Steadfast WELS — It begins on paper

February 23rd, 2012 Post by

I’ve been graciously asked to bring a little bit of WELS history and an occasional WELS perspective to the Steadfast readers. I’m quite sure most of my brothers in the WELS would agree that I’m not exactly your stereotypical (or even typical) WELS pastor. There. Now you know. This should be interesting.

Let’s begin with the most important thing in the Holy Christian Church on earth – numbers.

Here’s how the WELS looks on paper:

  • Congregational membership: 389,545
  • Churches: 1279
  • Elementary Schools:334
  • Pastors: 1305
  • Teachers: 1846
  • Staff ministers: 106
  • The synod operates one seminary, one pastor/teacher training college and two prep schools.
  • Congregations also support 23 Lutheran high schools and 1 Lutheran college.

A few other pieces of trivia:

  • Practically all our churches used TLH from roughly 1941-1993. A few still do. Most of the rest use Christian Worship. Others “improvise.”
  • Twice-a-month Communion is by far the most common practice.
  • For ministry, most pastors wear a business suit. Some wear a polo shirt. A very few renegades use a collar.
  • For worship, most pastors vest in alb and stole or Geneva and stole. Some wear shirt and tie. A very few don a chasuble. A growing number wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.

One more thing. Like Missouri, the WELS maintains, on paper, a quia (“because it’s true”) subscription to the Book of Concord.

On paper, the Wisconsin Synod, since its very beginning in 1850, has subscribed to the entire Book of Concord, although it’s no secret that the paper hasn’t always matched the reality.

The WELS as it exists today is the result of a 1917 merger of the Synods of Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin. The beginnings of the original Wisconsin Synod are quite different from the beginnings of the Missouri Synod. Whereas it was confessional resistance against the Prussian Union that brought the founders of the Missouri Synod from Germany to the United States, the Wisconsin Synod came into existence through the efforts of German mission societies that were content to live with the Lutheran-Reformed compromise for the sake of “evangelism.”

So Missouri represented the “Old Lutherans” who wanted strict adherence to the Lutheran Confessions, while Wisconsin was content to be identified with the “New Lutherans” who didn’t want to be so constrained by 16th Century dogmatic formulations that were written to wage 16th Century doctrinal battles.

And yet, when it came time to organize the synod on paper, it began pretty well.

The 1850 founding constitution of the Wisconsin Synod includes confessional provisions like the following: All congregational arrangements must be “in harmony with the pure Word of the Bible and the Confessions of our Evangelical Lutheran Church.”

What began well on paper didn’t really describe the reality for many years to come. It was a confessional ideal held by some, but not by others, including the synod’s first president, Rev. John Muehlhaeuser, who (unofficially) scribbled out all references in the constitution to confessional writings and replaced them with such wordings as “pure Bible Christianity” and “pure Bible Word.”

But the paper beginning still mattered. Rev. John Bading, the second president of the Wisconsin Synod, admonished his brothers in 1862, “It is one thing to have the truly pure doctrine on paper and another thing to possess it in one’s own clear understanding and one’s own childlike faith.” Eventually the conviction of “Old Lutheranism” grew from minority status to majority status, and by 1872, the synod would come around to embrace what was written on paper at the beginning, encouraged also by faithful men in the Missouri Synod to understand that “Old Lutheran” = the catholic faith = the Gospel of Jesus Christ purely taught.

Now, a synod cannot appeal solely to paper to prove its orthodoxy. Novel synodical statements or practices may well overshadow or even contradict what’s written in the foundational documents. A synod can only claim to be as orthodox as the least orthodox teacher or teaching it chooses to tolerate.

But it begins on paper. As long as the foundational documents are recognized as binding, there is hope for profitable discussion. A common confession about the role of inspired Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions can be the starting point for much fruitful dialogue among Lutherans, both the intra- and the inter-synodical kind.

Ultimately, it is my hope and prayer that all Lutherans, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, can find their way back, in humble and steadfast faith, not just to the beginning of the Synodical Conference or of synods at all, but to the beginning of the Lutheran Church itself – all the way back to Concord. That’s some sturdy paper to begin with.

 

 

Associate Editor’s Note:  With this posting Pastor Rydecki joins the writing crew here at BJS in a segment called “Steadfast WELS”.  Pr. Rydecki recently was given the honor of the “Sabre of Boldness” from Gottesdienst.

Rev. Paul Rydecki is originally from Stevensville, Michigan. Although baptized in the LC-MS, he joined a WELS congregation with his parents at an early age. He graduated from Northwestern College in 1995 and from Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in 2000, when he was ordained and commissioned as a world missionary to Puerto Rico. After four years in Puerto Rico and three in Mexico, Rev. Rydecki accepted a call in 2007 to Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where he now lives with his wife, Amy, and his four sons, Nathan, Jacob, Samuel and Lucas.

We are glad that in an age where LCMS folks are free conferencing with WELS folks to also have some of that same discussion here at BJS.  As you can see from his clerical shirt and collar, he is a “renegade” according to his description of clergy in the WELS.  Should fit in well with some of the sorts here.






Rules for comments on this site:


Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.


Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.


Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.


If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.


Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.


Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.


We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. February 23rd, 2012 at 23:58 | #1

    Thank you Paul for posting – welcome aboard. Something you wrote scares me –
    “A synod can only claim to be as orthodox as the least orthodox teacher or teaching it chooses to tolerate.” It is good to be hearing from someone outside of Missouri on this.

  2. mbw
    February 23rd, 2012 at 23:59 | #2

    Very informative article. I had no idea of most of this. Thank you!

  3. Chryst
    February 24th, 2012 at 00:18 | #3

    So what, do you think, is the reason that so many WELS pastors eschew the clergy collar in favor of the tie?

  4. Pastor Paul Rydecki
    February 24th, 2012 at 01:44 | #4

    There are many reasons. Take your pick from those below. These all reflect real sentiments in the WELS, but they’re stated a bit tongue-in-cheek. No offense intended!

    Top Ten Reasons why so many WELS pastors eschew the clergy collar in favor of the tie:
    10) We’re very traditional in the WELS. (Tradition = what I’m used to)

    9) If I wear a collar, someone might actually call me “Father.” Then lightning would be sure to strike me dead.

    8 ) We’re afraid people we meet on the street might know we’re pastors. We prefer stealth mode.

    7) Because uniforms get in the way of our rugged individualism.

    6) Can’t be “all things to all men” wearing a collar. Because that’s exactly what St. Paul was referring to. Exactly.

    5) Decades ago, the collar used to be eschewed by confessionals and embraced by liberal Lutherans. Nobody bothered to inform us when that changed.

    4) Why distinguish the pastor as minister when every member is a minister?

    3) Seriously, why distinguish the pastor as minister when every member is a minister?

    2) It’s too Missourian.

    1) It’s too Catholic.

  5. boaz
    February 24th, 2012 at 04:01 | #5

    “A synod can only claim to be as orthodox as the least orthodox teacher or teaching it chooses to tolerate.”

    Exactly right. Which is why it is an utter scandal that the Pr. Becker has not been removed from the roster.

  6. February 24th, 2012 at 06:11 | #6

    Thank you, Pastor Rydecki, and welcome aboard! Considering their “rigid” reputation, I never would have guessed WELS was founded on being content to live with the Lutheran-Reformed compromise for the sake of “evangelism.”

    When I was a Navy chaplain (LCMS) at Parris Island, the senior chaplain (Southern Baptist) called me for some insight on a pastor (WELS) who was coming to visit his Marine recruit. My Baptist boss was really worried, because he had heard a few things about Wisconsin. Being the nice guy I am, I did my best to put him at ease.

    I said to him, “Well, you know what they say about the LCMS?”

    Nervously he stammered, “Yes…”

    “Well, it’s TRUE about the Wisconsin Synod!”

    When I greeted the WELS pastor at the gate to Parris Island and led him to his recruit/parishioner, we had a really good laugh together over that story.

  7. Noreen
    February 24th, 2012 at 08:04 | #7

    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #1
    Yes. That was the EXACT sentence that caught my attention as the quotable sentence of the article. That is why all this matters so much.

  8. February 24th, 2012 at 08:04 | #8

    Some links for WELS :

    Face book fans go here:

    http://www.facebook.com/welslutherans

    WELS WEB PAGE :

    http://www.wels.net/

    Welcome! Mark. IXOYC

  9. February 24th, 2012 at 08:18 | #9
  10. Dennis Peskey
    February 24th, 2012 at 09:44 | #10

    From one Upper (Kingsford) to another, welcome aboard.
    Pax,
    Dennis

  11. Rev. James Schulz
    February 24th, 2012 at 10:10 | #11

    Here’s a WELS Q&A that catches the spirit of WELS vs. LCMS:

    Wir sind von dem Wisconsin Synode; wir machen kein “show.” “We’re from the Wisconsin Synod; we don’t make a show.”

    http://arkiv.lbk.cc/faq/site.pl@1518cutopic_topicid65cuitem_itemid2095.htm

  12. February 24th, 2012 at 10:17 | #12

    @Chryst #3
    If I may add a little less tongue-in-cheek response to Pastor Rydecki’s very able response to your question about why WELS pastors generally don’t wear the collar, there is a historical factor that I have found many in the LCMS (WELS, too) are unaware of.

    And that is that the clerical collar we’re used to today has not been the “uniform” of confessional Lutheran clergy for a very long time at all. As the 20th century moved into its first decades, the common “beffchen” worn by most Synodical Conference pastors (according to the pictures I’ve seen) was becoming less popular and was being replaced by the formal attire of the day, the tie. Around the middle of the century, some Lutheran pastors of the Synodical Conference began to adopt the clerical collar that the Anglican/Episcopalian and the Roman clergy wore (and that was already being adopted by other American Lutherans). Pr. Rydecki’s reason 5 correctly notes that it was the more liberal-leaning pastors and professors of the LCMS who were the first, which certainly added a disincentive to its adoption by what we might call the “anti-liberal” pastors in the Synodical Conference.

    The basic truth, however, is that the pastors of the LCMS gradually adopted the clerical collar over the last half of the 20th century, to the point where it became seen as the normal “uniform” of the clergy (especially those more “confessionally” and “liturgically” minded), but that this simply never happened in the WELS. Certainly the reasons Pr. Rydecki gives all play in to one extent or the other, but my point is that the collar has, historically, never been “normal” for our pastors or a part of our congregational/synodical culture. Thus the situation in our synod is roughly the opposite of yours: the man choosing the collar in the WELS is departing from tradition/the norm, while the man choosing the tie in the LCMS is departing from tradition/the norm.

    Just an anecdote you might find interesting: The walls of the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary classrooms and halls are filled with pictures of the graduating classes, all the way back to the beginning. Somewhere in the early 60s (could be the late 50s, but I don’t think so), the picture of one graduate has been altered: for whatever reason (I have no knowledge of why), he had chosen to wear a clerical collar for his photo, and his classmates apparently took it upon themselves to take pen and ink and draw in a tie for him. The collar, with its then-current connection to liberal theology and practice, was a “habit” they were yet unwilling to have associated with their class or the WELS pastorate.

    (And wrap your mind around this: I have published comments from the 1950s from the orthodox Lutherans (non-WELS) condemning the wearing of the alb as a sure sign of liberalism and, therefore, affirming the wearing of a Geneva gown as a sign of orthodoxy. Things have changed!)

  13. February 24th, 2012 at 15:38 | #13

    Very interesting indeed. I always thought there was more in common with the history of the LCMS with WELS than there appears to be. Both churches do one thing in common with authentic Christianity. They both proclaim Christ crucified!

  14. February 24th, 2012 at 17:11 | #14

    @Pastor Joshua Scheer #1
    That’s exactly the statement that jumped out at me. I feel no denomination does very well by those standards, and though new to the LCMS, I’d wager it cooks our goose as well.

  15. Mary Johnson
    February 24th, 2012 at 21:37 | #15

    Pastor Joshua Scheer :Thank you Paul for posting – welcome aboard. Something you wrote scares me -“A synod can only claim to be as orthodox as the least orthodox teacher or teaching it chooses to tolerate.” It is good to be hearing from someone outside of Missouri on this.

    Bingo, I third or fourth is (whichever it is by now). Scary indeed! Reflections on Matt Becker come to mind.

  16. February 24th, 2012 at 22:35 | #16

    @Pastor Paul Rydecki #4
    Awesome list…

  17. Nathan R.
    February 25th, 2012 at 08:22 | #17

    Thank you Pastor Rydecki for your contribution. I look forward to reading posts from a WELS point of view. Interesting to me that most wear a business suit – I personally love when pastors rock a sweet vestment. My wife grow up CLC and I grew up ELCA – we are now both LCMS – do you know anything of the relationship between WELS and the CLC? thanks

  18. Pastor Paul Rydecki
    February 25th, 2012 at 18:36 | #18

    @Nathan R. #17
    I’m afraid I don’t know about any recent dialogues between WELS and CLC. The last I remember hearing (several years ago) was that doctrinal committees from both synods sat down and agreed that they had no doctrinal differences. But the CLC still didn’t want to restore fellowship until the WELS would admit it waited too long to break fellowship with the LC-MS back in 1961. I admit my knowledge of the CLC is limited, having never lived or served near one of their congregations.

  19. Rev. Clint Hoff
    February 25th, 2012 at 19:03 | #19

    Great little article Pastor Rydecki, thanks for posting.

  20. February 25th, 2012 at 21:51 | #20

    @Pastor Paul Rydecki #4

    You ask (twice), “Why distinguish the pastor as minister when every member is a minister?”

    Around here, nobody misses that point, but they sometimes need a little help distinguishing the pastor from the sheep.

  21. Pastor Paul Rydecki
    February 25th, 2012 at 22:20 | #21

    @Ted Crandall #20
    Sounds like two sides of the same coin.

  22. Wallenstein
    February 26th, 2012 at 15:05 | #22

    @Pastor Paul Rydecki #18
    What a silly formality. Admitting that they waited too long to break fellowship with the LCMS 50+ years ago sounds like an easy way for the WELS to re-absorb the CLC. Someone over in WELS should publish a letter and be done with it.

  23. February 26th, 2012 at 16:17 | #23

    Pastor Rydecki, do the members tend to call their pastor by his first name or “Pastor”? First name would seem to be more in keeping with the goal of not distinguishing the pastor as minister when every member is a minister.

  24. Rev. James Schulz
    February 26th, 2012 at 17:10 | #24

    @Ted Crandall #23

    From my vantage point, I’m hearing more pastors referred to as “Pastor first name” and I’m seeing more pastors leave the pulpit (with or without gown on) to wander the aisle while preaching. In my opinion these are signs of a shift in philosophy of ministry in WELS.

    Pastor “Ski” of the CORE http://www.gotocore.com is considered the cutting edge in WELS. He is a frequent presenter at various conferences to teach his philosophy of ministry.

  25. February 26th, 2012 at 18:15 | #25

    @Rev. James Schulz #24

    I just checked out that site — very trendy! I dug a little and found an explicit reference to the Lutheran Confessions (endorsing them), but I really had to search for the word Lutheran anywhere. That I find annoying, but I was pleased to see solid Lutheran teaching — even if any connection to Lutheran seems studiously avoided.

  26. Rev. James Schulz
    February 26th, 2012 at 18:37 | #26

    @Ted Crandall #25

    “Time of Grace” http://www.timeofgrace.org is fast becoming the face and philosophy of the WELS. Pastor Jeske’s philosophy of ministry can be seen in these “Change or Die” conferences for which he served as moderator:

    2011:

    http://www.siebertfoundation.org/pdfs/Change%20or%20Die%20Brochure%202011%20-%20FINAL%20EDITION.pdf

    2012:

    http://tentalentsforchrist.com/#/change-or-die-conference

    By the way, Time of Grace applied for and received LCMS RSO status.

  27. CDJ
    February 26th, 2012 at 18:43 | #27

    I was under the impression that Rev Jeske and TOG were under disciplinary review for the LCMS RSO status. At least I thought I had read something to that effect a while back on LutherQuest.

  28. Rev. James Schulz
    February 26th, 2012 at 18:52 | #28

    @CDJ #27
    Word on the street is that the praesidium of the WELS Southeastern Wisconsin District, which has oversight of Pastor Jeske and Time of Grace, does not see a conflict with the RSO status. It is my understanding that Presidents Schroeder and Harrison will be meeting to hash it out.

    Official word at conferences is “we’re working on it.” It has been explained that from the LCMS point of view RSO status really doesn’t mean anything, so it really does no harm to have LCMS RSO status for a WELS ministry.

  29. J. Milller
    February 26th, 2012 at 19:30 | #29

    How many WELS pastors have left for LCMS in recent years, due to doctrinal and practical issues? Or, another way of putting it, how many WELS pastors would like to leave WELS for the same reasons now? Is it true that WELS will have women pastors before they will let women vote? Their doctrine of the ministry isn’t Confessional, that’s for sure.

  30. Rev. James Schulz
    February 26th, 2012 at 20:05 | #30

    @J. Milller #29

    Have you ever heard the saying, “The LCMS is six times bigger than WELS, six times better than WELS, and six times worse than WELS”?

    I think it’s that “worse” part – real or imagined – that plays a role in keeping some WELS pastors put.

    Re: “How many WELS pastors have left for LCMS in recent years,” I wonder if there is a record somewhere that would reveal that statistic.

  31. J. Milller
    February 26th, 2012 at 20:55 | #31

    Check the records at the purple palace to determine prior affiliation of pastors who converted to LCMS. Can someone like the secretary at hq provide this? Thanks. And, perhaps somebody in the WELS headquarters could provide the same information for pastors who have left WELS for other churches. Was this information provided at the recent WELS/LCMS conference on fellowship talks?

  32. Wallenstein
    February 26th, 2012 at 21:40 | #32

    Rev. James Schulz :
    @Ted Crandall #25
    “Time of Grace” http://www.timeofgrace.org is fast becoming the face and philosophy of the WELS. Pastor Jeske’s philosophy of ministry can be seen in these “Change or Die” conferences for which he served as moderator:
    2011:
    http://www.siebertfoundation.org/pdfs/Change%20or%20Die%20Brochure%202011%20-%20FINAL%20EDITION.pdf
    2012:
    http://tentalentsforchrist.com/#/change-or-die-conference
    By the way, Time of Grace applied for and received LCMS RSO status.

    Of course. Pastors Jeske and “Ski” are leading the Church Growth Movement in the WELS. WELS considers it a sin to pray with other Christians outside of their fellowship; however, it is “ok” to import evangelical worship and study materials. The contradiction is intriguing. “Change or Die!” is a popular WELS slogan among their “missional” people. WELS has its worship wars, too.

    RSO status means that “Time of Grace” can ask for (and receive) funding from the LCMS. Some WELS pastors receive money from the LCMS. Someone at LCMS headquarters should be able to provide us with a dollar amount. Since there is no fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS, how does the LCMS justify giving money to support “Time of Grace.”

  33. Jean
    February 26th, 2012 at 21:41 | #33

    The CLC also states that it is wrong to be a Thrivent member. The WELS does not share this view. See http://clclutheran.org/shared/thoughtdocs/welsclc.htm

  34. Wallenstein
    February 26th, 2012 at 23:01 | #34

    As Thrivent gives money to radical groups within the ELCA, I can understand the position of the CLC.

  35. Jean
    February 26th, 2012 at 23:24 | #35

    as well as non-lutheran groups such as Salvation Army & Habitat for Humanity among others. My personal opinion is that there were some WELS churches that relied on (esp back when it was AAL) the matching donations as primary funding rather than supplemental funding. The church became salespeople to their members encouraging Thrivent membership in order to get matching funds. I can’t say I fully disagree with the CLC.

  36. February 27th, 2012 at 06:05 | #36

    Wallenstein :

    Rev. James Schulz :@Ted Crandall #25 “Time of Grace” http://www.timeofgrace.org is fast becoming the face and philosophy of the WELS. Pastor Jeske’s philosophy of ministry can be seen in these “Change or Die” conferences for which he served as moderator:2011:http://www.siebertfoundation.org/pdfs/Change%20or%20Die%20Brochure%202011%20-%20FINAL%20EDITION.pdf2012:http://tentalentsforchrist.com/#/change-or-die-conferenceBy the way, Time of Grace applied for and received LCMS RSO status.

    Of course. Pastors Jeske and “Ski” are leading the Church Growth Movement in the WELS.
    RSO status means that “Time of Grace” can ask for (and receive) funding from the LCMS…Since there is no fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS, how does the LCMS justify giving money to support “Time of Grace.”

    Yes, especially when their website has absolutely no reference to Lutheran. I guess that’s part of their “change or die” survival plan…

  37. Jason
    February 27th, 2012 at 07:30 | #37

    @Wallenstein #34

    Being a Thrivent leader for six years now (congregational and chapter leader) I have noticed a few entities that I object giving money to receive, as well as some the LC-MS would like to support but have been denied. So I think there have been a handful of questionable decisions made, and they seem to get worse the further up the food change you go.

  38. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2012 at 11:02 | #38

    @Rev. James Schulz #28
    Of course not. WELS broke with LC-MS afterall…

  39. Rev. James Schulz
    February 27th, 2012 at 11:25 | #39

    @Joe Krohn #38

    That’s interesting. So, because WELS broke from LCMS, but LCMS did not break from WELS, LCMS approves of WELS (Time of Grace RSO), cooperates with WELS (Bethesda, etc.), even communes WELS (so I’ve heard). Therefore, some in WELS are saying re Time of Grace RSO status, “We don’t want your official approval because we don’t approve of you.”

  40. Jean
    February 27th, 2012 at 12:00 | #40

    Is it just the RSO status in objection or is that just the biggest factual proof? Is there anything objectionable in the Time of Grace “sermon” messages?

    If it is because of speaking engagements at various LCMS churches by TOG, how is that much different than having a WELS pastor blogging with LCMS pastors on this LCMS focused website? Besides the title “Change or Die”, the conference is also objectionable due to the fact it is bringing together Pastors of various congregations that are not in fellowship and promoting use of their techniques across synod lines. On the opposite side of the coin are pastors uniting across synod lines to promote confessional Lutheranism. I can see many people wondering how the two sides are really not that much different.

  41. Rev. James Schulz
    February 27th, 2012 at 12:09 | #41

    @Jean #40

    I doubt that Pastor Jeske has or will preach on the following subjects in any of his Time of Grace broadcasts:

    1) The “unit concept” of Church Fellowship
    2) The Office of the Holy Ministry
    3) Women’s suffrage in the church

    In my opinion, the main problem with the “Change or Die” conferences is the premise that numerically growing churches are somehow more faithful than numerically declining churches. Also, that Pastor Jeske as a representative of WELS takes a leading role in these conferences. Is WELS taking the lead in promoting Church Growth methodologies?

  42. J. Milller
    February 27th, 2012 at 12:18 | #42

    You know what is said about WELS as compared to LCMS? WELS is six times smaller than LCMS, six times better than LCMS, and six times worse than LCMS. Puff on that one for some time.

  43. Tom
    February 27th, 2012 at 13:08 | #43

    Judge the merits of each pastor in LCMS and WELS on its own. There are good and bad in each. Some are faithful. Some are not. Pedigree and brand label are not indicators of faithfulness.

  44. Dutch
    February 27th, 2012 at 13:10 | #44

    I always, have found it interesting, that regarding WELS/ELS the women voting thing, is generally brought up….by a suffergette, or a guy.

    I don’t miss it, had it for decades in LCMS, & don’t miss it one wit. I have a voice, it’s so very much heard, I don’t need to say yea or nay, or raise an arm, to have a voice, for anyone to see my talents, gifts, or anything I have been given could offer?

    A vote is a one time thing, my voice, is quite different. And that voice, is valued & heard, in WELS, just as it was in LCMS.

  45. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2012 at 13:12 | #45

    @Rev. James Schulz #39
    I would say you are correct. After our involuntary dismissal from WELS, we approached our current LC-MS pastor about attending Holy Communion and becoming members. After qualifying that we believed in the Real Presence and not receptionism (apparently this is a problem in some ‘Lutheran’ circles) , he had no problem communing us. He quipped that it was WELS that broke fellowship with Missouri afterall. I would assume LC-MS feels similarly about many issues regarding WELS.

  46. Dutch
    February 27th, 2012 at 13:35 | #46

    Joe # 44
    That’s what we heard, when we were chased out of LCMS for defending the Solas, Concord, Confessions, & Liturgy.

    I’ve read what has been done to you, by your own site & others.
    Please don’t compromise what those in 2 Synods, have endured, to bring Ichabod to BJS. Joe, both Synods, & those in them, have bigger battles to fight, than those quibbled on by a synod, unto it’s own, proclaimed & supported, unto it’s self.

    This is bigger than ego, and names, this is souls here. Keep Ichabod over there, don’t bring it here or to Intrepid.

  47. Joe Krohn
    February 27th, 2012 at 13:43 | #47

    @Dutch #45
    If I am in error on something, by all means tell me. Otherwise, I really don’t see the point to your comment nor do I understand what you are trying to say.

  48. Dutch
    March 12th, 2012 at 09:36 | #48

    Joe K,
    That really depends on what site we’re chatting about or on. I visit IL & Ichabod.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.