sell

Chuck, #14 wrote:

>You’ve created a rumor, then called delegates to ask them their opinion on the rumor, and now are reporting their responses to a rumor you made up as news?!?!<

This is a very serious charge. I would humbly suggest that the author either put up evidence for this charge or repent of not "putting the best construction" on this article or "explaining it in the best possible way."

In our zeal for promoting an individual's preference for synodical president, we can still be churchmen, can't we?

Lord have mercy!

Pastor Poppe,

The only unsubstantiated (and now thoroughly discredited) rumor I’ve heard lately is that Pastor Harrison was a poor steward of WR-HC finances. And we know who started that one.

TW

@Todd Wilken #41
Todd,
You make the good point–and yet Chuck continues to say that his view is the correct one. I have great pity for those who must continue what has been proven an out and out lie as pointed out by those who know the numbers from the inside out.

@Johannes #29

> much of the same opposition Barry experienced

I pray less of it from the “conservative” side … if we ever learn.

@Rev. Roger D. Sterle #37

> I have never understood why, even since 1974, those who disagreed with the theological stance of the LCMS—-just did not leave.

Those who will not leave tend to be parasites who are all about control, not theology.

Jim Pierce wrote well on this topic.

@mbw #44
MBW

IMHO

Would you rather move into a fully furnished house, or build one from scratch?

John

Sorry MBW, reply was for Rev. Sterle.

John

Rev. Serle (#37): “I have never understood why, even since 1974, those who disagreed with the theological stance of the LCMS—-just did not leave.”

This might explain. Check out the brief video outlining the liberals’ plans to assimilate the Missouri Synod.

@mbw #44

Why leave when you can simply “transform?”

We know who will have to leave.

Boogie. . . maybe not. . .

If we can manage to “straighten out” the situation, those who don’t want to be straightened may leave.

@Dutch #32
I think I agree with you Dutch, but then I am not so sure I am reading your post correctly or with your intent. If you are saying we need to quit counting members and faithfully shepherd the members we have both now and in the future who stay in the “former” LCMS because of our doctrine of biblical truth, then I say “right on”. Who cares if we are on the “world stage” as long as we are faithful to our God and faithful to His commands? We simply have to have a change of direction from President Kieschnick. Give me a strong theologian over a glad handing businessman any day.

Gayle,
That is exactly what I meant! Look, R. Warren(UN P.E.A.C.E. Plan), McClaren, Samir, ELCA, etc, can be “cultural & worldly relevant”, UN makers & shakers, but that has never been what LCMS was about before. That is just the flavor of the moment, & then will come the backlash. We are seeing it now in LCMS. And that…says alot about us. We caught it, many others didn’t. We went ourselves & sent others out from us. It was always, always, about Him, the Lord Jesus Christ, first & last.
LCMS was about being “relevant Above”, not being a part OF the world. We were about the stability & security (His Grace, His Peace & His Hope & His Promise) of the Solas & TBOC.
Not this false, fuzzy, fake, rock ‘um sock ‘um relevant, “now & it’s all about me” way of doing Church.
We used to BE a church, not just play one in the media & world stage.
Fields are ripe & overflowing, especially across the Pond in the EU, not to mention elsewhere. And we have overplayed our “vacation” from work.
We seek to have His Peace, Promise, Hope & Joy.
Not a false & fake, albeit a familar copy. It must be of Christ, not of men. I pray it is the Lord’s Will, Pastor Harrison is elected. If it is not His Will, then He will winnow. Not pleasant, but He does do that. He can, the LCMS belongs to Him first.
He bought Her with His Life, & the souls therein.

Why would a supporter of the incumbent POS refer to his record of or experience in ecclesiastical supervision? His first significant ecclesiastical advice was to permit Atlantic DP David Benke to participate in the interfaith prayer service at Yankee Stadium in September 2001. The potential for division in the Synod was high; indeed, it was inevitable. To support his ecclesiastical advice, the POS cited Res. 3-07A of the 2001 convention. It “commended for continued use and guidance” a CTCR fellowship document and Report of discussions of same. The document and Report dealt only with church fellowship, i.e., relations with other Christians, not with interfaith civic events, much less interfaith prayer services.

The years of controversy that followed seriously divided the Synod. A Dispute Resolution Panel that removed President Benke’s suspension based its decision on Res. 3-07A, despite the response of the CTCR to the DRP’s own question regarding its relevance (see below). The CTCR stated that “Section V, B. [of the Report commended in Res. 3-07A] does not explicitly address the issue of ‘offering a prayer by an LCMS pastor in a “civic event” in which prayers would also be offered by representatives of non-Christian religions.’” That is, participation in an inter-faith prayer service is NOT the kind of “pastoral discretion” referred to in the Report commended by Res. 3-07A. That question settled, late as it was, apologies should have been forthcoming for both participation and the bad advice. The POS, who, along with the executive director of the CTCR, served as an advisor to Dr. Benke in the dispute resolution process, apparently disagreed with the CTCR’s interpretation of its own report, and the Panel continued to use the irrelevant Res. 3-07A to support its decision to exonerate Dr. Benke and remove his suspension. Collateral damage: the truth, any hope for unity in the Synod. (The Rev. Dr. W. Schulz had already lost his position at LHM following his suspension of President Benke.)

That the POS chooses to resurrect this divisive case in his recent book “Waking the Sleeping Giant” (pp. 138 ff.), citing it as a positive example of his ecclesiastical leadership and continuing to refer in the context to the irrelevant Res. 3-07A, is beyond comprehension — a harbinger of future leadership should he be re-elected.

There is no need to take this writer’s word for it. One can still find official residue of this badly mishandled affair in a presidential memo on the Synod’s web site (URL below). Read first Appendix C ( page 9), the DR Panel’s question and the CTCR’s response regarding the (ir)relevance of the Report commended in Res. 3-07A. Note the careful way that the question and the response are phrased. (There is no mention of Res. 3-07A, and it’s not clear what “violating” has to do with “cases of discretion” other than prompting the word “no” in the response.) The real issue, which the CTCR could not avoid in its response, is that the Report commended in Res. 3-07A cannot be used to justify participating in an inter-faith service with non-Christians — not then, not now, not ever. Note also how carefully, in responding to the second question, the CTCR limits its responses to matters of “fellowship” i.e., relationships with and situations involving other Christians. Finally, note the continuing inexplicable misuse of Res. 3-07A by the POS and the DRP throughout the memo and DRP decision, itself, as if Appendix C did not exist. If one insists on playing by a synodically adopted policy rather than acting on the clear words of Scripture, one must be ready to follow that policy to the letter or pay the price of ignoring it.

http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Office%20of%20the%20President/May%2012%202003.pdf

Reliable, theologically astute ecclesiastical leadership is a rare and valuable commodity. For it we fervently pray.

The arguments of the Rev. Charles Mueller are untenable. If the logic is followed consistently, the cleric may well have chosen Eliab to be a leader, on the basis of certain earthly accomplishments (i.e., the number of cubits secured, and perhaps that hair, parted in the middle). Indeed … and this is a quote, from the Master who reaps where He does not so sow … “The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” Following the Harrison precedent, industrial-strength LCMS, Inc. will now be provided a Scripture reference for the documentation of assertions: Check out 1 Sam 16.

God does some inexplicable things. He chose Amos, a rustic, to be a prophet. Amos, unlike Moses, was not trained in the schools of the Pharaoh. Evidently, however, he had heart.

The matter of experience is probably over-rated, in politics. George W. Bush had plenty, and gave us TARP. Mr. Obabma had little, and gave us a jail sentence, if you fail to buy private insurance. Walther was not a CFO, when he stepped up to the plate at Altenberg.

If the LCMS is in such a precarious position today that it needs seasoned corporate leadership to survive, perhaps it’s time to ask the question: who “visioned” us into this mess in the first place? In my opinion it seems counter intuitive to elect the same man and expect him to get us out of our current mess.

-Matt Mills

@Matthew Mills #54
Insanity-doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Yup, that’s what another term for GK would be.

@Rev. Clint K. Poppe #48

Established organizations with lax requirements for membership are rich targets for those who see a shortcut to their goals. I call it a hijacking, and it happens in more than churches. Organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, and MADD all started out as moderate and encouraged easy membership. The public generally has positive images of non profits, especially churches, which makes their task easier. In the secular mind, all Christians are the same, so are all civic organizations; full of good people.

Why leave and have to do the hard work of building a network and raise funds when they are there for the taking? New member classes in my church barely touch doctrine and it shows. Because we lack people to do jobs, we throw people into church work and authority that have hardly cracked open a Bible, let alone understand what Lutheran doctrine is. Some have just left their Baptist or Methodist churches because of marriage, or they are shoppers, and are actually enthusiastic about implementing new ideas for worship, sunday school, etc. When we confronted one Sunday School teacher about her expenses for crafts, she said the lessons were boring, and you couldn’t expect the kids to come and listen to them, so they did crafts.

I am just a layperson, but very much interested in the lack of the emphisis on doctrine. Our young people are lost souls (Christopher Lashe’s book on Narcissim and Bloom’s “the Closing of the American Mind”, both remark on the emptiness and hopelessness of today’s youth, and were both written over a decade ago). The young (and old) don’t need praise bands and shallow theology, they actually are longing for an identity and are looking for help outside themselves, not more therapy and mind numbing silliness.

I think the historian Robert Conquest’s second rule of politics was something like an organization that is not explicity conservative will eventually become left. It seems to be the case.

I’ve decided if LCMS goes more left, I know I’m going somewhere else.

@Rebecca W. #57

“I am just a layperson…”

Rebecca-You are not JUST a layperson, but don’t take it from me. At the convention, there will an equal number of “layperson” and clergy. Walther (“Church and Ministry”, The Holy Ministry, Thesis X): “To the ministry of the Word, according to divine right, belongs also the duty to judge doctrine, but laymen also possess this right. Therefore, in the ecclesiastical courts…and council, they are accorded both a seat and a vote together with the clergy.”

There you have it! You have eloquently stated your case, you obviously have a good grasp of doctrine, and are not JUST a layperson. If you are not a delegate this year, I would nominate you in a heartbeat for conventions to come. In the meantime, do your homework, check the facts, and be willing to make your voice known.

Thanks for a great post!

Johannes (not JUST a layperson, either)

-Sorry off topic-

But, just thinking it would be cool for all the BJS participants who are also delegates to actually meet over a beer or Scotch on one of the nights.

Kiley Campbell

@Rebecca W. #57

“I am just a layperson, but very much interested in the lack of the emphisis on doctrine.”

I agree with Johannes, and we need more laity like you! Some of our congregations are very shallow and pathetic. There is really no excuse for that. I likewise pray that the LCMS will not move to the left: otherwise those trying to hijack the LCMS, making it what it is not, may find themselves left behind! The church is where the Word is prolaimed in its purity, and the Sacraments are rightly administered–not where the loudest praise band can be heard, and sermons can be fun story-times and self-help tutorials. My voice joins yours and others in one great KYRIE ELEISON! May God indeed have mercy, and stop Missouri from approaching non-Lutherans as the Show-me Synod. Some of us are still happy with Holy Scripture, and the Lutheran Confessions drawn from that Scripture.