President Kieschnick Continues His Strangle-hold on the Blue Ribbon Process; Alternate Delegates Locked Out of the Caucuses, by Pr. Rossow

Here is an actual  district office response to a pastor’s  request about alternate delegates attending  the upcoming caucuses:

_____,

                      Thank you so much for faxing your Denver Gathering form in today. I noticed your question about alternates attending, and I wanted to let you know alternates are not expected, nor invited, to attend. In fact, only voting delegates and those advisory delegates invited to attend the gathering will be allowed to sit in on the sessions. You may wish to let  ________ know that he will not need to attend the Denver Gathering.

 

Thank you so much for checking on this. Let me know if there are any other questions.

 Blessings,

________   __________

Here is the the follow-up e-mail:

________  –

Our Circuit Forum was under a different assumption, namely that alternates should attend this Gathering as they may certainly have to vote in case of a Delegate’s absence.    

Why are alternates not invited or allowed to sit  in on the  sessions if this is such an important meeting?    

I would  assume that we want everybody to be prepared and also to be on the same page.    

Curious in  _________,

Pr. ____________

Here is the response:

Pastor _________,

                      I know this question was asked by another circuit and President  _________ checked with the Office of the President in St. Louis. They responded that only voting delegates were to attend. I will pass this email along to President  _____________ and ask him to clarify Synod’s response for you further.

                        Thanks for your interest in the Gathering. Let me know if there is anything else we can do for you.

For those who may not know, President Kieschnick has called for special caucuses where  the delegates to next summer’s synod convention will be presented with the Blue Ribbon proposals and  given President Kieschnick’s and the Task Force’s   rationale for making these changes without giving a hearing to those  who oppose them. The Task Force has done everything they can to squelch opposition to the proposals. They have taken a play right out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky, the original community organizer who teaches that you need to give the impression to people that you are listening to them but control the input and the feedback. By not allowing these caucuses to be free and open where anyone can attend and speak, the synod is, in a very paranoid fashion, controlling the message. (Click here for other stories on this.)

These e-mails make it clear that President Kieschnick does not want genuine input to the Blue Ribbon Task Force. These meetings are not about input but about control. Why would any LCMS congregation member or LCMS pastor not be allowed to attend these caucuses, particularly the alternate delegates? Here is a theory. I have kept an eye on a few  circuit delegate votes  this summer/fall and in numerous circuits where the delegates elected are supporters of President Kieschnick and his populist/culturally relevant agenda, the alternates on the other hand are often confessional Lutherans who are supporters of the historical/liturgical approach to church. (By the way, I have noticed a lot of enthusiasm in general for electing Matt Harrison and many votes have been surprises.) By keeping the alternate delegates out President Kieschnick is squelching voices and input.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force is President Kieschnick’s baby and he continues to strangle it. He called for it. He appointed its members. He has now called upon the synod to spend what may amount to  a million dollars for special caucuses this winter where he will occupy the bully pulpit and have two days of face time with the delegates to the convention and where the average voice of the synod has been locked out.

About Pastor Tim Rossow

Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow is the Director of Development for Lutherans in Africa. He served Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL as the Sr. Pastor for 22 years (1994-2016) and was Sr. Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran in Dearborn, MI prior to that. He is the founder of Brothers of John the Steadfast but handed off the Sr. Editor position to Rev. Joshua Scheer in 2015. He currently resides in Ocean Shores WA with his wife Phyllis. He regularly teaches in Africa. He also paints watercolors, reads philosophy and golfs. He is currently represented in two art galleries in the Pacific Northwest. His M Div is from Concordia, St. Louis and he has an MA in philosophy from St. Louis University and a D Min from Concordia, Fort Wayne.

Comments

President Kieschnick Continues His Strangle-hold on the Blue Ribbon Process; Alternate Delegates Locked Out of the Caucuses, by Pr. Rossow — 98 Comments

  1. Pastor Louderback, Dutch is my real name, really!!!! I’ve said this several times on other posts, but I will say it again, for you. Dutch is my nickname, my friends call me that, my husband calls me that (unless I spend too much time on the computer, on Ebay or w/BJS lol). There are only a few people who call me by my first name, my Mother, my Godparents, and my inlaws. I am not hiding behind anything, if anyone who knows me, knows it’s me who is posting this. I prefer my nickname to my given one, that is why EVERYONE, save a few use it. It would actually be an insult to you, for me to demand you call me by my given name, my friends call me Dutch, so you may call me Dutch. As we are all brothers & sisters in Christ, we are all of us, charged with treating each other in love & respect, even when we disagree, I’m confused by your comment you meet in kind, We are to no longer abide an eye for an eye: discuss, critique, & even argue (even the heated ones) at times. No matter what tone or words we are met with, are we ever allowed or excused to meet in kind, so I would ask you please, to show me & others here, Christian respect, as I have shown it now to you.
    Call or email personally, ahhh…not going to happen w/me, sorry. My better half would be a bit uneasy if I got emails from guys he doesn’t know, even a Pastor ( ya still count as a guy), ya know what I mean? My hubby has been most kind to me, about this site, but that would be pushing the envelope, with me, and with him. So, this site will just have to do. Those who run this site, have my email, & may at any time do so. Thems da rules for me & hubby. If you have questions for me, do please ask. Gentlemen should not ever speak to a lady that way, I am a lady & even though a Pastor you may be…you are also a gentleman.

  2. C.S. #47 – I like your idea of holding these meeting at camps, schools, universities, etc., if they must be held at all. Or even churches could be used.

    Yesterday, the Missouri District President told us that congregations in Missouri will be asked to pay $2.35 per communicant member for the caucuses and the convention. We were told that the reason it’s not more is that Missouri has a pool of $$$ somewhere that will be used to help absorb the costs. So, I don’t know what the cost will be for other Districts.

    And, of course, we were also told that alternate delegates and other interested parties will not be allowed to attend the caucuses. We can’t attend but we’re being asked to pay for it.

    And, the synod convention is being extended two days. Don’t know why there is a need to extend the convention AND hold the caucuses.

  3. Ginny–frankly, the sweeping changes they are proposing, now matter how they have morphed/changed/”evolved”, are enough for one three or four-day convention. The amount of decisions that have to be made is extremely large, and the prospect is daunting. After the shell game we were treated to in 2007, who knows what to expect?

    Now, here’s one for the group: Will the elections take place during the two-day structure part, or will they be delayed until the regular business is being dealt with? Does it make a difference? Ought to make for some interesting observations.

    j

  4. Elections are by Handbook mandate to be done at the beginning of the convention. As I understand it the actual convention does not start until Monday and so the elections will be then. This gives President Kieschnick quite an advantage over other candidates since he will have two days of face time with the delegates.

    TR

  5. Ah…but PK’s advantage, greatly depends upon the face his chooses, or more adeptly, is able to keep up. This will be not the “warm & fuzzy” safe ground, he & his minions, are used to, all, including us Foundational Lutherans, will be called to books & give account for our words and actions now. Let His breath blow where It may, as long as those, who fight the good fight, be ever mindful of our words and conduct from now on. Be it those we are in like mindedness with, but more importantly, we be always above the board, with those we are not like minded with. Scripture first, Luther next (includ. our foundational constitutions, bylaws, with prayer & wise counsel), nothing else. Let them have their time, their day in the sun, what the Lord deems worthy, will remain, and those who do His will & submit & obey Him, and the doctrines proven by His Word, will always, as promised stand fast. No matter what time, tide, nor men may do, that which is worthy will remain, not by fad or fancy, but as all things are proven, the test of time & Sola Scriptura. It is mind boggling, that those at Synod & Sem, who hold such high places, have forgotten what they teach from the pulpits & classroom, what they once held or were qualified to hold. Sheep know their Shepherd, sheep know those whom He sent, & we are always wary of those who do not speak, act, feed nor herd (govern) has He.
    Ginny, you are so right. My Mum, & both sides of our family, will be asked, to foot a bill, to which those they voted & elected are not requested nor welcomed to attend. And those at Synod wonder why funds & tithes have droppped. Valley speak (so 80’s) “like…duh… hello, testing…like is this thing on” Ug. I actually can’t wait until this… or the convention. I love watching the hand of God move, in which ever direction He deems fit, even when we cannot see or understand why. He knows, it is His choice, we fight the good fight, we run our race…He promised His will would be done. To the good of they that love Him & are called according to His purposes. Let the race being…runners to their starting marks…..

  6. Mark L #43,

    You really are annoyingly illogical. There are 19 proposals most with several sub points for a total nearly 75 proposals or so and you want to defend the assertion that the Task Force has made significant changes based on 1 example?

    That is unreasonable.

    TR

  7. Mark Louderback :
    Pr Messer,

    Louderback,
    Um, the BRTFSSG is just a tad bit different from CTCR statements and Pres. Barry’s “What About . . .” pamphlets (that’s what they were called, by the way – “What About . . .,” not “What Lutherans Believe” – you really should give them a read sometime). If you really cannot understand that, you know, like, dude, there’s not much else to talk about.
    Wow!

    There is so much to talk about in this post…
    1. Don’t call me “Louderback”. My friends call me that, but coming from you it doesn’t sound right. You can call me “Mark” or “The Reverend Louderback” or DJ Crunk, which no one calls me, but you know, sometimes you want to start a new nickname.
    2. So it was “What about…” from a Presbyterian perspective? And I have read them. I think I taught them in a Bible study one year. Like all else, some good, some ok.
    3. You are using “dude” too much in our conversations. Perhaps if you addressed me as “Dude” and called me Louderback in the comments, that would work.
    4. I grow tired of the “If you think XXX then there is no way I can talk with you.” What, are you incapable of seeing the similarities? Do you refuse to see the connection? Are you incapable of seeing the parrallels?
    The statement is just a lazy way to try and score debate points. You and I have not been discussing the issue–so, you know, if you feel the need to continue to not discuss it with me, knock yourself out.
    But why announce it?

    DJ Crunk,

    Sorry that addressing you by your last name offended you. As for using “dude,” it just feels right with you, since you are wont to continually use phrases like, “I mean, you know, like . . .” When I hear that kind of talk, I think “dude.” I suppose that comes from having three teenage daughters. I’ll try to refrain from using that in the future, but I can’t promise anything. 🙂

    Yes, I am incapable of seeing the similarities and parallels you were trying to put before us, and, yes, I refuse to see the connection. You are comparing apples to oranges. That was my point. Are you incapable of seeing that? Do you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong to try to compare the BRTFSSG with doctrinal statements? Come on, du – oops, almost slipped – man. Surely you can see how off you are here. And, if you can’t, then it really is useless to continue the conversation. Sometimes, Mark, there is no sense in trying to dialog when the basis of the dialog cannot be established, unless, of course, one actually enjoys futile exercises.

    As for your charge that my comment was made lazily in the attempt to “try and score debate points,” um, no. You have no idea how much I don’t care (that’s one of my favorite lines from an old Western movie, but I cannot recall which movie it’s from – if anyone knows, please tell me, since it’s driving me nuts!) about scoring debate points. I don’t even know what that means. Debate points with whom? You? Others? What do I get for these points? Frequent flyer miles? What? I simply chimed in because you continued to try to shift the debate in an unwarranted direction.

    I have absolutely no clue what you mean by “from a Presbyterian perspective.” But, I really don’t care, so do not feel obligated to explain.

    Pax out, brother!

  8. Brother Mark Dude,

    (I have a hard time calling you “dude” with that picture next to your comment.) I really do not watch many movies but it sure sounds like a John Wayne line.

    Paxing out here in Naperville,

    TR

  9. @Mark Louderback #50

    @Dutch #48
    Pastor Louderback, from a pew sitter’s perspective on your comments and assumptions here, please be mindful, that you are speaking to pastors, and laity and please do speak with repect, confront with respect, and refrain from sarcasm & vitrol. The opposing questions to you were, plain speaking & open, I do not find yours to be the same in return. Laity read this, and some of us understand you hold quite a different point of view, but respect is unconditional here, on both accounts. If you want it, show it.

    Dutch,
    No offense, but it is hard for me to take seriously anonymous criticism. You are hiding behind an internet mask and telling me how I should or should not behave. That’s fine, but I’m not all that interested. — Marky

    I’ll say Amen to Dutch’s comment, and raise her one. You have been condescendingly telling real Lutherans to ‘shut up or leave’ since 2001… because “We won!” [So you did. by “adjusting the circuits and by about .5 %] Not a good idea to remind us of “circuits”, Mark.

    The rev. dr. sp kieschnick will have two days face time at the beginning of the regular convention but that is not enough for him. Either his ego or his insecurity is very large! He’s going to saddle us all with the costs of a pre convention caucus where he will be counting his troops and figuring out who to shut out in July and how. Meanwhile they’ll be living very well in a series of class hotels again…

    [He reminds me of a (secular) director we were under once, whose wife couldn’t keep household help and so they usually had dinner out, on the company, of course. Mrs. sp does a lot more traveling than most of her kind (and at company expense, a ‘first’, I understand, for lcms inc.)]

    Sorry about the “editorial” but you positively pant for these things, Marky, and much as I want to ignore it, eventually I throw you a bone. 😉 Run away and ‘play’ in another yard, now, would you, please?

    You know my name is genuine and where to find my e-address.

  10. It is so funny, my hubby reads the stuff I comment on & this site (rarely comments, see Ramstein) but he mentioned something last night. I can see how the Pastors who comment or write here may or indeed know each other, but how do the laity know Pastor’s & other laity? Helen, thanks bunches for the chug in the arm, (XoXo).
    Pastor Louderback, I haven’t seen a comment yet, please don’t ask me to call you DJ Crunk. I was taught, even if you see your Pastor or a Pastor outside church, in trainers & sweats, or (even worse, at the beach….ew) you, “young lady” always call them Pastor. I could actually feel a metaphoric smack on the back of my head from the “elders” in my family, lol. Totally aside the forementioned comments, Pastor Louderback, do you DJ, or how did you get DJ Crunk? Yes, I know I am naive, & rather dim worldwise, so if this is an inside thing, I won’t know. But where did ya get DJ Crunk from? Neat, but why that?

  11. Here is the request I have sent to Dr. Hartwig:

    Dear Secretary Hartwig,

    It has been suggested to me that I request that the CCM give an expedited opinion on the following questions regarding the proposed special meetings the Synod President has called prior to the 2010 convention:

    1. Are the proposed regional “gatherings” in regards to the work of the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance to be considered “special sessions of the Synod”, as defined/explained in Article VIII B of the Synodical Constitution? Or are they something else? If not “special sessions of the Synod” under what section of the Constitution or bylaws does the President of Synod call these meetings? If these meetings do not fall under the category of a regular synod convention, or a special session of Synod, by what authority are the districts assessing their circuits for the cost of these meetings?

    2. May informational meetings designed to assist delegates understand the issues, such as these are described, preclude alternate delegates or interested visitors from attendance? If so, based upon what part of the Constitution or bylaws? Are advisory delegates allowed to attend these meetings and have voice, as they would at a convention?

    3. Bylaw 3.1.2.2 says that delegates begin their term “with the convention”. Would these meetings conflict with that by moving the start of their terms to these regional meetings?

    Thank you.

    Steven W. Bohler, Pastor
    Our Savior’s Lutheran Church & School/First English Lutheran Church
    Crookston/Eldred Minnesota

  12. Dutch,

    Pastor Louderback, Dutch is my real name, really!!!!

    I have no doubt it is your real name–but it is a lot of people’s names. If I posted under “Pastor Mark” that would be my name, but there are a lot of Pastor Marks out there. it still is anonymous.

    Make sense?

    I am not hiding behind anything, if anyone who knows me, knows it’s me who is posting this.

    Okay, what is your name and e-mail address? You can find mine easily. It is Mark Louderback. My e-mail is pastor at salemspringdale dot org. I’m a real person with a real name.

    Shoot you can call me: (479) 751-9500. Introduce yourself and then I will lay off the anonymous criticism.

    That is, criticism for you being anonymous.

    My better half would be a bit uneasy if I got emails from guys he doesn’t know, even a Pastor ( ya still count as a guy), ya know what I mean?

    Then lay off criticizing.

    I mean, you can’t have it both ways, you know? You can’t say “Well, I will speak my mind, but I don’t want feedback, as it might appear suspect.” You know?

    Gentlemen should not ever speak to a lady that way, I am a lady & even though a Pastor you may be…you are also a gentleman.

    I am, of course, a southern gentleman, or at least I try to be as best as I can. I want to be polite and cordial and reasonable.

    But you know, if someone wants to lash out at me a bit, well, sometimes I lash out as well.

    And when those around me only complain about me and not my lashers…well, that speaks to character, doesn’t it?

  13. Helen,

    I’ll say Amen to Dutch’s comment, and raise her one. You have been condescendingly telling real Lutherans to ’shut up or leave’ since 2001… because “We won!”

    Oh Helen, no one would ever mistake you for a lady, because you are not.

    Quit passing on this lie. I never said it. Nor is it my position. Stop it.

    I don’t ask you to respect me: just act like a Christian who gives a rip about the 8th commandment. That is all I ask.

    Oh, and don’t call me “Marky.” My funky bunch gets irritated by that.

  14. TR,

    You really are annoyingly illogical. There are 19 proposals most with several sub points for a total nearly 75 proposals or so and you want to defend the assertion that the Task Force has made significant changes based on 1 example?

    I’m starting with one. Once we establish whether this is a change or not, then I’ll move on to example #2.

    But if you are going to say “No, that is not a substantive enough change,” then I need to find out what you mean by substantive change.

    So, would you call this an example of the Task Force making a substantive change to their presentation based upon feedback from congregations?

    Yes or no?

    I mean, if you don’t want to answer the question, because you’d have to admit then that the TF has taken feedback and you don’t even want to admit that, then use a codeword in your response to tell me you don’t want to answer me and that way I’ll know that we are just dickering back and forth.

    Um…what codeword do you want to use? How about “Funky Bunch”? Is that good?

  15. Mark L,

    You argue like a liberal. You like to twist words around and debate about process rather than the issues.

    I have already clearly accepted it is a major change by stating that it is “one example.”

    I have clearly already taken the argument to the next level in my response. My response to you is that one change out of 75 does not make your argument. Please stop being so sophomoric.

    My original argument goes even deeper than this. I have not only questioned the amount of changes but the way in which the TF has gone about colloecting data. Others on this string have supported this point with empirical examples. The data was collected in a very skewed way that leads good ole’ common folks to distrust the TF.

    As I have also stated, the TF will most likely produce some more substantive changes but I predict they will not seriously change the way the proposals seek to centralize power.

    BTW – they said they would be giving us the final proposals on October 16. Has anyone seen them?

    Please excuse me if I do not spar with you anymore. If you offer an intelligient response I am happy to discuss this but I do not have time for your abuses of common sense. Besieds, the worship secretary is bothering me for the theme for my next sermon. Maybe I will step outside the pericopes and preach on the ills and illogic of CW? No, I guess I’ll just stick with the liturgical readings and save the congregation from my personal tastes and platform.

    TR

  16. Pastor Louderback,
    Your comments to me are truly shocking!!!!!!!!! How dare you. If your truly were raised a Southern gentleman or understood the Office you hold, your comment above, would not be written, nor present for me to read. I find no need, nor implication to jusify myself to you at this point, as I HAVE presented myself, in good faith, you sir, have not. I may not be quite as schooled nor as learned as you, sir, but I can read and have quite a good grasp at Google, if that doesn’t quite explain it for you sir, LCMS has a wonderful directory look up, you are not hard to find, you should not be, you sir…are a Pastor, your Church website has not begun to be activated yet, you may want to look into that, it has been since April, or so the site says.
    As I stated, and quite plainly & kindly at that, sir, that my husband, would prefer I not give out my email nor phone number to other men, he does not know or respect, nor trust, even if that be you, sir, that is something you should take with the utmost respect. As a Pastor, I must assume you officiate the marriage ceremony, so you must understand the vows, do you understand? I would NEVER consider, ringing, someone, who, the head of my house, has not given his respect, let alone permission to contact. You of all people, should know, let alone respect that decision. Mind your manners sir, which brings me to my last point to you.
    You say you were raised a “southern gentleman”, I find that, by your own words, difficult to believe. You, despite your office, do not remember your manners, and you sir, are not gentleman. I feel no need nor compunction, to respond, nor discuss your comments to me any further. You may be Southern but you sir are no gentleman.

  17. Pr Messer,

    Sorry that addressing you by your last name offended you.

    Uh, let’s say my daughter addressed you as “Tom”; I would say “Don’t call him that–show respect, use his last name.” I would not expect my daughter to call you “Messer”. I’d prefer “Pr Messer”. You know?

    As a general rule of thumb, if you are going to disagree with someone, be polite in your address to them. Overly polite. You don’t want the disagreement being overshadowed by slighting the individual.

    I mean, now I am all warm and funny from being called “DJ Crunk.”

    Yes, I am incapable of seeing the similarities and parallels you were trying to put before us.

    Well, a little education could take care of that. See, some education and manners, and pretty soon, you’ll be ready for public society!

    Sorry, I just said that for Dutch.

    Really? You can’t see a parallel? Well, here is one: if you are advancing something, it is a lot easier to say exactly what you are for. When Treasury agents are training, they don’t look at counterfeit bills to see what it wrong, they look at the real dollar and see what is right.

    So too with our Synod. We put out what we think is right and good and beneficial–whether it be our doctrinal statements or our plans for the structure of our Synod. While it certainly behooves the group to receive feedback on what they publish, it doesn’t seem reasonable to publish counter examples.

    That’s my point.

    You are comparing apples to oranges. That was my point. Are you incapable of seeing that?

    I see your point, I just disagree with it. Sure, there are differences between what the CTCR does and what the TF is doing. But there are similarities as well.

    Look at what the CTCR does again: they don’t publish objections to what they write and differing ideas. Ye, if a person wants to write a minority report, they can–but the CTCR doesn’t come out and say “Now, here are some objections that some would make over this document.”

    They COULD do that you know. They could. Just like the Task Force could as well. But whether it would be beneficial and helpful is the question.

    I mean, you know, like, is that really that unreasonable of a position? I think not.

    Debate points with whom? You? Others?

    God.

    I think you struggle with vestiges of legalism. That’s why you say “Dude” as a compensation for the rigidity that your legalistic structure binds you too. Adopting the language of surfer culture is an attempt to escape the hegemonic system you have created.

    That’s just a guess. I could be wrong.

    You have no idea how much I don’t care

    There is a quote similar to that from Office Space–is that what you are thinking of?

    ,b>Pax out, brother!

    Bra. “Pax out bra!” That’s how the kids are saying it now. Beatles making a comeback and all.

  18. Dutch,

    Your comments to me are truly shocking!!!!!!!!! How dare you.

    Because you are anonymous. Because you don’t have a real name. Because you are hiding your identity. Because you are making claims about who you are but you don’t seem to want to come clean with it.

    Should I go on?

    If your truly were raised a Southern gentleman or understood the Office you hold, your comment above, would not be written, nor present for me to read.

    Just because I am a Southern Gentleman doesn’t mean that I don’t speak plainly. If I offend, it is because you are taking offense.

    Not because what I am saying is untrue.

    We can play this for awhile: but it boils down to integrity. I stand behind what I say.

    I have no idea who “Dutch” is.

    As I stated, and quite plainly & kindly at that, sir, that my husband, would prefer I not give out my email nor phone number to other men,

    But criticize them? That’s okay.

    When I worked as a waiter back in college, you’d have a table that drank it up and then left a small tip and would say “Hey, sorry, we are poor grad students.” One of my buddies said “Well, if you are poor, buy beer at the grocery store and drink it alone. Don’t come here.”

    You are free to act as you will. But as I said, you are criticizing me anonymously, and I tend not to take it seriously.

    You say you were raised a “southern gentleman”

    No, I came into later on in life. I’ve still got some learning to do.

    All I know is, I’m Mark QL Louderback. And you are…?

  19. TR,

    I have already clearly accepted it is a major change by stating that it is “one example.”

    Could you point out where you said this? I must have missed this. I’m sorry about that. But which post did you say it in?

  20. With all due respect Pastor Louderback, I have stated above, do not press me further. I will not respond to you as you are no gentleman, your Office is fitting of respect, that in no way, shape or form means you. Simply your office, which at this point, is being rather ill used.

  21. Wait, I got it:

    There are 19 proposals most with several sub points for a total nearly 75 proposals or so and you want to defend the assertion that the Task Force has made significant changes based on 1 example?

    So, this is an example of the the TF receiving criticism and making a substantive change because of the feedback that has been given?

    Man, this is like pulling teeth. I mean, you say that I’m a liberal: you are the one who won’t even answer a straight question. Bill O’Reilly would have none of you in his No-Spin zone.

    I got work to do as well: but we can both agree that in one example, the TF made a substantive change in their proposal due to the feedback received.

    You would agree with that then? Okay. Shall we look at example #2?

  22. Dutch,

    With all due respect Pastor Louderback, I have stated above, do not press me further

    Wait–is this the same Dutch from before, or a different Dutch?

    It is hard, I know, to feel the Law come down on you. Too often our Old Adam doe not want to be drowned, and so we squirm and rationalize and try to escape the condemnation and accusation.

    But squirming is not the answer. Repentance is. Turning away from behavior that is wrong is what needs to happen.

    Being a pastor means that people lash out at me often because of the truth I speak. So be it. But that is what is involved in being called to the office. Speaking the truth. In love, certainly. But speaking the truth.

  23. You, Mr Louderback are a cad, and know not nor understand the Divine Office you hold, nor the expectations and accountability the you are under. I feel no need for fear, as you put it. I am to test everything I hear & see, or would you have me ignore the words of Christ Himself?

  24. Rev. Louderback,

    You are being a boor to Dutch and Helen. Remember 1 Timothy 5:1-2: “Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with all purity.” I trust you would not speak to your mother or sister as you have to either of these ladies. And if you do, then you them an apology too.

  25. Thank you Pastor Bohler. What I find boorish, is being threatened & condemn with the Law. As Lutherans, & as children of Christ, we are no longer under condemation under the Law. It is a wonder to me, and quite frightening at that, that a Pastor, of any Christian denomination would think of uttering such a thing. Thank you for coming to Helen and my defense, you, Pastor Bohler, are a gentleman.

  26. The Rev. Mark Louderback,

    I heard something along the lines of, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone,” once. You ever hear anything like that?

    Seriously, get over yourself. So, I called you Louderback. Wow! What sin! That must mean I lack manners and am an uneducated, impolite, “legalist.” Puh-lease!

    You want to psychoanalyze my use of “dude.” Fine, have at it. Whatever floats your boat, dude. You are right, it’s all about my desire to win points with God and to escape the hegemonic system I’ve created. Actually, I would rephrase that a bit, really. It’s about my winning points with God, because I’m so arrogantly sure that I’m a faithful king within His hegemonic system. That’d be a much better slam from you, I would think. Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

    All nonsense aside, you are just plain wrong, but refuse to admit it. You fail to make the proper distinction between left-hand kingdom and right-hand kingdom matters. I don’t know why you do, but, you know, like, it’s just wrong. You know?

    But, continue on, Mark. Continue on. You put such a wonderful example of politeness before the rest of us, tangling with faithful women like Dutch and Helen. That’s sarcastic, of course, but what would you expect from me who’s not yet ready for public society?

    Whatever, dude.

  27. Oh Pastor Messer,
    Thank ya to bits!!!!! I won’t speak for Helen, but oh, please don’t call me faithfull. It gives me the heeby jeebies. I attempt, only attempt to be such, that I will find out once I get Home. My Lord will gift & offer that status, if He finds me worthy of the title. I’m so not there yet!!!! But thanks bunches all the same, to you & again to Pastor Bohler. You aren’t just gentlemen, you are good & Godly men. How do I know that? You came to a lady’s defence, once you knew it was defendable.

    FYI….I tip 25% of my bill, been there…done that…cooked the food that was plated.
    Questions?

  28. Any chance we could stick to the subject with courtesy, and without umbrage? I thought I saw another posting on Christian Etiquette on this site.

  29. Johnnes,
    You have no idea how much I WISH WE COULD LEAVE THIS BEHIND. I come here, not to defend my nickname, but to speak my mind. Divert away friend, take this & run in any direction you wish. Just please, my name is Dutch, can’t email or call outside this site, & will answer anything you ask, as long as it is here. Johannes, what are your present thoughts on this PRESENT TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE?

  30. Dutch, I assume you mean the lead article. There is no doubt that it’s all about control and politics, or politics and control, ifyou will. This is simply the pattern that we have come to expect. AS I said above, anyone who saw how the delegates to the 2007 Convention had their franchise deftly removed by parliamentary slight-of-hand can attest to my observation. I’m speaking about the vote to have the special convention in 2009. We were horn-swoggled (to use a Texas expression) into turning the decision over to the COP. Fortunately for all, the sheer mass of work that had to be completed by this last January was overwhelming, and the Task Force was no where near ready. So we are going to make these weighty decisions in two days in 2010. But the way we got manipulated in 2007 still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. That was one ugly convention, anyways, in my opinion.

    There are my thoughts. It’s a daunting prospect, and not a very happy one, either.

    Johannes (anonymous for organizational policy reasons)

  31. Johannes, yes that is what I meant. lol You are spot on (as always) I went back in my archives, to see if I saved the decision for no special session. I’m new to the governing & politics (& the rhetoric) if this isn’t a special convention, it sure does look, walk, and talk like one. Your right too, about power & control, and the clock is ticking down for when that will also be up for vote. At least that one should be an easy one.

  32. The issue came up on Wednesday afternoon July 18, and after lots of discussion and confusion, substitute res’s., etc., it was postponed until Thursday July 19, and that’s when the vote to put it in the hands of the COP was made. See “Proceedings” page 43 for Wed’s minutes, and page 44 for the final disposition. It still makes me bilious. I’m sure you can access this travesty on the LCMS website. Oh yes, the actual resolution is 8-07S, and is on page 165. It’s pretty interesting that this very important issue was not brought up until Wed. afternoon, and actually voted on on Thursday. the last day of the convention.

    j

  33. Johannes,
    Yes I can, & travesty is a term that is rather light for what actually has occured, was allowed or passed, let alone occuring at present. I pray you have a bit of encouragement, & a bottle of pecid on standby, & that Blest Book on which our lives depend! I never intended to give GI Blues, but…you feel, grieve, concern & care! Take what has happenned in the past & what is happening now, & all of those of us who suffer that nasty result of GI or rather LCMS Blues, it is a back handed compliment to you & those like you. I do know, I do understand, & share the ill, grief, burden, sorrow, & Hope, how ironic our focus becomes so pin point, so very quickly. Elaborate for those who are new to this site, what you refere to. I know, but other may not. Recap, you are far better at short, than I am. Speak on, brother, speak on!
    In Christ Always,
    Dutch (real name, no matter how many may share it, ya know me)

  34. Pastor Tim Rossow :
    BTW – they said they would be giving us the final proposals on October 16. Has anyone seen them?

    I got an email response that said they are in the “proofing stage for typos and the like. We plan to have it online before the end of the month, if not sooner!”

  35. So, here is the deal. Why do I care abotu all of this?

    Simply put, see what Pr Rossow wrote in his above comments:

    My original argument goes even deeper than this. I have not only questioned the amount of changes but the way in which the TF has gone about colloecting data. Others on this string have supported this point with empirical examples. The data was collected in a very skewed way that leads good ole’ common folks to distrust the TF.

    See, I don’t think this is true. That is, the actions of the TF did not lead to the mistrust. I think the mistrust was already there. Because of that, when you are a hammer, all looks like a nail.

    I think this is visibly indicated by the response to my statement. Pr Rossow asks for examples. i give him one. Does he say “Okay, there in one.”

    No, not at first. Because gving in to that point would be detrimental to his arguemnt: that the TF is uninterested in people’s opinions.

    See, in order to have Pr Harrison win this election, the issues have to be hyped up. So, John the Steadfast has been trying to smear Pres K as being weak on homosexuality. Look at the latest article posted on the home page, talking about the RC, and homosexuality, and how this fracturing might come to our Synod.

    So also, the story-line has to be that Pres K doesn’t care what you think–he does what he wants. No opinoins sought. No feedback.

    And that is what is portrayed.

    So when I challenge this and say “Well, what about this example,” notice how Pr Rossow ignores it to begin with–“We are still waiting”–and then barely acknowledges it, with a “The best defense is a good offense” post.

    I find it dishonest.

    Because motice what the real issue is here–it is not that the TF is not taking feedback and listening to it–they are. Rather the problem is this:

    As I have also stated, the TF will most likely produce some more substantive changes but I predict they will not seriously change the way the proposals seek to centralize power.

    Pr Rossow objects to certain recommendations. He wants them changed. THAT is the issue. It has nothing to do wthi whether the TF is listening to the Synod. If it does listen to the Synod and the Synod wanted to leave thinsg as they are, would that make Pr Rossow happy? Would he enjoy the democratic process?

    Or would he object to the resolutions that he thinks centralizes power?

    See, I don’t have any problem with people objecting to the TF. Obviously there are going to be differences of opinion–and good people can have good arguments both for and against. I don’t think any of this matters one hill of beans–it is rearrannging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    But let’s all be honest about what the issue is. Pr Rossow–do you think that the TF is really not listening to the opinion of the entire Synod, or do you just think that they are rejecting what you see as important?

    Because, when I look at the way you tried to minimize my example of the TF responding, I draw a conclusion. Might be right, might not be right.

    This is my beef and this is why I take (waste) time here to comment on these things. Go ahead, disagree with the current administration. Rail and raise your objections. I think this is good, meet, right, and salutary.

    But when the TF takes vaid critiques and incorporates them into its presentaiton, don’t try to deny it or hide it or pretend as though it has not happened.

    BTW: Ex #2: In the presentation, the TF has a statement tha resolutions to the Synodical Convention that come from pastoral conferences or circuits will be give greater weight than those from individual congregations. The origina wording was to be that overtures would only be accepted if they came from circuit level or higher. The reasoning being, if a congregation could not convince its circuit that the resolution was a good idea, it ought not to be presented.

    Once again, what is the final recommendation?

    For those out there lurking, your Synod does listen to you. They may not do what you think is right each and every time, but they do listen.

  36. Steven Bohler,

    I trust you would not speak to your mother or sister as you have to either of these ladies.

    My mom doesn’t criticize people anonymously, so I don’t have to.

    Helen is telling a lie about me. If someone were passing on a lie about you, I would hope that I would say something. That is what my mom taught me to do.

  37. Pr Messer,

    All nonsense aside, you are just plain wrong, but refuse to admit it.

    Actually, you are flat wrong about this, because Pr Rossow did indeed state that the example I gave was one of a substantive change made due to opinion feedback to the TF.

    So, you know, every Pig gets a nut, eh Bra?

    As to the right hand and left hand, you are putting a separation that you wourself do not Follow. In both kingdoms, you use English and words in order to proclaim the truth.

    You can deny that you do this, but we all know that would be silly. In doing so, you prove my point that there are indeed parrallels.

    I’m simply not wrong on this.

    You might disagree with my position–but to say that it is without merit is to say that my psychoanalyzing is with merit. Both are utter foolishness and we both know that.

    But continue not responding to me. 🙂

  38. Mr Yamabe, thanks so much for passing that info on! Does that mean proofing & a final copy will be available by Oct 30 or 31st? Will that be posted here at BJS or LCMS website or both? Should be interesting to see this final draft!

  39. Michael #37

    My district assessment is only 1.50 per communicant. Why would your be 2.25?

  40. Mark,

    Actually, you are flat wrong about this, because Pr Rossow did indeed state that the example I gave was one of a substantive change made due to opinion feedback to the TF.

    I am flat wrong about what, Mark? What? Try to keep up, bra. I never said a word about you pointing out the one change from the BRTFSSG you chose to highlight. I chimed in because you were ridiculously trying to compare the BRTFSSG with doctrinal statements. And, I did so solely to score debate points with God in an attempt to escape the hegemonic system I have created for myself. Remember?

    As to the right hand and left hand, you are putting a separation that you wourself do not Follow. In both kingdoms, you use English and words in order to proclaim the truth.

    Thank you for providing an example of why it is not possible to carry on an intelligent discussion with you. I make reference to the fact that you are confusing left-hand kingdom and right-hand kingdom matters, and you respond with this nonsensical gibberish.

    I disagree with your position precisely because it has no merit. You want me to disagree, but grant that you have a point. Sorry, I cannot oblige. If that is “utter foolishness” in your eyes, I suppose I’ll just have to learn to live with that. It will be hard, but somehow I think I’ll manage.

    But continue not responding to me.

    LOL! Now, THAT’S funny, bra! I mean, you know, like you are the one who continually enters discussions in blogdom in the attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand. You have become the king of the red herring – hey, there’s a nickname for ya, dude: DJ Crunk, King of the Red Herring. Whatta ya think?

    Thus endeth my non-response. 🙂

  41. Steven Bobb,

    Are you questioning my love for Pr. Louderback?

    Mark, if you’re listening, let me assure you that, as a brother in Christ, I love you.

  42. Pastor Messer & Pastor Louderback ( & the rest of us wee things….)
    boys…let’s play nice now…
    this is a serious business & Pastor Rossow (author of original article) deserves better than our bickering. (chief of offenders though I be) Let us stick to task, mind our conduct, & if we find ourselves incapable or refusing to do so…don’t post. Like I say to my boys, take it outside.

  43. Steven Bobb, I just love!!!! those sweet smiley faces others can attach to their posts! Well said, so very needed, and so very thankful for that little yellow guy! Thanks bunches!

  44. M. Louderback #85 above: “For those out there lurking, your Synod does listen to you. They [sic] may not do what you think is right each and every time, but they [sic] do listen.”

    The church doesn’t need to know synodical officials are “listening” to them. Rather, the church needs to know synodical officals are theologically sound. Good practice and good governance will flow from good doctrine.

    Like R. Wardenburg #7, I have not been active in synodical workings until recently. Also, like him, I became interested after the cancellation of Issues Etc. In addition, I was sorely disappointed at Rev. Dr. Nolan’s resignation from Concordia Historical Institute. At that time, I offered myself to my pastors and to my district president to serve wherever needed. My father was always involved in church matters, so I thought it was my time to take up some responsibility in and for the church.

    I was a lay delegate to my district convention in Feb. 2009 (SID) and heard the TF’s presentation. Many of the proposed changes indicate a lack of theological understanding, both on a part of the TF and on Pres. K, in so far as it is the president’s TF and serves at his bequest.

    I could list several, but here is one example of a lack of theological understanding: One congregation, one vote vs. one congregation more than one vote based on membership.

    One congregation does not have “more” Holy Spirit, “more” Christ, or “more” forgiveness than any other. Within the synod, congregations walk together, not individuals. LCMS Lutherans have that understanding, dare I say, that practice, because of our doctrine. The Holy Spirit calls people into various congregations as he deems fit. “The spirit blows where it wills.” (John 3:8)

    I stood and voiced this specific concern at my district convention. Several other delegates voiced the same concern. Indeed, Pres. K. and the TF “listened” to us. Whether Pres. K. and the TF have theological understanding to act in a right, theological manner is a different matter altogether.

    The president already has a bad track record in theology, so I doubt he will act rightly on the concern I voiced. Here is one example of this theological track record:

    “You shall have no other Gods before me / before my face” is very clear and straight forward. LC 1st Commandment 28: “Let everyone, then, see to it that he esteem this commandment great and high above all, and do not regard it as a joke.” When the president openly and unrepentantly condones syncretism and believes this commandment to be a joke by hiding behind a synodical resolution shows me his utter lack of and disdain for God’s Word and proper doctrine/proper theology.

    Pax Iesu,
    leb

  45. Thomas Messer,

    I chimed in because you were ridiculously trying to compare the BRTFSSG with doctrinal statements.

    And then also:

    As to the right hand and left hand, you are putting a separation that you wourself do not Follow. In both kingdoms, you use English and words in order to proclaim the truth.

    Thank you for providing an example of why it is not possible to carry on an intelligent discussion with you. I make reference to the fact that you are confusing left-hand kingdom and right-hand kingdom matters, and you respond with this nonsensical gibberish.

    We can all dial it back now, as the Final Report has come out and I’m sure we are all digesting it.

    But as to my gibberish–I think you are being a tad obtuse here.

    You and I are running around the position–and this is from my view–of “How do we educate people about something.”

    That was the parallel that I drew between the CTCR and the TF–how would they seek to explain and tell people about things.

    You can see this in my original post:

    The information given will only be in support of the proposals? Do you expect otherwise? When the CTCR publishes documents, do they include counter-argument? When you send overtures to the Synod, do you include objections to them as well?

    This was in response to Pr Rossow’s original point about only hearing the TF support of the proposal.

    (Of course, the TF actually does include in the Final Report the opposition to the issues and a small objection (see page 28). But it is not a very serious explanation of the objection. Those wanting greater opposition will be forced to look elsewhere.)

    So, that is what we are going around on here. I have to admit, I’m not taking you very seriously about this–no offense, you know that I respect you as a pastor and as a fellow brother in Christ. But I am just trying to draw a simple parallel here.

    And nor am I the one seeking to divert attention. That does to TR who clearly doesn’t want to admit that the TF was indeed listening. Pulling teeth to get that response, it was.

    And a parallel can be draw between right hand and left hand kingdom work, because the two of them are not separated by some unbreachable wall: as evidenced by the fact that communication (using language) is an integral part of both of them.

    How about that? Are we good now? Are we showing how we love one another?

    But I love being referred to as “Louderback” by my friends–they use it as a term of affection. I just think you are showing me a lack of respect–could be unintentional, could be intentional. Don’t know.

    So keep up with the Crunk. Not the red herring stuff. My point still stands. Right now, it is just not that important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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