Is it possible to have in pdf format for easier forwarding and study?

I have some serious concerns about some of the content in Dr. Baue’s document posted here. I hope to respond with some detail a little later. There are some points where I think he has gone beyond our confessions. I am also troubled by his affiliation with Society of the Holy Trinity (STS), as it includes women pastors of the ELCA. There are more faithful alternatives to STS.

Regarding Dr. Baue’s Lutheran Manifesto:

His keen intellect and ability in literature has produced a fine work in English. I do not question Dr. Baue’s intentions in the slightest. They are noble and pastoral in the genuine sense. There is very much in his document that is commendable, well-argued, insightful, and applicable to the day.

However, I do have a few concerns to raise here in terms of process and content.

1.Most documents of this nature are produced not by personal impetus but by a segment of the ministerium in collaboration. Neither That They May Be One, nor the Consensus call to repentance nor, the Augustana Ministerium statement on the ministry were composed or refined by a single person acting solo. I realize that Dr. Baue solicited some advice before releasing his document to the internet, but I think broader involvement might have produced something a bit more efficient.

2. We simply do not need another set of grievances or theses or an addendum to our confessions. Our own synod has notoriously also piled multiple layers of statements, studies, resolutions, 19th century kirche und amt debates, CTCR documents, and CCM rulings on top of Scripture, and our Lutheran Confessions. We simply need to return to those documents. We have a proliferation and inflation of these things already. Simply, proper practice of fellowship and pastoral exercise of the keys is called for in many situations.

3. Dr. Baue’s statement that, “We also reject factionalism in the church, especially the politicization of the Lutheran churches by theological liberals, as well as the divisive spirit that fragments the confessional movement,” attempts to be balanced but falls short because it speaks more to movements than to confession. Fragmentation in “the confessional movement” is largely on theological grounds. While a few may separate for personal reasons, I do not think we should question theological motives in these cases.

4. Dr. Baue’s statement that, “Accordingly, we reject all the heresies that Article I rejects, as well as more recent errors such as Feminism, especially in its promotion of abortion on demand, advocacy of women’s ordination, and “inclusive” language,[iii] which undermines the doctrine of the Trinity,” is commendable, and then one wonders why he associates with the Society of the Holy Trinity, which includes women pastors of the ELCA. To voluntarily join that society knowing what is included therein is perplexing.

5. The article on sin is well stated, but superfluous, given the simplicity of our Concordia.
Baue writes in Thesis Four, “Accordingly, the use of the crucifix in church art and furnishings is to be encouraged.” Then in Thesis Six Baue writes, “By the same token we condemn the arrogance by which a pastor presumes to be a dictator, lording it over his congregation even in matters of adiaphora (matters in which Scripture neither commands nor forbids).” We confess in Augsburg Confession and Apology XXIV that we seek to maintain and religiously defend the historic Western Mass and what goes along with its usual practice, carefully reformed under justification by grace alone. More than one pastor has heard a district president say, “That’s an adiaphoron — you can’t do that.” Acknowledging matters of genuine offense, as opposed to taking offense, Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII says: 53] What, then, are we to think of the Sunday and like rites in the house of God? To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church, not that thereby we should merit grace or make satisfaction for sins, or that consciences be bound to judge them necessary services, and to think that it is a sin to break them 54] without offense to others. So Paul ordains, 1 Cor. 11, 5, that women should cover their heads in the congregation, 1 Cor. 14, 30, that interpreters be heard in order in the church, etc. 55] It is proper that the churches should keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquillity, so far that one do not offend another, that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion, 1 Cor. 14, 40; comp. Phil. 2, 14; 56] but so that consciences be not burdened to think that they are necessary to salvation, or to judge that they sin when they break them without offense to others; as no one will say that a woman sins who goes out in public with her head uncovered provided only that no offense be given. 57] Of this kind is the observance of the Lord’s Day, Easter, Pentecost, and like holy-days and 58] rites.

Also Walther writes:
For true Lutherans know that although one does not have to have these things (because there is no divine command to have them), one may nevertheless have them because good ceremonies are lovely and beautiful and are not forbidden in the Word of God. Therefore the Lutheran church has not abolished “outward ornaments, candles, altar cloths, statues and similar ornaments,” (AP XXIV) but has left them free. The sects proceeded differently because they did not know how to distinguish between what is commanded, forbidden, and left free in the Word of God. We remind only of the mad actions of Carlstadt and of his adherents and followers in Germany and in Switzerland. We on our part have retained the ceremonies and church ornaments in order to prove by our actions that we have a correct understanding of Christian liberty, and know how to conduct ourselves in things which are neither commanded nor forbidden by God.

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. The Roman antichristendom enslaves poor consciences by imposing human ordinances on them with the command: “You must keep such and such a thing!”; the sects enslave consciences by forbidding and branding as sin what God has left free. Unfortunately, also many of our Lutheran Christians are still without a true understanding of their liberty. This is demonstrated by their aversion to ceremonies. It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won’t accuse us of being Roman Catholic! Indeed! Am I to be afraid of a Methodist, who perverts the saving Word, or be ashamed in the matter of my good cause, and not rather rejoice that they can tell by our ceremonies that I do not belong to them?

It is too bad that such entirely different ceremonies prevail in our Synod, and that no liturgy at all has yet been introduced in many congregations. The prejudice especially against the responsive chanting of pastor and congregations is of course still very great with many people — this does not, however, alter the fact that it is very foolish. The pious church father Augustine said, “Qui cantat, bis orat–he who sings prays twice.”
This finds its application also in the matter of the liturgy. Why should congregations or individuals in the congregation want to retain their prejudices?

6. Dr. Baue writes in Thesis Seven, “But the many Scripture lessons, particularly in the Trinity or Pentecost Season, that contain definite instruction in good works according to the Third Use of the Law should be expounded.” The Third Use or any use is God’s use, not the preacher’s use. There’s no switch on the law by which the preacher can determine which use is going on – that’s between God and the hearer.

7. I would presume that Dr. Baue’s statement that, “We reaffirm that complete agreement in all articles of Christian dogma is the only basis for ecclesiastical unity and the only right interpretation of the satis est[vii]” includes also the right administration of the sacraments in practice for the true unity of the Christian church. While it is not necessary that ceremonies and rites devised by mere men be everywhere alike, it is not without some helpful benefit either as Walther, Loehe, and other have testified.

8. The Confessions are silent on “paedo-communion” in any direct manner. Dr. Baue says, “Also rejected is the false teaching that Holy Communion should be offered to infants (‘Paedo-communion’) who cannot examine themselves.” The Council of Trent rightly condemned the assertion that infants must come to communion in reference to the Eastern Orthodox Church, but did not condemn the notion that they may. Chemnitz interestingly analyzes this statement of Trent condemning the requirement for paedo-communion, but not condemning the idea that it might be allowed for certain reasons, with the words, “There is no controversy between us and the papalists about this question. Therefore I judge that it is not necessary to unravel this whole dispute, since this discussion was instituted chiefly for the sake of the things which are in controversy.” (Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Volume II, p.435.) While I’m not arguing for the practice of paedo-communion, have not argued for it or practiced for it in the past nor do I intend to do so in the future, I question whether we should dogmatize a point which even Chemnitz did not wish to dogmatize. I For, no doubt, self-examination requires fides reflexa and therefore also catechesis, there may be other questions involved here that would be better argumentation (pure spiritual milk vs. solid food). Regardless of this, we’ve seen a commendable lowering of the confirmation age, with still thorough catechesis, among us. This is certainly well-within Lutheran tradition. Perhaps I’m simply ignorant of it, but I’m not aware of paedo-communion being a common practice or proposal among us. In other places, we simply have bigger fish to fry where there is undoubtedly commonality among confessional Lutherans.

Rt. Rev. Jack,

Thank you for this fine critique. Hopefully assertions like Baue’s and repsonses like yours will lead us closer to an understanding of what it means to be confessional Lutherans.

I will leave specifics alone or to Dr. Baue for now but would like us all to consider a couple of matters. You certainly make a good point that proper supervision based on the existing confessions would suffice for us being Lutheran. On the other hand, I ask, would a document like this make it easier for such supervision? Does it not add clarity where it is lacking? Yes we have had a proliferation of CTCR statements and the like but isn’t the tone and style of this document much different?

I am interested in your feedback and others feedback on these questions.

Pastor Rossow

I understand a lot of work went into creating the Manifesto, however, I do not see how a certain number of signatures will effect change, or even have the Manifesto acknowledged by Synod. Wouldn’t flooding Conferences, District Conventions and finally Synodical Conferences with resolutions, that will more likely be at least read, be a more worthwhile means of change?

I do appreciate Dr. Baue for his time and effort in bringing the concerns into one document.

Kiley Campbell

4. Dr. Baue’s statement that, “Accordingly, we reject all the heresies that Article I rejects, as well as more recent errors such as Feminism, especially in its promotion of abortion on demand, advocacy of women’s ordination, and “inclusive” language,[iii] which undermines the doctrine of the Trinity,” is commendable, and then one wonders why he associates with the Society of the Holy Trinity, which includes women pastors of the ELCA. To voluntarily join that society knowing what is included therein is perplexing.

The Society of the Holy Trinity’s website defines the ‘Society’ as “a ministerium” and means by that:

The Society is an association (ministerium, order) of pastors who have been ordained in Lutheran churches throughout North America and Australia.

I have no doubt that Dr. Baue is opposed to the ‘ordination’ of women, but membership in an organization that has the self-definition quoted above gives credence to such a practice, in that it calls such women “pastors” when they are not. In my (narrow-minded, as always) opinion, such membership puts Dr. Baue into the sort of ‘quasi’ confessional position that he explains in his introduction, which leads me to say:

Dear brothers who waver on these matters, we implore you to walk together with us in unity of doctrine and practice.

It should be noted, too, lest Dr. Baue be tarred with all of the offenses of the Society of the Holy Trinity, that he does not participate in things like the ’ecumenical’ Communion service that the Society foisted upon the Ft. Wayne seminary’s Kramer Chapel, nor in the services led by ELCA ’ordained’ women. Then again, if I told you that I belonged to the Masons because they have a good bar or to the Klan because they have a wonderful volleyball program, you would probably say that mere membership is an issue…and I agree with the Rt. Rev. Bauer that it is here, too.

Brother Baue, won’t you be the first to heed the call of your document and to come out from among them and let your trumpet sound clearly?

EJG (if you don’t play the trumpet, surely you can get a pedal that’ll make your guitar sound like a trumpet…)

I am wondering if in Thesis Seven. Good Works. If you are saying that the preacher can preach a use of the law, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd or if you mean that the law works/functions in 3 uses and that the Holy Spirit makes application in the hearer. Just needing this cleared up.

Pastor Rossow wrote:
“I will leave specifics alone or to Dr. Baue for now but would like us all to consider a couple of matters. You certainly make a good point that proper supervision based on the existing confessions would suffice for us being Lutheran. On the other hand, I ask, would a document like this make it easier for such supervision? Does it not add clarity where it is lacking? Yes we have had a proliferation of CTCR statements and the like but isn’t the tone and style of this document much different?”

I will refer the right honourable gentleman to the reference I made a few times to the excellent article by Pastor Craig Stanford, entitled, The Three Walls Preventing Reform of the LCMS (found at Consensus and the Augustana Ministerium websites).

Our bishops are not true bishops, having neither parish nor and understanding of what it means to be an ordained clergyman also serving in a synod-created office. More often than not, the left-hand kingdom, synod-created office trumps the fact that they are ordained clergyman of the Lutheran Church in that the elected humanly-devised office (de jure humano) takes precedence over the one-Christ instituted office that they hold by ordination and that others hold who serve as pastors of parishes within their jurisdiction (de jure divino). With incredibly high salaries and perks we tempt them to do what it takes to get re-elected, rather than back up the quarterback in many instances.

Luther did not count on getting the right pope or the right cardinal or bishop elected, but worked locally, in parishes, where pastors were trained, and in writing to do what was needed. He produced solid resources despite officialdom, arranged new orthodox replacements for what was corrupt in officialdom and they eventually got sick of it and kicked the real evangelical catholics out of Rome. They weren’t fixated on re-taking the Roman bureaucracy politically, militarily or otherwise. Did they keep sending money to the pope or give money for indulgences? Did the Lutherans promote papal literature among themselves? And why not anymore? What other consequences were there? The Lutherans didn’t start a new church – that the accusation, but the bureaucracy isn’t really the old church, even though they think they are because of the legalese, nostalgia, locale, property, and infrastructure. But that never was the church. Sad but true.

Consider what Rev. Charles Henrickson wrote in a paper in 2006 (found on Consensus)[ LCMS The Options Before Us: Pros and Cons ]:

But now suppose that no demonstrable actions are taken in Houston in July of 2007 to correct the errors of Synod. The current president is re-elected. The good overtures are buried. At that point then I think we need to take it up a notch. And the key time is that year after the synodical convention. We need to be ready to go.

Assuming we get our clocks cleaned in Houston, I suggest we launch a massive informational and educational campaign, starting no later than the fall of 2007 and maybe lasting a year. We need to do a better job of educating our laypeople. Use the eight points of the “Call to Repentance.” We need to beef up that “Call to Repentance,” by the way, with one-page support essays for each point, giving the scriptural and confessional basis for our position. We could have a whole series of Consensus issues, an entire issue devoted to each of the eight points. We could re-roll out that “Call to Repentance” as a TTMBO-type document that hundreds and hundreds of folks could sign on to, say, at a Melrose Park II conference in October of 2007. And besides one big conference, we need to have a series of many regional meetings all across the Synod, to educate the laity as to what is going on. I’m talking at least three or four meetings, geographically distributed, in every district. Have our best speakers ready to go. Do a good job of educating people as to what’s going on, not only decrying the errors but also putting forth a positive vision of what can and should be. Then we get our pastors and congregations ready to sign on to a Statement of Confessional Protest, an in statu confessionis document, and we present it at the door of the Purple Palace on October 31, 2008. Perhaps that whole time frame could be moved up; I don’t know. And I think it would not be premature at that point also to name names of the most persistent public errorists whom we will mark and avoid.

So that takes care of the staying. But what about the leaving? I think it would be wise at that point to make preparations to leave, should these more drastic measures likewise be rebuffed. Whether that means a new synod or a realignment or whatever, we get ready to leave, if it comes to that, and we leave together. Then if July of 2010 goes as badly as the previous convention, we have our constituting convention ready to go to form a new church body.

Pastor Russow,
Would a document such as this make it easier for such supervision?
Yes, no, and maybe.
Do we really NEED yet another “Standard of doctrine and practice” beyond the Confessions and the “Conditions of Membership” of Synod’s Constitution (to say nothing of the proliferation of CTCR and CCM documents and innumerable Convention resolutions which supposedly seek to “explain” what it all means?)
Could not this document be charged as being “extra-confessional?”
I know, that was the charge levelled against TTMBO. To the “average” layman/woman, I’m guessing, that charge carried no small weight.
As a method of instruction (catechesis, if you will)…maybe.
As a “Standard of Conduct” to determine who is or is not “truly Confessional”…this treads on dangerous ground.
“Extra-confessional” or no, without VERY careful explanation the average pewsitter, like me, will view it as such.

Pr. Henrickson, as cited by me above, wrote:
“Then we get our pastors and congregations ready to sign on to a Statement of Confessional Protest, an in statu confessionis document, and we present it at the door of the Purple Palace on October 31, 2008.”

To declare that one is in statu confessionis is to pronounce a state of confessional protest against an ecclesial entity which has become heterodox, such an entity being in violation of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. This declared critical state of affairs is a public, churchly, and confessional form of protest and is the most potent type of protest that can be made. To declare a status confessionis is a solemn and weighty matter. It is an exercise of the office of the keys. It is to protest for the sake of the catholicity of the faith (Jude 3; Acts 2:42).

To declare a state of confessional protest is something done for the sake of the saving Gospel of Christ. It is done pastorally in concern for the faith of those in error and for preserving the pure preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the holy sacraments in the Church. It is intended to bring to repentance those who have fallen into false doctrine and errant practice.

A state of confessional protest is based upon sound doctrine and preserving the marks of the church, not preserving bureaucratic structures, in fact, it likely means giving most or all of them up. A state of confession recognizes that external fellowship and unity is based upon agreement in orthodox doctrine and that practice is not unrelated (lex orandi, lex credendi and vice versa). An institutional selective fellowship practice virtually understands these issues in reverse. Agreement in doctrine is made at the lowest common denominator or an Aristotelian “happy middle” within the already established external fellowship of the respective church body (synod). Orthodoxy in the institutional or bureaucratic selective fellowship paradigm then become more of a sociological description of theology (a kind of survey) rather than a confession of the canonical anad unchanging revelation of the living God in His written Word. In this sense “selective fellowship” exhibits enthusiasm (schwaermerei) – establishing orthodoxy on the basis of our own preparations, thoughts and works. However, doctrine is not democratic. As Sasse once said, “We seek the Holy Spirit where He is not to be found when we take it as self-evident that the way our church is developing is altogether due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.” [We Confess the Church, p.20].

A state of confession exhibits the theology of the cross and submits to suffering for the sake of the gospel confession (Romans 1:16). As Luther wrote famously:

20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.
21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls the thing what it actually is.

Status confessionis flows from confessional subscription and a pastor’s ordination vows, whereas selective fellowship practice requires neither definite commitment nor firm confession of faith, and can always say, “I affirm the official position,” no matter how it changes. All selective fellowship requires is a general institutional conservatism — and even that is negotiable. In the end selective fellowship relies upon tolerating falsehood and heterodox practice. Erling Teigen wrote of mere conservatism:

Conservatism can also stand for a mind-set that tends to value the status quo most highly, so that one can only be moved in a different direction by bulldozer or cataclysm, never by theological study or intellectual honesty. Adherence to the Reformation spirit would seem rather to dictate that the Reformation is not static but dynamic, and always stands ready to reevaluate itself and to make mid-course corrections. That does not mean that the Confessions as the Lutheran understanding of Scripture need to be “reinterpreted” for a new age, but it means that the teaching and the teachers of our churches need to be reevaluated always to see whether or not their teaching is in accord with the Lutheran Confessions[...].

While conservatism can be construed as a desire to preserve that which is good, it doesn’t necessarily work that way. The fundamental nature of conservatism is to preserve power structures and status quo. That, in fact, is the fundamental nature of bureaucracy, and not any less of church bureaucracies. The “chureaucrat” has to preserve the power structure within which he intends to function, for without the trappings of power he is lost.

Business and bureaucracy are fundamentally conservative in that sense, and the more our church leaderships pattern themselves after the business world, the more conservative they will become. To think of ourselves in terms of “conservative” strikes me, then, as dangerous, and a stance that has taken us down the wrong path. Not only is it a stance which identifies us with stances that belong to the kingdom of the left hand, but it is a stance that locks us into a mode that is unhealthy.
[Erling Teigen. "Confessional Lutheranism versus Philippistic Conservatism,” Logia: A Journal of Lutheran Theology (Reformation/October - Vol. 2, No. 4), Pages 32-37]

Finally a status confessionis perspective gives comfort in the Truth of Christ which remains unchanged, wheras selective fellowship finds comfort in organizations, bureaucracies, and ultimately results in a false sense of security placing faith and hope in an undeserving object, since it is not placed in Christ’s purely preached Gospel and the rightly administered sacraments (Augustana VII).

Here are some resources on this, from one parish that took that up already for a lot of the same reasons:
http://web.me.com/trinityh/Site/An_Independent_Lutheran_Church/An_Independent_Lutheran_Church.html

“We believe, teach, and confess that in a time of persecution, when an unequivocal confession of the faith is demanded of us, we dare not yield to the opponents in such indifferent matters. As the Apostle wrote, ‘Stand firm in the freedom for which Christ has set us free, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery’ [Gal. 5:1]. And: ‘Do not put on the yoke of others; what partnership is there between light and darkness?’ [2 Cor. 6:14]. ‘So that the truth of the Gospel might always remain with you, we did not submit to them even for a moment’ [Gal. 2:5]. For in such a situation it is no longer indifferent matters that are at stake. The truth of the gospel and Christian freedom are at stake. The confirmation of open idolatry, as well as the protection of the weak in faith from offense, is at stake. In such matters we can make no concessions but must offer an unequivocal confession and suffer whatever God sends and permits the enemies of His Word to inflict on us”
[Formula of Concord-Epitome, Article X,6].

2 John 9-11 – Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching,do not receive him in your house and do not give him a
greeting: for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deed.

1 Corinthians 5:11 – I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an idolater, or a reviler, or a swindler not even to eat with such a one.

Romans 16:17 – Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.

Mark 6:1 – Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake off the dust from the soles of your feet for a testimony against them.

Titus 3:10: Reject a man causing divisions after a first and second warning.

An analogy for consideration:

QUARANTINE – Quarantine is voluntary or compulsory isolation, typically to contain the spread of something considered dangerous, often but not always disease. The word comes from the Italian (seventeenth century Venetian) language Italian quarantena, meaning forty day period.

The word “quarantine” originates from the Venetian dialect form of the Italian quaranti giorni, meaning ‘forty days’. This is due to the 40 day isolation of ships and people prior to entering the city of Dubrovnik in Dalmatia (formerly known as Ragusa). This was practiced as a measure of disease prevention related to the plague (Black Death). Between 1348 and 1359 the Black Death wiped out an estimated 30% of Europe’s population, as well as a significant percentage of Asia’s population. The original document from 1377, which is kept in the Archives of Dubrovnik, states that before entering the city, newcomers had to spend 30 days in a restricted location (originally nearby islands) waiting to see whether the symptoms of plague would develop. Later on, isolation was prolonged to 40 days and was called quarantine.

The purpose of such quarantine-for-decontamination is to prevent the spread of contamination, and to contain the contamination such that others are not put at risk from a person fleeing a scene where contamination is suspect.

The first astronauts to visit the Moon were quarantined upon their return at the specially built Lunar Receiving Laboratory.

To reduce the risk of introducing rabies from Continental Europe, the United Kingdom used to require that dogs, and most other animals introduced to the country spend six months in quarantine at an HM Customs and Excise pound; this policy was abolished at the beginning of the twenty-first century in favour of a scheme generally known as Pet Passports, where animals can avoid quarantine if they have documentation showing they are up to date on their appropriate vaccinations.

The United States puts immediate quarantines on imported products if the disease can be traced back to a certain shipment or product. All imports will also be quarantined if the diseases breakout in other countries.

Modern implementation

New developments for quarantine include new concepts in quarantine vehicles such as the Ambulance bus, mobile hospitals, and lockdown/invacuation (inverse evacuation) procedures, as well as docking stations for an ambulance bus to dock to a facility that’s under lockdown.

In computer science, it describes putting files infected by computer viruses into a special directory, so as to eliminate the threat they pose, without irreversibly deleting them.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Not only fellowship practice, but also programs, resources, and such can be causes for ecclesiastical quarantine. Quarantines are not done out of malice or to be “not nice” but out of genuine concern for all involved. Doctrine and practice and a unified altar fellowship are in play in this case. In our case it is altar and pulpit fellowship with relate, along with simply letting truth and error be on equal standing (remember those Krauth quotes).

This is certainly a reminder for reasons of thorough catechesis and catechumenate, thorough pastoral training even for special routes, pre-certification theological interviews to be ordained (which CSL doesn’t do anymore), and the reasons for using doctrinally pure hymbooks, agenda, and catechesis materials, along with renouncing heterodox tract and missionary societies (including the Gideons), and refusing to partake in errant sacramental rites and worship practices from errant confessions (contemporary worship, aka, Pentecostal worship).

Quarantines last as long as the medical danger lasts. When the illness departs the quarantine can be lifted. This is the way the office the the keys are exercised with the binding key – something Paul had to remind the congregation in Corinth about when the excommunicated offender repented and began to fall into despair – absolve him and restore fellowship. Law and Gospel – full force with both in their time. It is the peculiar (uniquely) church power, unlike anything else in the world. It is better than any political method, electioneer, trust in princes of the church (confessional or not), or any church/man created offices.

“The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, is never present where lies are told. 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.”

Dr. Hermann Sasse, Union and Confession

Kiley #5,

I am not sure that Dr. Baue sees the document as something with which to storm the International Center. As I understand it, it is more of an attempt to bring confessional Lutherans together on issues that that they have not before expressed unity on and more importantly it is a call to all Lutherans, confessional or not, to come back to the confessions and submit their doctrine and their practice to these clear standards.

Show me unity among confessionals and I will say that the Manifesto is unneccesary. Show me some other simple clear statement that lays out where the church growth practitioners in the LCMS are wrong and again I will say that the Manifesto is not necessary.

I believe this document has the potential to unify Lutherans around the clear teaching of Scripture.

More to come…

Pastor Rossow

I think that the good Rev. Baue needs to stop trying to position himself as the “great thinker” and “writer.” We’ve had more than enough of these stupid documents and petitions.

The only way we are going to change things is by removing the incompetents from office.

All this posturing and huffing and puffing is a waste of energy and time.

Jack Bauer nailed it though when he expose the hypocricy of Baue’s membership in a heterodox ministerium: the STS.

This is an organization that goes out of its way to tolerate, condone and encourage the ordination of women.

Bloviator Observer #14,

Thank you for your bloviating. It is helpful to know that some of the folk like you believe that we have had enough stupid documents and petitions. I believe however, this document is unique in it’s clarity and pithy style. I also think it is a helpful tool for sharing with people in a fairly concise way, what the issues are in our Synod.

You may know Dr. Baue better than I and thus your harsh words. I know him, not as someone trying to position himself as a thinker and writer. Instead I know him as a man of action. He has been fighting the battle on the front lines in the LCMS for years. He has also taken on the editorship of the BJS Quarterly. Rather than being a huffing and puffing posturer he has been a man of action. I asked him to take on the position in the middle of April and by June 25 he had produced what most have called a frist rate journal. And now, right on schedule, we are printing the second issue (this weekend) which is another top rate production with articles by Wilken, Noland and Parton, thanks to the action and firm leadership of the editor.

I share your desire for more action on behalf of the confessional cause and would be interested in any tips you might have to offer to our readers from any experience or success you have had making a difference in your circuit or district beyond the aforementioned mere huffing and puffing.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment. With all of us expressing our opinions and chipping in, I hope we can make a difference for this good cause.

Pastor Rossow

Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer,

Your comments are quite helpful.

I do have a quick question concerning the Sasse quote. Being a student of Dr. Nagel, I am always happy to see Sasse being brought into the mix. I am not quite sure what your point is in this particular quote? To me it seems as though Dr. Baue’s manifesto is intended to bring an end to the painful act of confessional splintering by inviting people to determine where they stand – with the Confessions or not.

Pastor Rossow

Random thoughts:

Thank you Pastor Baue for the effort you put into this document.

1) This first comment is in jest: If the Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer is retired, assuming that’s what “Rt.” means, why does he speak as though he’s not? Even a fictitious character should remain in character!

2) Rev. Bauer, I understood all your comments, except I’m not totally sure what your perspective is on how this document fits in with the concepts of
in statu confessionis and selective fellowship.

3) Pastor Baue, you stated “I have tried to make this manifesto irenic and not polemical in tone.” I understand what you’re saying, but I’d point out that by definition irenics is polemical (which I think you’re indirectly saying anyhow). Here’s the definition from the Christian Cyclopedia, which I’m certain you’ll agree with:

“Irenics: Theology which tries to arrive at Christian peace. Irenics presupposes polemics, which in its true character should have no other aim than irenics. The “bond of peace,” Eph 4:3, embraces all Christians, and “speaking the truth in love,” Eph 4:15, deserves to be emphasized at all times. But he who truly seeks ecclesiastical peace well-pleasing to God will find himself compelled to engage in controversy. True irenics does not exclude polemics, but is another way of gaining the same end. The danger of polemics lies in the direction of separatism and magnification of unessential differences; irenic efforts are prone to degenerate into syncretism and unionism; love of revealed truth guards against both dangers.”

4) I’d say that neither a quatenus nor a “quasi” subscription are actually subscriptions at all – both say they don’t agree with the Confession. In that sense, there is no difference between the two.

5) Referencing bishop visitation, I’m wondering if you shouldn’t specifically mention discipline in that discussion as well. I assume it’s implied, but maybe it should be addressed. One of the biggest problems in many of our districts is a lack of disciple meted out by DP’s to those who stray from the Confession.

6) It is stated “In this regard we also reject the use of ungodly, secular music styles in church, along with the use of ‘praise songs’ whose subjective lyrics are devoid of theological content.” You might consider rephrasing this. I suspect you’ll agree that praise songs, which at times are vacuous, at other times promulgate an anthropocentric theology of glory, and are thus filled with theological content rather than devoid of theological content – theological content of the wrong sort.

Thanks again. I’ll take everybody’s comments “off the air.”

Scott Diekmann

I agree that the Bloviator’s comments are unhelpful. However, membership in the Society of the Holy Trinity is also unhelpful and, while the Bloviator’s ‘tone’ received comment from BJS, this membership (thrown in our faces whenever Dr. Baue signs his name) has not.

Thus, the question: Does the Brotherhood of John the Steadfast condone membership in the Society of the Holy Trinity?

This ‘manifesto’ is supposed to bring unity, but support of such membership is, imo, a definite point of division.

EJG

Pastor Stefanski,

Excellent and fair question.

The Brothers of John the Steadfast do not endorse membership in the Society of the Holy Trinity.

We certainly endorse the position the society takes upholding the liturgy. We also appreciate their emphasis on accountability. I do not know if the Bloviator has ever read their “rule,” but its emphasis on members of their society holding each other accountable is exactly what he is looking for.

Of course, if you do not have correct doctrine (e.g. the membership of women pastors in the Society), all the accountability in the world is for naught and for this reason, and I restate it, the Brothers of John the Steadfast do not endorse the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Pastor Rossow

“Rt.” in “Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer” is a designation commonly used for bishops. Many would pick up this is a play on the mitre used on the graphic appearing upon the head of Jack Bauer on the AC 24 blog. That’s a bit more “inside baseball” than we normally care to engage in.

The first part of my comments were critique/concerns of Dr. Baue’s “manifesto”. The later comments were more in the way of a direction for future consideration. LCMS confessional have repeatedly, through different organizations, have beat the drum for “retaking the synod” and “getting the right people elected” and “getting key resolutions passed” and accomplished little to nothing, the proof of which is the situation we are in today. Let’s think outside that box – in statu confessionis – not an easy road to go.

The Sasse quote, while perhaps a bit non-sequitur, is to suggest that simply acknowledging our differences are not going to be dealt with in mere dialogue or convocations. We must admit that our differences are exhibiting faithfulness or orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy and departure from the Lutheran Confessions. We must say that clearly, forthrightly, and not pretend that logos, benefit plans, and current polity arrangements trump doctrine, orthodox practice, or concerns to preserve the marks of the church. This calls us out of timidity and the usual “in the box” thinking among LCMS conservatives.

We aren’t going to get out of this by electing the right people, passing certain resolutions, or what have you. We cannot put it as a bureaucracy over the marks of the church. No rearranging the deck furniture on the Titanic is going to solve the problems. Just because some of us have recently awakened to the situation in the LCMS, we cannot imagine we’re the first ones to attempt to re-take the bureaucracy. We’ve been there and tried that umpteen times. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If we think 2010 is going to really get the job done, then we’ve acquired ecclesiastical alzheimers.

Brothers of John the Steadfast will do the best service if it isn’t just a new attempt at the same old attempts to retake the bureaucracy. We’ve had nothing here yet to overcome the Three Walls Preventing Reform of the LCMS. A new creation, life out of death is the way…

Key point:

“condone” – to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

“endorse” – 2 a: to approve openly ; especially : to express support or approval of publicly and definitely b: to recommend (as a product or service) usually for financial compensation

Rt. Rev. Jack,

The Brothers of John the Steadfast is not a political group and so I agree entirely with your last paragraph in comment #20. For sure, theology and politics cannot be surgically seperated. Doing one means doing the other but BJS’ goals are not overtly political. Our goals are to help men (and women) know and support confessional Lutheranism, support its new media (at this point that means Issues, Etc.) support pastors, know and promote the liturgy, and build up men as leaders in the church and at home. The Manifesto is helpful for us in accomplishing those goals.

Pastor Rossow

Referring to #20 above: Okay. “Rt.” like as in “The Rt. Rev. Dr. Bishop N. T. Wright,” the guy who used to defend the historicity of the resurrection but now is trying to single-handedly dismantle justification. Thanks for pointing that out. I didn’t know that. But what does Rt. mean? A Latin derivation I assume.

Interesting document. However, the intense flurry of questions, comments, and disagreement on a document over just a few “specifics” of practice tends to reaffirm my own thoughts on the matter, namely, “how will I know when I am sufficiently “confessional?” Even among supposedly like-minded confessional Lutherans on this site, there is already some substantial disagreement. If a document such as this was used for visitation and supervision how would we/us/them/me know who was/is “confessional” enough to make the grade? Just makes me wonder about a trend I am uncomfortable with in the church body that seems intent upon an intense purification of the church that will, by necessity, never be satisfied. A variation of Luther’s “how will I know I am righteous enough?” question. How will I know that I am “confessional” enough to satisfy …… whom exactly? And by what/whose interpretive authority?
Just honest questions from an observer. Forgive the next analogy but it really does remind me in some ways of the right wing of the republican party that can’t even agree amongst themselves on all the issues much less convert anyone else to “their” side. Nonetheless, certain self-appointed leaders like Rush Limbaugh, etc… press for their will and specific point of interpretive perspective to be done and demand to be satisfied. Needless to say the circumstances are different but it is amazing how similar I see the “tactics” to be.
For whatever it’s worth… we have the Scriptures…. we have the confessions. The former have sufficed for the history of the world. The latter have sufficed for 400 years…. I think it’s enough. Let’s not make it more complicated than it has to be. And let us also acknowledge that on this side of heaven it will never be perfect. We will always need to deal with impurity and just plain honest disagreement. We will never be in complete agreement. To demand it is to deny the nature of a sinful world.
So far the comments from a humble servant. God bless your efforts.

Steve,

To say that we cannot reach complete unity is to doubt the power of the Holy Spirit working through His Word. Our sinfulness indeed produces all kinds of sinful impulses that may create doubts in us or briefly lead us astray. But no one is talking about completely immaculate, sinless unity in thought, word, and deed. To sincerely subscribe to the truth, and to submit to rebuke when we stray, this is an achievable goal by the Holy Spirit’s power (not our power, mind you), and has been done before, and God willing, will be done in the future. My understanding is that there are a few groups that are already walking in true unity of the faith.

But I agree that we do not have unity yet. There are still disagreements here on important issues. Even this confessional movement is still divided. Let us not give up, but rather press on toward it all the more.

To Rev. Baue,

aside from other things said, I did not see a mention of the use of grape juice in the Lord’s Supper. I believe this egregious abomination needs addressing, as it is so rampant in this body (LCMS).

God grant peace in Christ,

Rev. Andrew Eckert

Referring to #20 above: Okay. “Rt.” like as in “The Rt. Rev. Dr. Bishop N. T. Wright,” the guy who used to defend the historicity of the resurrection but now is trying to single-handedly dismantle justification.

Y’know, without further comment on the substance of the “Jack Bauer” posts, that looks awfully much like an ad hominem sort of thing; nothing in either his posts here or on his own blog would give any indication that such a linkage should be made, so that making it (other than to falsely discredit) is either a really poor attempt at humor or just plain bizarre.

“Rt.” simply means “Right” and is a usual part of the title of bishops.

As to “Jack Bauer,” from all appearances and testimony, he is a rechteglaubiger (probably left a letter out somewhere)–i.e., a “right believer,” one who has the faith (i.e., the body of doctrine) rightly held–and is surely not one who is by any means subverting it.

(As you can also ascertain from his writings, he is in the LCMS, but not in the STS.)

EJG (who is in neither and is probably trying to subvert everything)

Pr. Baue,

I’m wondering about your statement in the cover letter: “The crisis is this: many Lutheran pastors, teachers, laymen, and congregations have not fulfilled their vow to be faithful to the Lutheran Confessions. They uphold the Bible, but waver on the Confessions.”

And in your conclusion, “Most of our pastors, teachers, laymen, and congregations are firmly committed to Sacred Scripture. In this they have fulfilled their vow.”

If “many” or “most” pastors, congregations, etc., truly “…uphold the Bible…” and “…are firmly committed to Sacred Scripture”, I don’t believe we would have the problems we have in the LCMS. How can they uphold the Bible but then “waver” on the Confessions when the Confessions are in agreement with Scripture?

If pastors & congregations truly knew what is in the Bible and were committed to it, they would not waver from the Confessions. They have not only thrown out & ignore the Confessions, they have done the same with Scripture.

Rev. Baue,

Thanks for a thoughtful document. I do appreciate your effort and what you have written. I would imagine that a “state of confession” that has been mentioned as perhaps a more appropriate action to address the grievances of our day would have to include a similar listing of specific offenses in doctrine and practice along with an exposition of refuting the same. Your document could possibly serve as a contribution to that effort. Your writing goes a long way in consolidating the many grievances and errors that have plagued and continue to plage the LC-MS and the Church as a whole.

One thing I wanted to point out. In Article IV, concerning those who deny the divinity of Christ, would not first and foremost be listed those who were to receive Him as their promised Messiah but did not, namely the Jews, meaning those of Judaism? I hope that it was simply an oversight.

Sincerely,

James Gier

I must seriously question the appropriateness of Rev. Baue being involved with this document and being featured so prominently as part of “Steadfast Lutherans.” It would appear that Baue has a significant credibility problem, in light of the following facts just released about his involvement before the last Synodical convention. He has had to repent and apologize for causing great offense based on bad information.

In the joint statement, Baue admits his conclusions were “based upon inaccurate and insufficient information and regrets the offense he has caused.” Bell, Briel, and Queck acknowledge that two statements in Baue’s report were “inaccurate,” “prejudicial,” and “caused offense.” In meetings with the Committee of Five and with Kieschnick, the men have apologized and asked for forgiveness. “They have also apologized for calling into question in their letter President Kieschnick’s integrity and the conduct of his office regarding this matter,” the statement said.

Thanks for this! I like it. You might want to mention that the bread and the wine are also present in the Lord’s Supper, or is that what was meant by the “elements” when talking of the vatican’s concession?

Advice for those who wish to take it.
Pastors and laymen,
Teach and correct errors in your congregation.
Help teach and correct errors in congregations of your circuit.

Let District and Synod die.

Jonny

In my experience, non-political groups generally do not issue “manifestos”. They also do not put forth policies and plans that outline a reogranization of the current beaurocratic system.

This is certainly not a criticism of what I have read so far. I am just wondering: Why does BJS (the website specifically) use overtly political rhetoric (i.e “manifesto”, “The Wilken Plan”, “petition”, etc) if the goals of the organization are not overtly political?

If the BJS wishes to remain clearly non-political in both action and message, then I would recommend framing arguements and writing papers in the dogmatic, educational style of Pr Preus.

I just think that once we start passing out petitions and manifestos, no one is going to take our claim that we are non-political seriously.

Mike Baker #31,

Thank you for your input. Your comment is helpful and gives us good reason to think very carefully about what we publish on the website.

Im my comment #22 I said that we are not a political group but that church politics and theology cannot be neatly seperated. I would guess that about 90% of the posts on this website are not overtly political in nature. I would say that qualifies us as not overtly political.

I would also say that 100% of our posts can give rise to political comments. That is just the nature of the animal. In our synod we vote on who will be our leaders and we vote on countless resolutions at district conventions and synodical conventions. For better or for worse that is the way we do things and it is a political system. Given this, if BJS hopes to forge a group of men (and women) in the LCMS who know Biblical and Confessional doctrine and lead in their homes and their churches with that theology, there will be “politics” involved. I am in discussions with several people off line about problems in their churches and the way to change in those churches is based on theological education for sure but also includes, like it or not, doing the necessary “political” work of moving boards of elders and voters assemblies.

Politics has taken on a negative connotation in culture, not because of the nature of politics but because of sinful politicians. Politics is merely the dynamic of people coming together to make decisions. We make decisions in our congregations and synod and so we have politics in our congregations and synod.

I think it would be good to take a good look at the Manifesto. Is it really a political document? Not really. It is a call for Lutherans to take a Biblical and confessional stand on some really important issues in the church. Good theology both asserts the truth and rejects error. That is how the Lutheran Confessions do theology. Once you start to reject error, it starts to look critical and political because you are making distinctions between right believing and wrong believing people. That is unavoidable if you are going to do good theology.

I think it also important to remember the nature of a blogsite in this discussion. With the advent of instant written communication, our interactions have taken on more of a political tone. That is not necessarily a good thing but it is a reality. I believe that blogging is good for confessional theology. It is fraught with danger and harm with every keystroke but the fact that you and I, who up until you found this website, had no chance of making a theological connection, are communicating about this very important topic, is an incredible gift from God. Like all his gifts, they can be abused but used properly they are a blessing for the Gospel.

We try to put out “political” posts only if we believe they will help us accomplish our purpose. If you go to the “Organization” page of the site and click on “Description of the Organization” you can see the list of the four challenges on which BJS has chosen to focus. If we do anything that strikes you as political, it is probably because we believe doing it in a “political” way is good for keeping our Lord’s Gospel pure and for helping us address these challenges faced by the LCMS.

This is certainly not the final word on this and your continued input will always be taken seriously and will help us fine tune what we do.

Pastor Rossow

Mike B. #31,

Let me add one more thing Mike. Keep in mind that the website is only one component of BJS. It has been the easiest to get going and the most visible component but it is only one part of the BJS strategy.

The other three main components are chapter formation, the Steadfast Quarterly and the promotion of Confessions reading groups, each of which are growing in stature.

We are printing the second edition of the quarterly this weekend. The first issue received good reviews from our members and the second issue is even better. (The first issue can be viewed as a pdf on the website’s Organization page.)

We already have 7 chapters started and they span the country from California to New York, and from Florida to Illinois and we have cataloged numerous Confessions reading groups all over the country.

As I mentioned in the previous comment, a religious blogsite by its very nature will be somewhat political. Our other components will also not shy away from political positions that support the pure Gospel but they are not by nature as political as the blogsite.

Pastor Rossow

In response to comments made by Nathan Kaiser on my “credibility problem”: please read the Joint Statement and the appended report of the Delegate Review Committee closely and carefully, and try to understand what the document is actually saying before jumping to conclusions.

Accordingly, we reject all the heresies that Article I rejects, as well as more recent errors such as Feminism, especially in its promotion of abortion on demand, advocacy of women’s ordination

Dear brothers who waver on these matters, we implore you to walk together with us in unity of doctrine and practice.

Dr. Baue’s “Manifesto”

We will challenge and encourage one another to live in obedience to Jesus, desiring to be examples to the faithful and to adorn with holy living the Ministry entrusted to us.

Pledge Dr. Baue made to various male and female ‘clergy’, most of whom are from the ELCA, in joining The Society of the Holy Trinity

Accepting females as pastors, joining a “ministerium” with them, and promising to help them obey Jesus” in living holy lives in “the Ministry entrusted to [them]” does not, in practice, reject “Feminism, especially in its…advocacy of women’s ordination.”

The Brotherhood of John the Steadfast “does not endorse” membership in The Society of the Holy Trinity. However, as “The Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer” pointed out, endorse and condone are two different words, and my question was whether or not such membership is condoned.

As to the lawsuit business, I said it before it was begun, said it throughout he process, and will say it again now: basing any part of that lawsuit on delegate exceptions was foolhardy, a costly process in which pastors were encouraged to sign on in spite of the lack of either any proof or any provable offense, and for which many suffered not only monetary loss, but loss of good name, and loss of electability at the 2007 LCMS convention. It does not, however, speak to Dr. Baue’s credibility with regard to this ‘Manifesto’.

Rather, the two problems with this document are that:

1. the writer should be in conformity with what he proposes, and
2. such a document should be contributed to by the body before a request for signatures is made, so that obvious points that escape the eyes of an individual or a small group might be taken care of before the danger of an early signer having to remove his signature might arise.

Instead of castigating a layman (Nathan Kaiser, whom I do not know, but who is not on the LCMS roster, anyway) for his ‘lack of understanding’, it would be far more fitting for Dr. Baue to explain how this “STS” membership that he is so proud of (even proclaiming it on the synodical documents Mr. Kaiser references!) squares with what he is confessing (and asking you to confess) in his ‘Manifesto’. Granted, such honest, straightforward dealing with the issue is highly unlikely to convince me of its acceptability, but it might give you LCMSers and all who watch you a bit of insight into just what is really wrong with your church body.

EJG (too dumb to read the ‘Rule’ of the STS, to ponder its membership list, and to understand how it is godly to join it…but at least I’m not a layman, so when you intimate that I am “stupid” at least you won’t be causing great offense)

As I see it, Society of the Holy Trinity is more than a bit problematic given its membership and practices, when it comes to be a “heterodox tract and missionary society” (see conditions for LCMS membership) and in terms of the sacramental practices therein (aka recent gathering at Fort Wayne). As I’ve said before, there are better, more orthodox alternatives.

Unfair, unfair. Pr. Stefanski is “outside” Synod, Inc. so he gets to be more…

Simply put… I signed the petition as a layman because I think we need more public statements and support of our Lutheran confessions rather than less. I am not saying, of course, that confessional Lutherans have not spoken up, but one more petition calling attention to the fact that there are those within our churches who are departing from our confessions, and a call to return to them, is a good thing, imo. We have the forces of Emergent/emerging, Church Growth, and the Charismatics flaunting their heresies from local churches to national conventions in the LCMS and as a layman I have yet to see a single rebuke or correction come out of “Synod, inc.” Seeing a document like this Manifesto is encouraging to me and shows that we do have people wanting to stand firm against what the Devil has brought amongst us.

Question: Who within the BJS organization approved the solicitation of signatures of Rev. Baue’s “Manifesto?”

I ask because it seems to me to be premature to request signatures until some “fine tuning” has been done on the document. I see a lot of smoke on this topic, but not nearly the light that we need. Thus, I would recommend free discussion WITHOUT the request for signatures. It is simply too early in the process. I would recommend that those who made the decision to request signatures of endorsement should, now, withdraw that request.

Also, I agree with those who have expressed concern irt Rev. Baue’s membership in the STS. Something like, walk the talk comes to mind.

I wrote:

EJG (too dumb to read the ‘Rule’ of the STS, to ponder its membership list, and to understand how it is godly to join it…but at least I’m not a layman, so when you intimate that I am “stupid” at least you won’t be causing great offense)

Just to be clear:

“you” in that quote should have been “someone” and “he” (with the proper change in the verb); by no means was I meaning to indicate that Dr. Baue would necessarily say/imply such a thing but, rather, that if he did, there would at least be a basis for it and it wouldn’t cause offense (being that I am a fairly good target). IOW, it was a joke–the key factor of which is truthfulness: I don’t ‘get it’ when it comes to thinking STS membership is okay, and no one’s ever really gotten any heartburn over saying “that Grabauski is just out of touch.”

EJG

It appears that there are at least two issues here. One is whether the views expressed in the document are consistant with Rev Baue’s other affiliations. The other is whether the document itself accuractly reflects the doctrines of our confessions.

Rather than focus on the first, I believe it is more appropriate to concentrate on the second. Does it really matter what the author believes or practices if the document is a correct representation?

Rather than focus on the first, I believe it is more appropriate to concentrate on the second. Does it really matter what the author believes or practices if the document is a correct representation?

While Melanchthon later waivered, his writing a document for others to subscribe while not himself being willing to is…well, come up with your own description. At any rate, yes, that is an issue. “Confess as I say you should confess, not as I myself confess” just doesn’t fly.

On the other hand, the objections that have been made wrt the substance of the document have not been dealt with, either. It extends beyond where it should and it doesn’t cover some fairly important areas.

Those two things play off of each other to make it very weak, as one would consider the author not to be in conflict with his own words, which calls the meaning of the statements into question. Further, the presupposition that

The crisis is this: many Lutheran pastors, teachers, laymen, and congregations have not fulfilled their vow to be faithful to the Lutheran Confessions. They uphold the Bible, but waver on the Confessions.

is, as Ginny Valleau pointed out, completely incorrect and wrongheaded.

Please understand the purpose of speaking of the STS membership: the writer needs to step back from personal affiliations that do not clearly confess what his words seek to.

The document itself is not fully cooked; if it were, the author’s affiliations would reflect it.

But, I’ll let it lie for now, as it seems that no real effort will be made (at least in a timely fashion) to answer what has been put forth to this point (not even a clarification on ‘endorse’ vs. ‘condone’). As it sets, I’ll simply have to speak against it for every reason that has already been listed in Bauer’s analysis and elsewhere.

EJG

Baue’s reply to bloggers.
A. Regarding content of the Manifesto. Read the cover letter carefully. Karl Marx was the sole author of the Communist Manifesto; he started a revolution. I am the sole author of the Lutheran Manifesto; I am only expressing the views of a revolution that has already begun… the confessional revolution. Others are free to agree or disagree. If my writing helps to clarify issues and bring about unity, I shall be gratified. If the critics—whose evaluation is now longer than the manifesto!—wish to produce manifesto of their own that is superior to mine, I shall be happy to read it. Meanwhile I am reminded of Haldir’s words to Legolas in The Lord of the Rings: “Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.”
B. Regarding my membership in the STS (Societas Trinitatis Sanctae):
1. I am a member of the STS, which includes ELCA women pastors, but also has members from the LCMS , WELS, and ELS. I do not commune at STS retreats. I do not condone women’s ordination. I consulted with my district president, Rev. Herbert Mueller (Southern Illinois) before joining to make sure that by so doing I was not breaking my vow to avoid unionism and syncretism of every description. I have been publicly criticized for being a member of the STS for some time now, but I do not recall any of my critics contacting me or coming to me personally to express their brotherly concern, nor have I seen any of these critics at any STS retreat. At STS retreats I have frequent conversations with confessional ELCA pastors—do you remember the sainted Lou Smith or Michael McDaniel, both STS members who received standing ovations at the Ft. Wayne symposium?—who are distressed about the direction of their church body, and who look to Missouri for solace and leadership. Should I give up those associations for the sake of political correctness?
2. I am also a member of the LCMS, which includes pastors and congregations that practice unionism, have female ministers, or laymen in altar-and-pulpit ministry, practice open communion, ignore the confessions, teach evolution, question the authority of Scripture, and use contemporary worship that “abolishes the mass” (AC 24), as well as schismatics for whom no-one is quite conservative enough to pass scrutiny. Yet for all her faults, this church is my mother. She gave me life. Besides which Missouri is undergoing a transformation through the grassroots confessional movement and is highly redeemable. Should I turn my back on my mother?
3. I am a member of a family in which my mother-in-law is Methodist, my father-in-law is Presbyterian, my son attends an ELCA congregation, and my daughter is dating a boy who goes to a Pentecostal church. My wife was not a lifelong Lutheran. I myself was caught up in the charismatic movement in my younger days. Should I sever ties with my family? With myself?
4. I am active in the local music community and have many disreputable friends. Some are homosexual. Some are atheist. Some are crazy. But I am their only contact with the truth of Jesus Christ, and they often turn to me for spiritual guidance. Should I leave them in darkness?
5. I am a Christian and follow Jesus, who ate with sinners and tax collectors, meanwhile teaching them the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Pharisees criticized him for it but not to his face. They went behind his back and whispered amongst themselves or complained to his disciples. But Jesus ignored them and went right on associating with outcasts. Would you now have me sever my ties with Jesus?
To those who judge me guilty by association I say: Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”
C. Why I am a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity:
1. To be a better Christian by learning to pray the Daily Office.
2. To be a better Lutheran by learning from other traditions, and also to encourage those who look to Missouri for solace and leadership.
3. To be a better pastor by mutual visitation, learning how to administer Private Confession and Absolution, and how to reverently conduct a liturgical service.
In short, I joined the STS to get things I was not getting in the LCMS. However, my experience in the STS has helped me overhaul the Southern Illinois District Pastoral Conference (of which I am chairman) along the lines of an STS retreat, structuring it around the daily office, with time for Confession and Absolution prior to the Eucharist, singing of Psalms, and so forth. Response has been positive. Ask Weedon.
As an aside, I would observe that the women pastors I have met in the STS are dedicated servants of the Lord and competent theologians who, in the LCMS, would have made first-rate deaconesses. But in the ELCA they were directed only to seminary. Besides which, the STS actually formed in reaction to hard-core feminists who were trying to revise the language of the baptismal formula to eliminate the “sexist” Father-and-Son language. It’s easy to stereotype images in the imagination, harder to comprehend real people.

Rev. Kusko,
With all due respect…
Yes, it DOES matter. Unlike the FC which, as I understand, passed through several periods of discussion and review by many brethren involved before it was presented for signature(s); i.e. was the “product of a committee,” if you will, this Manifesto is the product of one individual, whose credentials have been rightly called into question.
To perhaps oversimplify to absurdity: The Pope did not write the Formula of Concord.
That’s just one layman’s view.
Ed Weise

3. I am a member of a family in which my mother-in-law is Methodist, my father-in-law is Presbyterian, my son attends an ELCA congregation, and my daughter is dating a boy who goes to a Pentecostal church. My wife was not a lifelong Lutheran. I myself was caught up in the charismatic movement in my younger days. Should I sever ties with my family? With myself?

I don’t have time to respond fully at this point, but blather like the above demonstrates a lack of both critical reasoning and of willingness to understand anyone’s objection to membership in STS or anything else. Coupled with the error of thinking that you should be personally contacted for what you publicly proclaim at every opportunity and the general rebuke against those who see problems with/deficiencies in your Manifesto as being divisive (cf. the Tolkien quote), and it becomes obvious that you wish no real dialogue at all.

It is very sad to see BJS condoning this, regardless of whatever wrong advice Herb Mueller might have given you.

EJG

In light of the following public statement which is now on the Internet for all to read, I seriously question the wisdom of Rev. Baue putting himself in the position of being a spokesman for “confessional Lutheranism.” Please note the findings of various leaders of The LCMS, and Rev. Baue’s public admissions of guilt in this matter. I am deeply troubled by this and believe this casts a wide and dark shadow on Rev. Baue’s involvement in this Brotherhood of John the Steadfast or any other confessional Lutheran organization. I do not believe that BJS can try to sweep this under the rug, ignore it, or make light of this situation.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/rpage.asp?NavID=14161

Most of the negative comments I have read have nothing to do with the faithful confession found in the “Lutheran Manifesto,” but instead constitute an argumentum ad hominem. It matters little how the manifesto was generated nor who generated it. What matters is whether or not it expresses true doctrine. I believe it does. Otherwise I would not have signed it.

I have been praying for someone to write such a document as this, and I anticipate that it will be expanded and perfected through discussion. I thank Rev. Baue for writing it.

Doctrine divides. This Manifesto is divisive, but not unnecessarily so. It is true to the Lutheran Confessions. It is unifying. A unity based on anything short of this Manifesto is false unity.

We need to boldly profess the Truth in this age of anti-truth. Satan hates a faithful confession, and the Manifesto is a faithful confession. Let’s turn up the volume! I urge every Lutheran blogger and online Lutheran discussion participant to post a link to the Manifesto wherever they can. Let us start the discussion that might expand this faithful confession to address all the matters that divide our synod.

Let us, by the grace of God, as “Brothers of John the Steadfast” confess the Truth as expounded upon in this Lutheran Manifesto!

If you find items that you do not agree with in the Manifesto, state what those items are and why you disagree with them. If you find there are things that should be added, or should be phrased differently, explain why. But, if you can’t find anything you disagree with, sign it!

And most of all, for goodness sake, let’s stop these ad hominem arguments!

Speaking of ad hominem. Pointing out the fact of Dr. Baue’s participation in Society of the Holy Trinity is not an ad hominem attack. When a document is positing a direction in theology in terms of liturgy, office of the holy ministry, and fellowship issues, one poses an unclear hermeneutic by such an association as STS. It is one thing to dialogue another to affiliate. The basic point: drop out of STS and the objective of the Manifesto may go further.

Besides pointing out my concerns about Dr. Baue’s association with the Society of the Holy Trinity, I offered several other concerns about the content and way the document was developed. While a certain procedure is not a sine qua non of such a statement as the Manifesto, it is not entirely irrelevant either. I’ve expressed concerns above. I do think some rewording of the statement would be beneficial.

I’ll not be signing this statement with my nom de plume or otherwise. This is not to say there isn’t some good in the statement, but it is not one that I believe rises to the status of That They May Be One, for example.

But as I said some time ago, I do not think we need yet another statement at this time, that retreads previous statements (Consensus call to repentance, etc.). We need to get back to the sources (ad fontes) before we deal with all these subsequent layers on top of the Book of Concord. There’s enough there to work on in the plain sense of the text of the Lutheran Confessions – in liturgy, fellowship, the office of pastor, eucharistic practice, etc.

Rt. Rev. Jack et. al.,

I have been away from the site since yesterday morning and so have some catching up to do. Your last post is well balanced and provides a really good starting point for further discussion.

I agree that your criticism of Baue’s involvement in the Society of the Holy Trinity is not ad hominem but substantial. I think Erich’s point still stands though. I believe what he is saying is that the words of the Manifesto are what they say no matter who wrote them.

For the time being I disagree with your point that the Lutheran Confessions speak clearly enough against the problems that have arisen in the church today. I say “for the time being” because this is huge issue, as you know and it requires a slow and deliberate approach, and in the end I may be persuaded otherwise. I understand that you have given it slow and deliberate attention for some years now and I appreciate your conclusion. I am of the opinion however, that we need to explore the possibility of clarifying in a confessional way, the issues of our day.

I have been using the Manifesto in my Bible class for the last few weeks and have found it very helpful for addressing issues that have arisen since the presentation of the Augsburg Confession. I am not getting 100% agreement on the assertions of the Manifesto but I am seeing that my teaching on these topics is more assertive and the Bible class members are able to cut to the chase and see clearly what traditional Lutheranism holds.

Thanks again for your comments,

More to come…

Pastor Rossow

If you find items that you do not agree with in the Manifesto, state what those items are and why you disagree with them. If you find there are things that should be added, or should be phrased differently, explain why. But, if you can’t find anything you disagree with, sign it!

And most of all, for goodness sake, let’s stop these ad hominem arguments!

Dr. Heidenreich, the points of disagreement have been pointed out and ignored.

Mislabeling objections to someone’s unclear confession as ad hominem isn’t very helpful; association with the Society of the Holy Trinity by the author changes the meaning of the document, just as association with PLI would. The trumpet is not giving a clear sound.

OTOH, the great thing about the Manifesto is this: with the elimination of but one paragraph, Jerry Kieschnick would be happy to sign it.

EJG

Rev. Stefanski,

The last point in your most recent comment means that the Manifesto is an improvement on the situation since Pres. Kieschnick signs on to every paragraph of the Lutheran Confessions. I am glad to see the Manifesto at the very least, in your opinion, draws him out in one paragraph. That’s an improvement.

Pastor Rossow

Pastor Rossow,

I have maintained from the beginning that there are many excellent things in the Manifesto…and that it could be greatly improved by a little editing. If the rush for signatures and apparent pride that won’t allow it to be corrected were put aside, it could be a good and unifying document—if the authorship were also allowed to fade into the background, instead of being ‘proclaimed’, so that the difference between the Manifesto and Dr. Baue’s own practice weren’t art of the equation.

EJG

[If you don't want to read a long post, you might want to search for the next comment number right now. Don't say I never did anything for you… EJG]

In response to Dr. Baue:

A. Regarding content of the Manifesto. Read the cover letter carefully. Karl Marx was the sole author of the Communist Manifesto; he started a revolution. I am the sole author of the Lutheran Manifesto; I am only expressing the views of a revolution that has already begun… the confessional revolution. Others are free to agree or disagree.

1. No, you have not expressed the views of the ‘revolution’; instead, as has been pointed out to you (with zero response) is that you have a) gone beyond the Confessions in one point and b) failed to confess against some significant abuses in others.

2. By submitting the document to this site with a call for signatures, you leave those who agree in large part but disagree in small, but significant, areas to either ‘look like they’re not confessing with you’ or to violate their consciences. What has been voiced here by several is that such an approach without first calling for comments is inappropriate. It violates both the dynamic and the trust of the assembled group. (Note that you can’t violate my trust, because I am not and cannot be a part of the group; i.e., this is not a personal complaint, but a statement of what this call for ‘signatures’ accomplishes.)

3. The wisdom of comparing oneself to Marx escapes me; perhaps one has to be predominantly German to understand it.

If my writing helps to clarify issues and bring about unity, I shall be gratified. If the critics—whose evaluation is now longer than the manifesto!—wish to produce manifesto of their own that is superior to mine, I shall be happy to read it.

I can only hope that your use of words is as poor at conveying your true attitude as my use of words is. Folks wished to improve upon what they saw as an excellent ‘work in progress’, but you make it into a ‘take it or leave it, if you don’t like it write your own’ proposition. Instead of allowing those who may well not be able to write as you have done to help you perfect it, you criticize them for giving input and tell them they can go off and do their own thing if they don’t like it. Oh, my, yes, that is so uniting!

Meanwhile I am reminded of Haldir’s words to Legolas in The Lord of the Rings: “Indeed in nothing is the power of the Dark Lord more clearly shown than in the estrangement that divides all those who still oppose him.”

Those who seek to improve your work are the divisive servants of the devil. Seriously, do you not actually have a clue how you sound? Good grief, at least I’ll acknowledge that I am so unskilled that I tend to come off as rabidly sarcastic in spite of my intent, but do you really not comprehend just how condescending your ‘tone’ is here, how over the top your reference is? Yet the fact is that no one has sought to estrange you, but you are doing your best to estrange them.

?B. Regarding my membership in the STS (Societas Trinitatis Sanctae):?1. I am a member of the STS, which includes ELCA women pastors, but also has members from the LCMS , WELS, and ELS.

The majority are ELCA; Missouri is represented by such great lights as David Poedel, who hosted the ecumenical Communion service at Kramer Chapel and John Hannah. These are not guys with whom I would want it thought that I am sharing a confession.

Further, it is not’ mere membership’ that is involved here, as if it were a club; there is a common confession that is made by it including the recognition of the other members as pastors.

BTW: I hold that there are errors taught by ELS and WELS, too, and that it is ‘normal’ to find errorists there who would join such a group.

I do not commune at STS retreats. I do not condone women’s ordination.

Your membership says it all; by being a member of “a ministerium” which accepts (and thereby confesses) women’s ordination, you are supporting the same. I know you don’t want to, and I have said that from my very first post…but you are. You and they are called “pastors” on equal footing. I’m sorry that you don’t see how this muddies your confession, but it most certainly does.

I consulted with my district president, Rev. Herbert Mueller (Southern Illinois) before joining to make sure that by so doing I was not breaking my vow to avoid unionism and syncretism of every description.

Well, thank you, Pres. Benke. I’m glad that you have your ‘Get Out of Jail Free Card’, having been assured of your Ecclesiastical Supervisor’s support. Unfortunately, his bad advice is no better than Kieschnick’s bad advice. In this case, it can be that one can give bad advice even with a statement that contains truth, simply because the statement doesn’t go far enough. You don’t participate in STS’s Communion services? Neither do I. Would anyone think you or I did do so? You, perhaps, but not me. Why? Because I’m not a member. Your membership introduces a lack of clarity…just like one’s membership in the Elks or Moose ‘for social purposes’ but with the rejection of the ritual (or the claim that the local lodge as a whole doesn’t do what the national does). Your joining a society in which women’s ordination is an accepted fact (in spite of your own rejection of it) is no different from joining a lodge but rejecting its works-righteousness, etc.

I have been publicly criticized for being a member of the STS for some time now, but I do not recall any of my critics contacting me or coming to me personally to express their brotherly concern, nor have I seen any of these critics at any STS retreat.

There is no need to come to you begging you to hear me privately about what you so proudly and publicly proclaim (again, good grief, really: putting ‘STS’ after your name on your joint statement with Kieschnick and the DPs, etc.). Rather, the proper thing to do is to warn against you publicly.

Ah, but I forget: you Missourians reject what Luther writes in the Large Catechism under the Eighth Commandment and falsely use your rejection of it as a club to bash the heads of those who might publicly ask for a public answer for the works that you do publicly.

Of course, it is interesting to see you equate membership in STS with membership in the LCMS. I have to conclude that you are right: membership in either one leaves one with a muddy confession.

Yet for all her faults, this church is my mother. She gave me life.

While, indeed, “no one can call God his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother,” the Missouri Synod is not the Church.

Besides which Missouri is undergoing a transformation through the grassroots confessional movement and is highly redeemable. Should I turn my back on my mother??

I hope that your dream comes true. I would rather you understood that it was a dream.

3. I am a member of a family in which my mother-in-law is Methodist, my father-in-law is Presbyterian, my son attends an ELCA congregation, and my daughter is dating a boy who goes to a Pentecostal church. My wife was not a lifelong Lutheran. I myself was caught up in the charismatic movement in my younger days. Should I sever ties with my family? With myself??

This, I dealt with earlier. It is a non sequitur based entirely on emotion and deceives the reader, leading him away from the point of the objection. To restore us to the right track, I ask: Do you have to join the Methodist, Presbyterian, ELCA, and Pentecostal churches in order to maintain ties with your family? Thus, the vacuousness of #3 is quite apparent.

4. I am active in the local music community and have many disreputable friends. Some are homosexual. Some are atheist. Some are crazy. But I am their only contact with the truth of Jesus Christ, and they often turn to me for spiritual guidance. Should I leave them in darkness??

Once again, you have tried to equate a social construct with formal membership in a confessing body in which certain propositions are accepted/expected among the membership.

I am a Christian and follow Jesus, who ate with sinners and tax collectors, meanwhile teaching them the Gospel of the Kingdom. The Pharisees criticized him for it but not to his face. They went behind his back and whispered amongst themselves or complained to his disciples. But Jesus ignored them and went right on associating with outcasts. Would you now have me sever my ties with Jesus??To those who judge me guilty by association I say: Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.”?

I’m sorry; I had forgotten…that you were…y’know…Jesus. Further, I had forgotten that confronting someone in a forum where they publicly confess two different things (“I’m against women’s ordination, but call certain women ‘pastors’ by my membership in STS”) was whispering behind your back. I challenge you, though, to prove that Jesus became a member of the prostitutes or tax collectors guilds in order to associate with them.

Your use of irrelevant argumentation to try to get others to accept your mischaracterization of those who seek to improve both your Manifesto and your confession-in-life is truly sad and tiresome.

C. Why I am a member of the Society of the Holy Trinity:?1. To be a better Christian by learning to pray the Daily Office.?2. To be a better Lutheran by learning from other traditions, and also to encourage those who look to Missouri for solace and leadership.?3. To be a better pastor by mutual visitation, learning how to administer Private Confession and Absolution, and how to reverently conduct a liturgical service.?In short, I joined the STS to get things I was not getting in the LCMS.

None of those things would have required your joining. All of those things could have been done without a questionable membership coming into the mix. #2, especially, sounds like communing those with whom one is ‘almost in fellowship’. (Readers, please understand that statement: I did not say that Dr. Baue was communing anyone or communing with anyone; I said that it is similar to the practice of some bodies who don’t wait for a recognition of full fellowship to start communing one another, but who do so ‘while the details [i.e., doctrine] are being worked out’. You don’t formally join errorists in order to straighten them out; again, doing so is like practicing open Communion.)

However, my experience in the STS has helped me overhaul the Southern Illinois District Pastoral Conference (of which I am chairman) along the lines of an STS retreat, structuring it around the daily office, with time for Confession and Absolution prior to the Eucharist, singing of Psalms, and so forth.

Weird…I managed to do things like that at conferences without having to join STS; I wonder whether you might have been able to observe one of their retreats and do the same without joining? I guess we’ll never know.

Response has been positive. Ask Weedon.

Wow, cool! The opposite of ad hominem: an irrelevant appeal to authority! Seriously, did Pr. Weedon say, “Thank you so much, Fritz, for joining STS! We should all join so that our conferences will always be this way!”? Or, did he rightly thank you for doing what any member of SSP or LLPB would have done (except that with LLPB the chant would have been Gregorian)?

?As an aside, I would observe that the women pastors I have met in the STS are dedicated servants of the Lord and competent theologians who, in the LCMS, would have made first-rate deaconesses. But in the ELCA they were directed only to seminary.

If they think women can be pastors, I sure wouldn’t want them as deaconesses. BTW: ELCA does have deaconesses. If they’re competent theologians, they realize that they have no Office and have stopped pretending to be pastors, right? No…the membership roster lists several pretending to be Called by God to serve parishes as pastors. Then again, many ‘competent’ people simply refuse what God’s Word says and resist any effort to correct them.

Besides which, the STS actually formed in reaction to hard-core feminists who were trying to revise the language of the baptismal formula to eliminate the “sexist” Father-and-Son language. It’s easy to stereotype images in the imagination, harder to comprehend real people.

Yes, it’s easy for you to accuse me (and others) of working from stereotypes, of being schismatic, of not coming to you privately about your public error, of wanting you to divide yourself from your family, musician friends, and…(gulp!)…Jesus, but it is far more difficult to honestly appreciate why anyone would have a problem with your unnecessarily joining an organization in which membership itself confesses the acceptability of women’s ordination (since ‘ordained’ women are addressed as ‘pastors’ [cf. this year’s Dues Letter], just as are the men). As Bauer rightly asserts, such affiliations have a bearing on hermeneutics, etc. The fact that instead of taking your space to bring comfort to those with concerns—much less to answer those who made excellent observations regarding omissions, etc., in the document—you chose to vilify your “critics” adds another layer to my wariness.

My wife, wise person that she is, tells me that I ought not waste my time with this response. She is wise, but she is not a pastor. A pastor sees a document with potential and a man who militantly rejects any attempt to improve ‘his’ document (btw…once a document is submitted for signatures, it is no longer ‘yours’, but the Church’s) or to call him to have his life clearly confess what his words seek to convey…and that makes a pastor’s heart fill with grief that demands expression for the benefit of those involved. Such expression may well take the form of cajoling, scolding, sarcasm, and the like—especially if the pastor doing the responding tends to be both ineloquent and truly perplexed at the lack of humility and desire for a co-operative course of betterment in one whose skills so far exceed his own. I am sorry for my rough tone; if I knew a better way to cover the ground covered above, I would do it, but, sadly, I do not. (I would try to excuse it as ‘liturgically-informed zeal instigated by Michaelmas’, but even I wouldn’t believe that; rather, it is simply that I am oafish and I do not understand.)

At this point, you (all) can have your rest from me. I do ask, however, for the sake of my own evaluation of things and my consideration of future involvement in/promotion of things BJS whether BJS condones membership in the Society of the Holy Trinity.

EJG

I have to second Rev. Stefanski’s last question of BJS.
He makes a compelling case for problems in this association in STS–moreso than Pastor Baue makes in defending it.
I can’t imagine Pastor Baue urging his flock to associate with religious groups that conflict with their own public confession; an association that, on its face, might call into question the truth of his members’ own confession.
It reminds me sadly of our 1960s-era justification for not outwardly opposing the military draft. It wasn’t because we were afraid of authority or of the consequences of open rebellion, we offered, but because we thought we could transform things (bring ‘the revolution’ to bear, that is) from the inside.
Oddly enough, that rather happened to the military, and to the culture at large. And it’s not all good.
It appears, from Pastor Baue’s own justifications on this site, that, more than anything else, he’s a member because he wants to be. Anything he wanted to accomplish thru his membership, or has accomplished, is and was available elsewhere, without the cost of a questionable association.
Sadly, he did not even mention ‘changing STS from the inside’ as even one motivation. He seems content to let them be them, and to let himself be one of them.
Not in practice, but in association merely? That’s where hypocrisy begins.
The good outweighs the bad? How does that wash for the members of Pastor Baue’s own congregation? What would he allow or deny his communicants, on the basis of such associations?

Thanks to Pr Stefanski (and others) for asking many of the questions that I was thinking.

I wish the manifesto could have been posted on its own independent site, rather that BJS. The fact that a document that, in my way of thinking, is unfinished, makes me question the wisdom of joining BJS. I have no problem with the manifesto (or any other document of this sort) being mentioned or published on the BJS site. My concern is that BJS should be a site for education and discussion, not coercion.

Someone suggested going ahead and signing the manifesto, basically because it is well-intentioned. Later, another writer indicated that ongoing comments may cause the manifesto to be changed at a later date. If I sign on now, can I “un-sign” later if I don’t like the changes? Visions of AC/UAC are dancing through my head.

Rev. Stefanski et. al.,

I have been busy caring for my flock and getting the next issue of the Steadfast Quarterly printed and have not had time to invest all that is needed in this important discussion. I have had limited interaction with Dr. Baue since the posting of the Manifesto but based on the comments above, there will be more in the weeks to come.

Concerning the authorship of the Manifesto, I do believe that Dr. Baue is acting in humility. I cannot look into one’s heart but I can say that it has been presented to BJS by Dr. Baue in all humility. You may have experience with Dr. Baue that suggests otherwise but I have not seen anything but devotion to the confesional cause in the man.

I believe it has his name attached to it because he is trying to stress that it is not a confession but a personal call to arms. I also believe that this is not the act of ego but of courage – being willing to take one for the team.

Does the Manifesto lay ground work for a future confession. That is not its intent but I could see it serving as such, in which case the personality would most likely drop out, although it is not a requirement for a confessional statement, n. b. the Treatise, the Small Catechism and the Large Catechism.

I have great respect for you but in this case of this Manifesto it seems like there is undo attention on the process.

In terms of Dr. Baue’s association with the Society of the Holy Trinity, that is a matter for our board to consider. We appreciate all of the helpful input we have recieved. We will take this matter up in our BJS virtual meeting room.

Concerning issues raised with the substance of the document, those are best taken up with Dr. Baue. I hope he will address them in this forum. Of course, it is not that simple. BJS has posted the Manifesto and so we bear accountabolity in this matter as well. If there is ever to be any use beyond its stated use as a call to arms, it would be good for folks like you, the Rt. Rev. Jack Bauer (whoever that might be) and others to be involved in crafting some future statement.

As time allows I will comment on more of the matters presented in this long string of commentary. Thank you everyone for your input. No one ever said bringing Confessional Lutherans together would be easy. No, it is a lot like hearding cats. (Did I mention that I have a kitty – the world’s best kitty? His name is Happy Bob but that is for another post, or maybe not. I think I am oversharing now and putting what little credibility I have into jeopardy.)

More to come…

Pastor Rossow

Concerning the authorship of the Manifesto, I do believe that Dr. Baue is acting in humility. I cannot look into one’s heart but I can say that it has been presented to BJS by Dr. Baue in all humility. You may have experience with Dr. Baue that suggests otherwise but I have not seen anything but devotion to the confesional cause in the man.

My only assertion wrt humility is in the manner in which Dr. Baue has dealt with “his critics.” I at no point made any reference to him writing it out of ego; that was someone else and I disagree with him.

I have great respect for you but in this case of this Manifesto it seems like there is undo attention on the process.

Not at all; while the truncated process and seeming rush to subscription have compromised the document’s content, it is not the process of bringing it into being that so troubles me, but the negative reaction of the author to his ‘baby’ being judge (and found decent in all but a few points…it’s like getting mad because someone noticed that your beautiful child had dirt on her face and offered a wet wipe to clean her off).

In terms of Dr. Baue’s association with the Society of the Holy Trinity, that is a matter for our board to consider. We appreciate all of the helpful input we have recieved. We will take this matter up in our BJS virtual meeting room.

This is much appreciated; I hope that the end result is his foregoing such membership for the clarity of confession and good of the cause.

Concerning issues raised with the substance of the document, those are best taken up with Dr. Baue. I hope he will address them in this forum.

Indeed. Addressing them and amending the document would be the right thing to do and one thatis simpler now than it will be in three months. So far, we’re talking about three or four small additions and one partial re-wording (making the infant Communion part say what ELDoNA’s “Malone Theses” say would be plenty)…and, really, I don’t think that anything more than that is going to crop up. Oh, that nonsense about being faithful to Scripture without being faithful to the Confessions should go, too; those who are anti-Confessional cannot have it conceded to them that they are faithful to Scripture, or they may rightly say that the Confessions are an ‘add on’, that ‘Lutheranism’ is ‘Christianity plus something non-essential’, etc.

But, other than that…good grief, if I could produce something that needed this little editing, I would be doing cartwheels, not going around calling people schismatics like Dr. Baue did!

I would ask that you re-read the previous posts in light of the above and not-oversimplify the objections that have been raised, nor make them out to be personal attacks on the man. Noting the inconsistency of his actions and his words is not calling him (especially/strangely) “evil”; all of us contradict our words, our confession every day…but, yes, when our names appear on something, what we do has an impact on what we say and both how it will be received and what folks will think we mean.

Herding cats is really not all that difficult…if there is food available and if you are not going that far. In my experience with ‘Confessional Lutheran Leadership’ in the LCMS, part of the difficulty (especially in 2001-2004) was that there was always an assumption of some need for a massive moving needed to get everybody to get along. There wasn’t then, and there isn’t now: a few little changes for the better and you’ll find folks ready to sign on…even moreso if you then formulate a plan of action based on the edited Manifesto, such as a state of confession…

EJG (more nuanced than most seem to think)

Well said.

I have already signed the petition, Master Melanchthon, so you must not change any of it.