Is there a contest for filling in the last line of the cover? Free BJS Conference registration as the prize, perhaps?

EJG

Now that…is absolutely hysterical!!! After a fast 36 hours in Denver, I sure needed this laugh. Thanks a bunch!

Hahahah!

Over the top.

@formerly mr angry now just annoyed #2 So Mr. Formerly-Mr-Angry-now-just-annoyed, What happened at the “gathering” in Denver? We need to know.

Actually, more (just saw note notes on other thread)

Editor: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=8424#comment-65981

@Steven Bobb #6 What other thread.

Editor: http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=8424#comment-65981

Awesome, dude!

Mean spirited and unnecessary.

What was, “Editor”?

Mollie, Could you photoshop in a little snazzier tie for PK?

Titlewise, Concordia Publishing House’s plan to publish Waking the Sleeping Giant: The Birth, Growth, Decline, and Rebirth of an American Church in January, 2010, may already be too late.

Last year Continuum Press published The Sleeping Giant Has Awoken: The New Politics of Religion in the United States, edited by Jeffrey W. Robbins.

“The Birth, Growth, Decline, and Rebirth of an American Church.”

Does decline fit with rebirth?
I was always taught there has to be a death before a rebirth.

I still think this is “over the top.” I’m with the “Editor” (#9). Quasi Ad Hominem.

Well, johannes, if the resemblance carries over to the inside, shouldn’t the “buyers” be aware?

johannes :
I still think this is “over the top.” I’m with the “Editor” (#9). Quasi Ad Hominem.

You’re probably not going to like this video about Gerald I’s childhood, the wellspring from which all of these good ideas come…

Oh, well…

EJG

I agree with johannes and Editor. I find nothing constructive in this post. After reading the description of why this site exists (http://steadfastlutherans.org/?page_id=78), I don’t see any of that here in this post, but rather an example that “encourage[s] and equip[s] husbands” to break the 8th Commandment.

A humorous, truthful, public response by those to whom one is accountable (and pastors/theologians, in being accountable to God, are mediately accountable not only to a group of convention delegates, nor only to those of their own body, nor even only to all of Christendom, but to unbelievers, as well, 1 Tim. 3:7, Titus 1:9), when said person continues in egregious error that makes a laughingstock of his church body is definitely not a matter of breaking the 8th Commandment, but of showing love to those who might otherwise be led astray by this charlatan who claims to be a Lutheran (though not too loudly, of course). Mollie’s comparison of him to Tony Robbins based on similarity of title and similarity of approach (business/personal motivation, not sound doctrine) is absolutely apt. The only thing that is inaccurate in it is that he hasn’t sold more than one radio station, and the only thing that might be construed as “mean” is the noting of his lack of accomplishments…which is, of course, also apt, considering that ‘the contender’ for his seat is a man who not only has managed to ‘grow’ the work of LCMS World Relief and Human Care while the rest of the LCMS’s work is (still, despite Kieschnick’s title) in decline, but also has written several things that are, in LCMS circles, at least, ‘best sellers’ (though, granted, some of them were given away to any who requested them).

In short, those who so often with to bash people over the heads with the 8th Commandment simply demonstrate their own abuse of the Commandments (8th and otherwise) due to their own lack of humor, their having succumbed to the prevailing pansified idea of what is civil, and/or commitment to the truth.

Mollie presented the truth. She did so with humor, and she did so drawing proper analogies.

EJG

All apologies to the detractors…but that IS sly, humorous, and sad, all rolled into the same bundle, as is the intent. Brilliant!

As Lewis stated, “what ARE they teaching in schools nowadays?”

Sometimes–like when it becomes apparent that legitimate critcism, examination, and debate of salient matters are unwelcome at best–you just gotta laugh.

Mollie :
FYI — I did not create this.

You posted it. I’m reckoning that you didn’t do that because you disagreed with it, or you would have stated so.

At any rate, I don’t see how you did anything against either the purpose or principles of BJS.

EJG

I fail to find any words in this work that “defend, speak well of, or explain in the kindest way.” I would appreciate it if anyone pointed them out in order to help clear up my confusion. I believe I understand the difference between properly identifying a brother’s sin (as explained in Matthew 18:15-17) and violating the 8th Commandment. If I am mistaken, please offer me your disagreements. Ultimately, I see this work as an open invitation to attack leaders in our church with whom we harbor disagreements, an offer that is far too sweet for many of us to turn down, and I indict myself first and foremost with these words.

I have very little interest in purchasing this new book, and yet I see no reason to post this type of material and promulgate the negative feelings it generates. Seeing as how the majority of the commenters here find so much humor in this work, I assume it was e-mailed first to President Kieschnick, and only posted here after it was warmly welcomed with a slight chuckle, if not uproarious laughter.

Finally, if the poster did not create this work, it is usually a good idea to cite the origins of material created by another party. If a name is unavailable, maybe point the readers to where it was found? Based on some other comments, it seems that many readers thought this to be a work original to the poster.

Let’s see–we’ve made fun of a book that we haven’t read and have only the chapter headings, we’ve guessed that he didn’t write it himself, we’ve made fun of his tie and his stature, we’ve questioned his motives for writing the book in the first place. Where’s the satire here? The same could be done to Matthew Harrison by say, Jesus First, and I doubt that we’d think it particularly satirical or humorous. I know I would not. (Now that I think about it, I don’t recall reading anything by JF that was in the least bit funny.) As far as clubbing anyone with the 8th commandment is concerned, my only comment was that some of the posts had a somewhat ad hominem quality and were over the top. I stand by my opinions.

We can oppose (yes, and satirize) Pres. K on the basis of the issues: his theology (such as it is), his quest for power, his treatment of some BOD members, the KFUO debacle, firings of Wilken & Schwartz, demotion of Paul McCain, and firing of Martin Noland. The BRTFSSG gives us loads of ammunition, too, so why pick on the book before it’s released? THAT little book (BRTFSSG) is full of great material! He’s given us loads of stuff to satirize. It sounds like fun. Maybe Mollie’s mom would like to join us.

While the pietistic pother continues over the “uncanny resemblance” of a cover of a yet unpublished book, it should be noted that 58 years ago this month (Dec. 19, to be exact) the Concordia (St. Louis) Seminarian printed a review of another book (coincidentally prior to the book’s actual publication). The book was The Relieved Paradox (Howard Press, 1951) by (coincidentally another) legendary theologian, Franz Bibfeldt.

In its February, 1995 issue, the University of Chicago Magazine recounted the Concordia Seminarian‘s review (written by then-seminarian Martin Marty):

“Not since Karl Barth issued his Romans from Safenwil,” the review begins, “has a continental voice sounded so sudden and surprising a theological note.” This “slight volume” unveiled Bibfeldt as the “most startling critic” of the dialectical theological movement. Bibfeldt’s convoluted arguments “limit his usefulness to all but rather mature theological thinkers,” the review cautions, but the author prophetically adds that he nevertheless “indicates a trend to watch.”

One can hardly wait for the first reviews of Waking the Sleeping Giant, if only to compare them to reviews of The Sleeping Giant: Arousing church power in America, Awaken the Giant Within, Waking Up the Sleeping Giant, Wake the Sleeping Giant, Wake Up, Sleeping Giant, Awakening the Sleeping Giant, Re-Awakening a Sleeping Giant, Arousing the Sleeping Giant, The Sleeping Giant Stirs, Sleeping Giant Wakens, The Sleeping Giant Has Awoken, When Will the Sleeping Giant Awaken?, The Sleeping Giant Story, The Sleeping Giant and Other Stories, Fund Raising – the Sleeping Giant, Awakening the sleeping giant : the church and the road to revival, Inspire the Sleeping Giant Within, and Legend of the Sleeping Giant.

I understand that this artwork is intended to be funny, and yet I find whatever humor it uses to be drowned out by a clear attempt to defame our brother in Christ, rather than speak well of him. Many of the comments seem to have used it as a springboard for such behavior. Attempting to justify it by arguing that it’s okay because it’s funny or it’s okay because it could be worse simply don’t convince me.

As for the postulations on why I or others would cite the 8th Commandment in this or other contexts, I was somewhat confused:

“In short, those who so often with [sic] to bash people over the heads with the 8th Commandment simply demonstrate their own abuse of the Commandments (8th and otherwise) due to their own lack of humor, their having succumbed to the prevailing pansified idea of what is civil, and/or commitment to the truth.”

I acknowledge that I am severely incapable of keeping our Lord’s Ten Commandments, and yet I know that this is not a result of my lack of humor, but rather the sinful nature in which I was conceived. I wrestle with this post and many of the comments it has inspired because in my recent time at our St. Louis seminary, I disagreed heavily with many of the decisions and actions of the administration, and I fell short of God’s glory many times with respect to His 8th Commandment. It’s still a strong temptation for me to speak badly of the administration specifically, but my fellow human beings in general. Now, as a result, when I see what appears to be an invitation to defame those around us, I voice dissent, if not for the aid of others, then only to curb my own sinful impulses.

I know firsthand that it’s too easy to sit back and complain about the words or actions of those around us. It’s frustrating that President Kieschnick will not go on Issues, Etc. to discuss certain concerns, and yet we are called to defend him, speak well of him, and explain everything he does in the kindest of ways. We don’t have to agree with everything our brothers and sisters in Christ say or do, but we should seek agreement with them. It becomes difficult when they do not avail themselves to such conversations, but that does not give us permission to tarnish one’s reputation. This is how we are to live as those forgiven by our Lord Jesus Christ.

Maybe I’m being too sensitive on this issue, but I feel that erring on the side of caution when sin is on the line is a good idea, and one I do not follow often enough. As a new pastor in the LCMS, I appreciate this site as a helpful resource, and when I find distractions like this one I am grateful for the chance to voice my disagreements.

#26: “Where’s the satire here? The same could be done to Matthew Harrison by say, Jesus First, and I doubt that we’d think it particularly satirical or humorous.”

While someone might satirize Matthew Harrison, it would be a lot harder to satirize At Home in the House of My Fathers or all of its authors.

Matthew Harrison – isn’t he the Italian plumber who trips on mushrooms? Or is he the leader of the Bull-Moose party and the Rough Riders? I don’t remember.

Anonymous #32-
now we are talking. Nice work.

No, no.

In his younger days Matthew Harrision used to play bluegrass banjo for the Del McCoury band, under the stage name “Rob McCoury”, until he shaved off his goatee, let his moustache grow, and left (some other kid now plays on the band).

So all Harrison does these days is sit around in his office and play “A Might Fortress” on his banjo with bluegrass variations.

@Mollie #27
I was not referring to the picture. I was referring to some of the comments in this string.

I have a vivid imagination, but not that vivid. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

j

@Carl Vehse #31
See my response to Mollie above, and check out some of the comments on this string and the original posting on Pres. K’s new book. Some of the comments are directed towards Pres. K’s person, not the book. Others cast doubts on his motives, etc. That’s what my comments were speaking about. I think if I wanted to find ways to satirize Harrison’s book, it could be done. I just don’t care to go there.

Also I also should have referenced the original blog on Pres. K’s new book in my comments, and in my reply to Mollie above. My apologies.

I love it!

8th Commandment, Large Catechism:

274] Thus you see that it is summarily forbidden to speak any evil of our neighbor, however, the civil government, preachers, father and mother excepted, on the understanding that this commandment does not allow evil to go unpunished. Now, as according to the Fifth Commandment no one is to be injured in body, and yet Master Hannes [the executioner] is excepted, who by virtue of his office does his neighbor no good, but only evil and harm, and nevertheless does not sin against God’s commandment, because God has on His own account instituted that office; for He has reserved punishment for His own good pleasure, as He threatens in the First Commandment,-just so also, although no one has a right in his own person to judge and condemn anybody, yet if they to whose office it belongs fail to do it, they sin as well as he who would do so of his own accord, without such office. For here necessity requires one to speak of the evil, to prefer charges, to investigate and testify; 275] and it is not different from the case of a physician who is sometimes compelled to examine and handle the patient whom he is to cure in secret parts. Just so governments, father and mother, brothers and sisters, and other good friends, are under obligation to each other to reprove evil wherever it is needful and profitable.

[Picking it up in the middle of 284, as the next line declares the intervening irrelevant for this discussion] But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it.
– - -

Gerald Kieschnick has brought himself into disgrace–over and over–and has dragged his church body down with him. Now he presumes to speak of a rebirth under his watch? Personal digs are not appropriate, but to ridicule the whole idea of him writing such a book is well in keeping with what his publicly-committed crimes against the LCMS (and God’s Church) have earned him: he has placed himself into section 284–he is to be spoken against like unto speaking against the Pope. It is the duty of those of whom Luther speaks of as being given the office of judging by God to speak out in exactly such a way.

EJG

#35 “I was not referring to the picture. I was referring to some of the comments in this string.”

Well, johannes, your #4 and #14 addressed the the photoshopped cover as “over the top” and agreed with #9 that it was “Mean spirited and unnecessary” and “quasi ad hominem.”

In any case, # 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15, 18-23, 25 were not over the top, mean spirited or ad hominem.

#16′s video link might be considered mean spirited, but the video of Grabauski (who is not in the Missouri Synod any more) deals with other issues, and is not directly about the book.

If objecting to particular comments, be specific and not make a general accusation (“some of the comments”) on the thread which impunes all of comments . Also if your comments are about posts on another thread, then specifically object on that thread, which was not started by the person who started this thread.

@Carl Vehse #39
As I said on another thread, this is a tough crowd. I’m glad haven’t written a book. It’s apparent I have struck a sensitive nerve, a not-uncommon occurrence. The responses to my comments, which I had thought were not “in-your-face”, have been, well, interesting.

OK, I did think the picture was “over the top.” I inadvertently confused Pr. Rossow’s “A Guessing Game–which Church…” with this one, then tried to clear up that confusion, and offered my apologies for the confusion, which apparently weren’t enough. I have asked the webmeister to remove a couple of my comments on that particular thread that I have decided were inappropriate.

As far as further comments are concerned about this unpleasantness that I seem to have started, I’ll just simply “second” Jacks comments in #30 and refrain from commenting on this thread any further. I am sincerely sorry that I may have offended you and others on this thread. Please forgive me.

J.

While it’s not wise to judge a book by its cover, the title President Kieschnick chose is telling. Many comments were made on Pastor Rossow’s post, especially focusing on the words “Awaking the Sleeping Giant” which may or may not have come from Billy Graham. But also worth noting is the subtitle – “The Birth, Growth, Decline, and Rebirth of an American Church.” This is the language of the Transforming Congregations Network. You can see where this book is going.

Sure it’s possible that those who are less than enthusiastic about President Kieschnick’s forthcoming book are unfounded in their skepticism. We won’t know for certain until it’s out. But based on the book’s title and the language it employs, people are pretty safe to make accurate assumptions and predictions. That, and the President’s record over the last three terms.

Time will tell.

Ohhhhhh, johannes, just think of us as harmless little fuzzballs (not to be confused with dust bunnies).

And you haven’t offended anybody. In fact, it should be expected that everyone on BJS will disagree with something at sometime on some thread (If a person doesn’t, he’s a BJS sycophant!)

So if you see something with which you disagree, feel free to say so. Of course, you may get asked, “Why?” (among other phrases ) And you can answer if you wish, or simply say, “Because!” That’s acceptable, though it may not sway a lot of readers. Even if you give brilliant and thorough reasons, you may not sway a lot of readers. Take it from me!

As for the satire, including pictures and cartoons, on this and other thread (yes, I’ve seen BJS has a history of that), I think that almost all of it deals with public issues and positions with which most BJS posters disagree. And in responding to public positions which have become hardened, satire is one way to chip away at it or maybe knock it loose.

Finally, I think satire (like demolition derby) is not everyone’s cup of tea. Those of us who as youngsters read Mad Magazine at night under the bedspread with a fading flashlight know what I mean.

Ah, Mad magazine! Spy vs. Spy. Wow, childhood memories. But I digress.

Pastor Stefanski thanks for the refresher on the 8th commandment as expounded upon by the Confessions. Why are those who won’t come out and say what their real agenda is are always so thin skinned? Reminds me of a time not so long ago when those in a certain seminary swore they were not doing certain things, when indeed they were.

Is the current leadership of the synod taking us down the road to becoming just another Bapticostal church? If so, why won’t they come out and state that as their purpose? Abandoning many of the tenants of Lutheran practice while trying to dress it up and put lipstick on it with psuedo Lutheran trappings is disengenuous – if that is indeed where they are trying to take the ‘sleeping giant’. Calling people out for exposing the truth and claiming violation of the 8th is getting old. Someone having a bit of fun (as above) is healthy. I agree we shouldn’t disparage President Kieschnick personally, but bringing to light what he is really doing (taking the lipstick off) is correct and necessary.

On another note (I just want to vent) I have a good friend that is on an extended business trip down in Scottsdale. He found a nice little ELS church that is sound in doctrine AND practice. It has a weekly attendance of around 25. The pastor was away this week to Mankato so he tried an LCMS church not 10 minutes away. It has 4 or 5 services, so he attended the ‘traditional’ service. The new hymnal sat unused for the liturgy, and the sermon had nothing to do with the lectionary, it had to do with how to do ADTS prayer. Apparently sin and forgiveness were light or missing from the menu at that church. Why when there is a faithful church just down the road it can’t muster up much more than two dozen people, but when your best life now is preached, it draws people in.

It seems the lure of works righteousness has a pull that few can resist (maybe no one can without the Holy Spirit).

Am in Kampala, Uganda – The CLEF investigating at the request of pastors and lay leaders translation and publication possibilites.

And yes – that is really funny even in the heat and humidity of Africa!

Therefore I am now the first to offer Mollie a contribution to her legal defence fund when Gerry decides to take her to court.

Dear Brothers and Sisters of John the Steadfast,

The book cover at the top of this blog page makes me feel sorry for President Kieschnik. As a pastor of twenty-five years vintage, I have received my own share of opposition, ridicule, criticism, talk-behind-my-back, plotting, etc. I am not complaining; it comes with the job. When I see another pastor on the “receiving end,” I feel sorry for him, whether or not I agree with him theologically or whether he is even a Lutheran. Those who are not pastors, or not been pastors very long, would not understand this sentiment.

I guess that makes me a “bleeding-heart conservative.” But I bet there are a lot of experienced pastors in the LCMS who are like me.

Luther used satire very effectively, but it was not without repercussions. He did not invent religious satire in the church. The credit for that probably goes to Erasmus, who became enormously popular because of it. Erasmus and Luther both followed classical satire models, e.g., Horace, Juvenal, and Seneca the Younger.

In 1521, King Henry VIII wrote a treatise “A Defense of the Seven Sacraments” against Luther’s 1520 treatise “Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” Luther’s rejoinder to Henry in 1521 was called “Contra Henricum Regem Anglie.” It subjected Henry to ridicule, because, Luther said, Henry had insulted his Lord Jesus Christ. Thomas More (known to us as the Man for All Seasons) replied to Luther on Henry’s behalf, subjecting Luther to even more grotesque insults and ridicule.

Many scholars believe that the English church was lost to Lutheranism because of the way in which Luther attacked the king. When Henry later wanted a divorce and the pope refused, the high clerics that wanted reform did not go to Wittenberg, because Henry personally disliked Luther. As a result, they sought the assistance of Melanchthon (who was not able to go), and then finally Martin Bucer, who turned England toward a Calvinist direction. As a result England, the British colonies, North America, and the British commonwealth were all to become basically Calvinist.

All because of one intemperate essay “defending my Lord Jesus Christ” against the English king.

Luther also probably lost influence in south Germany because of his satire and ridiciule of the papacy. A number of Protestants there complained about his invective, and probably moved into the Calvinist camp because of it.

I am not criticizing Luther here, since you have to understand that after the issuing of the papal bull he was a condemend heretic, and later an “outlaw” on the Imperial “most-wanted-list.” Men under condemnation and in prison shout insults at their captors. And the Renaissance rhetoric of the day encouraged satire of all sorts. But many people of the day who were Protestants did criticize Luther and were disaffectd from him for this reason.

The book cover above, and similar works of satire or ridicule, could easily become counter-productive in the same way as Luther’s satire and ridicule became counter-productive.

Our synodical president and any church officer should be judged on: 1) his performance (in any number of areas); 2) his upholding (or failure to uphold) the Constitution; 3) his agenda (in Kieschnick’s case, the Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Task Force); and 4) his theology and church-practice. Church officers should be judged by the electorate and elected (or not) for competence and integrity of office, or the lack thereof. Satire and ridicule clouds that judgment.

Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

Many scholars believe that the English church was lost to Lutheranism because of the way in which Luther attacked the king. When Henry later wanted a divorce and the pope refused, the high clerics that wanted reform did not go to Wittenberg, because Henry personally disliked Luther.

Etc.

I would consider that scholarship to be negative and biased. It, first of all, looks at who disliked Luther and who didn’t adhere to what he taught to have a direct and absolute correlation. In reality, a lot of us gain information from a lot of people we don’t like…including a lot of pastors. Second, it seems to weigh as more important those who disliked Luther (and, therefore, his doctrine) than those who embraced the pure doctrine all the more firmly because of Luther’s bold and logical condemnation of those who taught otherwise. Again, it does not seem to take into account that the dislike for Luther ‘personally’ may not have been the cause of the rejection of his teaching, but vice versa.

I would feel sorry for Kieschnick if he were being lied about. When I see this picture, though, I see him as finally being in the class of folk to which he seems to aspire. I have no doubt that if he were to repent, Norm would use the biggest, boldest font available to praise God on the BJS site for such being done, that Mollie would gladly write an article for it, that Pr. Blazek would design a cartoon that would be borderline syrupy, etc.

EJG

Prof. Larry Rast was down here in Austin a couple of summers ago, teaching a Continuing Education class. Among other things, he confided that the definitive history of the LCMS had not yet been written. He intended to do that, as his magnum opus. (He thought it might take him several more years.)

Larry Rast is a historian who can take you from the Puritans (1600′s) to the California Pentecostals (21st century) in one breathless week (mentioning “Lutheran” perhaps twice).
And on another occasion, he spent five equally informative days on Lutherans, all sorts, but primarily “Missouri” history. [Yes, Rick, there's room for debate on some of Larry's opinions.]

I was in the classes, Pr. Noland.
Knowing the above, if the rev. dr. Kieschnick announces that he is going to produce a history of the lcms (as it looks to him) in his spare time, (while running around the country), what do you expect any reasonable person to do but ROTFLOL! ?

Like “Trouble in River City” (which apparently he didn’t “get” either!) GK sets himself up!

It’s not so much funny as sad! Someone, who engineered these jokes, is laughing all the way to the bank with a lot of money that might have been spent on real missions.

Pastor Noland,
You don’t mention William Tyndale in your post. Tyndale, is rather important, don’t you think? What would things be like in the UK now, if history were not as we find it? He was in contact & connection w/Luther, and burned at the stake, in Belgium, if memory serves, for his translation of the NT. Have you read it or own one? I do, very difficult to use as ref. but beautiful in text~if ya know or read Olde Englishe, the King’s English! You don’t mention, this man, who’s efforts, ensured you have an english version in your hand or possession. You do not mention, what Tyndale’s last words were, or the connection the King of England. Rather an important request, as the flames licked his heels.
You also, do not mention the impact of Henry’s issues, w/the Pontiff, in regards to Katherine of Aragon & lack of male heir. Rather important aspect, in what you chose not to post. Was given honors, but was, excommunicated, by said, for divorce & etc. Been to UK several times, seen it, been there, heard it, done that. Where was this in your post? This may not be dissimiliar, but is rather lacking in detail. (some here may know & catch the misstep)
I do feel “sorry” for many, if they should be or are defiant, in seeing the Truth of Proof(Sola’s are rather simple & self explainatory). The title of this book is rather telling to me, but as you say, I am not a holder of the Divine Office. But, I do know my British history, and you have left quite a fair bit out. Anne Bolelyn, Tyndale, Thomas Cromwell, Henry, etc, do rather come into play in what you posted. I have often wondered, if Tyndale, had not been betrayed & taken, what would the Church of England have looked like today. I would not have had to travel there, to re-explain what we speak of in this, here~I have friends there, and we chat a fair bit on this, there are Lutherans there who know a fair bit more than we do here, about English/Lutheran history. I think it is rather unfair to cite this, as it does have a fair bit to do, w/the lack of heir, R.C vs Reformed, and the like. You have left out very important events, which colour your post. Please, do refrain from doing so, some here do know this, as an aside or degree.
(I also direct my kith & kin there, to BJS, not helpful in His/LCMS’s cause!)
You also mention Bayern, which I am also familiar with, been, know, & have ” familia da”. Bayern was always, will be, R.C, there is a wealth of history for such. It would take much more time & space to explain why, and to mention this, for the reason/s given, is rather poor sportsmanship. I have family there, pay heed when you speak w/a knowing that some here may know this all, first hand.
This has more to do w/what the OT/NT speaks of, prior to Christ’s Triumphant Return, than it does, the soiled history of land masses & men. Those who do not know their history, are doomed to repeat it, but we must always strive to keep our historical facts & references intact & factual.

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #38

Rev. Stefanski,

Thank you for your helpful exposition of the Large Catechism — a very strong reminder and also a useful means of explaining your greivances with my position. I see that I am not as convinced as you are with respect to the “public sin” you see committed by President Kieschnick in specific correlation to his authoring the book in question coupled with his time as the president of our Synod. With all of this in mind, I will remain guarded in my dealings with satire in the future. I know from my own experiences at CSL that I am not able to trust myself in most situations that could call for such action, and if I were to examine the heart of my motivations, it would inevitably point me to the darkness of sin in almost every case. I drew up some satirical comics during my time there that I feel now were motivated more by sin than by a true desire to bring about repentance or reform. Rather than discussing these drawings with the seminary administration, I showed them to friends of mine whom I knew would appreciate them, which only widened the chasm between the two parties. I saw a similar pattern here, which led to my uneasiness and disappointment with the artwork found above.

I appreciated the Rev. Dr. Noland’s words on Luther and his dealings with issues of this nature. His comment served as an excellent cautionary history lesson, and one I will take to heart.

As sinful humans, we must acknowledge the seeming impossibility for everyone to be satisfied with those in authority. Let us be reminded by our current season of Advent that our King will return for us at that right time and make all things new. All the while, I will pray for our church leaders, either for their repentance or for continued years of proper service, while not overlooking the importance of including prayers of thanksgiving for the forgiveness available to them and all of the Baptized believers through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

“Many scholars believe that the English church was lost to Lutheranism because of the way in which Luther attacked the king.”

The claim that Luther’s 1521 attack on Henry VIII and his treatise was responsible for the English Church being lost to Lutheranism is overly simplistic.

As early as 1519, Henry had persecuted and burned Lutheran-leaning Englishmen and women, with Luther’s early writings already being translated into English. But even after 1521, gatherings of English Lutherans and Lutheran sympathizers continued to occur.

When Henry sought to annul his marriage with Catherine and was rebuffed by the pope, his religious advisor, Thomas Cranmer, sought to get political approval from the Lutheran princes, who rejected any political agreement without a prior doctrinal agreement. Luther also condemned the plan for annulment.

With no agreement from the Lutherans, Henry went ahead and had his marriage to Catherine annuled and married Anne Boleyn. His loyal Cranmer was made Archbishop of Canterbury. Even then Cranmer continued in 1532 to seek some kind of agreement with the German princes, offering support if they were attacked by the emperor, but the Lutheran princes held firm – no doctrinal agreement; no political agreement. Later in 1535 Robert Barnes was sent to Germany by Henry to look for political alliances. In 1536 a Lutheran delegation went to England for doctrinal discussions, but left after English Romanists thwarted any real efforts, and the Lutherans got fed up with their room accomodations (too many rats).

Finally, in 1539, Henry issued his “Bloody Statues” (despite opposition from Cranmer) condemning further Lutheran influences. Lutheran opposition to these statutes was expressed, courteously by Melanchthon, not so courteously by Luther.

This is discussed in some detail by Theodore Graebner in his “When England Almost Became Lutheran,” inFour Hundred Years: Commemorative Essays on the Reformation of Dr. Martin Luther and Its Blessed Results (Edited by Prof. W.H.T. Dau, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1916, pp. 254-267).

“The book cover above, and similar works of satire or ridicule, could easily become counter-productive in the same way as Luther’s satire and ridicule became counter-productive.”

One can only enjoy the irony of Dr. Noland’s post, which compares Lutheran satire on the heterodox views and practices by a bigoted and egotistical English monarch, who named himself “Protector and Head of the Church of England,” with the Lutheran book cover satire on the statements and activities of a synodical president, including his efforts to ram through a pathetic set of BRTFSG recommendations effectively making him a monarch of the Missouri Synod.

A “right click” on the book cover and a click on “Properties” provides the following provenance for the picture, which should have been credited in black & white without further search necessary:

http://steadfastlutherans.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Kieschnick-book.JPG

One could look there and repeat the process, if authorship is not credited/claimed at “Steadfast Lutherans”.

Well, it was an attempt at a form of humor…

Randy,

I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at.

That’s merely how WordPress (our blogging software) descries photo uploads. It just means I uploaded it to our site.

I take responsibility for doing that, but I didn’t want people to think I was so witty as to come up with this myself.

Best,

Mollie

Mollie,
So, why not give due credit to the source of this comment-worthy art, as an affirmation of journalistic ethics?

Best,
Randy

It’s OK, you can tell us – its from the East Anglica University CRU Climategate e-mails, isn’t it?

My source requested anonymity.

As much as I enjoy (boy do I), delving into British History & how preciously close England came to becoming Lutheran (don’t I wish) I can’t go so far as to say or tie, the Pope granting the Fidei Defensor on Henry, in the same breath as President Kieschnick. Henry ruled a nation, PK rules only in his own mind. Henry was born to the throne, PK was elected (2007 debates notwithstanding). Fair bit different, but megalomanics have to begin somewhere I guess.

Sychophants abounded for Henry, PK is on his own, but I wouldn’t compare anyone in St Louis to Cramner or Cromwell, not yet anyway. Although, I will say this, if you hang around & listen to the likes of Lenny Sweet (& his cronies, McLaren, Warren & Bell) you may find yourself too big for your britches. I highly doubt, there is a faction or individual who would bestow a Fidei Defensor on PK, considering the title of his book, I think he rather “gifted” himself, in his part in “rebirthing” this denomination.
One thing is for sure though, Henry prided himself as being a theologian, President Kieschnick seems to pride himself on NOT being one.

I see that I am not as convinced as you are with respect to the “public sin” you see committed by President Kieschnick in specific correlation to his authoring the book in question coupled with his time as the president of our Synod.

President Kieschnick’s support of unionism and syncretism at Yankee Stadium and elsewhere is related to his general pragmatic and atheological outlook; the terms in which his title speaks of his presidency speak to the same things…unless, of course, his book has nothing to do with his time in office whatsoever.

EJG

@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #58

To be perfectly honest, I had almost no opinion of President Kieschnick before reading this post. I am heavily opposed to bureaucracy, specifically when it results in the waste of offering monies. I understand why some pastors or congregations do not give a percentage of their offerings to the Synod. Aside from this aversion, I know that President Kieschnick is my brother in Christ. After seeing the artwork above, I was very saddened by it and even further saddened by reading some of the responses from pastors and laypeople alike. I now have a higher opinion of our President because of my newfound understanding of the opposition he faces behind his back. I have explained multiple times the basis for why I disagree with the decision to post this artwork. It hurts to read much of what has been written here about our brother in Christ.

Rev. Stefanski, considering the words you have written here, would you refuse to commune President Kieschnick if he chose to worship at your church?

Also, Mollie, I assume that you are joking about your “source” wishing to remain anonymous a la the Judith Miller/Matthew Cooper controversy? What possible good is gained by anonymity within the body of Christ? What would the motivations be in the case of this artwork? How could anyone see this as anywhere close to well-intentioned if it was done only under the pretenses of remaining anonymous? I really hope that was a joke and I was unable to pick up on the sarcasm due to it being found in written word…?

To clarify on why I use my first name only: I first posted comments on this blog while I was still at the seminary. I read one of Mollie’s articles on student debt at our seminaries and offered some of my experiences. I received e-mails trying to figure out who I was and to establish that I was a real person. That’s all fine and good, and I haven’t updated my name to include the title “Rev.” yet. Also, I am still hoping for the extended article on seminarian debt once hinted at in my preliminary e-mails with Norm Fisher, which go back 7 or so months ago.

Rev. Jack Gilbert

If President Kieschnick received the Sacrament at Rev. Stefanski’s church, I think it would qualify as unionism, seeing how that congregation is no longer a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and is not in pulpit or altar fellowship with the LCMS. It would be rather odd, to say the least, if President Kieschnick were to show up there on a Sunday morning to attend worship.

Rev. Jack Gilbert: “To be perfectly honest, I had almost no opinion of President Kieschnick before reading this post.”

That explains a lot… especially after having spent the last four years (minus vicarage) at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

Mollie,

No, sorry, I’m not joking. What good fruit does anonymity bear in the body of Christ? I am seriously asking here, so please explain how you believe hiding one’s identity while producing this type of art, or speaking out against someone’s faulty decisions or even guilt of sin could ever be appropriate? Are the world’s journalistic approaches a correct fit for Christian reporting? I’m really not sure, and I’ve never thought about this subject. This anonymity is now another, and perhaps the greatest reason I find nothing constructive in the artwork above. A writer’s true intentions in written word can be confusing at times, so please know that I’m really trying to understand the appropriateness of employing anonymity within the Body of Christ.

Anonymous,

Thank you for clarifying my error. Sorry for jumping to the assumption that Rev. Stefanski is a member of the clergy within the LCMS. To me, he talks like an LCMSer, he comments frequently on an LCMS blog, he bears the title Rev., and all of this led to my incorrect assumption. It was my mistake, and I apologize.

Carl,

Believe it or not, in my experience, our St. Louis seminary did not focus much on current events in the LCMS, especially within the classroom. As a result, the students are unable to learn proper approaches to some of the heated issues discussed on this blog, such as small group ministry and contemporary worship, which is one reason I appreciate reading many of the articles here. However, I have a hard time believing everything I hear about our church leaders whom I barely know, which resulted in my not forming much of an opinion on Gerald Kieschnick, our current president and brother in Christ. I am just trying to understand him in a fair light, of course that appears to be a Sisyphustic endeavor with all the politics involved. I assure you, in my time at CSL his name was neither praised nor vilified, let alone spoken most days.

Jack :
@Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #58
I now have a higher opinion of our President because of my newfound understanding of the opposition he faces behind his back.

Nothing is “behind his back”; this is not a private meeting, but a public forum.

Rev. Stefanski, considering the words you have written here, would you refuse to commune President Kieschnick if he chose to worship at your church?

As Anonymous told you, I am no longer in the LCMS. When demands were made on me to “be reconciled” with the false teachers of my former circuit, I came to the realization that (beyond violating a principle I had asserted throughout the process–that people operating merely on the basis of gossip were not to be heard) if I were “reconciled” to stay in the LCMS it would mean that I would declaring the pastors of my circuit, the district president, and others who promote false doctrine to be proper communicants at an orthodox Lutheran congregation. (Your question is more apt than you know: membership in the LCMS without being in a public state of confession means that, yes, you will commune Jerry Kieschnick, Dave Benke, Matt Becker, and the like, yet many pastors in the LCMS won’t admit it.) That was something I could not accept, so I resigned from the roster of the LCMS in order to keep serving the saints to whom I was Called. (Part of the conditions of my being “reconciled” would be the resignation of my Call, since the mission congregation I was serving had seen and heard enough from the district that they unanimously declared that they would not seek rostering in the LCMS if it had to be within that district.)

#63
To me, he talks like an LCMSer

Ouch!

EJG (former semi-insider, now complete outsider, but still with “care and concern” for those within the LCMS, in spite of the direct orders of the Central Illinois District that I should no longer have such care and concern)

Rev. Jack Gilbert: “Believe it or not, in my experience, our St. Louis seminary did not focus much on current events in the LCMS, especially within the classroom.”

That explains a lot!

Pastor Stefanski,

Your words of warning to we still in the LCMS are welcome on this site. They are certainly annoying but they also ring true. I admire those who for the sake of a clear conscience have left the LCMS. Who knows how much longer the rest of us can stay? Your words are a constant reminder that we ought not to be in fellowship with those who compromise the Gospel.

TR

Pastor Rossow, thanks for post #66, it will give comfort to those simple members who have departed for that reason, and I can’t imagine the grief & sorrow a Pastor endures doing the same.
Pastor Stefanski, you & I don’t always see eye to eye, but I admire & respected you before and so much the more now!!! Integrity is a virtue for good reason, and virtues now a days, are neither requested, required or admired by most, but some still do…this one does!
In Christ Always,
Heidi (but you can still call me Dutch)

Rev. Stefanski,

I am saddened to hear about your experiences. Divisions in the Body of Christ are always difficult to learn of and much harder to endure. Thank you for the clarification of my erroneous assumption, for which I again apologize.

As far as the “behind his back” terminology, I feel that a post like this one reflects the old stereotype of preaching to the choir. It seems unlikely that our brother President Kieschnick saw the artwork, though he is obviously not barred from such action. It reminds me of my own actions surrounding the cartoons I created at the seminary, which I brought up earlier. Rather than discussing the issues with the administration, I showed the drawings to people I was confident would appreciate them, which solved nothing and promulgated discord and negativity.

Pastor Gilbert,
What reccomendations, or “loving counsel based- under shepherd/ing”, would you give, to those here, (like Pastor Stefanski, or we, amoebic creatures such as I, a mere member) who have been forced to choose betwixt Biblical Truth & relevantic tolerance? Did I say cloaked in or as “mission/missional”? Many, simple yet driven (not as Warren, Sweet or Bell defines, I assume, you may have knowledge of their speaking engagements w/in our U system or Synod) members, have had this visited UPON them, by their congregations & those who hold the Divine Office, what say YOU to US? Did we choose….poorly…by departing? Did others, in times long past….choose poorly, (who left kith & kin to come here, & found a Lutheran ‘state free’ church)? Do bear in mind, my sister attended, obtained a lay ministry degree & departed the LCMS over a decade ago-less than a year after graduation), for what we now discuss here at BJS. Some here, now, more than you may give or grant credit for. Living a certain thing, tends to do that to one.

What comfort or counsel do you give to us? What counsel do you give to “a brother” your ELDER, one who has served longer than yourself? Discernment has, it’s compliment here, it is called experience based COMMON DISCERNMENT/SENSE.

When one reads, the CRCT reports, from 1987 on, & thus comissioned, written & adopted, what advice do you have for us, those you or like you shepherd? Do we choose
Divine Office & “the will of the synod”, or choose His, as in Christ & the Trinity, Their Truth, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, blest/gifted by Sola Christos? Pastor Stefanski, did what he was called to do, per the knowledge he had, & has, and make no mistake, many a mere member has done the same. I see no reference, to those, who like me, departed for more, “firmer & more confessional pastures”. I am not counted, in the recent numbers, as
…I now…matter not, why, I am already Found, & thus no worth to this current trend! Sheep depart…, when the under shepherd sleeps, and many are Rip Van Winkle in this, my dear friend. We know His voice & His field, & this does not smack of His.

It is not the bull in the china shop principle, you’re young, many of us here, sadly are not( oh, don’t I wish).
Your words would be what exactly, when a church/congregation in part or parcle departs from Christ, do I defend a “synod” or do I defend “Christ’s Church on earth, & my Spiritual health, welfare, wellbeing, & instruction & that of my gifts from Above, i.e. my children”? Bear in mind, some may be or already have, and thus the issue is much complicated. Your word of Sola based loving counsel is…..?

@Dutch #69

Dutch,

I appreciate your request for my opinion, although with no experience in a situation like this, I don’t think it’s worth very much. In knowing very little and only one side of the matter, it’s hard to speak to. From what I can gather, it appears you continue to hear God’s Word proclaimed and receive our Lord’s Sacraments through Rev. Stefanski. Praise God for that, because you and your fellow parishioners have all that you need! I suppose there is no official connection with the LCMS, although Rev. Stefanski was trained in LCMS doctrine and certified to serve as an LCMS pastor. Seeing as how I agree with said doctrine, that sounds like a secondary bonus.

Other than that, I can only further express my sadness that anything could lead to someone seeing the best option being to withdraw from the LCMS, although I know he is not alone with respect to this matter. I hope you can forage through my words and find some value in them.

With your question, I was reminded of a fleeting moment while I was in class at CSL when a student asked about Trinity in New Haven, MO. I recall gleaning very little useful information during that discussion. This was something that was also very infrequently discussed, and it usually came up only after students inquired about it.

President Kieschnick is a self-proclaimed “church growth enthusiast.”

According to the “Church Growth Movement,” preaching is nothing more or less than motivational speaking.

Tony Robbins is a famous motivational speaker.

Whence the scandal here?

@Carl Vehse #29

Carl Vehse: “One can hardly wait for the first reviews of Waking the Sleeping Giant, if only to compare them to reviews of The Sleeping Giant: Arousing church power in America, Awaken the Giant Within, Waking Up the Sleeping Giant, Wake the Sleeping Giant, Wake Up, Sleeping Giant, Awakening the Sleeping Giant, Re-Awakening a Sleeping Giant, Arousing the Sleeping Giant, The Sleeping Giant Stirs, Sleeping Giant Wakens, The Sleeping Giant Has Awoken, When Will the Sleeping Giant Awaken?, The Sleeping Giant Story, The Sleeping Giant and Other Stories, Fund Raising – the Sleeping Giant, Awakening the sleeping giant : the church and the road to revival, Inspire the Sleeping Giant Within, and Legend of the Sleeping Giant.”

Carl, you forgot “The Purpose-Driven Giant Awakens”, …or is that “The Purpose-Driven President Awakens”??? “A Giant Desire For Centralized Power Awakens.” Might it be “Putting to Sleep the Waking Giant: The Birth, Growth, Decline, and Take-over of an American Church!” Should PJK change his book title, he’s welcome to use any of these gratis!

Pastor Messer, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Rev. Jack Gilbert :
@Dutch #69
Dutch,
From what I can gather, it appears you continue to hear God’s Word proclaimed and receive our Lord’s Sacraments through Rev. Stefanski.
…Other than that, I can only further express my sadness that anything could lead to someone seeing the best option being to withdraw from the LCMS, although I know he is not alone with respect to this matter.
…I was reminded of a fleeting moment while I was in class at CSL when a student asked about Trinity in New Haven, MO. I recall gleaning very little useful information during that discussion.

Pr. Gilbert, I think you’re too easily assuming things. Dutch is not a member of our parish and, as far as I know, we have never met.

Wrt leaving the LCMS, if you’ll read my letter of resignation, you’ll see that it wasn’t so much a matter of “best option,” but “the right thing to do…many years later than I should have done it.” Having been ordained in the early Spring of 1989, July of 1989 was a deal breaker; the synod’s stated doctrine from that point forward was contrary to what it was when I was in school and when I was admitted to the roster. We worked for change, but it just got worse. Twenty years later, the seminaries are complicit in the error.

As to Trinity, New Haven, all that can be said is that the St. Louis sem and LCMS, Inc. should be very happy that Pr. Otten is not a litigious sort of guy. If he were, he’d likely own a great deal of what Inc. now owns. There are a lot of things that he’s published that I wish he wouldn’t (the rantings of Jack Cascione, for instance, and anything else that has created the disunity that allows the errorist in chief to be reelected), but the fact of his case is that when the board ruled with an evenly-split decision, the rules of that board meant that those making the case against Otten did not prevail, and that his rostering should have taken place. (What’s really stupid on their part: they could have rostered him and immediately brought charges against him and, likely, prevailed.)

EJG

Pastor Stefanski,
I was wondering if you were going to be commenting & correcting on the errors in post #69. Ya can say, write it, but that don’t mean they do, does it?
Isn’t it grand to know, that honor, integrity, bravery & courage, don’t begin w/us, nor is it something we alone can muster?! I am daily thankful it begins & is gifted to us from Above, all we have to do…is just stand, stand fast, but just stand. I do hope someday (as we will someday, here or in His House) meet. Well said, well pointed, and your letter was amazing! Well done!

@Rev. Jack Gilbert #68

…Rather than discussing the issues with the administration, I showed the drawings to people I was confident would appreciate them…

It would appear we have a reformed rabblerouser here!
Out to reform the rest of us, too.

But do not fear for “ignorance” in the Violet Vatican of what goes on here. One of the “Anon’s” will have taken care of the matter. Or if someone of cyberacumen has enlisted, there will be automatic notice taken.

People who are afraid of being read by all run passworded lists.

@Dutch #75

Dutch,

Sorry for the confusion. When I read your words…

“What reccomendations, or ‘loving counsel based- under shepherd/ing’, would you give, to those here, (like Pastor Stefanski, or we, amoebic creatures such as I, a mere member) who have been forced to choose betwixt Biblical Truth & relevantic tolerance? ”

…it sounded like you were a member of Rev. Stefanski’s church.

Still waiting for Mollie’s response on good coming out of the use of anonymity within the Body of Christ, specifically in dealing with the artwork posted here, and how anyone could believe that this was created with good intentions if the creator wished to remain anonymous.

Rev. Gilbert,

I’m sorry to have not responded yet. I am very behind in many things and hope to return to this soon. Still, in a discussion on good intentions, I think you may have misspoke in thinking one can’t believe that this humorous piece was created with good intentions. The product is fair game but the intentions of the artist can’t be judged, can they?

Mollie :
Still, in a discussion on good intentions, I think you may have misspoke in thinking one can’t believe that this humorous piece was created with good intentions. The product is fair game but the intentions of the artist can’t be judged, can they?

Indeed. A personal example, if I may (and this is pertinent to the ‘behind the back’ stuff, too):

On 30 October 2002, the Rev. Pres. in Suspension David Benke wrote to the Acting Rev. Pres. of the Atlantic District, Charles Froelich, asking him to get the Council of Presidents to take action against those involved in the “extremely divisive activity” of allowing people rightly to condemn his actions at Yankee Stadium and subsequent defense of the same (the defense of which was, indeed, even more destructive than the action).

My District President at the time, the Rev. David Callies, did “take action” by investigating my administration of the lists at Confess and Teach for Unity, having subscribed to our Table Talk and MOSynod-Talk email lists nearly two years earlier because of complaints from the Rev. Waldo Werning. President Callies met with me (and my wife, for awhile, as he expressed a proper pastoral attitude of care for my family; regardless of any disagreement in doctrine or practice between us, David Callies, to me, best exemplified what how the care for pastors by a district president should look) and then met with the parish I was serving (as his intended regular triennial visit). His conclusion: I had expressed myself with regard to doctrine and practice and had allowed others to do the same, but–he was very careful to observe–I had never made any negative judgment about Pres. Benke’s motive or intent.

That remains so to this day: I think that Benke was doing what he thought/thinks was right, and I think Kieschnick is doing the same. I don’t think that they want to destroy the synod or violate God’s Word; it’s just that what they think is right happens to be wrong. It’s no different from my Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Romanist, Buddhist, or Episcopal friends; the right assumption is that they are sincere, even if sincerely wrong.

Wrt Mollie’s protecting her source, cf. my #22: she posted it, which means that she takes responsibility for it. Her disowning credit for producing it in #21 was shown in #23 not to be a dodging of this journalistic responsibility, but the proper admission that she was not the creator of the work. Mollie bears the brunt of the criticism so that the one creating it is able to continue to create; in this, Mollie’s function is much like that of a ballot box–preventing reprisal that can sometimes come for a non-sinful activity.

As Pr. Meissner’s #71 shows, there is nothing scandalous in the photo; it merely shows Pres. Kieschnick as he has presented himself. If that ‘stings’ him in any way, maybe that is a clue to him that he’s ought to repent and be the sort of president about whom such things are not able to be written…but, alas, then he would be ripped to pieces by his current friends, just like Al Barry was (especially by a friend like Ralph Bohlmann, whose defining acts as a ‘churchman’ are his refusal to teach at the St. Louis sem after the walkout, his ‘sour grapes’ letter to pastors upon Barry’s replacing him at the 1992 convention, and his ‘God took him out’ reference to Al Barry at the 2001 convention).

The question from all of this is whether caricature artists at a fair have bad intentions when they exaggerate features and put people in silly positions that they were not actually in when they posed. In Mollies post, the artist has taken liberties to bring out the way the synodical president has packaged and presented himself and shown, by comparison with Tony Robbins, just how silly he looks and why so many in the LCMS can’t take his programs, etc., seriously.

But, I think that’s enough.

Everyone in the LCMS Annual was invited to this site months ago, and the origin of the site was in the unjust treatment of Wilken and Schwarz, so it is by no means unknown to the folks at 1333 S. Kirkwood. If they’re not monitoring it, they’re just plain stupid.

EJG

Rev. Jack Gilbert :
@Dutch #75
Dutch,
Sorry for the confusion. When I read your words…
“What reccomendations, or ‘loving counsel based- under shepherd/ing’, would you give, to those here, (like Pastor Stefanski, or we, amoebic creatures such as I, a mere member) who have been forced to choose betwixt Biblical Truth & relevantic tolerance? ”
…it sounded like you were a member of Rev. Stefanski’s church.

Only because you don’t know me. If she were from this parish, I would have scolded her for referring to herself as “a mere member.” A son of God through faith in Christ Jesus is never “mere” according to the new man.

EJG

I have not yet been convinced that anonymity is something that can and should be used within the Body of Christ. We are brothers and sisters, and if one member feels another should be called to repentance, why would this be done in anonymity?

I did not misspeak when I questioned the motives behind the creation of this artwork. I ask again:

How can we believe that the artwork in question was created with the intent to speak well of President Kieschnick or show him in a good light if the artist does not want it to bear his or her name? Unless for reasons of humility, I feel that nothing good can come from using anonymity in this context. When I consider the message of this artwork, I feel that humility is an unlikely reason for hiding the name of its creator. It serves as an affront to our brother, creates disharmony, and further damages the view many people hold of him.

Within the Body of Christ, we need not be afraid of our words or actions with respect to fellow members, because everything we say or do should be done to defend them, speak well of them, and explain all of their actions in the kindest of ways. If we find ourselves needing to point to a brother or sister’s sin, we follow Scripture by going to him or her directly, rather than by cowering in the shadows of anonymity.

“How can we believe that the artwork in question was created with the intent to speak well of President Kieschnick or show him in a good light if the artist does not want it to bear his or her name?”

The artwork speaks for itself. It has no hidden meanings; the satire is based on known public activities of the SP, which have been criticized publicly in the past by others. There are no unsubstantiated or private accusations or insinuations that require a viewer to believe, trust, or rely on the knowledge or intent of the unknown artist.

Therefore, the rhetorical question of how can we believe the intent of the artwork is a red herring, which is irrelevant to the book cover satire itself or its discussion. Worse than that, Rev. Gilbert’s rhetorical question itself has the taint of hypocrisy because the question implies, with innuendos rather than substantiation, that the artwork may be based on evil intent and stained with the sin against the eighth commandment, and the artwork should not be shown until the artist is identified and properly interrogated as to his or her possible motives and intent.

“Unless for reasons of humility, I feel that nothing good can come from using anonymity in this context.”

While one is certainly free to have such a feeling, there is nothing rational in applying this emotional concept of anonymity to the particular context of the satirical bookcover.,

“When I consider the message of this artwork, I feel that humility is an unlikely reason for hiding the name of its creator.”

Since the identity of the artist is unknown, this statement presumes something for which no evidence, only an emotional personal feeling, has been presented. Again, such idle speculation is another attempt to divert attention from the point of the satire itself.

“It serves as an affront to our brother, creates disharmony, and further damages the view many people hold of him.”

This claim is misdirected. The affront lies in the objectionable actions of President Kieschnick, not in the satire of them. These actions have created disharmony and damage to the synod office he holds.

Note: Please scroll down to the bottom if you’re sick of reading my words and wish to clear up what you believe to be my false understanding of the use of anonymity within the Body of Christ. For anyone new to this post, please know that I do not feel anonymity should be used among Christians, especially when dealing with each other.

Carl,

I agree with you whole-heartedly when you say that the artwork has no hidden meanings. I see it as an attempt at humor that does not speak well of President Kieschnick and his practices. I believe humor was the goal, and my interpretation of the message was not, and yet it remains, and judging by a few earlier comments I am not alone.

I apologize for what you saw in my words as “hypocrisy,” “innuendo,” and “idle speculation,” through which it appears I have offended you and possibly others. Please know that this was not my intent, and I am sorry. Also, I want to assure you that I have no interest of interrogating the artist or forcing his or her identity to light. I simply wish to know how one can feel comfortable posting or defending the artwork, while knowing that the artist wished to remain anonymous. This is something I would not do personally, so I would like to understand the reasoning behind such behavior. All of this leads back to my original question regarding anonymity.

The reason I felt it necessary to expound on my question of the employment of anonymity (which led to your reply) within the Body of Christ was a direct result of its consistently remaining answered here. I wanted people to understand my position on the message of the artwork, the decision to post it on this site when considering its anonymous origins, and its reception by pastors and laypeople alike and the negative impact it has on many of their views of their brother in Christ. I am amazed at how many people have jumped to defend this artwork and the right to produce it, and yet at the same time have continually ignored the question I have posed several times. It’s possible that this is an issue everyone here is familiar with and no one feels is a problem. If that is the case, I would like to understand the collective view of how we as Christians are to use anonymity.

What good use does anonymity have within the Body of Christ? In my opinion and experiences, it solves nothing and usually worsens conflict. I am very open to hearing and understanding why someone would disagree with me on this, and how one can defend using this type of artwork in anonymity. If I am wrong, I seek, welcome, and hope for correction. I simply want to hear opinions on how we are to use anonymity as members of the Body of Christ, especially in dealing with each other. As I have previously mentioned, this is a subject I have given very little thought to in the past, and my initial reaction is that we as Christians do not need to use anonymity within the Body of Christ.

Mollie has explained that she is busy and I understand that. I look forward to hearing from her on this subject when time permits. If you have an opinion on the matter, I would appreciate hearing it. I found much use in Rev. Stefanski’s post (#79) as he analyzed the artwork and discussed the subject of intentions. Through his words, I can better understand why many are not offended by it. I still feel that it only furthers many negative views of our brother in Christ (while at the same time is very clearly “preaching to the choir”), and that if one feels he is guilty of any sin, it would be far more appropriate to go to him first, rather than produce this piece of art and especially to do so in anonymity.

Please feel free to ignore everything else in this comment except this question: What are everyone’s opinions or defenses of using anonymity within the Body of Christ?

Rev. Gilbert,

People’s careers have been ruined for speaking out against LCMS leadership. Does that help you to understand why some are gunshy about using their names?

TR

Rev. Gilbert, you raise again the issue of feelings related to anonymity.

I see no difference in the effect of the artwork’s anonymity on my feelings about the artwork than how my feelings are affected by the anonymity, intent, or motives of the designers and builders of the computer screens on which I have viewed the satirical artwork. Even Mollie’s motives (which I do not know) for posting the artwork do not affect my feelings toward it.

“What good use does anonymity have within the Body of Christ?”

The same use that anonymity can have in other activities in which Christians may be involved. (This is not to say that anonymity is always right, or that it is never misused or abused.)

For example, the pastor is not required or expected to report to the voters’ assembly the identity of the people meeting with him for private absolution or counseling.

There is anonymity of the individual ballots at a synodical or district convention, or at a congregational meeting to call a pastor or elect church officers. Some of the writers, composers, translators, and arrangers of hymns sung at Lutheran worship services are anonymous (unknown).

For many church members, there is anonymity (or secrecy) in the passwords, access codes, and phone codes used in our church buildings. My wife, who is involved in our church music program, has access to codes and information I don’t. I do not expect her to provide me with such information even if I felt the desire to know them.

Though one could probably check with the church office, most laypeople do not know the identity (or motives) of the manufacturer or wholesaler of the wine and wafers used in the Lord’s Supper.

And my appreciation of the artistic qualities and beauty of a church organ are not affected by not knowing the various artisans who designed and built the church organ, or their intent or motives in building and installing the organ, or whether they were Lutheran, or even Missouri Synod Lutheran.

While you may object to the artwork because you don’t agree with what it says or whether it should have been posted on BJS, the claim that anonymity itself is inherently wrong, even within the church, has not been convincingly demonstrated.

@Pastor Tim Rossow #84

Pastor Rossow,

I am not so naive on this subject that I am unable to infer why some refrain from revealing their names on this site. I am rather asking what benefit there is in doing so to rebuke sin, specifically in the case of the creation and posting of this artwork and its relation to the Body of Christ. (It has been argued that President Kieschnick is to be called to repentance, and the use of satire in this artwork is therefore appropriate, and the artist’s request for anonymity should be defended. I do not wish to call for the artist’s name to be given, rather to see how it is appropriate to use anonymity to call for repentance. I remain unconvinced that this artwork is constructive in any way.)

Christ our Savior beckons us when calling for repentance to go to our brother first in order to gain him. Never are we encouraged as His servants to use anonymity to rebuke sin or make the claim that if we weren’t careful about what we say or how we say it, we may lose our careers. In fact, Christ calls us to follow Him no matter what the situation calls for, or what may be on the line.

One can see easiliy that you are not gun-shy in using your name. Could you explain why not for those who are?

@Carl Vehse #85

Carl,

Thank you for providing some examples of the proper use of anonymity within the Body of Christ. I agree with each of them and easily acknowledge the importance of maintaining confidentiality with confessed sins. Sadly, each of your examples looks past the heart of my question, and I apologize for my unintended lack of clarity. I now hope to remedy this:

Am I mistaken in believing that anonymity is not a proper fit in the Body of Christ when attempting to rebuke sin?

In my understanding, a petition signed over and over by John and Jane Doe would go nowhere in our society. There comes a time when even this sinful world calls for people to stand behind their words or actions when change is sought.

Not only do we see the fruitlessness of anonymity to solve problems within some contexts of our own sinful culture, but Scripture sheds light on the subject as well. Should we not turn to the example of the prophet Nathan calling the Lord’s annointed King of Israel to repentance for his sin with Bathsheba? I suppose it to be very possible that Nathan could have been in danger of losing his life, and yet he went, sent by the Lord, and rebuked King David, rather than writing an anonymous letter and waiting for someone else to deliver it.

There are comments here that seem to imply President Kieschnick is guilty of sin, which apparently in some minds justifies the creation and promulgation of the artwork found above. I want to understand why anonymity is being used and defended when sin is on the line. If it doesn’t fit this context, then I ask, is there ever a time when anonymity can be used for the benefit of others within the Body of Christ when confronting sin? This subject has caught and retained my interest from the time I first saw this post, and I am really hoping for an answer.

And yes, I do believe this pertains to the 8th Commandment because of what we are called to do by our Lord through that Commandment. When sin is present, as Rev. Stefanski discussed, we must call for repentance. If one believes there is a sin President Kieschnick must confess, what actual good is brought about by anonymously creating this type of satirical artwork? Furthermore, what good is done by posting it here? If no sin is present, then how does this artwork defend or speak well of our brother? In either case, how does this artwork not further divisions among fellow believers? I really want to understand this, so please don’t feel like I’m asking rhetorical questions. If you feel that I am, please ask me to rephrase, because I truly seek understanding here.

Thank you, Carl, for not overlooking my words despite my inability to relay them clearly at times. I know that in written word, opposing views may be taken differently than in spoken conversation. Please take me at my word that I everything I have written and asked here is with a true desire to learn and understand, and better serve my Lord.

Rev. Gilbert,

Sin has nothing to do with my point nor does my own experience. People have gotten hurt criticizing church leadership. They still desire to satirize the silliness of the largest confessional Lutheran denomination on earth having a president who does not uphold confessional Lutheranism so they create satirical cartoons.

I can testify to having rebuked the president of the LCMS face to face and having him repent and receive forgiveness. I can also testify to him using strong-armed tactics with me (bullying?) and not being sorry. And I can testify to rebuking him via correspondence for the very criticism leveled in this cartoon and having him deny that he supports church growth tactics in our synod. I guess that means we ought to tell it to the church. The church does not listen. We still love the church body and so we keep fighting.

I encourage you to overlook your concern with anonymity and return to the battle at hand.

TR

Rev. Gilbert,

In comment 59 you asked: What possible good is gained by anonymity within the body of Christ?

In comment 63 you asked: What good fruit does anonymity bear in the body of Christ?

In comment 77 you stated: Still waiting for Mollie’s response on good coming out of the use of anonymity within the Body of Christ, specifically in dealing with the artwork posted here

In comment 81 you stated: I have not yet been convinced that anonymity is something that can and should be used within the Body of Christ.

In comment 83 you stated: I do not feel anonymity should be used among Christians, especially when dealing with each other.

And you asked: What good use does anonymity have within the Body of Christ?

And then ask again: What are everyone’s opinions or defenses of using anonymity within the Body of Christ?

But in comment 86 you ask: Am I mistaken in believing that anonymity is not a proper fit in the Body of Christ when attempting to rebuke sin?

Given your consistent questions and assertions in the previous comments, your new question and the claim that my response to the previous questions “sadly… looks past the heart of my question,” which you then note had an “unintended lack of clarity,” is puzzling.

Furthermore, amid your comments about the artwork itself and what it means, you continue to state or imply negative motivations and intent in the mind of the artist, whom you say you do not know, even after you apologize for similar comments which were described as “hypocrisy,” “innuendo,” and “idle speculation.”

Rev. Gilbert,

In comment 24 you ask: Finally, if the poster did not create this work, it is usually a good idea to cite the origins of material created by another party. If a name is unavailable, maybe point the readers to where it was found?

In comment 59 you state: Also, Mollie, I assume that you are joking about your “source” wishing to remain anonymous a la the Judith Miller/Matthew Cooper controversy?… How could anyone see this as anywhere close to well-intentioned if it was done only under the pretenses of remaining anonymous? I really hope that was a joke and I was unable to pick up on the sarcasm due to it being found in written word…?

In comment 63 you again ask Mollie: I am seriously asking here, so please explain how you believe hiding one’s identity while producing this type of art, or speaking out against someone’s faulty decisions or even guilt of sin could ever be appropriate? Are the world’s journalistic approaches a correct fit for Christian reporting?

In comment 77, you question “how anyone could believe that this was created with good intentions if the creator wished to remain anonymous.”

In comment 81 you state: I feel that nothing good can come from using anonymity in this context.

In comment 83 you state: I do not feel anonymity should be used among Christians, especially when dealing with each other.

But then in comment 86 you state: I do not wish to call for the artist’s name to be given, rather to see how it is appropriate to use anonymity to call for repentance.

Rev. Gilbert, your statement that the artist’s continued anonymity is no longer an issue with you on this thread is a complete reversal of the position taken in your previous statements. According to your comment 83, your concern now is whether anonymity is appropriate in calling for repentance.

Rev. Gilbert,

In your comment 86, you ask: I want to understand why anonymity is being used and defended when sin is on the line. If it doesn’t fit this context, then I ask, is there ever a time when anonymity can be used for the benefit of others within the Body of Christ when confronting sin?… Please take me at my word that I everything I have written and asked here is with a true desire to learn and understand, and better serve my Lord.

To address your question in the context of your stated sincerity to understand, I will again point out that there is anonymity present in various Christian activities within the Body of Christ, in particular where sin is confronted and forgiveness is sought.

While not an exhaustive list, here are some examples of anonymity within the Body of Christ involved in confronting sin and urging repentance that address your question :

1. Pastor’s sermons often include non-Biblical stories, some of which confront particular sins along with the consequences and or the need for repentance. Some of these stories involve real people (within the congregation or elsewhere) who are anonymous and not identified, or the stories may have passed from other people who also remain anonymous.

2. The Lutheran Witness, especially earlier issues, as well as Der Lutheraner frequently contained articles or editorials that confronted sins within the church body at the time and urged repentance. While many have been identified with C.F.W. Walther or other editors of these publications, others have no identification and their authorship remains anonymous.

3. The Missouri Synod puts out a large number of tracts and pamphlets (especially before the internet), many of which can be seen in church narthexes. Some of these pamphlets confront specific sins, such as unfaithfulness in marriage, abortion, gambling, greed, etc., and urged repentance. In most cases, the authors of such Missouri Synod leaflets are anonymous.

4. As pointed out earlier, a number of hymns have anonymous writers. Of these hymns there are ones that confront sin, urge repentance, and express reliance only on Christ’s redemptive work.

5. Turning to Scripture, the characters in Jesus’ parables are some of the most obvious examples of anonymity. The prodigal son, his father, and his brother are not identified by name as the characters confront or confess sin. In fact some have conjectured that one parable in which Jesus identified the person’s name may not be a parable because the character, Lazarus, was not anonymous.

6. The writer of the Book of Hebrews is anonymous, although people have speculated it may have been the Apostle Paul, Apollo, Barnabus, or some other NT writer. Yet Hebrews has been accepted as canon.

Pastor Rossow, please understand this post as an attempt to explain myself in light of Carl’s accusations. Please delete it if you feel that it is not following your instruction of overlooking my concern with anonymity.

Carl,

Please explain to me what purpose you believe the artwork posted above serves.

I will explain what purpose I believe it serves:

It speaks badly of President Kieschnick, and fails to defend him, speak well of him, or explain everything he does in the kindest of ways.

I have seen the argument that it is calling for repentance, although this repentance is not being sought in a way we are called to do so by Christ. I am not convinced that his authoring this book points to any sin he is guilty of. I have asked multiple times what good anonymity bears within the Body of Christ. You provided some examples that, while true, do not fit the context of this artwork and what I believe to be its message, based on my opinions and the defenses put forth by various readers. I am now rephrasing my question, after taking correction and direction from you. I am not “reversing” my position.

Everyone here sees that President Kieschnick is being discussed in this artwork. Everyone knows his name, his face, and his position within the church. I am asking, when this much is known about a person, and some feel that the person is guilty of sin, how is a satirical and sarcastic piece of art appropriate?

If you, Carl, were being accused of a supposed sin by a group of people you likely did not know very well, would you appreciate satire and sarcasm to be the medium by which they called you to repentance? Would you be happy to learn that the springboard for such criticism was being done through anonymity? Would you be happy to learn that some of the people agreeing with and defending the satirical and sarcastic artwork were doing so in anonymity?

I would not be. That’s why I’m trying to understand why this is okay in so many peoples’ minds. I’m glad you are reading my words, but you are mistaken when you accuse me of reversing my position. There have been times when it became clear to me that those reading my questions did not understand what I was getting at. There are other times when people have guided me to phrasing my questions in ways that would be easier to understand. This is why I consistently welcome correction. It appears that you have mistakenly interpreted this as a “reversal” of sorts.

In comment 82, you have also mistakenly painted me as someone calling for an interrogation of the author to ascertain his or her intentions when creating this artwork. I never once said that the artist’s request for anonymity was no longer an issue. It is quite the opposite! I am not ordering that his or her identity be revealed, I am simply asking why one believes anonymity has been requested. I thought these comments sections were here to inspire conversation and discussion!

Please explain to me why you believe the artist has requested to hide behind anonymity.

I believe it is because the artwork is not constructive in any way. I have explained many times that if this is a call for repentance, it is an inappropriate method. If it is not a call for repentance, it is in violation of the 8th Commandment.

Again, I welcome correction, though I ask that you please not tell me I’m reversing my position when I’m not, and that you please not tell me what I’m asking for when I’m not asking for it.

Rev. Gilbert,

I will take a crack at answering you.

The piece serves to visually connect President Kieschnick with the church growth tactics that he allows and even promotes in the synod and it does so in a clever and even humorous way.

It is that simple. It communicates the truth and actaully not in some attacking sort of way that you imagine but in a clever and humorous way. What could be more like putting the best construction on error?

The Brothers of John the Steadfast are committed in part to promoting and teaching the Lutheran Confessions. This satirical piece helps us do that.

It also communicates a message to the synod. You fools (quoting St. Paul) how could you have gone and elected someone and then re-elected that same someone who has not led us in a confessional manner. The one you elected reminds us more of a Tony Robbins like promoter of the feel good culture than he does a Walther or Preus or Barry. (All of whom could have been and probably were satirized.) Oh, and you also elected and re-elected someone whose first book has a silly title. We are not a sleeping giant. We are the little flock that faithfully and humbly administers word and sacrament. We follow Christ. We do not seek the giant status that Billy Graham and the world favors. But you fools of the LCMS, you elected a guy that does not think that is enough. He wants something more. And so forth and so on…

TR

Pastor Rossow,

Thank you for your words. I am not in full support of the use of anonymity at this website, although I can now understand it in this context, along with the use of satire here. I will not hide behind my seminary education and falsely believe I know all I can about the church and pastoral ministry, and I thank you for your helpful explanation. As johannes wrote in comment 40, this is a tough crowd at times.

We will never be completely happy with our leadership until Christ’s return, although I’m certain we can agree that it will continually wax and wane depending on who’s in charge.

CPH is putting out some information on President Kieschnick’s upcoming book, Waking the Sleeping Giant: The Birth, Growth, Decline, and Rebirth of an American Church:

“From the preface—’The Sleeping Giant’ is a description of someone or something fully capable of accomplishing much, though not until awakening. For many reasons I believe The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, a part of the Holy Christian Church, has been for many years, even decades, a sleeping giant. I further believe that this giant is awakening, taking more time in doing so than many of us would like, but awakening nonetheless.”

The expected release date is January 29th at $16.99.

So here’s the cover of Waking the Sleeping Giant, which now has a release date of February 8, 2010.

Don’t confuse the book with this one, or any of these books.