This just in … ACELC announces Rev Jonathan Fisk as their Banquet Speaker

This just came across my desktop. See the bottom of the post for more information on the free conference.

Dear Friends,

We have just received confirmation this morning that the speaker for our ACELC Free Conference Banquet has now been secured.

We are pleased therefore to announce that the Rev. Jonathan Fisk, Pastor of St. John Lutheran Church, Springfield, Pennsylvania, affiliated with Philadelphia Lutheran Ministries, and probably most well-known for his very popular Internet videos, which can be found at, has accepted our invitation to be with us as the banquet speaker for our First Annual Free Conference, March 1-3, at Trinity Lutheran Church, Kearney, MO.

In addition to Rev. Fisk, we have a most excellent lineup of speakers for the Free Conference (you can view the entire list on our website homepage) and we pray that many you will want to join us to hear what they have to say. If you are planning to attend this Conference, we encourage you to send in your invitation as soon as possible. You can find the Registration form on our website under the “Conference” tab, or you can download it directly by clicking HERE.

We would also be most appreciative if you would send us an e-mail advising us of your intention to be with us so we can better plan to make this Free Conference a memorable one.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon, we remain,

Your Servants For Christ’s Sake,
ACELC Steering Committee




ACELC News Release
January 24, 2011

A Free Conference


“Addressing Error In The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod”

March 1-3, 2011
Trinity Lutheran, Kearney Missouri

Hosted by the Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations (ACELC)

This Conference is a public service to all members of the LCMS. All are invited and encouraged to attend. You may click HERE to register (PDF).

The FOCUS of the Conference is on the TEN POINTS of error in the ACELC document “A Fraternal Admonition.” Conference speakers will address the errors in view of restoring in the LCMS the orthodox doctrine and practice of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Guest Speakers Are:

  • Rev. Daniel Preus on Pure Doctrine (Rev. Preus is Fourth Vice-President of the LCMS, Director of Luther Academy, and Associate Pastor of Hope Lutheran Church, St. Louis, MO)
  • Rev. Brent Kuhlman on Holy Communion/Unionism and Syncretism (Rev. Kuhlman is Pastor of Trinity Lutheran, Murdock, Nebraska)
  • Rev. Rick Sawyer on The Divine Service and Liturgical Offices (Rev. Sawyer is Pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran, Brandon, Mississippi)
  • Rev. Robert Wentzel on the Service of Women in the Church (Rev. Wentzel is Pastor of Trinity Lutheran, Walton, Nebraska)
  • Rev. Dr. John Wohlrabe on the Office of the Holy Ministry (Rev. Wohlrabe is Second Vice-President of the LCMS and Pastor of Concordia Lutheran, Geneseo, Illinois)
  • Rev. Scott Porath on the Unbiblical Removal of Pastors (Rev. Porath is Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran, Eagle, Nebraska)
  • Rev. Clint Poppe on The Church’s Mission and Evangelistic Task (Rev. Poppe is Pastor of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, Lincoln, Nebraska)
  • Rev. Dick Bolland on Ecclesiastical Supervision/Dispute Resolution (Rev. Bolland is Pastor of Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri)

The conference also includes the convening of the ACELC – congregations in the LCMS working together in a concerted effort to advance the correction of errors in the LCMS and promote unity of faith in our synod fellowship. For information on congregational participation in this association please click HERE.

About Norm Fisher

Norm was raised in the UCC in Connecticut, and like many fell away from the church after high school. With this background he saw it primarily as a service organization. On the miracle of his first child he came back to the church. On moving to Texas a few years later he found a home in Lutheranism when he was invited to a confessional church a half-hour away by our new neighbors.

He is one of those people who found a like mind in computers while in Middle School and has been programming ever since. He's responsible for many websites, including the Book of Concord,, and several other sites.

He has served the church in various positions, including financial secretary, sunday school teacher, elder, PTF board member, and choir member.

More of his work can be found at


This just in … ACELC announces Rev Jonathan Fisk as their Banquet Speaker — 41 Comments

  1. Looks like an outstanding set of speakers and topics. I’m curious as to why no comments regarding the event as yet, in light of the many post regarding the ACELC in a previous discussion.

    Rudy Wagner

  2. My question since the election of Matthew Harrison as LCMS president at last summer’s convention has been “Will the new synodical leadership consider the ACELC to be a help or a hindrance/distraction?” Certainly the ACELC’s admonitions would have resonated louder if Kieschnick had been re-elected synodical president. The other question I have is “What do LCMS ‘conservatives’ expect of President Harrison by the end of his first term of office regarding the lack of unity in doctrine and practice within the LCMS and the actions of the Kieschnick administration, such as with the lawsuit which Pastor Cascione reports on?”

  3. Let me answer your question with another question: IF President Harrison wants us to cease and desist, then why, perchance, when he meets any of us from the Steering Committee, does he greet us warmly with a smile and handshake and tell us how good it is to see us? Why are two Vice-Presidents of the Synod going to be speaking at our Free Conference in 24 days (registration will be limited if we exceed the capacity of our facility – see for more information about this event) if President Harrison hasn’t given them permission? Why did President Harrison direct 1st VP Herb Mueller to hold THREE meetings (which took nearly 16 hours total) with representatives of the ACELC Steering Committee to hear us out and invite us to be part of the proposed Koinonia Project? Why, after our second meeting did we (that is, the 6 of us who met) agree that the issues raised are issues which need to be discussed and resolved under the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions? Of course, I can only guess, but I’d be willing to state that I think it’s a pretty sure thing that President Harrison doesn’t think we are being a hindrance or a distraction, but a help. But what do I know? I was just there.

  4. Pastor Newman, that’s all interesting news. But why the petulant tone?

    Of course, only time will tell whether or not anything will be any different with the ACELC and the current LCMS leadership than there has been for the past 49 years of “conservative” organizations, conferences, symposia, publications, political elections, etc., 49 years in which the orthodox doctrine and practice of fellowship as stated in the Brief Statement #28 & 29, including the application of Rom. 16:17, has NOT been followed by “conservatives” in the LCMS, but rather a “new” doctrine and practice of fellowship, established first by the 1965 CTCR document “Theology of Fellowship” composed during the height of the “liberal” period in the LCMS and never subsequently repudiated after the “conservative” resurgance beginning in 1969 with the election of JAO Preus Jr. as LCMS president. Next year will mark the FIFTIETH anniversary of the birth of the modern “conservative” political movement in the LCMS with the beginnings of the “State of the Church” movement, “Faith Forward–First Concerns,” and the publication of CHRISTIAN NEWS. In that period of time, apart from bringing about the exodus of the liberal “faculty majority” from CSL who denied the inerrancy of Scripture, what have the LCMS “conservatives” accomplished, other than making it “conservative” to believe in the LCMS that full agreement in doctrine are NOT necessary for all expressions of church fellowship (which Scripture rejects and the orthodox Missouri Synod denied until 1944,) and that it is “conservative” to practice woman suffrage and office-holding on the congregational, district and synodical level (contrary to Scripture and the practice of the LCMS prior to 1969?) What has REALLY changed in 49 years in the LCMS, Pastor Newman, except that the LCMS has become MORE “liberal” than the synod of Walther and Pieper?

  5. The tone wasn’t petulant at all, although admittedly I am a bit frustrated over the fact that the facts concerning what God has accomplished by this effort are not allowed to stand on their own while many feel the need to look behind the curtain when there is no curtain to look behind.

    The fact that no effort has thus far succeeded in this arena before is no reason for us to stop confessing the truth and praying that true orthodoxy might one day be restored to the Lutheran Church.

  6. My apologies, I forgot to list the 1981 severance of LCMS fellowship with TALC, established in 1969, as an accomplishment of the “conservative” political movement in the LCMS. Compare 49 years of “conservative” political action in the LCMS–contrary to the Brief Statement #28 & 29 on the Scriptural doctrine and practice of fellowship–with the application of Rom. 16:17 in the late 1950s to the WELS by those who formed the Church of the Lutheran Confession in 1960. They did NOT wait 49 years to be “leavened” by errors in the WELS while using political means to change the WELS, they simply obeyed Scripture when the WELS did not correct itself and “marked and avoided” it. In the meantime, LCMS “conservatives” have been “leavened” to accept unionism (e.g, “joint prayer” without doctrinal agreement, the military chaplaincy, “cooperation in externals” with the heterodox, etc.,) and woman suffrage and office-holding. Are President Harrison and the ACELC going to remove these “high places” which were left in place when the “conservatives” “won back the synod” beginning with the 1969 Denver Convention? Are President Harrison and the ACELC those “that should come, or do we look for another” (Matt. 11:3) for ANOTHER 49 years?

  7. Pastor Newman, with reference to expressions of fellowship (including prayer) without full doctrinal agreement (Amos 3:3, Matt. 28:20a, 1 Cor. 1:10, Rom. 16:17) and woman suffrage and office-holding (1 Cor. 14:34-36, 1 Tim. 2:11-15,) will you please tell us what exactly IS “true orthodoxy”? Does the LCMS have “true orthodoxy” RIGHT NOW in these areas? Do the “conservatives” in the LCMS agree that expressions of fellowship without doctrinal agreement and woman suffrage and office-holding ARE heterodox and MUST be removed from the synod for the synod to have “true orthodoxy”? Are the synod’s current positions on fellowship and the role of women in the Church after 49 years of “conservative” political action in the LCMS STILL to be classed as the “casual intrusion of errors” which have been “eventually removed by means of doctrinal discipline, Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 1:3,” as per the Brief Statement #29?

  8. Warren . . . I agree with you that there are many errors that need to be addressed, no doubt a great many more than we have tried to address at this time. Whether or not anything positive will come from our efforts remains to be seen. We certainly don’t see ourselves as the be all or end all of orthodoxy, far from it. Personally, I’m humbled that I am friends and a fellow confessor with so many who stand head and shoulders above me.

    If I sounded antagonistic in my earlier responses, please forgive me, and believe me when I say that we covet your prayers that God will use what we are doing for the good of His Church. And we covet the prayers and efforts of all those in our Synod who are working toward the goal of returning true orthodoxy to our Church body (which, as you said, is pretty elusive in the LCMS today, even among those who claim that title for themselves), even if they aren’t working with us.

  9. Pastor Newman, do you agree that the LCMS’ current positions on fellowship and the role of women in the Church are heterodox? Do you recognize that those positions are NOT new, but rather have been the synod’s position since the Saginaw Convention of 1944 (full agreement in doctrine no longer necessary for joint prayer) and the Denver Convention of 1969 (woman suffrage and office-holding,) such that these positions CANNOT be considered as examples of the “casual intrusion of errors” which have been “combated and eventually removed by means of doctrinal discipline, Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 1:3,” as per the Brief Statement #29? How LONG does someone striving to be “truly orthodox” REMAIN in fellowship with the heterodox and church bodies which tolerate it? Can you give me ANY examples from the history of the Missouri Synod in which the synod, when it was still an orthodox church body, tolerated heterodoxy and practiced fellowship with the heterodox for as long as the current synod’s “conservatives” have been active–at least 49 years now? The fact that LCMS “conservatives” will CONTINUE to remain in fellowship with those who practice the synod’s heterodox current positions on fellowship and the role of women in the Church and even practice those positions THEMSELVES is manifest proof that the “conservatives” in the modern LCMS are practicing a heterodox doctrine of fellowship THEMSELVES, excusing themselves from the application of Rom. 16:17 to the synod and its heterodox members after DECADES of heterodoxy by claiming that they are “earnestly contending for the faith” (Jude 3) by their organizations, publications, conferences, symposia, political activity, etc., etc., while in the meantime being “leavened” into the acceptance and practice of errors in fellowship and the role of women in the Church THEMSELVES? The LCMS has REMAINED heterodox because the “conservatives” in the synod are heterodox THEMSELVES, having “moved to the middle” once occupied on the American Lutheran theological spectrum by the General Council, to be “merely conservative” rather than truly orthodox, thinking that as long as they have the apostate ELCA to look down on, the LCMS MUST be orthodox, no matter HOW far it has fallen from the orthodoxy of the Brief Statement.

    After 30 years in the LCMS and 25 on the clergy roster, in 2007 I finally had to apply Rom. 16:17 to the LCMS, once I realized that the synod’s “conservatives” were themselves the “problem” in the synod rather than the solution to it. These “conservatives” cannot even agree among themselves on what it is to be truly orthodox, and embrace diverse doctrines and practices themselves (e.g., “hyper-Euros,” charismatics, Church Growth, Contemporary Worship, etc.)

    If Kieschnick had remained president of the synod, the ACELC might have helped to galvanize some LCMS “conservatives” into finally questioning whether to remain in the synod, but now with a “conservative” synodical president, “conservatives” will continue to wait and strategize, as they have been doing for the past 49 years, always with a new generation of “conservatives” who will not learn from the past and who will continue to repeat the same mistakes of trusting in secular political activity rather than in following God’s Word, unable to practice what they sing about in the last verse of “A Mighty Fortress,” that they would be willing to lose EVERYTHING ELSE, including the Missouri Synod and its institutions, for the sake of true faithfulness to God’s Word.

  10. You’re right, Guy, the truth about the heterodoxy of the modern LCMS and its “conservatives” after 49 years of the latter’s “contending for the faith” DESERVES to be labeled with “Wow”! And yet these same LCMS “conservatives” EXPECT the WELS, ELS, Church of the Lutheran Confession, and the “old Missouri” groups” to practice the unionism of “selective fellowship” with them, as if their own heterodox fellowship practice of remaining in the LCMS in spite of its heterodoxy can be separated from the REST of their doctrine and practice: “Pay no attention to the fact that I WON’T leave the LCMS–I’m ORTHODOX on everything ELSE!” “Wow” is RIGHT!

  11. Dear Warren,
    We are trying, after [YMMV] years, to change some things.
    Surely someone who has already jumped ship can pray for us
    and leave the criticism to the less loving, of whom there is no lack “inside” lcms?

  12. Rev. Fiene, I AGREE with you; WELS is heterodox on Church & Ministry, but they WERE right to break fellowship with the LCMS for its heterodoxy on fellowship, only they should have done it before 1961 and spared themselves the loss of those who formed the Church of the Lutheran Confession in 1960. The ELS was correct as well to break fellowship with the LCMS in 1955, even if the Preus Brothers (JAO Jr. & Robert) who had advocated the breaking of fellowship with the LCMS that year later turned around and joined the LCMS themselves (does anyone ever wonder WHY?) But in 1951 the Orthodox Lutheran Conference was the first group of Synodical Conference Lutherans to apply Rom. 16:17 to the heterodoxy of the LCMS and leave the synod. Given that the LCMS was LESS heterodox in the 1950s than it is now–the LCMS not adopting the heterodoxy of woman suffrage and office-holding until 1969–WHERE does that leave TODAY’S LCMS “conservatives,” who can’t even agree among THEMSELVES if the current LCMS position on fellowship and the role of women in the Church is heterodox, since they have been “leavened” by their own membership in the LCMS since the 1950s into accepting the synod’s current positions as being “conservative”?

    If “Helen” is Helen Jensen, you’ve been in the LCMS long enough to see the failure of the “conservative” movement in the LCMS for the past 49 years to return the synod to true orthodoxy–assuming, of course, that you yourself even believe that the LCMS is heterodox on fellowship and the role of women in the Church. LCMS “conservatives “want their cake and to eat it too,” i.e., they want to BELIEVE that one can be personally “orthodox” without being willing to pay the PRICE of true orthodoxy in their fellowship practice, paying “lip service” to orthodoxy while continuing to tolerate heterodoxy in their own personal fellowship practices. This is why the “conservative” movement in the LCMS has FAILED to return the synod to true orthodox in the last 49 years, because (1) LCMS “conservatives” have taken the “easy way out” by staying in the synod no matter what heterodoxy was taught, practiced, or tolerated, excusing themselves by “contending for the faith” but NEVER being able to reach the point of applying Rom. 16:17 to any of the heterodoxy, as per Scripture and the Brief Statement #28 & 29; and (2) LCMS “conservatives” have THEMSELVES been “leavened” into accepting the synod’s heterodoxy on fellowship and the role of women in the Church by their OWN “conservative” pastors and other leaders who ALSO can never reach the point of applying Rom. 16:17 to the synod, no matter WHAT heterodoxy was taught, practiced, or tolerated. Yes, the LCMS DID get rid of the heterodox CSL “faculty majority” in the 1970s and break fellowship with TALC in 1981, but it has NEVER removed the “high places” of its earlier heterodoxy on fellowship (since the Saginaw Convention of 1944) and the role of women in the Church (since the Denver Convention of 1969,) and WHERE is the evidence that the modern LCMS “conservatives” even WANT to do so NOW?

    Yes, I DO pray for the LCMS, especially for the “conservatives” to come to their senses and to practice what they sing about in the last verse of “A Mighty Fortress,” that they would TRULY be willing to lose everything else, including the wonderful material assets of their synod, districts, and congregations, for the sake of faithfulness to the Word of God.

  13. I have to agree with Guy, Warren. Wow!! But I don’t think he meant wow in the way you think he meant “Wow!” Why the angst, Warren? As far as I know, the LCMS is not heterodox to the Scriptures on women serving in the church. I don’t think that it is heterodox for women to serve as ushers in the church, or on boards and committees for that matter… But, serving as elders and pastors? Yes, because that is based on Scripture and Scripture alone in all my research. I’m conservative in my practice, but I do recognize the important role women can play in the CHURCH but not the SERVICE. I know that sounds chauvanistic, but I don’t believe that I am being chauvanistic because I am just following the belief of God’s Word. If we are to hold to our beliefs as Lutherans, we must believe that the the Bible is the inerrant Word of God! We can’t go willy-nilly and conform it to the way WE think it should be. Doesn’t work that way. To do so would be going against God and his Word. Some might say “Well, God will forgive you if you ask for forgiveness if you recognize that what you are doing (going against the Word of God) is a sin.” While that may be true, I would be an unrepentant sinner who knows what he is doing is going against God’s Word and Will and continues to do so. That’s worse, I think, than being thought of as a chauvanist, for both me and those that would think that about me!

  14. “Cradle Lutheran,” upon what basis do you support the current LCMS doctrine and practice regarding the role of women in the Church? I didn’t see any SCRIPTURE in your post, but I DID see a lot of HUMAN REASON: “I don’t think…” Upon what exegetical basis do you interpret 1 Cor. 14:34-37 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 to permit women to serve on “boards and committees” but NOT as elders (which the LCMS currently PERMITS) or pastors, and WHERE is the CLEAR line of distinction in those Scriptural passages drawn between women being able to serve on “boards and committees” which exercise authority over men in the congregation, district and synod, and holding the pastoral office? Thank you for your Scriptural response.

  15. “Cradle Lutheranism” please tell me from Scripture where the secular concept of “chauvinism” enters into the discussion of the role of women in the Church? Is God’s Word “chauvinistic,” or is it non-Christians and the heterodox who believe that?

  16. @Warren Malach #16
    @Cradle Lutheran #15

    Kingdom of the Lef tand Kingdom of the Right. Not trying to pick a fight. Just want to think and understand.

    Warren, you appear to indicate that ALL functions in the church are spiritually based. And indeed to an extent they are. But how much so? Councils and committees and such can deal in practical things that are rather secular. Paying bills, picking carpet, painting… Is there a distinction of some functions in congregational life that are not specifically bound, and therefore adiaphora? I am always eager to learn proper distinction and what is right. I do totally agree with you about the Elders, and that is a horrendous practice, in part because of how LCMS, Inc. has thoroughly confused the definiton and role of Biblical eldership. I am interested in your views on this. Thanks.

  17. If women on the congregational, district, or synodical level are exercising authority over men by voting or committee action, it doesn’t really MATTER whether the decisions involve “spiritual” or “practical” matters; it’s STILL contrary to 1 Cor. 14:34-37 and 1 Tim. 2:15-17.
    Of course, as members of the congregation, women may be consulted, in “practical” matters, as a matter of Christian love and respect, by the men who exercise authority in the congregation, but women CANNOT exercise authority over men without violating Scripture. That is what the Bible teaches, and what the Missouri Synod USED to believe and teach. What do the LCMS “conservatives” believe and teach NOW? Do they even AGREE among THEMSELVES on what the Bible teaches about the role of women in the Church? Before 1969, in the LCMS it was “conservative” to uphold the Scriptural teaching, but NOW it’s “conservative” to permit women to vote and hold office on the congregational, district, and synodical level. What CHANGED–God’s Word or the LCMS and its “conservatives”?

  18. Brother Malach,

    It’s been a while since I’ve seen you in action. But, I see that nothing’s changed.

    Hey, while you’re here, why don’t you take a moment and share with everyone your take on what Lutherans confess regarding church polity? That’s always great fun!

    After that, though, could you please take your ranting elsewhere? We steadfasters wouldn’t want to get the reputation that we’re full of guile and hatred (whispering: there’s already a few out there who think that and you being here will just make the matter worse). Besides, we already know full well that we’ll never, ever, ever, ever be able to live up to your version of Lutheranism, so you’re kinda just wasting your time. But, do please keep praying for us.


  19. Dear Pastor Messer: First of all, to properly distinguish between the Invisible and Visible Church by which you are a member of a heterodox visible church body about whose personal faith I cannot know, I CANNOT at this time consider you to be my “brother in Christ.” Secondly, as with previous responders in this forum, you provide NO Scriptural refutation of what I have said, but, like Festus in Acts 24:25, all you can say is “Go thy way…” Apparently the Truth of God’s word is an “Inconvenient Truth” for those who have “invested” themselves in the LCMS. Such pastors are certainly NOT going to “rock the boat,” which is why NO ONE among the “conservative” LCMS pastors who have posted in this thread have been able to publicly dissent from the synod’s heterodox position on fellowship and the role of women in the Church; it might “cost” them something!

    Please tell me, Pastor Messer, HOW am I to “pray” for a man who considers the statement of the orthodox doctrine of fellowship and the role of women in the Church of the old Missouri Synod, the doctrine of Walther, Pieper, AL Graebner, JT Mueller, EWA Koehler, and other orthodox teachers of the old Missouri Synod, to be “ranting”? Just what DOES God’s Word say about these things? Tell me that, Pastor Messer, and I will HAPPY to discuss “church polity” with you!

  20. Mr. Wagner, don’t leave out of your post your recent “off-line” email attempts to pump me for personal information to use in an ad hominem attack upon me. Don’t leave out your inability to provide a Scriptural basis for your synod’s position on the doctrine and practice of fellowship and the role of women in the Church, in fact, your unwillingness to even state what you OWN position is, all the while asking for personal information from me!

    Do ANY “conservative” LCMS people in this forum ever wonder why NONE of the “conservative” LCMS pastors who post here is willing to publicly state in this thread where THEY stand on the LCMS’ current doctrine and practice of fellowship and the role of women in the Church, whether or not it is orthodox? All they can say is “Pray for us” and “Go away!” They, the “public teachers” in the synod, will NOT tell us if the Missouri Synod of Walther, Pieper, et alii., was heterodox in its teachings in these areas where the synod has clearly changed its doctrine and practice. Does anyone remember the fable of the mice who wanted to “bell” the cat? If the “public teachers” in the LCMS cannot publicly teach what is orthodox and what is heterodox about fellowship and the role of women in the Church without worrying about “rocking the boat,” what HOPE does the “conservative” movement in the LCMS have, after its FIRST 49 years?

  21. @Warren Malach #23
    Mr./Pr (?) Malach,

    As stated in my off-line correspondence with you, I have remembered you in my prayers, and will continue, in hopes that you find peace in the Lord’s Church.


  22. @ Warren … I interpret 1 Cor. 34-37 as meaning the women shall remain silent in all matters spiritual to the church service, such as in roles of elders or pastors! I don’t believe God would leave out the woman (another one of his creation!) on all things church!

    And, I don’t believe (oops … there I go with the human reason by your definition again!! Sorry!!) that my previous post was all about human reason, but as my grandmother once told me “To butt heads with a stone wall will only leave you the one hurt in the end,” so I will not try to comment on that one anymore …

    Warren, you know, we get on here and discuss things (some more than others) and there isn’t much angst being thrown around. Some every now and then, but not with every post. I ask you again … Why the need to answer everyone’s queries on here with angst? Are we not all trying to understand and grow closer with our Lord and this is one of the vessels in which to do so? Makes it harder to do so when rantings take over a person’s point of view. Us that want to live our faith as confessional Lutherans are already swimming upstream to do so. Doesn’t help to have one that seems to profess the same beliefs as we do throwing logs in the stream to block our way. Thanks for listening … er, reading!

  23. So hey! I’ll be speaking at this neato skeato conference about the Eastern seaboard and its dire need for the midwest to help us return to the Biblical model of city mission and Ministry (ie. AC IV, V and IV.) Hope you all can make it. 🙂

  24. Rev. Fisk, Sorry to throw the tracks of the post tank!!! My apologies, good sir! What day will you be speaking at the conference? I’m thinking of making a day trip to hear you speak.

  25. It’s Wednesday night, at the banquet. I’m less a “conference speaker” and more “entertainment.” 🙂

  26. Thank you, “Cradle Lutheran,” for being willing to do what all of the OTHER “conservatives”–including the self-identified pastors–in this thread have been unwilling to do, actually “go on record” with your own personal interpretation of a Biblical passage which I had presented.

    Of course, your interpretation REPUDIATES that of the orthodox Missouri Synod of the past, which taught that 1 Cor. 14:34-37 and 1 Tim. 2:12-15 prohibited the exercise of ANY authority by women over men in the Church. Are you willing to “connect the dots” and publicly say that the Missouri Synod of Walther, Pieper, AL Graebner, JT Mueller, EWA Koehler, and other orthodox Missouri Synod teachers taught FALSELY on the role of women in the Church, and that the LCMS only arrived at the FULL TRUTH of God’s Word relative to the role of women in the Church at the Denver Convention of 1969, which approved of woman suffrage and (then limited, now greatly-expanded) office-holding upon the basis of the CTCR report “Woman Suffrage in the Church” produced under the liberal Oliver Harms administration? Do you DENY that I Cor. 14:34-37 and 1 Tim. 2:12-15 HARMONIZE in teaching the subjection of women to the authority of men in the Church, in EITHER worship or “practical matters”? Perhaps I should have included 1 Tim. 2:11 in my prooftext citation, since that very CLEARLY harmonizes with 1 Cor. 14:34-37 in speaking of the duty of women to “learn in silence with all subjection” RIGHT BEFORE the Words “But I do not allow a woman to teach nor to exercise authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Can you explain to me why women can be on “committees” which exercise authority over men in the Church contrary to the CLEAR teaching of 1 Tim. 2:12-15? Also, where is the CLEAR line of distinction in Scripture by which women can serve on “committees” which exercise authority over men in the Church, but NOT be elders or pastors, or are you asserting that elders and pastors ONLY have SPIRITUAL authority and NO authority over “practical” matters in the Church?

    Quite frankly, “Cradle Lutheran” I don’r understand your use of the term “angst” and your borrowing of the term “rantings” from Pastor Messer. Do you believe that it is “angst” and “rantings” to challenge LCMS “conservatives” in a public forum to explain WHY their synod now teaches CONTRARY to what it taught under teachers that it–in no less than the person of its current president, who translated and quoted with approval their writings in his book AT HOME IN THE HOUSE OF MY FATHERS–still CLAIMS were faithful teachers of Scripture? Do you believe that I am practicing “guile,” as charged by Pastor Messer, when it is HE who cannot, as a “public teacher in the Church,” publicly state his OWN position on the doctrines of fellowship and the role of women in the Church in this forum which claims to be about the LCMS and “confessional Lutheranism,” and publicly tell us all WHICH position on fellowship and the role of women in the Church is WRONG–that of Walther and Pieper, et. alii., or that of the current LCMS? Is it “angst” or “rantings” to ask you and others in this forum to explain their interpretations of the Scriptural passages which I have shared? Or is it, to borrow from Al Gore, merely an “inconvenient truth” about which LCMS “conservatives” are using their “D.D.s”–their “dumb dogs” (Is. 56:10)–degrees?
    For people who CLAIM to be so CONCERNED about CORRECT Scriptural doctrine and practice the silence–from other than yourself–is DEAFENING! WHY?

  27. Warren Malach-
    As a layman, I understand and agree with your statements on the role of women in the church (my wife numbers herself amongst the non-voting members at our LCMS church). Could you elaborate on what is wrong with the synod’s position on fellowship and what your prooftexts are? I’ve honestly never heard it challenged before (I’m only 30).

  28. @Warren Malach #30
    For people who CLAIM to be so CONCERNED about CORRECT Scriptural doctrine and practice the silence–from other than yourself–is DEAFENING! WHY?

    Warren, you’ve recited the errors of lcms back 49 years+…. longer than I’ve been a member, for sure.
    Yet, if I remember correctly, you only “got religion” four years ago.

    Perhaps you should give us lesser mortals a little more time to figure it out?

  29. revfisk,
    I don’t know how this topic got where it is, but I am extremely sorry that I won’t be at the banquet and other worthwhile activities… I hope you’ll have the video cam up and running somewhere for the benefit of us stay at homes.

    [They say the wind may bring the ice to us again tomorrow, so we aren’t missing winter altogether, even if Dallas’ combined prayers gave them a clear day for the Superbowl.]

    Alles bestes!

  30. Dear “Helen,” since you are such a faithful LCMS “conservative” and conference-attender, would you mind sharing with all of us YOUR understanding of what the Bible teaches about the doctrine and practice of fellowship and the role of women in the Church, and where YOU stand on the different positons of the Missouri Synod in the past and the present? Which position do YOU think is correct, and which is false? Surely YOU can “rise above” puerile ad hominem attacks on me to share YOUR knowledge of God’s Word! Surely in all the “conservative” conferences and online forums you’ve participated in you’ve come to know which position is correct! Please, let’s HEAR from you, Helen!

  31. @Warren Malach #30

    Do you believe that it is “angst” and “rantings” to challenge LCMS “conservatives” in a public forum to explain WHY their synod now teaches CONTRARY to what it taught under teachers that it–in no less than the person of its current president, who translated and quoted with approval their writings in his book AT HOME IN THE HOUSE OF MY FATHERS–still CLAIMS were faithful teachers of Scripture?

    Brother Malach,

    While I cannot speak for “Cradle Lutheran,” I can answer your question for myself. Yes, I believe it is “angst” and “rantings” to do what you’re doing here. Most definitely. It’s the same “angst” and “rantings” which you have displayed on other forums and on email lists in the past. You’re not here to communicate, but to condemn. You’re not here to debate, but to chastise. You’re not even sure if you can refer to me (and, I’m sure, the rest of us low-life, sissified, no backbone LCMS “conservatives”) as a brother in Christ. And you wonder why you’re asked to go away? Get a clue, man – and a grip!

    But, while you’re here, let’s review, shall we? The LCMS changed its view on women suffrage in 1969, as you’ve been all too eager to point out in your rantings above. This was before you joined the clergy roster of our evil synod. Then, you served for 25 years as an LCMS pastor. 25 years! Now, granted, you may have been adamantly opposed to the synod’s position on this particular issue, but one wonders why you joined a heterodox church body in the first place, let alone why you remained within that heterodox church body for a quarter of a century. Perhaps you felt that you would be a part of the “conservative” movement that would finally move the synod to revert to its original position, and so you stuck around and fought. But, see, that means that your charge about we “conservatives” who remain not being able to ever apply Rom. 16:17 to our synod loses its sting, since, well, it took you 25 years to apply it yourself. See what I’m getting at, Warren? See how you sound, popping in to tell us “conservatives” what sissies, and what scoundrels, we are? Probably not.

    Do you believe that I am practicing “guile,” as charged by Pastor Messer, when it is HE who cannot, as a “public teacher in the Church,” publicly state his OWN position on the doctrines of fellowship and the role of women in the Church in this forum which claims to be about the LCMS and “confessional Lutheranism,” and publicly tell us all WHICH position on fellowship and the role of women in the Church is WRONG–that of Walther and Pieper, et. alii., or that of the current LCMS?

    Who said I cannot publicly state my OWN position on the doctrines of fellowship and the role of women in the Church? I most certainly can – and have, plenty o’ times. I just feel not the least bit compelled to do so at your demand – and won’t. I’ve made that mistake with you before and shall not be repeating it. I’ll just simply repeat my request that you take your ranting elsewhere. We’re working on things around here, and we’re excited about the prospect of the upcoming “Koinonia Project,” where we’ll be tackling some of the serious doctrinal issues which continue to divide our synod – hey, maybe we’ll even revisit women suffrage. I kinda doubt it, though, since that particular issue has long been settled, which means that, in your estimation, I’m afraid we’ll always be a heterodox synod. So, as I said before, you’re really just wasting your time around here. We get it. We’re heterodox. We’re condemned. Now, move along, would ya?

  32. Chris G., the Scriptural doctrine fellowship, once taught by the orthodox Missouri Synod and repudiated by the modern LCMS, starts with the general statement of Amos 3:3 “Can two walk together, except they be AGREED?” and proceeds to the specific conditions for fellowship of Matt. 28:20a’s “teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have commanded you;” 1 Cor. 1:10’s “ye ALL speak the SAME thing, and that there be NO DIVISIONS among you; but that ye be PERFECTLY joined together in the SAME MIND and in the SAME JUDGEMENT;” with Rom. 16:17 teaching what orthodox Christians are to do when the conditions for fellowship of Amos 3:3, Matt. 28:20a, and 1 Cor. 1:10 are NOT present: “Mark them which cause DIVISIONS and OFFENSES CONTRARY to the doctrine which ye have learned; and AVOID them.” The orthodox Missouri Synod up until the Saginaw Convention of 1944 still publicly taught upon the basis of these passages that FULL AGREEMENT in doctrine was necessary for any expression of Christian fellowhship including joint prayer, although by 1944 the synod had become involved in the same unionistic military chaplaincy program of the Second World War which the synod had REJECTED during the First World War. What the Saginaw Convention did was to formally change the synod’s doctrine and practice of fellowship by (1) making an utterly specious distinction betwen “joint prayer” and “prayer fellowship” to facilitate fellowship discussions with the “old ALC” merger of 1930, by which “joint prayer” without doctrinal agreement was DIFFERENT than “prayer fellowship” with doctrinal agreement. This convention also made the decision to permit Missouri Synod congregations to participate in the unionistic Boy Scouts program with its religious indifferentism like the lodges and secret societies, and its blatant works righteousness. This was the beginning of what later became “levels of fellowship” in the LCMS, which is another name for the unionism of “selective fellowship.”

  33. Thank you Rev. Messer for your post #35. Couldn’t have said it better …

    Warren, I don’t have all of the answers you are demanding. I’m just a simple conservative layperson who enjoys reading this site (although I’d dare say the past two days haven’t been that enjoyable!) and I wasn’t around pre-1949. I’ve barely been around since 1969. All I know is that I was raised in the LCMS and love it’s beliefs it professes (Christ crucified!), it’s rich heritage and it’s long history. Must be doing something right to hang around for about 167 years! As Forrest Gump said so eloquently, “And, that’s all I have to say about that …” Good day sir and you shall also be in my prayers…

  34. @Warren Malach #34
    Surely in all the “conservative” conferences and online forums you’ve participated in you’ve come to know which position is correct! Please, let’s HEAR from you, Helen!

    Warren, I remember defending your right to speak on LutherQuest, probably longer than I should have. I am going to disappoint you this time.

    About voters’: I joined Missouri in 1964. Our congregation had women observing if not voting (I don’t remember) since 1969. Since that time…42 years and 9 congregations … I have not looked for liberal churches! but I have been in a “voters for men only” congregation only 10 years.
    IMO, women are more inclined to ask questions and less inclined to go along with whatever is proposed, just to be “one of the boys”.

    Where the NT church was asked to make a decision, outside the service, (e.g., the choice of men to help the Greek widows) it says “the whole multitude” approved; it doesn’t say they had a voting assembly which approved. [Someone may enlighten me here; I don’t read the original languages.]

    About women officers at any level, I have questioned confessional men with “all male” voting assemblies about sponsorship of women candidates and they have given me very lame answers. (You can’t credibly have it both ways, boys!)

    Warren, did you raise these questions with the previous administration these last 10 years? If so, where? If not, why here and now?

  35. @ Rev. Fisk #27 via Jim Pierce #39 …

    If you do liturgical dancing this time around, please leave the hula skirt at home or wear something appropriate under it this time!!

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.