The Commission that has Endorsed Pagan Prayer Practices is Appointed Entirely by the Synod President, by Pastor Rossow

December 29th, 2009 Post by

Here is the description of the Commission on Ministerial Growth and Support from the LCMS Handbook. Notice section 3.9.4.1. All thirteen members are appointed by the synod president. Since Gerald Kieschnick has been in office for years, it is clear that this is his commission that is endorsing pagan prayer practices as we reported yesterday.

For a critique of the “centering prayer” that is endorsed by the commission appointed by President Kieschnick we recommend you read BJS regular Scott Diekmann’s article on it in his critique of the Emergent Church.

Here is what the Synod Handbook says about the Commission Ministerial Growth and Support:

Commission on Ministerial Growth and Support

3.9.4 The Commission on Ministerial Growth and Support exists to provide opportunity for the continuing education and vocational growth of the church’s workers, to advocate and facilitate care and counsel for the church’s workers to support them in the performance of their official duties, and to advocate and facilitate support for the personal well-being of the church’s workers and their family members.

3.9.4.1 The Commission on Ministerial Growth and Support shall consist of 13 members appointed by the President of the Synod:

1. Three ordained ministers

2. Three commissioned ministers

3. Three laypersons

4. One district president

5. Two seminary faculty members

6. One Concordia University System faculty member

3.9.4.1.1 The Commission on Ministerial Growth shall be appointed as follows:

(a) The three ordained ministers shall be parish pastors.

(b) The three commissioned ministers shall be two teachers and one other than a teacher.

(c) One of the laypersons shall be a parish pastor’s wife.

(d) One seminary faculty member shall be from each seminary.

3.9.4.2 The Commission on Ministerial Growth and Support exists to serve the individual members of the Synod in carrying out the mission and ministry of the Synod.

(a) It shall assist and encourage the church’s workers in the planning of their continuing educational and vocational growth and the personal well-being of them and their family members.

(b) It shall assist and encourage congregations in assessing and promoting the continuing educational and vocational growth of the church’s workers and the personal well-being of them and their family members.

(c) It shall assist and encourage districts in the development of support systems for the continuing educational and vocational growth of the church’s workers and the personal well-being of them and their families.

(d) It shall provide opportunities and settings for the church’s workers to continue to grow in Christ and in the knowledge, attitudes, skills, and personal well-being they need to serve Him in His church.

(e) It shall develop, sponsor, and coordinate continuing educational and vocational growth and personal well-being initiatives among the agencies of the Synod whose work impacts the church’s workers and their families.

(f) It shall seek grants and maintain funds from outside sources for the support of its objectives when it deems necessary to do so.

This commission is intended to support pastors, not lead them into pagan prayer practices. Even though President Kieschnick did not write the article, it is a clear reflection of his lack of support for the office of the ministry. He has said that he wants to lead the LCMS away from our grandfather’s church. His support of the office of the ministry has been characterized by a glossy insert in the Reporter on “Leadership,” (a sociological and business term), a set of Blue Ribbon proposals that elevate the office of district president and synodical president and diminish the office of parish pastor and now a commission appointed by him has done this.

This endorsement of pagan prayer practices not only hurts the office of the ministry, it also demonstrates how doctrinal supervision (the number one job of the Synod President, see the Synod Constitution, Article XI, B. 1, p. 15 of the Handbook) has suffered under President Kieschnick. It is unbelievable that a president-appointed commission could be so naïve that it would endorse pagan mystic prayer. But, for those of us who have been paying close attention to the Kieschnick administration this is no surprise at all. President Kieschnick likes to pay lip service to confessional theology but incidents like this demonstrate that it is mere lip service.






Rules for comments on this site:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

  1. jim_claybourn
    December 30th, 2009 at 00:47 | #1

    why, oh why, when we have prime rib sitting in front of us, do we go begging for scraps of a white castle hamburger???

  2. Dutch
    December 30th, 2009 at 08:58 | #2

    As just a pew sitter, this terrifies me. If those who govern a church: guide & instruct, those who by God are held account for my/our edification, instruction, & protection, to abandon the Word of God….what will I hear from them? What will I be taught to do? Just as they, to abandon the Word of God, in word & now practice! I will be taught, edified, and instructed with the same tommy-rot they have been spoon fed from those charged with THEIR edification, guidance & instruction.

    Do these people not know how to read the Scriptures? The Lord holds them to higher account, when a teacher, preacher, or servant of the Lord. If you know that, know to what standard God Himself, holds one to, how can these “people” justify peddling this? To those who are charged with preaching, teaching, and protecting what rightly belongs to Christ? Oh, that would be His sheep. “I’m no theologian”-PK, the understatement of the decade!

  3. December 30th, 2009 at 09:23 | #3

    I thought the quote was that this is not your grandfather’s church, not I want to lead you away from your grandfathers church. While you may believe that is his desire, you state that this is his own public words. If there is a new quote, please give us the link. There is a major difference between stating that this is where we are and stating that this is where I am going to lead us.

  4. Dutch
    December 30th, 2009 at 09:29 | #4

    Kevin, the answer depends on what one needs. Do you depend on the words of people, or their actions? Words are easy, actions speak louder.

  5. December 30th, 2009 at 09:38 | #5

    Kevin,

    There is no new quote that I know of. My assertion is a deduction. It is based on the fact that President Kieschnick points out with glee that we are living in a new era (“This is not your grandfather’s church”) and the fact that he endorses new measures (church growth tactics for “growing” the church that are not based on word and sacrament) and is allowing these new measures to pop up all over the LCMS under his watch, such as this heretical prayer practice.

    1. President Kieschnick asserts that this is not your grandfather’s church.

    2. President Kieschnick endorses and allows new measures not practiced in our grandfather’s church (i.e. church growth tactics for “growing” the church which are not based on word and sacrament).

    Therefore: President Kieschnick is leading us away from our grandfather’s church.

    TR

  6. Dutch
    December 30th, 2009 at 10:16 | #6

    Pastor Rossow,
    Just the simple science of deduction. Once variables are eliminated, whatever remains, is the answer, as you so adeptly stated above. Or, more simply, the “duck” principle. Look, walk, quack, & act like, it “be” like.

  7. C.S.
    December 30th, 2009 at 11:11 | #7

    How much are the commissions and task forces brought into existence by the LCMS taking needed resources away form its seminaries and missionaries? Do they serve the Church as much as seminaries and missionaries? I know these commissions and task forces are meant to help church workers, but perhaps it would be more helpful if we gave the resources used on these programs directly to the workers out on the front lines.

  8. December 30th, 2009 at 13:13 | #8

    @Pastor Tim Rossow #5
    So, you make the public assertion that President Kieschnick “has said that he wants to lead the LCMS away from our grandfather’s church. ” That quote from your own piece seems pretty straight. I do not see any part of that quote from your article that says anything whatsoever about YOUR assertion or YOUR deduction or YOUR coming to a decision about the President’s motives, desires, and designs. It says that President Kieschnick “said” what you then assert. Perhaps you should write and say what you actually mean? You attack other people, like that article you wrote, without trying to see if they may have misspoke or miswrote. Perhaps you should give other people the benefit of the doubt that you evidently insist upon for yourself as your response clearly states.

  9. December 30th, 2009 at 13:38 | #9

    Kevin,

    My explanation was intended to demonstrate the logic behind my assertion. It appears that you are looking not for the logic but for the empirical evidence. That is a different matter.

    You are looking for empirical examples that prove the second thesis of the deduction. Those abound. This website is chock full of them. If you would like I can spell them out for you.

    Before I do that, it would be helpful for our readers if you would demonstrate your apparent assertion. Can you provide us a list of examples of President Kieschnick upholding our grandfather’s church?

    TR

  10. John Hooss
    December 30th, 2009 at 13:40 | #10

    @kevin #8

    “You attack other people, like that article you wrote, without trying to see if they may have misspoke or miswrote. Perhaps you should give other people the benefit of the doubt that you evidently insist upon for yourself as your response clearly states.”

    Ditto.

    BTY what article are you pointing to
    John

    PS. Actions speak.

  11. Helen
    December 30th, 2009 at 14:08 | #11

    Kevin,
    We’ve spent large sums on non Lutheran individuals to teach synod leadership how to do church/how to entertain our youth. Millions have been spent on consultants in (mostly vain) attempts to pry money out of Lutherans to spend on Willowcreek, Fuller seminary and other non Lutheran entities.

    Before we heard about this stuff going on in Synod it was going on in Texas when Jerry Kieschnick was DP here.

    Meanwhile ordained Lutheran missionaries are called in from the field and confessional Lutheran Pastors are shown the door. Seminarians are not placed while various sorts of “licensed” non professionals fill Lutheran pulpits.

    How would you describe the above, Kevin?

  12. December 30th, 2009 at 14:21 | #12

    @Pastor Tim Rossow #9
    Once again, the “logic” behind your assertions is not what you wrote in the article. If you are making a judgement about the President and his motives, then that is what you should write. Write what you mean and don’t put words into other peoples mouths. If you are making a deduction, fine. But state that this is what you are doing.

    You wrote that this is what the Synod. President said. I believe that at a minimum a retraction of that statement in the article by you is in order. It is factually wrong that President Kieschnick said this (as you have said) and therefore an intentional slander if you continue to stand by that statement.

  13. GaiusKurius
    December 30th, 2009 at 14:22 | #13

    This just goes to prove that we need to pass all of the Blue Ribbon recommendations. Just think what great things JK could do if he had total authority to appoint all members of all boards, committees, commissions, etc.

  14. December 30th, 2009 at 15:23 | #14

    @kevin #12

    Kevin,

    I am having difficulty understanding your criticism over Pr. Rossow’s remark, since Kieschnick did say that the LCMS is not “your grandfather’s church” in his role as synod president. Therefore, it is abundantly clear to me that as the synod’s president he did in fact take the public position—with those words—that he is leading the synod away from our “grandfather’s church”. Why else would SP Kieschnick have made such a remark? He didn’t follow it up with “…and we should return to our grandfather’s church”, did he?

    If your point is that SP Kieschnick didn’t specifically state an intention to lead the synod away from “your grandfather’s church”, then you are quite right. However, his remark is clear enough that he is in full support of the LCMS no longer being “your grandfather’s church”. In other words, SP Kieschnick obviously meant his remark to be taken as something positive by those hearing it.

  15. December 30th, 2009 at 16:21 | #15

    “He has said he wants to lead us away from our grandfather’s church.” Actions speak louder than words. His actions agree with his contention that this is not your grandfather’s church. We need T-shirts for the convention that say something about my grandpa’s church:)
    Please don’t strain after gnats and swallow a camel. You’ll get a massive case of indigestion for your trouble:)

  16. johannes
    December 30th, 2009 at 18:33 | #16

    Pastor Rossow writes: “This endorsement of pagan prayer practices not only hurts the office of the ministry.’

    Here we go again. Here’s just another attack on the Predigtamt–the Preaching Office. One way to attack the Gospel is to attack its servant, the Office of the Holy Ministry. Transforming Churches is one form of this, and now we have centering prayer, a clear assault on the Means of Grace, and the Predigtamt.

    The beat goes on.

  17. December 30th, 2009 at 18:43 | #17

    Kevin,

    If this is really troubling you this much please accept my retraction. Instead of saying “he has said that he wants” it would have been clearer to have said “he has demonstrated that he wants to.” I am sorry that I was sloppy with my language. Please accept my apology.

    Now, onto the point, do you agree or disagree that he has demonstrated that he wants to replace the traditional, liturgical church with a new fangled church growth church?

    TR

  18. revfisk
    December 30th, 2009 at 20:12 | #18

    Bravo Tim!

    T-shirts: http://www.ecrevolution.com/images/gpa.jpg

    What’s really silly is that this whole “not your grandfather’s church thing” (apart from the classically demonstrated error of Oldsmobile’s advertising campaign,) actually misses the mark of much of it’s own research. That is, “It’s not your grandfather’s United States of America,” is the real point that one might honestly make. (Personally, I believe this and take it as all the more reason for needing grandpa’s church as opposed to some narcissisistically-motivated, hack-job, knee-jerk over-reaction to culture shift.) But to say “this is not your grandfather’s church” (aside from the sheer heresy if you take the word’s in their literal Biblical meaning) is to totally undermine the speakers’ own selling point as a valid leader: if we’ve already changed, then what need have we for innovative leadership???

    But still…it never ceases to amaze me how little the deep thinkers (not LCMS – we buy their stuff at a high price) have actually thunked the thinking they thank they thought.

    Buy the t-shirt!!! It’s trademarked! XD

  19. johannes
    December 30th, 2009 at 20:16 | #19

    @revfisk #18
    Love the T-Shirt.

  20. Dutch
    December 30th, 2009 at 20:22 | #20

    How great the lack of humility & scope, of the great harm this heresy has! This isn’t about positions, offices, jobs, responsibilities, power or titles. This strikes at the very heart of our belief & our connection & our speech to GOD ALMIGHTY..THE TRINITY!

    One has to value quite a bit, what floats in one’s head, to “clear it from all care & thought”. I think myself a bit more base than that. Whatever I could possibly think, is tinker toys, compared to the One I speak to! With thought & prayer & pondering! He found me empty headed, that is why He bought me!

    I am slave. I was on the block, I came at a VERY DEAR PRICE, the price…for me…was paid, in full, for something that was worth nothing… was paid a great price for, so much more than that which was bought, could ever be worth. The price was very dear, and thus….I am a slave, a bond servant. And so are we all, we follow Him who paid for us, we do not lead..we submit, obey & follow! Why, should I, bought at such a price paid for me, belittle the One who bought me, by partaking in this falsehood?!
    He knows me, He came for me, I know His Name, He knows me & calls me His. I can talk with Him, even when the cares, pain & trials of this realm, render my tongue & mind speechless. My Lord & Master, knows my heart, my cry, my voice….He bought me, He should & does w/all which are His. And you ask that I try what?! Not on your life…because mine depends on it & He paid with His.

    Questions?

  21. December 30th, 2009 at 20:34 | #21

    Revfisk,

    Your analysis of the culture/church thing is right on and really keeps this debate where it should be. Yes, the culture has shifted and that is exactly why the church remains steadfast in Christ.

    TR

  22. December 30th, 2009 at 22:00 | #22

    Hey, I saw this over at Ichabod. It deals with how
    Emergent Church/CG types like to consolidate power.
    That reminded me of Kieschnick and his Blue-Ribbon
    commission.

    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post “Mark and Avoid Jeske Admires Mark and Avoid Drisco…”:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11punk-t.html

    “Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a ‘mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy’ who attends Mars Hill. ‘His answer was brilliant,’ Driscoll reported. ‘He said, ‘’I break their nose.’’ When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. ‘They are sinning through questioning,’ Driscoll preached.” — New York Times, “Who Would Jesus Smackdown?”, 01/06/2009

    More:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ReallySad1

  23. December 31st, 2009 at 02:46 | #23

    Perhaps an opinion from another place and time would help arbitrate the “grandfather’s church” comments. I had an email conversation with an LCMS pastor on the topic of The Purpose Driven Life being used in LCMS churches over four years ago. Here’s what he said:

    “Purpose Driven” would not have had the heavy impact it had on LCMS has it not been for poor theology already at work in our Synod. The “Church Growth Movement” has taken LCMS out of “Grace Alone, Faith Alone, and Scripture Alone,” into a world of group hugs and feel good pentecostal theology — where the only thing that is important is what “WE HAVE TO DO” to make the church grow, rather than trust God’s redeemptive work in Jesus Christ through the right proclaimation of the Word of Truth and the correct administration of the Sacraments. God is impotent to redeem — so we have to help him out. With that theology already present, “Purpose Driven” just fits right in. As our Synodical President is so quick to say, “It’s not your grandfather’s church any more.” He’s right! My grandfather would be embarrassed by the false doctrine, open communion, unionism and syncretism, that is going on in “Missouri” these days.

  24. helen
    December 31st, 2009 at 16:35 | #24

    One thing we’re ahead of Rick Warren on: We’re deeper in debt!

  25. December 31st, 2009 at 19:19 | #25

    @Pastor Tim Rossow #17
    Thank you Pastor Rossow. Speaking straight and clear is something I and I believe most of us should strive.

    Regarding the President’s stance I disagree with your statement that he is trying to lead the Synod. away from traditional worship. (Note that this is what I believe is going on, not what I personally advocate.) Although this might be an unintended consequence. I believe that his view is that both comtemporary/blended worship (within reason, which does leave the door open for extremes) and traditional worship are equally valid ways to worship. I think that he believes that there are certain aspects that must be in either to be a Lutheran worshp service. ie. confession/Absolution, Scripture readings, Benediction, etc. I believe that his view is more pragmatic in the sense that whichever form of worship works for growth of the members of the church and spreading the Gospel is the form that is best in that place. While this does not place him as a great defender of the traditional Lutheran form of the Divine Service, neither does it place him as antagonistic and intentionally leading the Synod. away from it.

  26. Kiley Campbell
    January 1st, 2010 at 15:03 | #26

    A good way to know who your leaders are is to look at the people of which they choose to surround themselves. In the recent LCEF Conference, three keynote speakers were brought in, Dr. Bob Roberts, Keith Ogorek and Dr. Paul Borden.

    Dr. Bob Roberts, non-Lutheran, is the founding pastor of the Northwood Church in the Dallas/FW area. His theology and that of his church is your basic “once saved, always saved” heresy. Baptism is done for obedience after one has accepted Christ as their savior. He is for women’s ordination as he has three women pastors on staff. He follows much of the “transformation” lingo that Gerald has scraped up off the floor of heretical think tanks. At the LCEF Conference, Dr. Roberts stated, “In the past, we have focused on pastors and churches to plant churches, but every disciple is truly a church planter.”

    Keith Ogorek is a teacher at the Zionsville Fellowship in Zionsville, Indiana. This church is non-denominational and specifically states that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are NOT means of Grace. The church believes in decision theology. In an audio file from Keith on the church, he denies infant Baptism and states one MUST believe before they are baptized. He also states that Baptism is correct ONLY when one is immersed. He also announced a few Baptisms that will take place in another member’s pool.

    Dr. Paul Borden is the Executive Minister for the Growing Healthy Churches Network. He has served as Co-Pastor to the Bear Valley Church in Denver, CO. It is interesting to note this church offers Theophostic Prayers that usually take about 2 hours. Borden’s niche is growing churches as a church consultant. Together with his wife, they offer their services to churches and individuals in need of transforming. The Growing Healthy Churches Network, in their Bylaws, state they are “committed to orthodoxy in its theological stance and the historic Baptist confessions of faith. So, Borden denies infant Baptism, the Sacraments as means of Grace and believes in decision theology. In the LCEF Conference, Borden stated, “Christ did not build churches for worship, preaching or fellowship..”

    Interesting group of characters our leadership is surrounding themselves with; scratching their itchy ears with false doctrines and insidious lies of techniques to grow the church. Of course, we should not be surprised by this, after all, Paul warns of this in 2 Timothy 4:3.

    Kiley Campbell

  27. Helen
    January 1st, 2010 at 15:41 | #27

    @kevin #25
    Regarding the President’s stance I disagree with your statement that he is trying to lead the Synod. away from traditional worship.

    ‘kevin’
    I’ve asked you a question before (with no result) but I’ll try again.
    What is your basis for disagreement with the above statement?

    Texas District has stated that it will not plant new churches with traditional worship, only praise bands, preacher leading in casual plain clothes, etc.
    Lutherans who asked for a liturgical service, with the Pastor vested, have been told by the District to leave one mission (never mind that they were elected church officers in the congregation). Where District can control the situation, people are not being given a choice.
    Since this is policy, how can it be an “unintended consequence”?

    As mentioned on another thread here, Concordia Texas has removed two successive organist/choir teachers in favor of a “worship leader”.

    So what makes you think that traditional Lutheran worship is being supported in any way by this administration, kevin? Far from it!

  28. David Rosenkoetter
    January 2nd, 2010 at 00:42 | #28

    “This is not your grandfather’s church.” Hmmmm. By his ac actions, Pres. Kieschnick seems to make such words an urgent desire or decree and not just an assessment. The centering prayer nonsense is just the latest salvo by church-growthers and emergents at Biblical/Confessional Lutheranism. And the real victims are those who get fed the new measures/heresies unawares.

    So many people have seen their own synod slip like a soiled rug right out from under their feet and are simply confused. They are worn out by the controversies created by the Kieschnick administration. It’s all the more reason for us to, by God’s grace, stand firm on what our faithful predecessors have given us. That is why, in those cases where Confessional Lutherans, hear false doctrine preached at or taught to them, we have the responsibility to point out those in error. It’s difficult, especially for those who in congregations where error might be prevalent. However, the charge still remains.

    Thanks be to God, He has rescued me from parishes in the past where enthusiasm was the norm and brought me to a congregation where the pastors remain vigorously faithful in their preaching the Word, administering the Sacraments, and fervent in Christ-centered and cross-focused prayer.

  29. January 2nd, 2010 at 09:45 | #29

    Pastor Tim Rossow :
    1. President Kieschnick asserts that this is not your grandfather’s church.

    Can you give a source for that statement?

    I think the proper word is “implies.” Unless you have a sourced statement to the contrary, Kieschnick’s statement was “This is not your grandfather’s United States of America.” He said it, however, in connection with the synod and what it ‘needs'; thus, there is implication in the statement, but not an express statement such as is usually ‘quoted’ (without citation of source).

    It might be added that he further stated in this regard, “Things have changed a bunch in the past 30, 40, 50 years. Were there people of the Islamic faith in the country in the middle of the 20th century? Maybe. But not as many as there are today.”

    Thus, you have the framework for the Islamo-friendly suggestions that came out a couple of years ago (don’t use the Epistles, and so on), as well as for every other change. It is *not* so much that the synod had changed (as, then, as Pr. Fisk said, there would beno need for Kieschnick’s visionary leadership), but that the country had changed, and therefore, the synod must change.

    Kevin is right in that whenever we say something sloppily–such as making quotes that are not quotes–we open ourselves up to all sorts of accusations. (That’s why when I paraphrase or represent someone else’s apparent thought, I tend to use single quotes, as I would when introducing terminology…something that the Chicago Manual of Style recognizes, but MLA does not).

    Anyway, if there is an actual, citable source for that oft-repeated ‘quote’, I’d sure like to have it.

    EJG

  30. Kiley Campbell
    January 2nd, 2010 at 10:59 | #30

    In the March 2008 Leadership News Letter, http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Office%20of%20the%20President/Leadership_News_March_2008.pdf, Jerry speaks of it and even “unpacks” what he meant by those words.

    Kiley

  31. Dutch
    January 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 | #31

    Kiley,
    Ug…this was something I printed out months ago, & was gratefull, when I deleted it. I hadn’t seen this topic at BJS, so I figured, what we saw in congregation, was a Pastoral or District issue, sadly, I chose poorly. But, it’s great you posted that link. It will enable those who visit this site, to read archives, documents, and follow links elsewhere (Google is a wonderful thing). I remember, back in March, discussing this with an elder from another LCMS church in our District, and he asked, “What do you see as a worst case scenario”….it was this, that the apostate, & false teachings of pantheists coming into practice, in a wide spread manner. The response was, “I doubt that would ever be allowed to occur in the LCMS”. Sometimes, webweaker vessels, have a foresight, we wish we didn’t. But, then again, everyone has the capability of common sense, don’t they? Downgrade theory, so to speak.
    I said then, “it’s possible that this could lead to…” I never thought, possible would turn to probable. What dark days for such a Biblical Denomination, as the LCMS.
    That poor man is a delegate. He represents his congregation, but what a choice to make. Support your Pastor in his vote, or vote as fitting a representative voice for many others. I do not envy the choices of those who attend this upcoming convention. Being a girlie, tends to have it’s drawbacks, but in this, I deem it an asset. I’m so glad we went to WELS, I am no longer able to placed under such obligations.

  32. January 2nd, 2010 at 12:18 | #32

    Kiley Campbell :
    In the March 2008 Leadership News Letter, http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Office%20of%20the%20President/Leadership_News_March_2008.pdf, Jerry speaks of it and even “unpacks” what he meant by those words.
    Kiley

    Thanks, much! It’s interesting, though, that he ‘owns’ the statement only as recently as 2008. Are there any citable quotes prior to then? As of 2005, I knew of none, and then I lost interest (as one might expect). I’m certain, though, that the usual reference is to back in 2001, when he didn’t say this. Perhaps he had said it in the Texas District even before election, though.

    Again, thank you!

    EJG

  33. Dutch
    January 2nd, 2010 at 12:36 | #33

    Pastor Stefanski,
    The year, he “owned” it, isn’t what is most telling. His description of how he arrived at it, most certainly is. What I & my family would say to him, is…try being from Jewish decent & being Lutheran. I have yet, to meet anyone, to encourge, embracing an ancestry, without embracing a theology.
    Just because he didn’t “publically” state it, back when he was elected, doesn’t mean he had a goal or agenda, back in 2001. Purpose Driven Life & Purpose Driven Church have been in the news & publication for how long? If you weight gain, by human numbers, his statement (s) make some sense. Although, those like me, who come from what they come from, see these things for what they really are: $$$$ & power in numbers on paper. How far would this man have gotten should his “stock” come from the Midwest? Not far, I should think. Like coming from Texas, gives one a leg’s up…oh please. Just because things are bigger there, don’t make ‘em better, so to speak. If a lawsuit can be filed, in 2007, relativant to the vote, me thinks…something is rotten in Denmark, not just Germany!

  34. January 2nd, 2010 at 13:12 | #34

    Dutch :
    Just because he didn’t “publically” state it, back when he was elected, doesn’t mean he had a goal or agenda, back in 2001.

    No, of course not…but so many say that he said it way back then, and thus leave themselves open to charges of misrepresentation.

    The way the he ‘unpacked’ it, though, also mitigates how ‘we’ have often presented it. Really, those who remain in the LCMS need to beware of the Scylla and Charybdis of dealing with Jerry Kieschnick and his supporters: treating them like they’re all idiots and treating them like they’re all geniuses. (The former seems the most usual of the two monsters to be fed.) If you hand them a case of making a logical conclusion into a quote, they will rip you apart every time. It’s just like dealing with those pastors who wish to bring CW into their churches–the longer the ‘experiment’ goes on, the more effective they get at bringing these things in…and the longer the Kieschnick presidency goes on, the better his supporters get at shutting down his detractors (i.e., people telling the truth about him).

    As I tell my kids, “Learn from my mistakes.”

    EJG

  35. Dutch
    January 2nd, 2010 at 13:38 | #35

    Oh my goodness! Pastor Stefanski, you know Classical Greek Myth!!!! Scylla & Charybdis!!! How perfect your analogy is!!!! I thought I was the only one who saw that analogy!!!! I believe, sycophant/s, is a rather appropriate term, regarding your reference above, to those referred to & those who value said same!!!
    I can’t imagine, you regard Spurgeon, in the highest of esteem, but this does smack of the Downgrage Controversy, does it not? Apart from theology, speaking in regards to what Spurgeon fought, lost all, but gained much for?
    I too, tell my boys, learn from my error, there isn’t much you can’t try, that I didn’t, failed, & learned from. Kudos & Happy New Year to you!

  36. Miles Whitener
    January 28th, 2010 at 00:15 | #36

    @Rev. Eric J. Stefanski #32

    A presentation was given at our church (not by K himself) quite early on that did use the term ‘not your grandfather’s synod’. The thrust was very similar to what is in K’s 2008 article cited above; in other words the US is no longer white and churched.

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

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