Inquisition time–The ACELC Chairman of the Board

February 24th, 2012 Post by

While I attended the 2nd annual Conference of the ACELC a few weeks ago I had the chance to sit down with Rev. Clint Poppe, the chairman of the board for the ACELC.  I had the chance to ask him some of the common questions/concerns that I hear others have with the group and their actions.  Hopefully this will help inform others about the ACELC.

Why did you send out the letter (fraternal admonition letter) when you did?

We were working on the letter as pastors and laity throughout the Synod and having discussions about the best way to communicate (to pastors, other publications, internet, email).  We decided that since the LCMS is congregationally based our communication should go to congregations.  We also decided that people respond better to a letter with a stamp on it.  The letter was ready to go out several months before [2010] Convention. Serious discussions were held among the formers of ACELC on the timing of sending out the letter, although there is never a bad time to make a good confession.  After visiting and consulting with many in the church body, and to avoid the appearance of politics, it was decided that the only time that we could honestly say that we were not trying to endorse a candidate or set an agenda, it was decided to send it out during the election, during the convention.  It was done precisely to avoid the appearance and charge of church politics.

Why the letter and not Dispute Resolution Process (DRP)?

One of the errors that we have pointed out is in regards to DRP.  We have officially filed 3 dissents to the CTCR.  We have worked within the system where we can and tried to point out the errors in the system where we could as well.  There were some people very recently who had gone through DRP and were faithful and conscientious in their efforts.  They went through every step meticulously, and when it came to Synodical Convention their concerns were not allowed to be heard on the convention floor.  Their concerns did not make it out of the floor committee.  Based on that recent experience some have felt that the DRP is broken and that it is simply an exit strategy out of the LCMS and we wish to remain in the LCMS.

Who gave you such authority?

We have no official standing or special ecclesiastical authority in the LCMS.  We believe that in Christian love we are our brother’s keepers and we claim no authority other than God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions.

Assoc. Editor’s Note: Pastor Poppe pointed me to the article by Rev. James Gier which the first presentation at their first national conference.  Read it here.

Often it is claimed that we should “trust” other pastors (especially in regards to worship practices), what does the ACELC say about that?

We trust that brother pastors and sister congregations will take seriously their promises made when they voluntarily joined the LCMS.  This is true koinonia and a “walking together.”  When anyone, including ourselves, violates that trust, the loving response is to point out the problem and seek reconciliation.

What about the Koinonia Project (KP) and the ACELC?

The ACELC doesn’t have an official connection with KP although we have been assured that many if not all of the errors we have identified will be addressed in the process.  When the letter was sent out, some people were pleased, others were confused or even angry about it.  The goal of the letter was to call people’s attention to the issues that are dividing our Church Body.  The letter was intended as a brotherly, fraternal letter.  That continues to be the goal of the ACELC to work within the LCMS in a brotherly, gentle but consistent way to point out the errors that seem to be dividing us and also pointing out the solution which is always Christ and His Word.

Is ACELC radical or extremist?

We have worked hard to do everything that we do in the light of day, nothing is done in secret. We have nothing to hide.  Everything ends up on the website.  If an encouragement for our brothers an sisters in the LCMS to return to God’s Word and Lutheran Confession is extreme or radical, then I guess that is what we are, we would call that being faithful.

What do you think of President Harrison?

We are 100% united in support and encouragement for President Harrison. We are ecstatic that we have a churchman, theologian, and scholar in the office of Synodical President.  We pray for him daily.  We encourage him in his role as Synodical President, that not only would he continue to do an extraordinary job in teaching and promoting the truth, but at the proper time and with his God-given authority that proper discipline be exercised as well.

There have been a lot of organizations geared towards reforming the LCMS that have popped up since the breakup of the Synodical Conference, they all came and went, is the ACELC different and why?

There have been a lot of organizations in the past 20 years that popped up time to time that have recognized some of the issues and division and have worked hard to point them out and solve them.  Many of them are no longer around because their primary focus was church politics or a particular election.  The ACELC is different.  We are not a politically motivated or generated group.  Our primary concern is theology and practice according to God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions.  We are also different in that we are not a clergy only movement, but clergy and laity working together with an eye toward congregational education and involvement.

What about starting a new synod?

The ACELC has no desire to start a new Synod.  It has never been a thought or an issue with regard to the organization. Everyone in the ACELC is a member of the LCMS.  We are Lutheran by conviction and we care about our church deeply, and grieve the sad divisions among us.  We simply strive to be good churchmen.

What would it take for the ACELC to go away?

When all of the DP’s are united that the errors the ACELC has identified are actually errors and need to be addressed on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, there would be no need for the ACELC to exist.  We are simply “barking dogs” to alert the Synod to danger.

When/Where is your next conference?

Our next conference (open for anyone who wants to attend) is April 16-18, 2013 at Trinity Lutheran in Austin, Texas.  The topic of the conference is “The Divine Service and Liturgy”






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. #4 Kitty
    February 24th, 2012 at 12:16 | #1

    Very well done. Thanks Pastor Scheer.

  2. February 24th, 2012 at 14:35 | #2

    Thanks to Pastor Poppe and others for their faithful witness. Thanks to Pastor Scheer for sharing this here. It is always a good thing for us to spur one another on to faithfulness and good works (1 Thess. 5:11, 14). May the Lord grant us all a desire for fidelity and a true delight in seeking to “walk together” in synod.

  3. Johan Bergfest
    February 24th, 2012 at 14:49 | #3

    Could it possibly be that DRP worked just the way it is supposed to and that ACELC did not get the result they were looking for because, in these matters, ACELC is the party in error?

  4. Jason
    February 24th, 2012 at 15:29 | #4

    @Johan Bergfest #3

    Thanks for putting a negative spin (or biased spin) on this. I personally don’t see the DRP capable of admonishment if those in error. Too often, little gets resolved, and errorists get protected, because of a toothless tolerant desired outcome.

  5. February 24th, 2012 at 15:39 | #5

    Johan Bergfest :
    Could it possibly be that DRP worked just the way it is supposed to and that ACELC did not get the result they were looking for because, in these matters, ACELC is the party in error?

    Not likely. And I say that not to be flip or dismissive, but because there are far too many cases where it appears that justice was NOT done, but in fact, injustice. BTW, the ACELC was party to none of the incidents referenced by Pastor Poppe, and with regard to any individual case, we have no personal dog in the fight. It is very simply our studied opinion that this process is not one anyone needs to be involved in if they are seeking a Godly outcome.

  6. Rev. Clint K. Poppe
    February 24th, 2012 at 16:22 | #6

    @Johan Bergfest #3

    Johan,

    Thanks for the question. All things are possible, but our public documents make our motives and intentions very clear. We believe everyone should get a chance to be heard, no matter if their cause or concern is seen as “Conservative” or “Liberal.” Thanks for the opportunity to make that clear once again. We trust that if we are in error in this matter the CTCR will point us to the Scriptures and Confessions so we can repent.

    In Christ, Clint

  7. Johan Bergfest
    February 24th, 2012 at 17:17 | #7

    @Rev. Drew Newman #5
    If the DRP is broken, fix it. If you have preconceived notions of the outcome of the DRP process, your expectations are broken and should be fixed. In either, case, the Admonition was an inappropriate alternative to following established process.

  8. Niemand Wichtig
    February 24th, 2012 at 18:12 | #8

    @Johan Bergfest #7

    If only Dr. Luther had followed this approach in 1520. It could have saved us from so much trouble.

  9. Monster Cable
    February 24th, 2012 at 18:36 | #9

    “What would it take for the ACELC to go away?

    When all of the DP’s are united that the errors the ACELC has identified are actually errors and need to be addressed on the basis of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, there would be no need for the ACELC to exist. We are simply “barking dogs” to alert the Synod to danger.”

    Is there any chance that some of the errors that are identified in the various ACELC evidence documents could, by actual negotiation and consensus-building, be accepted by the ACELC as valid practice? Because if there’s not – if ACELC is 100% right with no room for compromise, acceptance, consensus, or concord, then this is kind of a waste of time, in my opinion.

  10. KathyS
    February 24th, 2012 at 19:21 | #10

    Mr. Bergfest,
    How well did the DRP work in the Benke case? I’m guessing not very well at all.

  11. J. Milller
    February 24th, 2012 at 19:42 | #11

    We need more barking dogs, alerting us to false doctrine within the church of Christ. Keep up the good work, in faithfulness to God and His Word And keep holding our elected leaders accountable for discipline.

  12. February 24th, 2012 at 19:47 | #12

    Johan Bergfest :
    @Rev. Drew Newman #5
    If the DRP is broken, fix it. If you have preconceived notions of the outcome of the DRP process, your expectations are broken and should be fixed. In either, case, the Admonition was an inappropriate alternative to following established process.

    Given the evidences provided on the ACELC website, the DRP does appear to be broken and there are no preconceived notions. The admonition that the ACELC is providing is “open and above board” and will actually assist the LCMS in fixing the established process over time. Their loving approach to admonition is one that reflects Christ’s love. My God bless the effort to His glory.

  13. February 24th, 2012 at 21:11 | #13

    @Johan Bergfest #3

    Perhaps Mr. Bergfest if you have read the admonition document you can take the time to point out where the ACELC is in error about the errors pointed out?

    Another point to consider is that perhaps the actions being taken by the ACELC will actually lend themselves towards “fixing” the broken DRP.

  14. February 24th, 2012 at 21:18 | #14

    @Monster Cable #9

    I think you bring up a good point, but one that has application to the Kononia Project (KP), too. If the LCMS can’t reach a consensus regarding specific issues brought under the KP, is the KP a waste of time?

    With regard to doctrine, there can be no compromise since it isn’t our teaching, but the Lord’s. We are to be faithful to His teaching. If we are going into dialogue with others believing that we are going to compromise on doctrine, then that would be a waste of time. We would be no better off than the ELCA and a host of other denominations that have turned “truth” into a vote, or mere consensus.

  15. February 24th, 2012 at 22:28 | #15

    @#4 Kitty #1
    You are welcome.

    @Rev. Alan J. Wollenburg #2
    You are welcome.

    @Johan Bergfest #3
    Show their error please.

  16. A Beggar
    February 24th, 2012 at 22:42 | #16

    Jim Pierce :
    @Monster Cable #9
    I think you bring up a good point, but one that has application to the Kononia Project (KP), too. If the LCMS can’t reach a consensus regarding specific issues brought under the KP, is the KP a waste of time?
    With regard to doctrine, there can be no compromise since it isn’t our teaching, but the Lord’s. We are to be faithful to His teaching. If we are going into dialogue with others believing that we are going to compromise on doctrine, then that would be a waste of time. We would be no better off than the ELCA and a host of other denominations that have turned “truth” into a vote, or mere consensus.

    “Amen”! Thank you, Jim Pierce.

  17. David Rosenkoetter
    February 25th, 2012 at 01:41 | #17

    @Johan Bergfest #3

    Johan, here’s an idea. Put the ACELC documents from the website side by side with the LCMS Constitution. Do you see any difference in docttrine and practice? No. Put the errors and admonition letter side by side with the theses and antitheses mentioned in the BOC. Any differences or dissimilitude n a consistent stand of confession? No. Check the Scripture references ACELC quotes in its documents. Are they out of context? No. Being objective, I know you will find the ACELC is a welcoome and fraternal organization in the LCMS and should be treated as such. As is in the case of this blog here, the ACELC is welcoming of anyone’s questions. Ask them. May our Lord grant that through dicussions firmly based on His Word and the Lutheran Confession, we grow in our Christian unity and confession of Christ alone, our One and Only Savior.

  18. February 25th, 2012 at 07:47 | #18

    Rostered LCMS PASTOR!

    Matthew Becker has written today on ALPB:
    “What concerns me is that the LCMS is frustrating that growth by maintaining the unsupportable positions that women cannot serve as pastors because they are women and that one must reject common-sense scientific data in favor of a literalistic reading of the first chapters of Genesis. All in order to protect a very narrowly-understood notion of biblical authority.

    I am not a member of the ELCA. I am a member of the LCMS. My immediate concern is to try to help my church body avoid prolonging positions that are unsupportable in the present moment. I believe this is the responsibility that is given to one who is a doctor of theology.”

    Nothing is amiss in the LCMS ….. NOTHING IS WRONG. You are correct,
    Johan Bergfest…… Nothing needs correcting in the LCMS. NO PROBLEMS. Even the worst sinner ME can see all is OK.

  19. February 25th, 2012 at 08:02 | #19

    “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.”

  20. February 25th, 2012 at 11:29 | #20

    No one suspects the ACELC Inquisition

    :)

  21. February 25th, 2012 at 14:10 | #21

    Andrew I’ll See Your Heart And I’ll Raise You!

  22. February 25th, 2012 at 14:26 | #22

    @Mark Huntemann #21

    Very funny Mark,

    In all seriousness this is what some thought, and maybe still do,when they got the first ACELC letter…

    I only changed one word.

    “NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the BOC…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.”

    I don’t have a beef with the ACELC. Frankly I’d be more concerned if there was none of this going on. With conflict, comes a better appreciation of doctrine and unity will result.

  23. February 25th, 2012 at 15:01 | #23

    My problem is the facts that are apparent even without the ACELC pointing them out, even without BJS pointing them out, I, giving the Devil his due, sinners and all, do you not think Rostered LCMS Clergy openly preaching positions that are against the Synod’s founding confessions; Churches being sold…..I could go on but will not because I am too embarrassed to do so. The point is Either stop abuse of the Confessions or fold the LCMS and join the ELCA!

    People will be hurt in every way, either way. You have to take a stand. Thank goodness we no longer have the Spanish Inquisition. The ELCA WILL take any castoff we can provide! We do train Pastors well even the bad Pastors are Smart bad!

    In Christ Mark IXOYC

  24. February 25th, 2012 at 15:42 | #24

    When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.

    But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel,
    a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people,
    stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.

    And he said to them,

    “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men.
    For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody,
    and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him.
    He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
    After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him.
    He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

    So in the present case I tell you,

    keep away from these men and let them alone,

    for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;
    but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.
    You might even be found opposing God!”

    So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.
    (Acts 5:33-42 ESV)

  25. Daniel L. Gard
    February 25th, 2012 at 19:55 | #25

    I posted this on Facebook earlier today before reading this thread:

    No confessor of the Faith calls himself or herself that. Nor do true confessors of the Faith seek to be such. It comes upon them as a cross sent by their dear Master – and a blessed cross it is. Soli Deo Gloria!

  26. February 25th, 2012 at 20:52 | #26

    Question: Often it is claimed that we should “trust” other pastors (especially in regards to worship practices), what does the ACELC say about that?

    Answer: We trust that brother pastors and sister congregations will take seriously their promises made when they voluntarily joined the LCMS. This is true koinonia and a “walking together.” When anyone, including ourselves, violates that trust, the loving response is to point out the problem and seek reconciliation.

    My comment: Did you ever notice how the innovators don’t trust the barking dogs?

  27. Tim Klinkenberg
    February 26th, 2012 at 00:18 | #27

    @Mark Huntemann #21
    This is pretty funny and I think it’s a crack up…always love Mel Brooks, but Blazing Saddles is the best;)

  28. February 26th, 2012 at 10:56 | #28

    @Ted Crandall #26
    Pastor Crandall, with all due respect, it is less of a trust issue, but an issue of authority. The disagreement over authority is an issue that needs to be resolved.

  29. John Rixe
    February 26th, 2012 at 12:18 | #29

    @Rev. Clint K. Poppe #6

    I don’t know much about ACELC but are you folks doing anything to help save ULCMN?  I’ve seen Lutheran leaders make well-intentioned mistakes.  However, I can’t recall Lutheran leaders (MNS BOD) acting with such deliberate arrogance, deception, and secrecy.  They are the focus of evil.  Pray for them and the ULC students.  Eviction is only 63 days away.

  30. John Eberhart
    February 26th, 2012 at 20:01 | #30

    Mark Huntemann :Rostered LCMS PASTOR!
    Matthew Becker has written today on ALPB:“What concerns me is that the LCMS is frustrating that growth by maintaining the unsupportable positions that women cannot serve as pastors because they are women and that one must reject common-sense scientific data in favor of a literalistic reading of the first chapters of Genesis. All in order to protect a very narrowly-understood notion of biblical authority.
    I am not a member of the ELCA. I am a member of the LCMS. My immediate concern is to try to help my church body avoid prolonging positions that are unsupportable in the present moment. I believe this is the responsibility that is given to one who is a doctor of theology.”
    Nothing is amiss in the LCMS ….. NOTHING IS WRONG. You are correct,Johan Bergfest…… Nothing needs correcting in the LCMS. NO PROBLEMS. Even the worst sinner ME can see all is OK.

    Not LCMS position. Jesus First or Daystar

  31. GaiusKurios
    February 27th, 2012 at 18:06 | #31

    Matthew Becker claims, “…the LCMS is frustrating that growth by maintaining the unsupportable positions that women cannot serve as pastors…..” My question to Mr Becker is, show me all the growth in the denominations that approve of women’s ordaination. I know the Episcopal church just fell below the 2 million member mark domestically in the past year. The E?CA keeps declining. Other denomiations who have women’s ordiantion likewise are showing declines. So Mr. Becker where are these denominations that are growing because they have women’s ordaination?

  32. February 27th, 2012 at 19:50 | #32

    @Andrew #28

    Are you talking about the authority of God’s Word (which is denied by LCMS men we are supposed to be able to trust — men like “Pastor” Becker) or are you talking about the authority of one pastor exhorting another to faithfulness — and being confronted with the cry, “You’re not the boss of me!”

  33. Lumpenkönig
    February 27th, 2012 at 22:54 | #33

    It definitely is inquisition time! The cat has finally been let out of the bag. Please ask the most prominent Willow Creek LCMS Lutherans to explain this to us. I eagerly await their feedback:

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslims-341669-warren-saddleback.html

    Behold, another promoter of Universal Salvation stands before us!

  34. February 27th, 2012 at 22:55 | #34

    @Ted Crandall #32
    Pastor Crandall,
    To answer both questions, yes. Both extremes you mentioned are related.

  35. February 28th, 2012 at 06:12 | #35

    @Andrew #34

    “The Rev. Rick Warren…proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.”

    That’s not such a leap when you consider many Baptist and Lutheran pastors are teaching that today’s Jews also worship the same God Christians do.

    If we are all worshipping the same God, then I have to ask: When did unconverted Jews and Muslims start worshipping Jesus of Nazareth as God the Son?

  36. John Rixe
    February 28th, 2012 at 08:14 | #36

    @John Rixe #29

    No response.  I guess ACELC doesn’t deal in urgent, critical matters.

    I respect BJS for not hesitating to confront tough, complicated, important issues.  BJS did a great job in surfacing the ULC crisis and communicating it throughout the synod.  BJS also helped raise substantial funds to aid ULC in reacquiring its property or relocating.  

  37. Rev. Clint K. Poppe
    February 28th, 2012 at 08:58 | #37

    @John Rixe #36

    John,

    Sorry I missed your earlier post and question. The ACELC has been criticized for having too much on our plate with our ten areas of identified errors. We have responded that while it is indeed a big load, each of these are urgent, critical matters. The very sad situation concerning the ULC is not an isolated incident, but symptomatic of what can happen when things are allowed to drift from God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions. You say that you are not too familiar with the ACELC. I would encourage you to read our admonition and errors documents. http://www.acelc.net/message2.php?topicID=6891&
    Several of the areas that we have identified seem to be addressing at least part of ULC crisis, including but not limited to number 7, The unbiblical Removal of Pastors from their calls, number 9, Ecclesiastical Supervision, number 10, Dispute Resolution, and from what I understand as a primary concern of those opposed to ULC, number 3, the Divine Service and Liturgical Offices. At our recent Conference, we had information available for those who were uninformed about the situation and contact information for any who wished to contribute. We would have been happy to have someone address the gathered assembly with additional information, but no one asked.

    John, what more would you have us do?

    In Christ, Clint

  38. Noreen Linke
    February 28th, 2012 at 11:31 | #38

    @Rev. Clint K. Poppe #37
    Pastor Poppe,

    I am so sorry to read that the ULC situation could have been addressed at the recent ACELC conference. I did not think it was appropriate to distract from the agenda at hand, so I did not inquire. I was in attendance at the conference, and I also was part of the National Leadership Team assembled to execute ULC’s Capital Campaign. Well, technically I still am. I am also a friend to ULC’s pastor and congregation. I remain closely involved in the process. I have had two daughters who were members there. My oldest daughter and her husband are currently members there. They were married in that chapel last April. Our entire family has benefitted and been blessed by the ministry carried out at ULC. When the sale contract was signed by the MNS BOD, that was the final straw that led me to become part of ACELC.

    Just as a point of correction from your post, the unbiblical removal of pastors from their calls does not apply in the ULC MN situation. Pastor Kind is not being removed from his call and the congregation is not being dissolved. The issue is the unjust and sinful selling off of their building and property, making them homeless, as well as the other items you mentioned.

  39. John Rixe
    February 28th, 2012 at 11:46 | #39

    @Rev. Clint K. Poppe #37

    I apologize for my too hasty conclusion.

  40. Rev. Clint K. Poppe
    February 28th, 2012 at 12:55 | #40

    @Noreen Linke #38

    It is always difficult to make good use of time when you have a tight schedule like we did at our conference. The Augustana Ministerium had a booth and asked for a few minutes to speak at our Thursday morning business meeting. I made the decision to allow their representative a few minutes to speak. I am sure I would have made the same decision regarding the ULC situation. Feel free to contact me directly to see what we might be able to do on the ACELC website. pastorpoppe@goodshepherdlincoln.org

    In Christ, Pastor Poppe

  41. Rev. Clint K. Poppe
    February 28th, 2012 at 12:58 | #41

    @John Rixe #39

    John, dear brother in Christ, apology accepted!

    Please forgive me for not seeing your earlier post and responding sooner.

    In Chris, Clint

  42. John Rixe
    February 28th, 2012 at 13:56 | #42

    Please keep the campus ministries at UCLA, UCSD, and ASU in your prayers this morning. The future of campus ministry in the Pacific Southwest District is up for discussion by the district’s Board of Directors. Lord, have mercy!

  43. February 28th, 2012 at 15:48 | #43

    Seeing here an opportunity to make a shameless plug . . . Thought you ought to know that the DVD video set featuring all the papers, “table talk” sessions and sermons from the 2012 ACELC Theological Conference is now available for purchase from the Lutheran Catechetical Society website, http://www.thelcs.org/Presentations.html (it’s listed at the very bottom of the page). In addition, we have posted a short YouTube video featuring excerpts from this year’s Conference on our own Website, http://www.acelc.net. It shows the quality of the video with various snippets of what you can expect when you order it. Good stuff!

  44. February 28th, 2012 at 22:36 | #44

    @Ted Crandall #35
    That is one authority problem, there seem to be several, including at least three views of worship.

  45. II John
    March 7th, 2012 at 11:19 | #45

    @Noreen Linke #38
    The MNS-BOD and administration may not be trying to remove Rev. Kind from his call, but they are demonstrating a willingness to interfere with it. I say this because they are more than ready to bring in other folks to conduct this ministry even though Rev. Kind is the one rightly called to do so. Interference with the divine call is a serious problem in the MN-South district.

  46. Noreen Linke
    March 7th, 2012 at 11:36 | #46

    @II John #45
    No argument here with your statement. We just have to be very clear and precise when we talk about it, and I was just clarifying that Pastor Kind was not being removed from his call, per se. The whole thing makes me absolutely sick on every level, top to bottom. Thanks for commenting as you make a very good point.

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.