Interesting Interview of Pastor Morris in the Newtown Bee, by Pr. Rossow

The meaning of Pastor Morris’ apology on the synod’s WMLT blog is hard to decipher. His recent interview in the Newtown Bee sheds some light on it. Even though President Harrison calls his participation in the Vigil Service unionism and syncretism, which is a sin according to Scriptural teaching and forbidden according to the LCMS Constitution, Morris makes it clear that he did not apologize for his sinful participation in the event. Here is the first paragraph of the story.

Rob Morris, the pastor of Christ the King Lutheran Church in Newtown, has apologized to those who were upset or offended at his participation in the December 16, 2012, vigil at Newtown High School. He is not apologizing, however, for being part of that evening’s presentation.

The article also has some interesting news from Pastor Morris about compensation for “combat duty.”

The Synod paid for the Morris family — Pastor Rob, his wife Christy, and their two sons — to go on vacation after 12/14, and has also arranged for visits to Newtown by comfort dogs.

We contacted officials at the International Center and they said this was a result of synod’s mercy work. Funds are given to each district and they are then given out as it is seen fit.

I am all in favor of this if the “vacation” was intended to get Morris away from the ruckus so that he could have time to reflect and see his sin. It is a little different story if it was simply for rest and relaxation. I am not sure confessional Grandpa Schmidt in St. Louis who sees Pastor Morris’ actions as wrong would like to see his offerings going to this cause. (I actually do know of a confessional grandpa in St. Louis who views it this way.)

Or, as one LCMS pastor said to me in light of this, “I didn’t get a paid vacation from synod when my congregation ran me out of the parish.”

Here is a confusing quote from Pastor Morris in the Bee’s story.

It was not a worship service,” Pastor Morris said on February 7. “How could it be? What I said was nothing other than words of Scripture.

That is a non-sequitur. Our synod approved liturgies are also nothing but the words of Scripture. (Kudos again to the LSB committee for including all those Scripture references in the hymnal.) Lutheran worship is filled with Scripture.

Morris is also quoted as saying ministering is hard, but ministering Christ’s grace is a gift, no matter the circumstances.

It is a clear teaching of Scripture and Lutheranism that there is no gospel (gift) without the law. Pastor Morris did not minister grace at the Newtown event. That is like saying the Jesuits were correct in conducting mass baptisms of pagans who had no idea what was going on (indiscriminately sprinkling water on crowds with the baptismal formula).

The story goes on to say that Morris says that the event, promoted by the organizers as a Vigil Service, was not a worship service. Common sense says that if it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, and so forth, then it is a duck. We are not sure what Pastor Morris believes this was. These things are usually explained away by those who violate the LCMS Constitution, Article VI, section 2b as some sort of civic event. Here is a typical outline of a civic event followed by the outline of the Newtown Vigil Service.

Civic Event

Patriotic music by the community band

Invocation by local clergyman or politician

The pledge of allegiance

Singing of the national anthem

Introduction of dignitaries

Political speeches

More political speeches (ad nauseum)

Closing prayer by local clergy or politician

Everyone sings “God Bless America” led by the community band

 

Newtown Vigil Service

Disclaimer that none of the speakers is endorsing another’s viewpoint (This was then followed up by at least a half dozen references by the speakers that they are doing this in unity and that they had to be together this night in order to do this. Click here to see the video. Click here to see all the videos on the BJS Youtube channel.)

Invocation

Prayer (to mother god, father god, or to whatever name we might call it)

Scriptures

Psalmody (chanted liturgically by the local Rabbi)

Sermon

Prayers (some of them chanted liturgically by Muslim man and boy)

Reading of the 23rd Psalm (there was ritual standing and sitting at this point)

Benediction

If it looks like a worship service, if it sounds like a worship service, if it is outlined like a worship service, then it is a worship service.

This was a very interesting interview given by Pastor Morris indeed!

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

Interesting Interview of Pastor Morris in the Newtown Bee, by Pr. Rossow — 247 Comments

  1. Rev. Rossow,

    Your observations in Post #41 (p. 3), based on the “facts of the situation” contained in the public letters and video posted on WMLTblog, evoke a sadness over the current state of the Missouri Synod.

    Moreover, those facts and observations will affect or color other ongoing activities of the Missouri Synod, particularly the Koinonia Project, and the interactions, conferences, and upcoming Reformation anniversary celebrations with other Lutheran (and Protestant) church bodies throughout the world.

  2. @Pastor Tim Rossow #38
    I don’t see Dr. Noland’s words as ascribing motives to anyone. I see him calmly observing discussions and voicing observations about them. Floating a theory about a fairly general observation based on a broad number of comments is far different than ascribing a motive to a specific person–calling someone out as it were–which sounds like it was the focus of the request for a new rule.

    It is difficult to make rules that address something as amorphous as comments. I get that. I see the need for such rules, and I deplore the need for such rules, because really we should be policing ourselves. We should be temperate in our speech–speaking the whole truth at all times, and also speaking it in love, demonstrating self-control which is one of the fruits of the Spirit. Dr. Noland’s comments always exemplify this.

    With this in mind, I respectfully request that the call to him to apologize be rescinded.

  3. Carol,

    Martin’s post is well reasoned as usual.

    However, he says that there are people on this website who have the nasty motive of sheep stealing. He does not know that. I do not know that. You do not know that.

    He could be right. But short of having any proof it is ascribing motives.

    Hey, I can live in a world that allows such but we are trying to be accomodating for those who can’t.

    Do I like asking Martin to apologize? Of course not, but if I am not consistent and willing to say hard things even to friends, then I have lost my integrity. There is a broader lesson there for him who has ears (eyes).

  4. Both Pr Lewer and Pr Noland were speculating about motivation not assigning it.  A simple caution should be adequate.  Reading about a lot of apologies can get boring.

  5. @Carl Vehse #44 (from p. 4, I believe)
    It occurs to me that perhaps what we need is a “stock” “sermon” (2 minutes’ worth, 5 minutes, etc.) precisely on Luke 13:1-9 that can be pulled out and used in a situation like this. How well do you think “unless you repent, you shall likewise perish!” will go over at an interfaith service? 🙂 (To be sure, the Vinedresser spreading the manure of his own blood at the foot of the tree is pretty precious Gospel, but who in such a setting would even hear that part?)

    No, I agree with Pastor Morris–there is no *necessity* for participation in such an event that I can see.

    I do have a question on this broader topic I’d like to see addressed by my respected siblings here: Given that I do not (as a pastor) participate as a “worship leader” at such an event, how should we pastors approach the idea of *attending* as one of the hoi polloi? For myself, it occurs to me that I might show up *uncollared* (shirt and tie, when I am rarely seen in a tie) in order to observe and to demonstrate concern and respect. Had a conversation about just such a hypothetical with my elders recently.

  6. Commenting on my own comment–that’s one real problem with such a context: If you do the proper Law/Gospel thing, the people present will rarely even *hear* the Gospel, because they are so enraged at the Law they hear. I’ve seen it in spades.

  7. David,

    I think attending one of these events collared or not is OK. I probably would not go but certainly one would not be participating in the rites of the heterodox and pagans as a member of synod (rostered workers/congregations) which refers to being a participant in the liturgy. Going to an service like this would be like going to a Catholic wedding as a guest in my book. I am happy to be there for the friend/family member but certainly uncomfortable about the false doctrine being practiced in the chancel.

  8. @Rev. David Mueller #5
    This necessity argument is interesting. If it is necessary in certain circumstances to attend an event like Newtown so that we don’t “cede the stage” to pagans and others, why then is it not necessary for every service? Why should we cede the stage to the Methodist priestess at our local Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Lenten ecumenical services? This is where this argument from the other side seems to fall apart. If it is that necessary to participate in these events SOME of the time (supposedly for the sake of the Gospel), shouldn’t it be necessary ALL of the time?

  9. Rev McCall,

    “If it is that necessary to participate in these events SOME of the time (supposedly for the sake of the Gospel), shouldn’t it be necessary ALL of the time?”

    I know that you are probably not referring to the position that I laid out. Just so there is no confusion however, I want to say again that my position is that a pastor is free in Christ to offer to “participate” (and lovingly confront). There is no compulsion here from God or anyone else. That said, this same pastor should also, our of love, willingly limit his freedom to do so for the sake of a Christian brother who is troubled by such actions.

    +Nathan

  10. As continuing evidence of the abyss of Ohio journalism, the Toledo Blade again published Islamist S. Amjad Hussain’s weekly column, this time, “.”

    However, just as Prof. Emeritus Paul L. Maier relishes the historical evidence for Christianity sometimes expressed by hostile witnesses such as the nonChristian historian, Josephus, so it is with some statements by Dr. Hussain.

    In his ranting against the views of religious exclusivity (attacking the Missouri Synod and a number of different religions, except, of course, for his own Islamoterrorist religion, practicing its exclusivity by beheading opponents), Hussain states:

    “One wonders what goes through the minds of religious leaders when they gather at interfaith powwows. They profess equality while holding hands, but sing a different tune to their flocks back in their churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. Unless one is a hypocrite, it is not possible to be equal and superior at the same time.

    Some of my Christian friends tell me that proselytizing is an integral part of their faith. Therefore, it may not be possible for most Christians to accord equality to other religions.

    Such statements should be pondered by some LCMS pastors, as well as the authors of the CTCR 2004 majority report.

    BTW, a number of Missouri Synod Lutherans posted comments on the Toledo Blade website about Hussain’s column, including Scott Diekmann, who posted the following:

    A quote from the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article XI, which is a part of the writings which Lutherans agree with:

    [95] From our explanation, friends and enemies and, therefore, everyone, may clearly see that we have no intention of yielding any part of God’s eternal, immutable truth for the sake of temporal peace, tranquility, and unity (which is not in our power to do anyway). Such peace and unity would have no permanence, since it is devised against the truth and for its suppression. We are even less willing to adorn and conceal a corruption of the pure doctrine and clear, condemned errors. [96] We do yearn with heartfelt pleasure and love for unity. On our part, we are sincerely willing and anxious to advance that unity (according to our utmost power) by which God’s glory remains unharmed. We willingly advance unity where nothing of the divine truth of the Holy Gospel is surrendered, no room is given to the least error, and poor sinners are brought to true, genuine repentance, raised up by faith, confirmed in new obedience, and justified and eternally saved alone through the sole merit of Christ.

  11. @Carl Vehse #12

    Carl, and all BJS contributors. This morning, I sent the link to the Hussain piece to my District President, Terry Cripe, and he immediately drafted an eloquent and unequivocal response, which I am very hopeful will be published.

    This was a God-given opportunity to respond to criticism of our position, and what is more, to give a witness to the hope we have. President Cripe did just that, admirably fulfilling the command of 2 Peter 3:15, 16.

    I suggest you watch the Toledo Blade during the next few days to see President Cripe’s letter.

  12. @Carl Vehse #12

    Even though I’m a native Ohioan, it’s hard to argue with your characterization of our journalism as “an abyss.” It is pretty bad, but “abyss?” On the other hand, having read the trash job on this business by the Post-Dispatch, Missouri may have a lot to answer for, too.

    I’m curious why you bother to read our stuff–I generally stay away from it, myself. But, as I said above, keep reading!

  13. John Rixe :Both Pr Lewer and Pr Noland were speculating about motivation not assigning it.  A simple caution should be adequate.  Reading about a lot of apologies can get boring.

    I don’t see any substantial difference between these two statements:

    “Driven by evil motives, they…”

    “I have to wonder if they do that only because they are driven by evil motives…”

    While I confess that I agree with Dr. Noland’s (deleted) speculation as a reasonable guess, nevertheless, without proof it still impugns the character based on speculation that could be wrong.

  14. @Pastor Ted Crandall #16

    My point:  a simple cautionary reminder should be adequate.  I don’t think you want a forum with a lot of discussion (like my comment) about apologies.

    Your comment 35, pg 4 is outstanding.  About the best I’ve seen lately.

  15. @Joe Strieter #15 : “Even though I’m a native Ohioan, it’s hard to argue with your characterization of our journalism as “an abyss.”

    The Toledo Blade is not alone in the abyss. They have plenty of company, including the Austin American-Birdcage Liner and the well-known East Coast fish wraps.

  16. @Rev. McCall #10
    I wouldn’t argue that it is *ever* “necessary”. I will gladly “cede the stage”, rather than allow the community to think that “differences don’t make any difference.” That was my point. It is *not* necessary for the sake of the Gospel (*especially* not for the sake of the Gospel, nor for any other normally worthwhile reason) to *confuse* the pure Gospel with heterodox and outright false, idolatrous messages by participation in such events.

    By attending but not participating as a leader, I am definitely ceding the stage. However, my attendance but *non*-participation would be a confession and judgment in itself; though, to be sure, it would mostly not be clearly understood as such.

    My attendance would not be done as “Pastor Mueller from Trinity and St. John Lutheran Churches”, but as David Mueller, a member of the community. I just went to a funeral last week at a UMC church, led by a relatively conservative (though very “contemporary”) Baptist preacher. I went out of respect and appreciation for the lady who had died, the public elementary school counselor in our community. I did as I described above–shirt and tie (a nice teal shirt and a Snoopy tie), not collared.

  17. Rev. David,

    “By attending but not participating as a leader, I am definitely ceding the stage. However, my attendance but *non*-participation would be a confession and judgment in itself; though, to be sure, it would mostly not be clearly understood as such.”

    This is one of my reasons for taking the position I do. (see above) That way, it would be clear that we are not avoiding the gathering because we think we are better than other people. Rather, the Gospel alone will be the unmistakeable stumbling block… and not any of our perceived behavior. That said, I think your position makes perfect sense as well.

    +Nathan

  18. @Nathan #22
    Hmm. The *Gospel* as “stumbling block”–I’m not so sure we should say it that way. The *cross* is the stumbling block, but the Cross of Christ is what kills me–because it preaches the Law–I cannot save myself, this is what I deserve. The Gospel *as Gospel* (forgiveness life and salvation for the sake of the Cross of Christ) never does anything but raise to Life, comfort, strengthen, and such.

    As for “perceived behavior”–you’ll never succeed in removing this pitfall. If you go and participate, even if you give an absolutely clear and offensive (though truly Comforting, as in the Comforter, the Holy spirit) Law/Gospel sermon, I daresay the majority will not pay much attention to the actual words you’ve spoken, and you’ll be *perceived* as “joining in with” all your “brother” clergy, “setting aside your petty differences” for the “good” of the community. The vast majority of the rest will judge you as an arrogant, judgmental LCMS jerk who “thinks he knows it all! Typical LCMS holier-than-thou twerp!”

    If you *don’t* go, people will judge you, also. Truly, you are damned by this world if you do, and damned by this world if you don’t.

    The crux of the matter always gets back to this: What is it? What is the nature of the event?
    The problem with participation in such an event always comes back to an improper distinction and application of Law and Gospel.

  19. @Nathan #46 (p. 4)
    “Enough with Elijah! It is good to make a point with this (to get people thinking critically), but this is the New Testament age, after all, and our weapons are spiritual (Eph. 6:10ff. also see John 18:36; 2 Cor. 10:3-5; Isa. 42:2-3).”

    Okay, so, what do you do with Jesus: Violence in the Temple, and nasty, mocking name-calling in Matt. 23? Isn’t Jesus Himself the “New Testament age”?

    (To be sure, I’m not advocating doing literal physical violence to the pagan clergy on the dais with you! However, have you ever read C.S. Lewis’s Perelandra? If you have, you know where I’m going with that….)

  20. David Mueller,

    “Okay, so, what do you do with Jesus: Violence in the Temple, and nasty, mocking name-calling in Matt. 23? Isn’t Jesus Himself the “New Testament age”?

    Sure, but Jesus was dealing with persons who purported to be – and should have been – true children of Abraham. They should have been the leaders in fact, falling into line with Jesus’ other leaders, his disciples. In other words, this was an in-house issue. : ) Maybe if He has been in Athens, he would have done the same thing, but we have no reason to think that, right?

    As Garfield says, “nobody beats up on Odie except for me”.

    +Nathan

  21. Rev Mueller,

    We can just use the word “cross” instead of the Gospel. Though I do suggest that the resurrection (which validates Jesus as the final judge and approved by God in spite of the cross) can serve as both Law and Gospel as well… (Acts 17:31)

    “As for “perceived behavior”–you’ll never succeed in removing this pitfall. If you go and participate, even if you give an absolutely clear and offensive (though truly Comforting, as in the Comforter, the Holy spirit) Law/Gospel sermon, I daresay the majority will not pay much attention to the actual words you’ve spoken, and you’ll be *perceived* as “joining in with” all your “brother” clergy, “setting aside your petty differences” for the “good” of the community. The vast majority of the rest will judge you as an arrogant, judgmental LCMS jerk who “thinks he knows it all! Typical LCMS holier-than-thou twerp!”

    I don’t know if we can really say what people’s reactions would be. We just don’t know. I imagine it could result in people rushing the podium/stage…

    In any case, keep in mind that my main point is that we should not seek out a place at such things, but simply offer to come. I do not think we probably would be invited, but it may open up other conversations among some at least….

    That said, even offering to come would be a sin against brothers whom this offends. That is why I think its something that we should talk about amongst the body first.

    +Nathan

  22. Nathan :
    “Okay, so, what do you do with Jesus: Violence in the Temple, and nasty, mocking name-calling in Matt. 23? Isn’t Jesus Himself the “New Testament age”?
    Sure, but Jesus was dealing with persons who purported to be – and should have been – true children of Abraham. They should have been the leaders in fact, falling into line with Jesus’ other leaders, his disciples. In other words, this was an in-house issue. : )
    As Garfield says, “nobody beats up on Odie except for me”.
    +Nathan

    Are you suggesting we do violence to certain DPs of the LCMSwho campaign for unionism and syncretism?

    🙂

  23. Regardless of how you or I or anyone else feels about Pastor Morris’s participation in the memorial service, your edited video of the event is repugnant and downright unchristian.

  24. @John Rixe #31
    Well, I was hoping for an explanation from Bill, since he is the one using the word “repugnant”. As for Jay’s response you linked to, none of his criticisms address the actual situation of syncretism and unionism, which is what the video teaches about.

  25. @Nicholas #32 : “The video was excellent.”

    Well, the video production was excellent in assembling and presenting what occurred at the interfaith prayer service in Newtown.

    But what was seen and heard was NOT excellent. As the video producers indicated and showed in the video: “All sorts of atrocious heresies and blasphemies were spoken against the Triune God.”

    It is utterly shameful and a disgrace that a Missouri Synod pastor was seen and heard spiritually copulating in a interfaith service, which Rev. Schultz accurately described as a “whorehouse of heathenism.”

    And just as disgraceful have been the posts here on BJS and elsewhere attempting to argue that such unionism and syncretism did no harm to Lutheranism or the LCMS because the pastor had a CTCR-issued prophylactic.

  26. President Harrison forgave Pastor Morris. Too bad you folks can’t. I’m just a poor layman, so I know I’m not in a position to cast the first (or second or third or fourth) stone. I’ll say it again: the video was repugnant and unchristian. Repugnant in the way it repeated ad nauseum the muslim chant and part of Pastor Morris’s benediction. Unchristian in the way it pilloried him with no hint of forgiveness.

  27. @Bill Fick #35: “I’ll say it again: the video was repugnant and unchristian.”

    I’ll say it again: The video shows that the syncretic interfaith prayer service was repugnant and unchristian because participation in the prayer service was actually spiritual adultery in a whorehouse of heathenism.

  28. @Bill Fick #35

    We too have forgiven Pr. Morris, even for what he did not repent for. The reason it is necessary to discuss this issue is because the LCMS has not dealt effectively with this issue. That is because there are still supporters of unionism and syncretism in high places in the Synod (Kieschnick and Benke for example). Because the issue has not been effectively dealt with, and because those who have engaged in syncretism have not been denominationally disciplined or censured in any way (Benke, Morris, and those who gave them permission such as Kieschnick and Yeadon), this will continue to happen and cause problems in our Synod.

    One of the most important things to do is to keep a record of all that has happened, as BJS is doing.

    As for the video, it makes an effective statement.

  29. This will be my final post on the subject. I realize I am communicating with a bunch of Pharisees. I will try to seek out some Publicans.

  30. @Bill Fick #39

    So if you can’t answer your opponents’ arguments, you resort to ad hominem and call them “Pharisees?” Did you even read my comment at #38?

    It is sad to see how many conservative Christians (including conservative Lutherans!) have been infected with postmodern thought!

  31. Carl Vehse :
    The video shows that the syncretic interfaith prayer service was repugnant and unchristian…

    Yes, yes it does. If similar artistic license had been taken with a gorgeous Christian service, say, overlaying especially heartwarming moments and repeating the best highlights again and again, I can’t imagine anyone getting upset. What is probably upsetting the critics is the fact that the video accentuates the parts of this syncretistic service that were repugnant and unchristian.

  32. It may be that the video has such a strong point of view that it makes people uncomfortable and as a result you are ‘preaching to the choir’ and not changing any minds.

  33. What Pastors Riene, Messer, and myself tried early on to point out – 1) the futility of beating a dead horse, and 2) opening an avenue for the real nemesis – (amply highlighted by Kieschnick’s re-entry into the “presidential election), (Dear God, does Missouri always eats their young?) . . . the negative ramifications . . .

    Carl/Richard flits from site to site, never answering a direct question (man, was he quick with assertion I was “blasphemous”) . . . but always slicker than teflon . . . and trying to replace Herman. Herman had a reason, Carl . . .

    And despite others, who in calm tones and sometimes not so calm (given the “tude” here – who could blame them?), I will put matters is simple terms even Gary gets (and Nicholas – get a grip! Merely getting published on BJS does not give you license) . . .

    Fr. Rossow – before this site ever hit 100 posts you should have been sitting in Fr. Harrison’s office getting this matter right – top to bottom.

    You did not.

    Why not? This “Gospel” business to which we have been called is the hardest thing this side of eternity, and arm-chair quarter-backing is not permitted. When you got what you got from Morris – rather than half-a gazillion comments to your posting about Morris dissing you – you should have gone to Pastor Matt and gotten the straight dope, and then – laid it out, if such was needed. Matt has gone above and beyond. I have yet to hear contrary from your words.

    But you have gone public “not thinking so. “ Have you spoken with Fr. Harrison? Are you in possession of all the facts? I know you are not. Don’t ask me why I say that, I never go off half-cocked with info that isn’t someone else’s business to know. Get thy butt cheeks to St. Louis and fix matters, or close the thread. Putting others in the way of spiritual danger with one’s agenda is never part of the straight and narrow.

    Carl Richard – you have yet to specify my “blasphemy” – or respond to me personally via e-mail and Matthew 18 per your accusation, and you just keep keeping on in your usual style. Color me singularly unimpressed, despite your knowledge of many things. It seems the Gospel remains one of your great challenges. Your hotel room, discussion, and Matthew 18:15-17 have remained unoccupied and unanswered, as I expected they would.

    But they remain an open invitation to a man of honor.

    And before anyone goes ballistic because, although thoroughly orthodox, they think I have crossed the imaginary boundary of BJS – Morris was wrong. I never said anything different. But I have seen little of the Gospel which, in concert with the Holy Spirit, brings about repentance and forgiveness, in any of this. A point most miss when they get on their legal high-horse is – we are supposed to ultimately graze our hearers and all in the green pastures of Psalm 23, aren’t we? Yes.

    Our goal is conversion, as both Riene and Messer said. Forgive me for saying so, but this thread seems little but a Christian version of “jihad.”

    I am assigning all of you a lesson: read Oswald Riess’ “The Secret of Beautiful Living.” Gentlemen in Jesus, you never “win” with the Law. It can only accuse. While I must use it in my calling, I detest having to do so. The Lord Jesus, Father Luther and Scripture deign I must, so I do. But none of the three demand I must enjoy doing so. Not in the least, since God hates doing so. He much prefers forgetting sin. The “forgettery of God.”

    Perhaps some among us think we can “convert” Pastor Morris. No. WE always forget “conversion” does not belong to us. The Third Article of the Creed applies. It has been applied by Father Harrison. Not perfectly, as some think they know perfectly (I pity such folks), but applied.

    Long and short of it, then I will speak of it no more – because doing so is useless . . . the back of Morris’s ears are Niagra Falls (as in lotsa water falling) (a pastor so young – in months) – he is so obviously clueless . . . is he going to get what I know after so many years putting on the whole armor that can’t be gotten by my efforts? Or Fr. Tim’s, or any other in the comments thread. Of course not!

    But in continuing the thread, should I bury a young pastor, after all that Fr. Harrison has accomplished and could still, at the altar of “you must do it my my way and no way else?” And do I want to put together “President” and “Kieschnick” side-by-side ever again?

    I think not.

    I am certain the “woman caught in adultery” was most certainly glad it was Jesus who saved her – rather than most commenters here, and that despite her “lack of confession” as a matter of fact . . . Jesus forgave her; ransomed her. Jesus is like that – He does the same with each of us – even the most orthodox in the midst of us all. Count yourself blessed. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. That is us – every day.

    Let it go. The devil is getting way too much due. Fr. Tim, close the thread. There is nothing further to gain.

    jb

  34. @Pastor Ted Crandall #41: “What is probably upsetting the critics is the fact that the video accentuates the parts of this syncretistic service that were repugnant and unchristian.”

    Yes, there have been objections made about Islamist background music used in the video while other co-officiants were speaking at the syncretic interfaith prayer service.

    But can you imagine if the video producers had made the video with a choir singing “Lord, Keep Us Steadfast in Your Word” as the background music while the Islamojihadist read from the Koran. The producers and their families probably would have to go into the witness protection program to avoid having their heads cut off after a fatwa was declared on them.

    The hissy fits we’ve see on BJS objecting to the Newtown prayer service video and discussions are a lot milder in comparison. 😉

  35. @Carl Vehse #44

    Carl/Richard –

    Sometimes I believe your fingers hit the keys before your brain considers the consequences.
    In any case, when can I expect your arrival to address Matthew 18:15-17?

    jb

  36. BTW –

    My wife cooks the meanest meatballs and mashed spuds in the world.

    She says you could even use the sofa, if you are short on bucks.

    jb

  37. Looking for something of significance on the ALPB blog reminds me of the Jurassic Park movie scene (at 2:20 into the clip) where Dr. Sattler (played by Laura Dern) looks for some type of berries in triceratops droppings.

    However, on the topic of Rev. Morris and the Newtown heresy, the March 24 1:15:23 PM Reply #1764 by Rev. Thomas Messer in response to statements by the YS blasphemer is worth the read. Rev. Messer also followed it up with a March 25th 08:58:33 AM Reply #1808 on page 121 of the ALPB thread.

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.