Dear Todd,

Thanks for this post. Excellent and timely counsel!

Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

Agreed, wonderful post.

Todd,
Wise as always! Honesty is key, when affronting any issue. If ya don’t have honesty & encouragement, you cannot hope to have Trust. Trust is the key to hope of dialoge or relationship.
We are to be brothers & sisters in Christ Crucified, we are already IN relationship
w/each other.
TRUST IS NOT OPTIONAL WITH CHRIST, WE DO SO IN HIM.
The fields are ripe & over flowing…who will stand & say
“send me, even if I have to work along side this or that person, send me send me!!!!” It doesn’t matter,
it’s for Him!!!!!
Kind, firm, but kind & loving. Those who doubt Confessionals, don’t & were not taught to expect such from us. Let’s show it spades!!!!!!

My hope is that the Koinonia project, with help from the Lutheran Blogosphere, will help us zero in on the points of disagreement that divide our Synod. Final agreement on those points will require a huge amount of time and patience, but I agree with Pr. Harrison that its possible if we allow Holy Scripture to regulate our opinions and cultural biases.

I think this is a great reminder for us all. Communication is key for success in any situation. The better that people are able to communicate the better they understand each other and are able to address whatever it is they are working on.

One thing that I think we need to be honest about is the presence of politics within our church. It seems that far too often there is someone from either side of the synodical spectrum that decries the politics that “the other side” is responsible for while the speaker (or writer) claims to just be part of the group that is trying to be faithful to God’s Word.

If you define politics as having a set of beliefs and working toward making those beliefs prominent within your organization (or country) and working at putting leaders in place that embody those beliefs than we are all “political” to some extent. Now this isn’t to say that “politics” can’t be used in a sinful manner as all of God’s good creation can be used, but the basic essence of politics in and of itself is not sinful or even wrong.

I think the recognition of the politics within the synod is just a symptom of the fact that we are not united in all things. If, in fact, we were completely united then we wouldn’t have different perspectives and desires for different leaders. Hopefully this honesty regarding our differences will slowly begin to emerge and then the real discussions can begin.

Todd Wilken: “If it really is time (and I think it is), then we will joyfully welcome the honest admissions of those who disagree with us. There will be plenty of time to discuss, debate and argue. Right now, we need honesty and patience. Pray for both.”

If pastors are honest in their comments here, they may have concerns about repercussions which may come from such confessions. They may not like the idea of their comments quoted in a certain newspaper, or any other media. Perhaps anonymity can be encouraged for those willing to be compliant to your request that you “welcome the honest admissions of those who disagree with us.”

Also, be careful with how you word your post. You write: “So, let’s offer them the kindest brotherly encouragement to finally be honest —and let’s thank them if they are.” It can sound like “those of us at BJS have been honest all along, but those who disagree with us have not been honest, so let’s request for them to FINALLY be honest.” Knowing how even the elect fall into sin and need repentance and more repentance, I think its safe to say there has been honesty and lack of honesty on both/all sides. We honestly want to know what those who disagree with truly believe, so we can better know where we stand as a Synod. They need to know what we believe, and why we believe it. You’re absolutely correct, patience is needed, and practicing our listening skills, and speaking the truth in love. May God use this forum and others to bring us together around His truth.

Everyone needs to read/listen to It’s Time to be able to intelligently and patiently discuss the process that Rev Harrison envisions to unite the synod.

I would almost go so far as to request that if you haven’t read it, be very careful with comments posted here on what you think Rev Harrison’s agenda includes.

Otherwise, we will continue talking past each other, just as we have for the last few years.

http://www.itIstime.org

or click on the link on the right sidebar

Will issues etc be back on KFUO now that Harrsion is Elected?

Todd,

You wondered what BJS would do now that Harrison is elected. We are enthused to be able to focus on our organizational goals including our support for new Lutheran media such as Issues, Etc.

We will continue to be the go to place for Lutheran news and commentary since there are still many issues to bring to light for LCMS’ers but over the next few months folks should notice a greater emphasis on the organization. For instance I spent some time today working on our new regional gatherings that we are planning this fall – more to come…

TR

Concerning Pastor Wilken’s admonition for patience, it seems that some have already jumped the gun. Twice this week I have had people, on both “sides” of the synod, express concerns about a couple of letters (dated around the 15th) that has apparently been sent to many congregations condemning various errors in the synod. While I do not have a copy myself, I did have a chance to skim over one. The concerns expressed are legit and I am sure good intentions were behind it.

However, to those that shared it with me and myself, the timing and nature of the letters seem like a hasty first punch. Now is the time to follow Pastor Harrison’s example at convention: forgiveness, honesty and patience. Debate will come later.

Could anyone else provide insight to these mass-distributed letters? Am I, and the others, wrong that it is the wrong time for it?

Two thumbs up!

I was inclined to take issue (accidental pun) with the point about “40 years of distrust and dishonesty,” by saying it may have been more defense and pretending. But Rev. Wilken is right, defense and pretending are related to and born of distrust and dishonesty.

God’s Word is brutally honest with us where it has to be. And the God who speaks it is mercifully patient.

Honesty… of course. Patience? That creekbed’s been a paved go-kart track since ’03. Some serious amount of synodical keister needs to be booted into restricted status by COB on Harrison’s first day in office.

Todd,

Your point reminds me a bit of this Herman Sasse quote:

There is actually more unity of the church present where Christians of differing confession honorably determine that they do not have the same understanding of the Gospel, than where the painful fact of confessional splintering is hidden behind a pious lie.
—- Hermann Sasse, “Union & Confession”

Carl,

You wrote, “Some serious amount of synodical keister needs to be booted into restricted status by COB on Harrison’s first day in office.”

And what would that accomplish?

TW

And what would that accomplish?

Business as usual and more distrust. One reason why I like Pastor Harrison is that he believes that the Word can unite most of us. The call for patience here isn’t a call to have patience with error, rather it’s a call to have the patience to let the Word do it’s work. If we go on business as usual we will lose the chance to win over those who the Word can win over. If I were in Pastor Harrison’s shoes, I would probably pull out the knife and start whittling away, objectors be damned. Thank God that our synodical president elect is wiser than me!

jim_claybourn :Everyone needs to read/listen to It’s Time to be able to intelligently and patiently discuss the process that Rev Harrison envisions to unite the synod.
I would almost go so far as to request that if you haven’t read it, be very careful with comments posted here on what you think Rev Harrison’s agenda includes.
Otherwise, we will continue talking past each other, just as we have for the last few years.
http://www.itIstime.org
or click on the link on the right sidebar

Thank You, Jim. IT’S TIME to re-read “It’s Time” and the sociological reflection following it, or to read it for your first time. From the link provided you can find this masterpiece in both written AND audio format, and its also duplicatable! Some of you may be pleasantly surprized by what you hear/read! (A study guide is also made available). As it is somewhat lengthy, you will want to allow sufficient time, or plan to come back to it. IT IS WELL WORTH EVERY MINUTE OF YOUR TIME!!!

Can the LCMS transform from a pseudo community into a real community? What is impossible with man is possible with God! Please pray regularly for the church in the world, including the LCMS.

We need to move beyond saying we all agree with everyone else to genuine honest discussions. Then we won’t be merely spinning our wheels, and to attending to the facade of the church. Pretending unity is boring. Let’s genuinely communicate! I have been impressed with some of that which I have witnessed here at BJS, and I thank everyone here for their participation. May Christ guide us every step of the way.

*Honesty* is indeed needed in such discussions. And we need to be prepared to have the courage of our convictions when that honesty follows to its logical conclusion, after the study of the Scriptures, the Confessions, and prayer.

As a fairly recent graduate of the Concordia University System (2004), I failed a course because I refused to mark up my Bible with all sorts of various highlighters indicating where all the different sources were from. I stood with my mouth dropped open as the wife of the university president/ordained LCMS pastor came out of the house in a clerical collar. I listened repeatedly in classes where LCMS rostered teachers condemned official LCMS positions on things like creationism as being a myth, homosexuality as being intollerant, and a male-only pastoral office as sexist. I was told by the Dean of Students that we have no reason not to commune with ELCA persons, since communion is all about love that God has for us, and we have for each other.. I was told by another Dean that the Book of Concord only served a purpose in classes, and once I was in the real world I would see the it as irrelevant. And I witnessed every Sunday that I drove past the church professors who had ‘memberships’ in LCMS congregations actually attending a congregation with ELCA clergy (male and female).

Yet these were all people who pledged to honor and uphold LCMS positions, were rostered LCMS church workers, yet in their teaching and practice were opposed to LCMS doctrine as nothing more than irrelevance. No ecclesiastical supervision, and the students who spoke out were singled out as being ‘trouble makers.’

Eventually, some of these very professors who were rostered left for the ELCA….after years of undermining what the Scriptures & Lutheran Confessions teach. I applaud them for this, finally having the courage of their convictions.

We can pray, we can study, we can learn, and we must and should do all these things, but in the end, especially in doctrinal matters, there will be different understandings and different beliefs. We must all be prepared for where those differences take us. Rather than spend decades trying to advance our own interpretations, to claim that we are officially ‘walking together,’ yet be theologically walking in opposite directions, may we all have integrity to proclaim, ‘Hear I Stand,’ even if we wind up standing apart.

I want to echo Daniel Bergquist’s thoughts on this. This “Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations” is exactly the type of group that makes me sad. It might upset some, but this is exactly the kind of crap I find happening in evangelicalism all over, from Youtube to pulpits in Palm Bay Florida. It’s always “there’s a group OUT THERE that is WRONG, and we’re not going to tolerate it anymore!” Pfyeah right.

I’ve been on the receiving end of some of the most disturbing rhetoric, so I can tell you what it sounds like someone is saying… Think about it from the perspective of someone who has been beaten down more times than they care to consider. First there’s a document running around out there of some group of churches shooting their mouths off about the “Errors of the synod”, and then someone says “let’s have an honest discussion”… What that sounds like to me is, “admit you’re in error so we can identify you and ostracize you”. Say you’re a person who says “well, I don’t think closed communion is the way to go”. Yeah, there was an honest discussion, but after that you’re marked as one who needs to be dealt with. I’ve seen this happen already with some of our listeners. They don’t listen anymore because one part of our audience decided to get uppity with another part of our audience.

Does anyone think there will actually be real, honest discussion? I was there at Convention. I sat through the heavy handed, law laden messages. They wanted me to reconcile so bad they beat me up in the process. That was the more liberal side. Now that I’ve gotten a whiff of what the “confessionals” might be like, I definitely don’t want to go to the next convention.

Matthew,

Hang in there. It has never been easy. Holy Writ records fiercer battles than what we are having – just read I Corinthians and Galatians for example or look at the battles of Elijah and the time Jeremiah spent in the cistern.

Will there be genuine discussion? Yes there will be. The ACELC is not in charge of this process. The “evangelical” law-mongerers of the past convention are not in charge of this process. Matt Harrison, who is no savior for sure, is in charge and he really means it when he says he wants dialogue and that such discussion will lead to unity, not 100% but more than we have now.

There is a time to be firm like the ACELC. There is a time for the third use of the law like President Kieschnick used at the convention. This is not the time for either of those. Each of those tactics needs to be used constantly by the way, but here we are speaking in terms of the general direction of the synod and and what is generally needed and right now It’s Time for genuine and meaningful discussion.

I hope to see you at the next convention.

TR

Rev. Wilken (#15): “And what would that accomplish?”

Putting long-errant and defiant members on restricted status would be a start in accomplishing the duties and responsibilities as described in the Synod Constitution’s Article XI.B. for the synodical office to which Rev. Harrison was elected.

The BJS and other confessional Lutheran sites have, for years, posted a cornucopia of examples by pastors and congregations flaunting Lutheran orthodoxy with their teachings and practices. (The ACELC will be putting out shortly evidence of more heterodoxy.) Whether such people can be brought back to confessional Lutheran doctrine and to repentence or whether they must be removed from membership in the synod will be determined within the extensive and seemingly-neverending DRP process initiated by their being placed on restricted status. As atrocious as the DRP is, until it is replaced by an adjudication system in a future convention, that is what the synod is stuck with.

Daniel Bergquist #16): “Business as usual and more distrust.”

This is an example of confused thinking. The business as usual under the Kieschnick regime brought in distrust and disgust. It is not the responsibility or duty of the new synodical president to ‘dialogue ’til doomsday.’ Carrying out his Article XI duties is the president’s responsibility and the use of the restricted status is part of that responsibility.

@Tom #5
Tom wrote, “I think the recognition of the politics within the synod is just a symptom of the fact that we are not united in all things. If, in fact, we were completely united then we wouldn’t have different perspectives and desires for different leaders. Hopefully this honesty regarding our differences will slowly begin to emerge and then the real discussions can begin.”

Agreed. It seems that many of these divisions have been among us for so long, that we have grown used to such divisions and lack of unity, so much so, that many of us assume unity in the synod is no longer possible. Quite different from the days of F. Pfotenhauer.
Some question if as a synod (church body) grows in population, unity becomes less and less possible (for example, if the WELS were the numeric size of the LCMS, they would have no more unity among themselves than we do). While there may be some truth to this numbers assumption, polity can make a difference. If no oversight is provided, and pastors can preach and teach error with no one in his congregation assertive enough to hold him accountable to that error, divergence in a synod can grow and grow.

Some criticize such oversight with gross exaggerations, claiming such oversight is nothing short of “witch-hunting.” They criticize those who want to walk together “lock-step” as a synod, as though if diversity in society is a desired trait, then the same should go for theological diversity. Yet the theology of Holy Scripture does not allow for such “diversity” and co-existence with contradictory beliefs.

We, as a Synod, need to be honest not just with our beliefs, but also with our hopes and aspirations. It is inspiring to hear Pastor Harrison recount our first LCMS presidents and quote them in “It’s Time.” If these stories are shared more among our pastors and laity, perhaps we will have a better idea of what is possible, grounded in knowing from whence we came.

This is most certainly true.

Matthew Pancake :I want to echo Daniel Bergquist’s thoughts on this. This “Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations” is exactly the type of group that makes me sad. It might upset some, but this is exactly the kind of crap I find happening in evangelicalism all over, from Youtube to pulpits in Palm Bay Florida. It’s always “there’s a group OUT THERE that is WRONG, and we’re not going to tolerate it anymore!” Pfyeah right.
I’ve been on the receiving end of some of the most disturbing rhetoric, so I can tell you what it sounds like someone is saying… Think about it from the perspective of someone who has been beaten down more times than they care to consider. First there’s a document running around out there of some group of churches shooting their mouths off about the “Errors of the synod”, and then someone says “let’s have an honest discussion”… What that sounds like to me is, “admit you’re in error so we can identify you and ostracize you”. Say you’re a person who says “well, I don’t think closed communion is the way to go”. Yeah, there was an honest discussion, but after that you’re marked as one who needs to be dealt with. I’ve seen this happen already with some of our listeners. They don’t listen anymore because one part of our audience decided to get uppity with another part of our audience.
Does anyone think there will actually be real, honest discussion? I was there at Convention. I sat through the heavy handed, law laden messages. They wanted me to reconcile so bad they beat me up in the process. That was the more liberal side. Now that I’ve gotten a whiff of what the “confessionals” might be like, I definitely don’t want to go to the next convention.

Matthew,

I don’t see how your comment relates to Daniel’s comment or my original post.

Neither of us mentioned the ACELC. Neither of us are advocating the approach you describe.

****

Carl,

So, you’re suggesting that on his first day in office, President Harrison place every erring pastor in the LCMS on restricted status without so much as a conversation or call to repentance?

TW

Rev. Wilken, I neither suggested nor implied anything in your rhetorical question.

Carl,

I must have misunderstood. You wrote (emphasis mine),

Some serious amount of synodical keister needs to be booted into restricted status by COB on Harrison’s first day in office.

and,

Whether such people can be brought back to confessional Lutheran doctrine and to repentence or whether they must be removed from membership in the synod will be determined within the extensive and seemingly-neverending DRP process initiated by their being placed on restricted status.

and,

Putting long-errant and defiant members on restricted status would be a start in accomplishing the duties and responsibilities as described in the Synod Constitution…

What did you mean to suggest or imply?

TW

@Todd Wilken #25

Dan mentioned “Twice this week I have had people, on both “sides” of the synod, express concerns about a couple of letters (dated around the 15th) that has apparently been sent to many congregations condemning various errors in the synod.”

That’s the letter of Admonition. I know you’re not advocating the kind of approach, but you need to be specific. The letter I saw had Pastor Rossow’s name on it along with a number of others. Can you see how a huge number or questions are begged by this?

@Carl Vehse #21
“Putting long-errant and defiant members on restricted status would be a start in accomplishing the duties and responsibilities as described in the Synod Constitution’s Article XI.B. for the synodical office to which Rev. Harrison was elected.”

I feel that I must ask one question. Where will the line in the sand be? I will be the first to acknowledge that there are churches which have strayed from the LCMS while being called LCMS in name only. I know that I can be simplistic, but where would the expulsion, censure, and/or silencing stop. To what end?

@Matthew Pancake #28

You wrote, “I know you’re not advocating the kind of approach, but you need to be specific.”

I was specific. The approach I am advocating is Pastor Harrison’s in “It’s Time.”

TW

@Todd Wilken #30

That’s good, but like I said: With this letter now being circulated, with all the talk of somehow “dealing” with the errors of synod, who would want to honest at this point? After all, one of the “errors” deals with how Pastors are removed from office, you know… for doctrinal errors? Imagine that. Someone being honest while wondering how long before the Axe falls.

Kind of makes it hard to be honest in that kind of climate, especially since this letter came in the mail, but not everyone gets on the internet to hear about honesty and all it’s benefits from Todd Wilken. I’m not trying to rake you or anyone else over the coals here. But this is my honest opinion, and what I’m seeing is way too much in the way of rhetoric and unfortunate timing WAY too soon.

Rev. Wilken, you wrote (emphasis mine): “So, you’re suggesting that on his first day in office, President Harrison place every erring pastor in the LCMS on restricted status without so much as a conversation or call to repentance?”

I did not suggest nor imply that on the first day “every erring pastor” be placed on restricted status. Nor did I suggest or imply that the notification be done without a “a conversation or call to repentance.”

BTW, placing members on restricted status is described in Bylaw 2.13.2. The formal process that may or may not lead to a suspended status or even expulsion is in Bylaws 2.14 and 2.15.

Andrew Strickland (#29): “I feel that I must ask one question. Where will the line in the sand be?”

The “line in the sand” is discussed in Bylaw 2.13.

@Carl Vehse #33
The line in the sand that I am concerned about is where does it end? How will it be decided who is in error or who is not.
Does it end with pastors and churches who practice open communion?
Does it end with pastors and churches who practice close communion?
If a church does not have a traditional liturgy, will they be suspended?
Will a church like theAlley, be one of the first on the hit list?
Will go after members of the congregation who do not fully conform?
Will we have pastors attacking other pastors for their congregational practices? (wait I have seen this in person) I guess that is already happening and has been for a while. I know it happens from both sides of the aisle.
Where does it end?

Andrew Strickland (#34: “The line in the sand that I am concerned about is where does it end? ”

Andrew, the phrase, “line in the sand,” has a different meaning than “where does it end”

The process involved in determining where it does end is described in Bylaws 2.14 and 2.15.

@Matthew Pancake #31

You wrote, “With this letter now being circulated, with all the talk of somehow “dealing” with the errors of synod, who would want to honest at this point?”

The only plan bearing Pastor Harrison’s signature is “It’s Time”

You also wrote, “Imagine that. Someone being honest while wondering how long before the Axe falls.”

Why would the axe fall if someone is honest and repents of their error?

TW

>> With this letter now being circulated, with all the talk of somehow “dealing” with the errors of synod, who would want to be honest at this point?

Men and women with integrity and backbone?

@Daniel Bergquist #11
“Now is the time to follow Pastor Harrison’s example at convention: forgiveness, honesty and patience. Debate will come later.”

When it comes to personal offense, which is the cross experienced by every confessor of the faith including Rev. Harrison, forgiveness precedes repentance and should not be withheld even from the unrepentant. For nothing that hurts our person can separate us from Christ. Not so when it comes to offenses against the Word of God. A false confession or profession of the Word actually does separate us from God for the Word rightly proclaimed and administered is the only place we are to look for Him and His forgiveness.

In regard to whatever errors exist among us in our beloved Missouri regarding the confession of the Word of God in our preaching and practice, a call to repent of those errors must preceed the bestowal of forgiveness.

“They have so plagued us with love in their books and writings saying ‘You people at Wittenberg have no Charity,’ when we then ask ‘What is Charity?’ they reply, ‘It means that we agree in Doctrine and stop these quarrels about religion.’ We reply ‘Indeed.’ Have you heard that there are two tables of the law, the first and the second? Charity or love belongs in the second table and there it extends its way over all works, but in the first table it is said ‘Fear God, hear his word,’ about this they are not concerned.” –”Luther Speaks,” Ewald Plass Anthology.

On a different note–
Pr. Wilken, I think you ARE very patient with your guests and callers on Issues, Etc.
And very compassionate when they disagree.

About sending Issues, Etc back to KFUO….I think Issues is safer where it is now.
That way, once Harrison’s term is up, it does not face cancellation again under future administrations.

Matthew #31,
When was any child of Christ, allowed to be dishonest, in anything? If one is not honest/truthful, then one is dishonest/untruthful. We are commanded to be truthful, that isn’t ever, an elective. It is always hard, it is always difficult…so what? Now we don’t have to because it’s hard? We are commanded to speak & uphold the Truth. Unless…one believes Truth is now relative.
Where does it say, in His Word, we have carte blanche to not be honest, in anything, let alone, in what belongs to HIM or His Bride, because it gets “hard”?

Heartbroken,

Issues, Etc. will remain independent regardless of what station (KFUO or otherwise) carries the show. That isn’t going to change.

TW

@Todd Wilken #41
Don’t you miss all those meetings you used to have to attend?

Carl Vehse :BTW, placing members on restricted status is described in Bylaw 2.13.2. The formal process that may or may not lead to a suspended status or even expulsion is in Bylaws 2.14 and 2.15.

Per Bylaw 2.13.2, “An individual member of the Synod may be placed on restricted status by the district president who has ecclesiastical supervision of the member.” (emphasis added) The President of the Synod cannot place anyone on restricted status. Likewise, per Bylaws 2.14.1(b) and 2.14.6, only a district president can commence formal proceedings for expulsion of a member of that district from the Synod. What the President of the Synod can do – and only he can do – per Bylaws 2.15.1 and 2.15.6, is commence formal proceedings for expulsion of a district president or officer of the Synod.

@David C Busby #42
So many hours of my life I will never get back… TW

@Carl Vehse #35
Who are these long erring and defiant members? How many pastors, church workers churches need to be restricted or booted out. Who makes the call if they are long erring members? It seems heavy handed. The line in the sand I am referring to is regarding those errors. Which “errors” deserve punishment and when will it end. Are we going to have a hunt for crypto-open communionists and crypto-lay readerists? That is what I am worried about.

aletheist (#43): “The President of the Synod cannot place anyone on restricted status.”

Andrew Strickland (#45): “It seems heavy handed.”

Think of it as “tough love.”

@Carl Vehse #46
Think of it as “tough love.” Does that mean the guilty pastor or church gets restricted? Would the district president get restricted as well for failing to do anything about it? Would his assistants? Would churches that supported said church also be restricted? Where would it end? How many churches, schools, missions need to be booted out? Since we seem to be divided as a synod, would this be a good idea? Would it be better if this were to happen after the Koinonia Project took place?

@Todd Wilken #36

Pastor Wilken, you wrote”

“The only plan bearing Pastor Harrison’s signature is “It’s Time””

And I’m aware of that. You keep pushing back concerning what you’re advocating, while I’m going to keep pushing back with a collective of concerns. There are people who contribute to this site who’s names are on the admonition letter. There people contributing to this site calling for “errant” pastors in the synod to be put on restricted status immediately. I could make a longer list… all of which is systematically undermining Pastor Harrison’s call to dialog.

Again I ask, who would “honest” in this type of atmosphere?

You also wrote,

“Why would the axe fall if someone is honest and repents of their error?”

Because I’ve learned something about sinful human beings. They are totally depraved in all of their parts, and when enough of them get together, often with good intentions, they cause havoc on a terrible scale.

@Dutch #40

LOL@Dutch… You’re right, NO ONE is allowed to be dishonest. That’s not the point. The question is “will they be?” That’s the insidiousness of heterodoxy. The congregation YOU attend is populated with people who read Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey, but wont admit it. It’s filled with Pastors who are functioning Roman Catholic, but wont admit it. Synergism, Lordship salvation, Semi-Pelagianism, and an entire list of much more pernicious errors exist in our synod than many people realize.

@Matthew Pancake #48

Okay Matthew, Pastor Harrison has made his proposal. I’ve stated that it will require a kind of honesty and patience the LCMS hasn’t seen in 40 years, and asked that we pray for these virtues.

You seem to be saying that none of this is possible, and predicting complete failure.

What then do you propose?

TW

@Matthew Pancake #48

Matthew,

Who would be dishonest in such an atmosphere is all of us. It isn’t just cliche that we are all sinners. So, I am not really getting your pushing Pr. Wilken over honesty. I think we all understand that if the yard stick started cracking against knuckles there would be dishonesty.

The point of Matt Harrison’s koinonia project is that there is first repentance around God’s word. If we can’t repent and hear God’s word, agreeing in all articles of doctrine, then there is no talking to each other, since we won’t hear each other speak. And really, hasn’t there already been much talking for years, but we are still a synod divided?

As for calling for pastors to be put on restricted status immediately. How would you suggest that a pastor be dealt with in departing from what he swore to uphold at ordination? Haven’t the pastors in the Synod promoting open communion and Pentecostal/Baptist forms of worship been known amongst us for years now? Should we just keep talking about ecclesiastical supervision, or should it actually be enforced?

Matthew Pancake,

“There are people who contribute to this site who’s names are on the admonition letter.”

They are airing their honest opinions. I fail to see how that is bad if we are going to have honest dialog. There has been enough of suppression. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that the new administration will act rashly on the basis of these opinions. Much to the contrary.

“There people contributing to this site calling for “errant” pastors in the synod to be put on restricted status immediately.”

One person.

“I could make a longer list… all of which is systematically undermining Pastor Harrison’s call to dialog.”

But your list, specifically

“The congregation YOU attend is populated with people who read Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey, but wont admit it. It’s filled with Pastors who are functioning Roman Catholic, but wont admit it. Synergism, Lordship salvation, Semi-Pelagianism, and an entire list of much more pernicious errors …”

is not undermining it? Care to explain that?

“Because I’ve learned something about sinful human beings. They are totally depraved in all of their parts, and when enough of them get together, often with good intentions, they cause havoc on a terrible scale.”

Sinners present in the church? What a huge surprise! Thanks be to God that it is not completely a human enterprise. The Word can accomplish great things, even against our wishes. Just ask Jonah, who greatly feared that it could cause repentance in those nasty Ninevites when he actually preferred otherwise.

James, nicely said. TW

You know, you guys are missing the point here. On the one hand, we have Pastor Matt Harrison (echoed by Todd) calling for honesty in discussions, while on the other hand a group of “confessing” Lutherans seem to be not only establishing for themselves a list of errors, but ready to call their own convention, adopt bi laws and a constitution, and establish a corporation.

The point I’ve repeatedly made is that, right now, the honest dialog that needs to happen is being undermined. If that can’t be acknowledged, then I don’t know what else to say.

@James Sarver #52

James, you wrote:

“They are airing their honest opinions. I fail to see how that is bad if we are going to have honest dialog. There has been enough of suppression. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that the new administration will act rashly on the basis of these opinions.”

No one said they would. What I’m saying is that there are things going on that act to undermine the dialog that needs to happen. MY HONEST OPINION, by the way, in case you hadn’t noticed yet.

So let me use an illustration from history to show how this appears to be in my eyes… Both the Union and Confederacy believed that God was on their side, and both sides prayed to the same God and fought what they believed to be a God ordained war. How can they all have been right? Were we witnessing a divine act of God? Or was it merely man’s depravity run wild?

Take a look at any given high school football game. Both sides purport to have God’s favor in the game. Likewise, in the LCMS we have various factions, all believing they have God’s favor in the struggle, all praying to the same God, all believing they are right, all posturing and vying for attention… maybe what we should do instead is consider the possibility that we’re all culpable, and we’ve ALL made a mess of things, and start there…

Honesty would be nice for a change. I ran into a LOT of dishonesty at the convention. Why don’t we try making it so that EVERYONE can be honest, rather than undermining that honesty from the get go?

Matthew #49,
I totally conceed, your right about Joel (met him & his wife in Cancun) & Oprah. I know people who do read them & far worse. But…are they being dishonest or naive (dare I say ignorant)? No Matthew, MY average member is naive to the dangerous thickets they’re in. Aren’t we all?lol

However, when that happens, & it is brought up w/me, I tell them the Truth, yes & it is very “hard” to do. But, ignorance can only be plead once, & then a choice must be made. Did I force it or put them to it? That is what the Word does to a child of Christ. They put themselves in that position, by naivety or with foreknowledge. Their decision & actions, carry the weight of consequence & accountability never the less.

Which is more dangerous to souls or His Bride? The member who reads & believes those OR the Pastor who does & brings it into their Congregation?

We have to do the best we can to 1) be honest and 2) win as many on the other side over as we can. There are valid concerns that the forming of a legal entity is a vehicle for splitting the synod. There are invalid concerns on the other side that Pr. Harrison is looking for people to kick out of Synod, should they be honest about what they believe. He has spoken repeatedly that our arguments upon the Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions have to win the day.

@Dutch #56

Dutch wrote:

“Which is more dangerous to souls or His Bride? The member who reads & believes those OR the Pastor who does & brings it into their Congregation?”

The congregation is more of a danger to itself. For the last 60 years the average American has less and less interest in loyalty to an institution. From Churches to Shriners to the Boy Scouts, this is certainly true. The people in our congregations are drinking from every fountain they come to. The Pew forum report from a couple of years ago listed the LCMS as one of more egregious mainline church bodies with regards to believing there are many ways to God.

The small list of errors I put forth earlier all have one thing in common. The ALL are the direct result of a categorical inability to divide law and Gospel. And that is where our pastors have failed our congregations. It’s not because they brought Joel Osteen into their church… That is merely a symptom of a greater deficiency.

Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey are easy to spot. But how about pastors who think Paul Washer is a great evangelist? Or John Piper (federal visionist)? Or John MacArthur (Lordship Salvation)? Tons of Lutherans love these guys, and so do many of their pastors. Many are the pastors who deny Sola Fide and couldn’t divide law and gospel under pain of death, and what’s more? They are in our midst as much as the theological liberals are.

And we’re divided over the symptoms… The cause is much worse.

@Matthew Pancake #54

I don’t know if I still understand your point. The fellows you are referring to as undermining “the honest dialog that needs to happen” have insisted publicly that not only are they NOT undermining honest dialogue, but they encourage it. In fact, hasn’t those who formed the ACELC honestly become part of the dialogue by laying all their cards on the table for all to see? In a certain sense Matthew, you are claiming they are undermining the honest dialogue that needs to happen with their being quite open and honest about what they think needs to happen to turn this synod around; so perhaps they should be silent? In other words, silenced by the process of having open and honest dialogue? Is our pointing fingers at such groups and perhaps listing them as “those who undermine honest dialogue” any different than their listing of errors and those committing them within the synod?

Matthew Pancake,

“What I’m saying is that there are things going on that act to undermine the dialog that needs to happen. MY HONEST OPINION, by the way, in case you hadn’t noticed yet.”

I’m still having trouble with the idea that for some to engage in dialog then entities that clearly disagree must not discuss among themselves or in public or organize around any
consensus they may reach. The idea of having this dialog is to get as much agreement as possible on what Scripture (and the Confessions, as a correct exposition of Scripture) is telling us about how the Church behaves, then to submit to it. It is not a football game or a war. As for your example of The War Between The States, each side was bent on preserving their culture and practice regarldess of the cost and regardless what God actually had to say. It would be interesting to see what actual Lutherans of the time had to say about either side claiming the favor of God for the carnage wrought. If parties in the “dialog” refuse to submit to to the Word of God there is no possibility for unity. Judge the public discussion based on Scripture, not politics. If a Scriptural case is made there is no reason for those advancing a position to be quiet about it. If a Scriptural case is not made we might as well find out now.

See, we’re having a dialog based on our honest opinions. Not so awful is it? Nobody says this is all going to be pink hearts and roses. Substantive debate is difficult. Some people get their feelings hurt. They aren’t up for it. They should probably associate with a group that advocates something close to their opinions, so those opinions are expressed somewhere by folks who are up to engaging in the process and aren’t so thin skinned. That seems to be exactly what you desire to suppress.

@Matthew Pancake #54

You didn’t answer my question from my comment #50: “You seem to be saying that none of this is possible, and predicting complete failure. What then do YOU propose?“

TW

Matthew,
Is a flock of sheep to herd itself, instruct, guard, guide, feed & water itself? Or am I misunderstand you?

Jim Pierce :
@Matthew Pancake #54
I don’t know if I still understand your point. The fellows you are referring to as undermining “the honest dialog that needs to happen” have insisted publicly that not only are they NOT undermining honest dialogue, but they encourage it. In fact, hasn’t those who formed the ACELC honestly become part of the dialogue by laying all their cards on the table for all to see? In a certain sense Matthew, you are claiming they are undermining the honest dialogue that needs to happen with their being quite open and honest about what they think needs to happen to turn this synod around; so perhaps they should be silent? In other words, silenced by the process of having open and honest dialogue? Is our pointing fingers at such groups and perhaps listing them as “those who undermine honest dialogue” any different than their listing of errors and those committing them within the synod?

honest dialog

This is a symptom of the cultural problems we face. Pilate asked Jesus what is truth, our entire society is asking the same question. We are infected by this condition. Pastors and the laity are looking for the answers to the problems they face and the information is everywhere. They turn to sources to address a specific problem(s). Take for example President Kieschnick and others in the synod inviting Leonard Sweet in. They had to know that the invitation would cause controversy. Did they not care or did they believe that something good could come out of it? Sweet has been accused as emergent, panentheistic and New Age. Why did they do it? They believed that some of what he says is valid and could be important to the synod. Maybe his own responses to the accusations convinced them: (http://www.leonardsweet.com/response.php), he tweeted this: I’m no panentheist, but do believe Romans 8:22 (“all creation groans”) & await “new heaven/new earth.” (Sorry, I am the type of person that needs to see an argument from both sides for me to understand it.)We live in a world shaded in gray, and the various responses we are seeing, not just in our synod, but Christian congregations around the world are direct responses from the outside world. How do we deal with various situations that arise in our society? Many years ago I became agnostic. The doubts overwhelmed me. I credit Richard Dawkins of all people for showing be the way back to God. Yes I know it was the Holy Spirit, but through Richard Dawkins of all people. I do not need to take everything they say to heart.

We are fragile people and when we are attacked, accused, or challenged we respond in one of two ways. We fight back or be run. Honest dialog is possible, but as Todd said and President Harrison stated in “It’s Time” trust needs to be in place.

Speaking about the ACELC, I have read over their website and I get what they are trying to do. Certainly there are errors going on in the synod. How could there not be? I think it is important, but if one were on the receiving side it would not feel like dialog and more like attack. Yes they “laid their cards on the table” but in poker, that is an aggressive move that says I have the I won and do not believe you can do anything about it.

I was going to add this as well.

“Today, there are pastors and lay people in the LCMS who believe that the Lutheran Confessions are no longer applicable”, …yes there are, I have met them. There are others who hold to them who seek other resources. Still others who would like them modernized.
(I feel this way everytime I go through the Small Catechism with my students, many do not have the family structure that Martin Luther uses. ex.dear father can be especially difficult) Some would only use them.

“that the Word and Sacraments are insufficient to grow the Church”… I pray that this is not the case, but some put it on the back-burner in the name of teaching people about Jesus. the idea being, teach them about Jesus and the Word and Sacrament would come later.

“that Luther’s Small Catechism and Law and Gospel preaching are passé”…they better not be, (I feel this way everytime I go through the Small Catechism with my students, many do not have the family structure that Martin Luther uses. ex.dear father can be especially difficult)

“and that closed communion is impossible.” Closed communion is necessary, but in this world, it’s all about the presentation. Don’t get me wrong, I do not mean anything about the Sacrament itself, just how the pastor presents the information that the church practices closed communion. Then there is the issue of close communion versus closed communion.

They believe these things; but they won’t admit it. I know one pastor who personally believes all of those things listed above, has admitted it and got chewed up so he will never admit to it now.

@Andrew Strickland #63

Andrew,

Thank you for linking the Sweet article. Since you bring it up, let me point out that in that article Sweet does not repent of panentheism. Neither does he actually confess historic Christianity. Indeed, his comments are sufficiently vague as to really say little to nothing. Remember, cultists can state they confess “Christ” and “God,” but what do they mean with those words?

You also mention the “symptom of our culture” and I know that we Lutherans have the answer as found in our confession of faith. Yes, the “culture” questions the truth of God’s word, but we are not the world. Christ has opened our understanding to the truth of His word through the gift of faith given to us by the Holy Spirit. We have certainty in His words. In fact, we can rest in those words; we don’t need to wander around in the gray areas where the culture at large says we really don’t have clear answers. In fact, we have something absolute to offer those struggling in the gray areas of life, the clear teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have the Holy Word, the Lord’s Supper, and our Baptisms. We have much that is “black and white” and there we should stand.

Matthew Pancake :You know, you guys are missing the point here. On the one hand, we have Pastor Matt Harrison (echoed by Todd) calling for honesty in discussions, while on the other hand a group of “confessing” Lutherans seem to be not only establishing for themselves a list of errors, but ready to call their own convention, adopt bi laws and a constitution, and establish a corporation.
The point I’ve repeatedly made is that, right now, the honest dialog that needs to happen is being undermined. If that can’t be acknowledged, then I don’t know what else to say.

Pr. Rossow’s name is on that letter from a group of “confessing” Lutherans.

Jim #65,
I just knew you’d catch that! Thank you & blessings!
Dutch

@Andrew Strickland #64
“Today, there are pastors and lay people in the LCMS who believe that the Lutheran Confessions are no longer applicable”, …yes there are, I have met them.
“that the Word and Sacraments are insufficient to grow the Church”… [There are; they've told me so. --hej]
“that Luther’s Small Catechism and Law and Gospel preaching are passé”…they better not be,
“and that closed communion is impossible.”
They believe these things; but they won’t admit it. [Really? I've heard them. --hej]

[ A more incriminating witness is what they do: the Confessions not taught; the Word and Sacraments pushed to the side, or to another day of the week, to make room for the band; the “feel good” preaching; and the open communion. They are “admitted”: on numerous web sites; church bulletins and in the obvious lack of Lutheran practice.

Matthew Pancake’s being honest, to a point. Maybe he’ll come a little further and see if that list of errors has anything in it that he needs to seriously consider.

I think we have a misunderstanding here between some people. Based on discussions outside of this website, what I believe the point that Matthew Pancake is trying to drive here, though admittedly perhaps not well, is this:

We need to stick to It’s Time and the example that Pastor Harrison set forth at the convention. It’s not time to be beating people over the head as we have done in the past (referring to the letter that was recently sent to congregations) nor talking about making major cuts of less than faithful leaders. There will be a time for that, but it’s not now. If we do that now, rather than focusing on repenting of our sins to each other and forgiving each other and spending time in the Word, we undermine what Harrison is trying to do.

@Daniel Bergquist #69

Matthew, is this so?

TW

I just reread “It’s Time”. After being at the convention Matt Harrison is right on the mark. We need to start building trust by learning how to give and receive feedback in our circuits and boards. Understanding that we are sinful humans with different personality that have different views of the world. But we all agree on Grace Alone, Scripture Alone & Faith Alone. Then we can start to build community.

Daniel # 69
Would this be or begin w/President Harrison’s call for repentence, en masse (as in It’s Time)? There is not nor ever has been any hope for honesty & open brotherly dialogue, without an en masse call for repentance. Repentence always leads to that end!!!!

Matthew P., dear one, is that what you meant & tried to impart to us here?

One should not promote a false dichotomy between the goals in an “It’s Time” document and the goals in the ACELC documents.

The confessional Lutherans associated with ACELC are grown-ups. They can work toward both goals: support the goals of Rev. Harrison in his presidency and, at the same time, “make the errors within our Synod public through the publication of those errors in a letter to all LCMS congregations.”

The ACELC members should be expected to carry out their vocational responsibilities within the Synod and within their organization so that “the unity of doctrine and practice might be restored within our Synod.”

@Todd Wilken #70

@Dutch #72

Yes to Dan Bergquist’s post. If there’s been some ruffled feathers over this, I apologize.

Dutch, what I see these days is a tendency with people to merely say, “well, we are all sinners”. But the fact is, we’re all guilty of our own errors. It cannot be that “repentance” is just another thing we tick off our list as we move forward. We have to seriously own up. If we don’t, we might as well hang it up.

Do you agree?

@Carl Vehse #73
I’ve just now got a chance to look at the stated goal of the ACELC and yes, it is in keeping with It’s Time. I see no conflict here. For my part, I only question the implementation of the goals. In talking with several pastors, all except one being confessional, it seems that the letters come across as premature and heavy-handed.

I would have rather seen this letter be an extension of Harrison’s speech after the election, admonishing and inviting parishes to repent for sins against our brother and giving forgiveness to those who have sinned against us. An acknowledgment of the difficult time ahead and an invitation to form local groups to study the Scriptures and confessions as we start working towards unity, with the intent of future letters to highlight passages that speak to specific errors.

As it stands right now, it seems that those who have held these errors would be pushed away unintentionally by the letter rather than included in the process. If the intent was to bring them back to the Scriptures and confessions to point out how they are wrong, I don’t think this letter helped.

So again, the goals are noble and in harmony with It’s Time and I pray that the goals are archived. I’m not sure that the tact was correct. I am a fallen creature myself, so I may be wrong.

@Rick #17
Have yet to find the ‘study guide.” Can you give a more direct link?

@Paul #18
One does have to ask Paul if you took your concerns to any higher authority after your graduation? Do have a concurence with fellow classmates about these matters. I have no doubt they happened and would venture to guess which school was the school–but does not matter. What matters is that we have many on all of our campuses who do not like the LCMS doctrinal stances, we have many pastors who do not like the LCMS doctrinal stances. Finally it WILL be about our honesty. I have seen this lack of honesty on the part of many since the days of the walk out–which was not as spontaneous as many have suppose.

@Matthew Pancake #54
I can really see no difference Matthew from your site called “Radical Grace” then what has been done by the writers of the Letter of Admonition–which was not the topic that Todd started. His topic was about honesty and patience! Perhaps it would be good to just get back to honesty and patience.

@Helen #68
“A more incriminating witness is what they do: the Confessions not taught; the Word and Sacraments pushed to the side, or to another day of the week, to make room for the band; the “feel good” preaching; and the open communion. They are “admitted”: on numerous web sites; church bulletins and in the obvious lack of Lutheran practice.”

Helen, what you say is true, but there is an insidious nature to this as well. It goes far deeper than many would like to admit. Example: Is close communion just a way of saying I really do open communion, but don’t want to say it. If I refer to a statement of beliefs than I can leave it up t the people if they should go up or not. Is this not open communion in disguise? If so, many congregations are in trouble.

@Jim Pierce #65
Sorry, I know this post has nothing to do with the thread, but was wondering… My Dad and I have been reading a series of books as points of discussion. The books tend to be theological in nature ( I know I Know, but it is not as weird as it sounds) He is not well and these help us spend time together… Anyway, we have been reading Chesterton, Bonhoeffer, Braaten, and also Sweet to name just a view and then be discuss, debate, rant or whatever… Anyway we were discussing if Sweet was a Panentheist and if he is, why would he be invited into the LCMS of all places. Which if he is does hold to Panentheism than the problems in the synod are dire indeed. He does not believe that he is and used this quote from Sweet’s latest book Nudge: He begin with Psalm 12 and follows: ” The world is not God, of course, but the incarnation goes all the way down, and the Spirit indwells all that exists. Nothing is without a witness to the divine; everything that exists praises the Creator. If Christians are not the best at giving voice through art, poetry, and music to these unspoken voices, than something in wrong.” This does not seem like Panentheism to me, of course I am no theologian and could be wrong here. He is talking about his Semiotics though. I am not trying to beat a dead horse, but to say someone is unchristian is a pretty tough thing and I don’t think we should treat it lightly. Although if he is unchristian, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING BY BRINGING HIM TO SPEAK?

In fact, we have something absolute to offer those struggling in the gray areas of life, the clear teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have the Holy Word, the Lord’s Supper, and our Baptisms. We have much that is “black and white” and there we should stand.

I totally agree with you we do have something that we can offer that is black and white, but how far has the gray shading gone inside the LCMS?

@Andrew Strickland #80

Andrew, I can’t tell you why the leadership of the LCMS would invite a heretic to speak to them about church growth theories. Why would they listen to Baptist church growth consultants who devised their programs based upon decision theology?

I would have to look at the quote you provide in context, but the panentheist can claim that the world is not God, in a certain sense, because for them God is greater than the universe, but yet permeates all things in the universe. Indeed, the quote you provide from Sweet attests to that, “…the Spirit indwells all that exists.” That right there is consistent with panentheism. The Holy Spirit does not indwell all that exists (see Romans 8:9). Sweet can say that the Holy Spirit indwells all that exists, because the panentheist believes that the world and all things in it are part of the divine being.

I would appeal to you, Andrew, to consider Romans 16:17 quite seriously. Indeed, we should mark false teachers like Sweet and avoid them. I don’t think there is anything wrong in reading Sweet if we are doing so to correct theological errors, but if we think he can teach us something theologically speaking, then we are on dangerous ground.

Rev. Roger Sterle :@Rick #17 Have yet to find the ‘study guide.” Can you give a more direct link?

@Rev. Roger Sterle #76

Try:
http://www.itistime.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6&Itemid=9

Thanks for asking!

@Jim Pierce #81
Thank you Jim and I will.

FYI – Just want to make sure everyone is distinguishing panentheism from pantheism. I know Jim P. knows the difference but just want to make sure everyone else does. Pantheism teaches that God is nature and nature is God. Panentheism teaches that God is in nature but not entirely subsumed in it. He is in it and above it. There are some similarities to Christianity but it is indeed heretical. The bigger issue in panentheism is that panentheists usually hold to a changing God, e.g. like process theology does.

TR

@Andrew Strickland #79
Example: Is close communion just a way of saying I really do open communion, but don’t want to say it.

In my experience, it is precisely that.
It’s also “buck passing” in defiance of ordination vows. “It’s up to the individual to decide whether he can take communion without danger to his own soul. It’s not my responsibility as pastor.”
It isn’t!?

Communion is “open” (protestant) or “closed” (Lutheran).
Spare me the “close” confusion!

Pastor Rossow,
I’ve never heard the term, “process theology” before. Is this new? What is this & what does it mean?

Dutch,

There is a decent article on it on Wikipedia. It basically teaches that god and reality are better understood as a process (god can and does change) rather than as fixed things and events. It is just another form of liberal theology that denies the blood atonement.

TR

Pastor Rossow,
I looked Wikipedia while I was waiting. So basically, in P.T., all the “omni’s” are relative or nonexistant? If the “omni’s” go, what possibility exists for any need at all for Blood Atonement thru Christ?

What a Rip Van Winkle moment. How many other “What is olde, is new again” said issues are lurking out there? What a need we have for watchmen on the towers & walls!

@Pastor Tim Rossow #84

Excellent follow up, Pr. Rossow. I should have thought to clarify the differences between panentheism and pantheism. The spellings of the two words are so close some might have thought I was actually misspelling “pantheism” and/or thought the two words hold the same meanings. Which they do not.

Speaking of honesty and trust, I pray that the discussion that will ensue will look something like what Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in “Life Together” Chapter 4 Ministry.

Pr. Wilken –

Your list of things you want people to state: “Lutheran Confessions are no longer applicable, that the Word and Sacraments are insufficient to grow the Church, that Luther’s Small Catechism and Law and Gospel preaching are passé, and that closed communion is impossible”

I find it hard to attribute the first four to any minister in the LCMS. Now the living out of those in some cases might lead you to question the understanding of those terms, but those don’t seem to be real division. If you really think that a significant number of Lutheran minsters and congregations hold to those lines we might as well give up now.

But the last one is a division. Here is the real question. If you follow the Divine Service as per LSB. And each service includes: confession and absolution, a creedal confession, and a clear institution of the Supper. And an adult (lets treat kids as a sub-catagory) comes to the rail – do you as a simple human pastor who does not read hearts, deny everything they have just said during that service? What is your criteria for closing communion? Is it membership? Is it confession? If it is confession, is it the AC? The entire book of concord? What percent of LCMS ministers have read the entire thing in the past year? Especially the 1580 book of concord in german and latin that we pledge to? Maybe the simple catechism questions on preparing for the supper? If those questions are the basis, aren’t they basically confession/absolution, creed and institution?

The term closed communion really needs to be defined. It is pretty easy to publish an invitation something like those who join us in confessing our sinful state, God’s forgiveness, the creed and the true body and blood are welcome in communion. My guess is that definition of closed communion would not be acceptable to many here and we’d be discussing de facto open.

It is here that the divine service acts as a safe harbor. The first thing to go overboard is usually confession/absolution. You take that out and you take out the key understanding of the confession. But as long as it is there, I’d hate to call anyone a liar which is what by-passing them at the rail would be doing.

Mark,

Absolution of sin is not the only criteria for admission to communion. Paul teaches in I Corinthians 11 that discernment of the body of the Lord is also required. The table is rightly closed to those who are not able to discern the body of the Lord. We determine that by knowing whether or not someone has been catechized into the faith.

Is it a perfect criteria that cannot be abused? No, but it is a bare minimum and so we commune all those who are in fellowship with us, which is to say, those who require the proper catechesis of confirmands.

It is easy to be a critic and raise sophistic questions like you do. I am not really sure why you are doing this.

TR

Mark,

Closed communion has nothing to do with “reading hearts.” It’s about asking about your public confession. That is easy to determine: ask, what church to you belong to, and do you believe what they teach?

If you can go to church at an LCMS congregation where no one knows you, and commune, no questions asked, that congregation is practicing open communion.

If you can go to church at an LCMS congregation where no one knows you, and commune, by filling out a checklist card that no one reads before you commune, that congregation is practicing open communion. Try this, write “Mary had a little lamb” on the checklist card, hand it to the usher. If they stick it in the stack with the other cards and let you commune, that congregation is practicing open communion.

Bear in mind, you might be a Lutheran… OR, you might be a Mormon, a Buddhist or an atheist –they have no way of knowing. If no one is asking you about your public confession before they commune you, that congregation is practicing open communion.

If find the “closed communion is too hard, we can’t do it” argument amusing. Why don’t we make the same argument about abstinence? “It’s too difficult, why bother?”

TW

I am not holding my breath for honesty. I have witnessed too much deceit over the last 20 years from professionals in the LCMS. Just the act of honest, open confrontation and request for discussion only to be marginalized has lead me to question whether many of these folks are even Christian to begin with. The manner of disdain that these folks have for simple Word and Sacrament as THE means is a scandal. Our family has reached a point that we do not consider ourselves members of a synod but only of a local parish and control our giving accordingly. If only the pretenders would just leave as the hyper historical- critical liberals did under Teigen.

@Pastor Tim Rossow #87

Is process theology akin to dispensationalism?

Rev. Hering,

No it is not. Dispensationalism tends to be a fundamentalist error which divides time into distinct eras, e.g. OT, NT, Time of the Spirit, etc. Process theology is a liberal error which would deny the Christ/cross-centeredness of time. It is a wierd sort of Hegelian spin-off.

TR

Todd Wilken :
Mark,
If you can go to church at an LCMS congregation where no one knows you, and commune, no questions asked, that congregation is practicing open communion.
If you can go to church at an LCMS congregation where no one knows you, and commune, by filling out a checklist card that no one reads before you commune, that congregation is practicing open communion. Try this, write “Mary had a little lamb” on the checklist card, hand it to the usher. If they stick it in the stack with the other cards and let you commune, that congregation is practicing open communion.

This is an indictment on this because I believe this practice of closed communion is widely practiced especially in many congregations with a size over 350+ worshipping members on a given weekend. There are churches who are extremely “conservative/confessional.” Who would fully fall in line with much, if not all, of BJS. They worship only using LSB, communion every Sunday every service, confirmation taught only by pastors. They speak out against CW, women’s ordination, open communion, and the like. They love Higher Things and support it. They are very much in line with much of what is said on these forums and on this website (Their pastor is an outstanding pastor and theologian). Yet, if you talk to the pastor (who is very much against open communion) he does depend on printed message and the honesty/faithfulness of members (if it is a visiting relative) and guests to effectively practice closed communion.

I am 100% in support of closed communion. While I fully agree that communing someone who is receiving unworthily based on 1 Corinthians that you are hurting them. The question is in a larger church (500+, 750+, etc). How can you make this a reality? Having served in a larger parish – while I tried to know each and every member, it is much more difficult. Do you just skip over people you are unsure of and then ask forgiveness later for wrongly skipping over them? In my practice, we would not just rely on the printed sheet but make an announcement about what communion was about based on Luther’s questions from the catechism concerning rightfully communing. How else can you make this a reality. Please understand I agree about closed communion 100%. I am more asking how you can make this a greater reality the larger a congregation gets.
Thanks!

@Pastor Tim Rossow #92
It is easy to be a critic and raise sophistic questions like you do. I am not really sure why you are doing this. –TR

Possibly because he teaches open communion, by whatever label, and doesn’t want to admit it… even to himself. And/or doesn’t want to believe there is anything wrong with “open” communion.

@mames #94
If only the pretenders would just leave as the hyper historical- critical liberals did under Teigen.
[Possibly you meant Tietjen?]
Trouble was, they only pretended to leave!

@Rev. Kurt Hering #95

I would add to Pr. Rossow’s comment that Process Theology views the universe, and it’s inhabitants, as “co-creators” with God. In fact, the relationship the universe has with God is much like the relationship the persons of the Holy Trinity have, in Process Theology. Anyway, the “God” of Process Theology shares in the change occurring in the universe, indeed as the universe changes so does God. In this “theology” God is always changing and growing as the universe is transformed. What this means in a nutshell is that everything past and present is in God and God indwells everything. The future, in this view, is not determined but can be changed by free will. So as creatures with free will make decisions “creating” the present, the universe is changed and in turn so is God. This process of change is a defining feature of process theology (and process philosophy from which process theology is derived). Process theologians deny that God is an unchanging substance and in turn it also greatly minimizes, if not outright rejects, the importance of Christ’s work on the cross, since in their view the universe and all things in it are already an expression of God. In other words, the incarnation of Christ is meaningless, since God indwells everything anyway and expresses His love through all. The incarnation would therefore be of no value to us. In fact, the deity of Jesus Christ is rejected in this view, since we are all “God” in that we share with God the same creative energies. That is, there is no real difference between us and Jesus.

Of course, Process Theology is heretical on so many points, but most importantly on its rejection of the truth of Scriptures such as Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17, and Psalms 33:11, all of which tell us that God is unchanging. Isaiah 46:10 tells us “I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.”

Pr. Rossow –

The silly response is telling. If you want a conversation you have to assume good faith especially on a digital site where you don’t have non-verbal feedback. Positing “a critic and sophistic questions” point out what your real position on conversation is. You completely missed the tri-fecta of the worship service itself – confession/absolution, creedal confession, and the words of institution which clearly state what we believe is going on here. The questions are critical of the simplistic thinking but not sophistical.

Pr. Wilken –

Public Confession is just my point. A person in modern America, especially on the coasts, is making a public confession just by getting up on Sunday morning and going to church. What is more, that person has chosen not to go to the probably much more numerous and easily attended Calvery Chapel but has come to an LCMS church. During the worship service that person has made a confession of sin. They have made a confession of the Trinity and Jesus’ salvific work. They have also come to the rail making a public confession that they believe what has been instituted. They have made a public confession.

Are you saying that public worship is not an act of confession? So we need to create something outside of the divine service to stand for confession? Maybe we should have 33 levels of secret confessions?

The argument is in no way akin to the snarky abstinence line. Words and actions mean something. Being in worship means something. The sacrament creates a community in providing that public opportunity for confession. And if you think that even a properly catechized 8th grader has the same understanding of the mystery as the 80 year old you bring the elements to I’m not sure what to say. We ask for our daily bread. We live in confusing times. I think I’d rather lean on accepting that day’s confession and providence. And that day gives me opportunity to build a relationship and build that understanding. Lutherans are not like neo in the matrix that download in 60 seconds (or even two years) – “I know the book of concord”. Searching for the magic line of confession is a fools errand.

Mark,

You wrote: “I think I’d rather lean on accepting that day’s confession and providence.”

So, would a Baptist visiting your congregation be communed if he confessed his sins, the creed, and heard the words of institution? Would he be considered “Lutheran for a day”?

What of the public confession he makes by being a communicant member of a Baptist church every other Sunday of the year? According to that confession, he denies the body and blood of Jesus in the sacrament. That’s the public confession I’m talking about.

******

RevMill,

I don’t know how a congregation where the Pastor(s) can’t keep track of all the sheep would practice closed communion. I do know that they are still bound by Scripture to do so, though.

TW

@Mark #101

Mark,

You are missing a critical element to closed communion and that is instruction. Has the person desiring the Lord’s Supper been instructed in the Scriptures and accepts the real presence? In fact, how can a pastor know if a person has been properly instructed unless he first examines the person wanting to commune? Such an examamination isn’t had through the person’s participation in the divine service. Indeed, a pastor who thinks such participation is all that is necessary in order to commune someone has shirked his duties and is endangering people (see 1 Corinthians 11:29).

Saw this today in Christian News. This came on top of the ACELC letter at church. Hmmmmmmmmmm

http://christiannewsmo.blogspot.com/2010/07/call-for-peaceful-division.html

CALL FOR PEACEFUL DIVISION
An Open Letter to 40 Former Leaders In the LCMS, Jesus First and DayStar

Now that Matthew Harrison, whom you opposed, has defeated Jerry Kieschnick for the presidency of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the time has come for a peaceful division in the LCMS. The July 5 Christian News published a June 24 letter sent to all delegates to the LCMS’s 2010 Convention and signed by 20 former district presidents, a former synodical president and 19 other former and present leaders of the LCMS. This is the first time in the history of the LCMS that so many present and former leaders of the LCMS have asked convention delegates to vote for their candidates and oppose the candidate who received almost twice the nominations from congregations than their candidate. This unprecedented act is almost as significant in the history of the LCMS as when 45 out of 50 faculty members at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis walked off the campus of the seminary and formed Seminex. Many of the 40 signors of the letter asking delegates to vote for Kieschnick were on the side of those who formed Seminex. They were their professors. The majority of the present LCMS Council of Presidents voted for a supporter of Jesus First to be their chairman.
Several of the 40 signors are associated with Jesus First and Daystar. Christian News has frequently published the position statement of Jesus First which promotes women pastors. This year DayStar published A DayStar Reader which calls for women pastors and the teaching of evolution as a fact in the LCMS and the acceptance of homosexuals as pastors. DayStar said it sent it’s a DayStar Reader to key leaders in the LCMS including all district presidents. Some of the titles of the essays in A DayStar Reader are “A Case For Female Pastors and Theologians”, “Let’s include women” and “Teaching Evolution in a Lutheran University.” A DayStar Reader says: “For the sake of the gospel and the mission of the church, the contemporary LCMS ought to allow qualified women and men to serve as pastors and theologians. The Scriptures do not clearly prohibit women form serving in these offices” (p. 140). “It is the contention of this study that there is no ‘heavenly reason’ to exclude women form the pastoral office. . . There is no ‘earthly reasons either to persist with our present policy that needlessly discriminates against women” (152).
Resolution B (2010 – Today’s Business, p. 48), shows that Resolution 3-09 of the 1973 convention is still binding. Many of the 40 and at least some leaders of Jesus First and DayStar who defender Seminex vigorously protested against 3-09 and defended Seminex: 3-09 said the theology of those who formed Seminex is false doctrine and not to be tolerated in the LCMS.
Let us end the conservative/liberal battle. Each side should peacefully go its own way and do its mission in peace. Cool heads should be able to work out a peaceful division of assets and property according to the number of its followers. Possibly you could keep the International Center and the conservatives at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. You could take all the district office buildings since the conservatives will not need them. Their District Presidents will be pastors of congregations, the way they were they before 1960 when the LC. MS began having full time district presidents, losing members and increasing the number of bureaucrats not serving congregations from about 150 to 700. You could continue paying your president, district presidents and others in your bureaucracy several times the salary of the average pastors. Our president and district president should be paid about what the average pastor receives.
Each LCMS college could vote whether it wants to go with you or Harrison and those who elected him. All LCMS professors who do not appose evolution and women pastors could untie and teach in the same colleges. Those who oppose evolution, affirm the inerrancy of the Bible could teach in the same colleges.Christian News has repeatedly published the evidence showing that you want a church body broad enough to include on its clergy roster those who support the ordination of women, evolution, and the theology of Seminex, which the 1973 Convention said was false doctrine not to be tolerated in the LCMS. About half of you were members of the Council of Presidents which sided with Seminex and appointed an evolutionist to the CTCR. You could form your own church body or unite with ELCA or at least some conservatives in ELCA who are protesting ELCA’s stand on homosexuality but who have women pastors. Let’s end all the strife which has been going on in the LCMS. The time has come for a peaceful division.
Your church body can be part of liberal ecumenical movement with its anything goes churches like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Ours will then be free to work for a worldwide Reformation and Formula of Concord by the time of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation on October 31, 2017. This issue of Christian News includes some suggestions for such a 21st Century Formula of Concord.
During the 1970’s Christian News was accused of being the trouble maker in the LCMS responsible for the formation of Seminex and the big division in the LCMS. CN quoted I Kings 18:16, 18: “Then Ahab went to meet Elijah. When he was Elijah ,Ahab said, ‘So there you are, you troubler of Israel.’ ‘I haven’t troubled Israel,’ he answered, ‘but you and your father’s family have done it by giving up the Lords commandments and following Baal.”Christian News has not accused the present trouble and division in the LCMS anymore than it did during the 1970’s when more than 100,000 left the CLMS with the Seminex liberals you 40 present and former leaders of the LCMS who signed the letter to all LCMS convention delegates urging them to vote for Kieschnick and the Jesus First and DayStar liberals in the LCMS are responsible for the division and not trouble in LCMS. The time has come to end it with a peaceful division.If you do not agree then the time has come for some heresy trials in the LCMS. All those who want the CLMS to be open for pastors and professors who support women pastors for the CLMS and evolution should be given a fair open trial. If they do not repent of their false doctrine then they must be removed from the LCMS as resolution 3-09 of the 1973 Convention demands.

Sincerely yours,
Herman Otten,
editorChristian Newsews. Has it come to this?

@Mark #101

I neglected to thank you for your honesty (in keeping with my original post).

Although I completely disagree with you, it is refreshing to hear an LCMS pastor (presumably) admit to practicing open communion —few who do will admit it. I am sorry that you consider the practice of closed communion a “fool’s errand.”

Again, thank you for being honest.

TW

“Let us end the conservative/liberal battle. Each side should peacefully go its own way and do its mission in peace. Cool heads should be able to work out a peaceful division of assets and property according to the number of its followers.”

I have a much better set of alternatives:

1. The liberals members of the LCMS may repent of their heterodoxies and demonstrate themselves to be confessional Lutherans again (or perhaps, for the first time) within the Missouri Synod, or

2. The liberals may walk away peacefully with the shirts on their back along with the congregations that foolishly follow them, or

3. The liberals will be unceremoniously booted out of the Synod during the Harrison presidency (though it should have been done during the Preus presidency or the Barry presidency). There is no justification for any division of synodical assets by alleged cool (read “dead”) heads.

@Todd Wilken #107

Second.

@Todd Wilken #107
Thank you Todd, I wanted to post it because the timing of the letter and the paper was interesting. I was talking about it was pastor and the conclusion was huh? What now? Sorry, I was not trying to throw things off the rails.

Dear Mark (comment #91),

You wrote: “The term closed communion really needs to be defined. It is pretty easy to publish an invitation something like those who join us in confessing our sinful state, God’s forgiveness, the creed and the true body and blood are welcome in communion.”

I agree with you! “Closed communion” is poorly defined. And it is easy to publish these communion statements, but do they really do what we think they do?

The primary purpose of the synod is to maintain, preserve, and promote the “unity of doctrine.” See Constitution Article III and its original meaning (faith=doctrine=confession). There is no “unity of doctrine” if we can pick and chose a couple of, what we arbitarily decide to be “essential items” and have folks sign off on that. “Unity of doctrine” means both the unity we have as members of the church, due to our loyalty to its confessions, and also the fact that doctrine is a unitary whole, not a bunch of unrelated articles.

That is why our LCMS congregations, in older days (as evidenced in older Constitutions), used to require that their members publicly affirm the entire Small Catechism of Martin Luther as their own faith. This was presumably done either at confirmation, for youth and adult converts, or during a short rite of membership at a voter’s meeting or worship service for transfers. I think that was an excellent practice, fully in keeping with our theology.

My own practice has been to accept to the Lord’s table all LCMS Lutherans automatically; and all other Lutherans who, prior to reception of the Sacrament, will affirm verbally to me that they affirm and understand the entire Small Catechism, without any reservations. I have had to adjust my own practice to local congregation’s traditions, since I respect the authority of the voters assembly and their officers.

I assume that you, Mark, know about the Biblical and Confessional testimony to the practice of “closed communion,” which I prefer to call “informed communion.” I assume you are an LCMS pastor, and were trained in that, so I won’t reiterate that here. And I don’t want to argue about it.

“Closed communion” is both a matter of pastoral practice and a matter of the confession of the church, i.e., of the laypeople who are the church. It is an important matter for Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, other ancient churches, and Lutherans. It is not an important matter for Reformed churches, because it is just symbolic or “spiritual” to them anyway. Lutherans “show their colors” when they are concerned about “closed communion,” even though they may disagree about the best way to practice it.

Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

Regarding close or closed communion–a recent experience.

My family and I were vacationing out of town recently. I hunted for a liturgical Missouri Synod church to visit as we were staying over a Sunday. I tried the BJS registry of such churches and was unable to find one in the area. So I researched the local churches on their own websites, finding them through the local district website. This was fairly time-consuming, and did not yield any certainty. However, one local congregation described themselves as having a large grade school–usually a very good sign, IME, and having two services each Sunday. I assumed that if those services were different from each other in style, that would have been mentioned on the website. I further assumed that they were liturgical, hymnal services, since the word ‘contemporary’ did not appear on the website. Score! Our family was heartened to see that they celebrate Holy Communion on the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Sundays of each month. We resolved that we would go a little early to make sure that it was OK for us to attend communion there.

When we arrived, about 5-10 minutes before the service time, we asked whether we could go to Communion. We talked with several people before someone went and got the Pastor. Simply stating that we were Missouri Synod Lutherans was not enough to end the conversation. We told him which church we attend and which of us are confirmed and do commune. Then he OK’d us.

I liked it that the church and the pastor took their responsibility to rightfully administer the Sacrament so seriously. This is how it should be.

Todd,

I appreciate your words and admission of guilt regarding your distrust. I’m glad you are acknowledging this. One step closer. GK Chesteron once said when I asked by a reporter what the single biggest problem with the world was, His answer was”I am the biggest problem, my self.” Keep in mind I’m paraphrasing but you get the point.

Yours in Christ,
Scott+

Scott,

Yes, I do get the point.

TW

@Todd Wilken #113

I’m glad you get it, Pr. Wilken. I don’t. Oh wait, on second thought, I do. Never mind.

I do wonder if Scott gets the point of your post, though . . . I’m leaning toward a big fat no on that one.

To #111 I thank you for the comment and the detail I don’t really like to compare this but Iam thankful the clerks at store do this …they make sure of my signature on the back of my charge card. They are just checking for your benefit and theirs.

In regards to the Sacrament, it is vital (I think), for visitors & guests, to make this known to them, prior to the service. Many have not been instructed that this is right practice when visiting another congregation.
You have a 50/50 shot of them opening the bulletin. Is it just me, or have we gotten away from “proper training” for ushers? It is a wee bit more than handing the bulletin, counting heads, offering, & dismissing for the Sacrament or end of service. My Dad said once, they were the “gate keepers” of the Service.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have ushers, w/training, to ask a visitor on a Sacrament day, “Welcome, are you visiting w/us? Would you be partaking of the Sacrament w/us today?” “Wonderful, let me ask(-fill in blank here-) to come & chat w/you, we practice close Communion here.”
I think, if we just took the time, to train & instruct people who serve, quite a bit of this nonsense, in many areas, would disappear. Why? We have begun to “assume” they just know. Obviously, too many do not.

I have an elder at one of my 2 congregations, who comes out of Methodism by way of the ELCA. He doesn’t like closed communion. But he’s growing in his understanding of it, and the important need for it, and he does not fight me on it. In fact, he does what Dutch describes here, when he’s in the tiny narthex handing out bulletins. He figures he belongs to this congregation, I am the pastor and this is the practice, we do it honestly because we believe Scripture requires it for the sake of love, so he’s going to carry it out, even if he doesn’t like it. I’m very thankful for this elder.

Pastor Mueller,
I knew someone besides my Dad & the men I grew up around, had to have carried this practice on. Agree or disagree, this is what is needed, not always wanted, but needed. At my old church, only an elder headed up the usher’s “groups”. It was their charge, to instruct, train, & impart the responsiblity, being an usher, has to their congregation. Doing a task, whether elective or required, has very little to do w/agreement. Next time you see, that elder, you thank him (for me) for the weight of accountability he gives to his task. Many good men, did so, before him.

Todd,

Random question, has any thought been given to bringing on to your show those with differing viewpoints within synod? I’d been very interested in listening to that, to hear the reasoning of a Greg Bearrs.

Just wondering.

Scott+

RevMill :This is an indictment on this because I believe this practice of closed communion is widely practiced especially in many congregations with a size over 350+ worshipping members on a given weekend . . . The question is in a larger church (500+, 750+, etc). How can you make this a reality? Having served in a larger parish – while I tried to know each and every member, it is much more difficult . . . I am more asking how you can make this a greater reality the larger a congregation gets.

Perhaps the solution is simply not to have such large congregations. When it gets to the point that the pastor cannot keep tabs on every single sheep in his flock, it may be time to plant a new parish. Although it would probably reflect poor hermeneutics, it is tempting to take Luke 15:3-7 as the Lord’s prescription for the proper number that one shepherd can handle. You will notice one lamb’s absence when 99 are present and can then go after him/her, but what about when 600 worship every week – which seems like a lot – but just as many (or more) other “members” are routinely missing?

Todd,

Please answer my question, I’m very interested to know what your thoughts are on such an idea.

Scott+

Scott,

Do you think that pastors in the LCMS who believe that the Lutheran Confessions are no longer applicable, that the Word and Sacraments are insufficient to grow the Church, that Luther’s Small Catechism and Law and Gospel preaching are passé, and that closed communion is impossible would be willing to come on the show and defend their positions and practices as being Lutheran in light of the Lutheran confessions?

TW

Pr. Wilken, your reply to Scott sounds like you have long tried to attract such folks to be public and defend their practice. I would be amazed if any would be so bold as to sit down with you.

Concerning the inviting of known heretical or heterodox guests into the studio/house (even over a phone connection) to spread their false teachings, the warning command of St John in verses 10-11 of his second epistle would seem to apply.

Well…might as well ask, what have you got to lose? What if they say yes? Keep in mind, I don’t know your history involving the said people and if you’ve tried getting them on the show already.

Scott,

It depends on what people you’re talking about. My approach has always been, why talk to some LCMS pastor who is pretending to be Joel Osteen when you can talk to Osteen himself (or insert the name and error of your choice)?

TW