tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post2654043655361925329..comments2024-01-02T16:09:57.364-07:00Comments on Intrepid Lutherans: What Part of the Word "Wrong" Don't We All Seem to Understand These Days?!Intrepid Lutheranshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-20789488943538888152010-12-15T08:09:40.500-07:002010-12-15T08:09:40.500-07:00Pastor Jeff Samelson: "Because my original qu...Pastor Jeff Samelson: "Because my original question/comment had nothing to do with whether or not a pastor who leaves the WELS and joins the LCMS is or is not recognized as a confessional Lutheran, or whether his new church could be called confessional (or at least allow for confessionalism) — it had to do with whether or not that man believed, taught, and confessed everything that we do before he left our fellowship for theirs."<br /><br />If the man is removed secretly, there is no way to tell one way or the other (e.g., the Berg suspension). If, on the other hand, the DP says publicly, "I spoke to the man in private but he would not recant his public errors. Two other ministers spoke to him as well. I then called a public hearing where any WELS minister or layman in the district could give testimony either for or against the man. At the end of the hearing, there was an unanimous agreement among all present that the man did not teach and confess everything that we do.", then the Intrepid Lutherans could have great confidence that the man did not teach or confess everything that they do.Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-37731043434248670382010-12-11T07:24:46.247-07:002010-12-11T07:24:46.247-07:00True confessionalism is part of the invisible chur...True confessionalism is part of the invisible church of believers, however our synods are a visible church structure and as such is subject to this sinful world. Fellowship in the visible church is bound to be difficult, but we have nothing else short of our heavenly home to look forward too.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04779923079892396026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-51063796454974509882010-12-10T13:42:04.140-07:002010-12-10T13:42:04.140-07:00True confessional Lutheranism trumps synodical &qu...True confessional Lutheranism trumps synodical "fellowship" (for me at least) any day. I've encountered too many "unconfessional" laymen (and even pastors) in my congregation and elsewhere to be fooled by the notion that the WELS enjoys complete doctrinal unity and purity among its members.Daniel Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167233773588648850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-35944096655463417852010-12-10T09:34:15.018-07:002010-12-10T09:34:15.018-07:00(one last post!)
Mr. Peeler:
Since no one else ...(one last post!)<br /><br /><br />Mr. Peeler:<br /><br />Since no one else has answered your question here, perhaps seeing it as merely rhetorical, I will offer a response before I go:<br /><br />“"...a synod that unquestionably tolerates a wide variety of conflicting teachings and practices..." But doesn't this describe the WELS too?”<br /><br />No, it doesn’t. That’s not to say that the WELS is perfectly free of error or conflict, and I freely admit there are things in it that need correction, but to put it in the same category of diversity as the LCMS — with that synod’s triangular fellowships, joint activities with the ELCA, advocates of women’s ordination, interfaith prayer services, toleration of the teaching of evolution, etc. — does not reflect the reality of our synod or theirs. The pendulum simply doesn’t swing as wide in Wisconsin. <br /><br />We still have a good and valuable thing here in our synod. If it’s worth fighting for, it’s also worth giving it — our brothers and sisters — the respect of fair and accurate descriptions.Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-17022667320842990262010-12-10T09:33:16.347-07:002010-12-10T09:33:16.347-07:00(continued)
Certainly whenever and wherever we co...(continued)<br /><br />Certainly whenever and wherever we come across pastors and churches who value the Confessions as we do we rejoice. And where it is possible to bring them closer to a fuller understanding of all the doctrines of Scripture we happily work to do so and then, if they desire, because they believe, teach, and confess all that we do, we recognize them as brothers in the full sense of the term and join with them in fellowship. But if it is not possible, or we do not find success in persuading them of what we are convinced the Scriptures teach, then we regretfully decline to join with them and recognize them as Christians, even confessional Lutherans, with whom conscience and the Word of God will not allow us to express fellowship.<br /><br />Please forgive me if I sound too much like I’m lecturing or if I’m simply going over things you already know too well — I’m just trying to make sure we (not just those in this discussion, but all our brothers in the WELS) are all on the same page and using the same definitions of fellowship and confessional Lutheranism. Because my original question/comment had nothing to do with whether or not a pastor who leaves the WELS and joins the LCMS is or is not recognized as a confessional Lutheran, or whether his new church could be called confessional (or at least allow for confessionalism) — it had to do with whether or not that man believed, taught, and confessed everything that we do before he left our fellowship for theirs.Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-86409817959260186202010-12-10T09:32:32.751-07:002010-12-10T09:32:32.751-07:00Pastor Spencer:
Does anyone in the WELS make the ...Pastor Spencer:<br /><br />Does anyone in the WELS make the claim that you pointedly reject — that being in the LCMS makes one, “ipso facto”, an “unconfessional Lutheran”? I certainly don’t, and I’m not aware of anyone who would. I imagine that the claim might have been made in the more heated years of disagreement as the Synodical Conference was falling apart, but I don’t see or hear it now, and have trouble imagining any of our brothers who understands what “confessional Lutheran” means making such an absolute assertion. So I guess I see your point as something of a non sequitur. Then again, I am kind of “out of the loop” here on the east coast, so there may be claims about and criticisms of non-CELC Lutherans that have never surfaced at circuit, conference or district.<br /><br />But I wonder if perhaps we’re working with different definitions of what being a confessional Lutheran means, because I know you feel it’s important to choose words wisely. My assumption has been that we’re operating with the same basic definition — that a confessional Lutheran is simply a Lutheran who unconditionally subscribes to — believes, teaches, and confesses — all that is taught and confessed in the Book of Concord, and does so because the Confessions are a correct exposition of the doctrines of Scripture.<br /><br />By that definition there is no question that there are confessional Lutherans in the Missouri Synod (and I add, by that definition — given our education, our standards, and our vows — we should be able to assume that there is no pastor in the WELS who is not a confessional Lutheran). Sadly, it would appear that there are some truly “unconfessional Lutherans” in the LCMS as well, but it seems from what I read that their numbers are actually declining, at least in terms of those who might openly preach or teach in opposition to the Symbols (I suspect that now even the most “church growthy” of their pastors and leaders probably still try to present themselves as acting in accord with the Confessions).<br /><br />But recognizing someone — layman, pastor, congregation, synod — as a confessional Lutheran is the start of our fellowship considerations, not the end. It’s hard to read the history of the Synodical Conference, from its founding through to its dissolution, without seeing that, and that is clearly the basis of our WELS understanding and practice of the doctrine of church fellowship.<br /><br />In practical terms, what that means is that two pastors or two synods with equal commitment to the authority of the Lutheran Confessions will not have doctrinal unity if they disagree on teachings that are not contained in or (fully) defined by the Book of Concord — things like the roles of men of women, specifics of church and ministry, etc. come to mind. And since Scripture clearly tells us that the standard of unity is complete unity — everything Christ has commanded, no quarrels, perfectly united in mind and thought, etc. — we don’t operate with dual expressions of church fellowship, one being common membership in the same church body and the other being some kind of confessional Lutheran brotherhood that stands apart from (or above) the bonds and doctrines of synods.<br /><br />(continued below)Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-10066088804027671532010-12-10T09:30:57.508-07:002010-12-10T09:30:57.508-07:00(continued)
This is the doctrine of fellowship th...(continued)<br /><br />This is the doctrine of fellowship that we believe, teach, and confess in the WELS. It is not spelled out in the Confessions since it was not a matter in contention at that time, but it is in agreement with them. Most importantly, it is drawn straight from Scripture. So we don’t consider it something at all negotiable, and anyone who is not in agreement with it cannot logically pretend that he belongs in our synod. Such a pastor might, of course, find Missouri and its approach to fellowship much more suited to his point of view.<br /><br />Now I am well aware that there are Lutherans who consider a common commitment and subscription to the Confessions to be sufficient for fellowship. But such a position requires pretty much considering anything not treated explicitly in the Book of Concord as an open question, and ignores the fact that many more doctrines have been in dispute — and settled with Scripture — since 1580, even (in the former Synodical Conference) since 1960.<br /><br />This is the reality of doctrine and practice, of discipline and decision-making, of church and synodical membership under the cross. It’s messy. It’s unpleasant. And sometimes, tragically, it’s horribly unfair — and then we suffer, but always remain faithful (with the Lord’s help) to Christ, to our callings, and to his Word — without compromise, cunning, or complaint.<br /><br />4) I don’t get where talking about the impossibility of membership in a synod when one’s beliefs are at odds with that synod’s equates with either claiming or forfeiting the “confessional Lutheran status”. <br /><br />Who has put this choice — “Either leave Missouri and remain confessional, or stay in Missouri and automatically become non-confessional” — to confessional-minded pastors (or congregations) in Missouri? Honestly, I don’t know where this idea is coming from, so it’s hard to respond to (although I do address it with Pr. Spencer below).<br /><br />Thanks for the opportunity to discuss these issues.Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-65947880960459035182010-12-10T09:30:26.546-07:002010-12-10T09:30:26.546-07:00(continued)
3) I will have to disagree with you i...(continued)<br /><br />3) I will have to disagree with you in the discussion of the options available to a pastor who is “unjustly persecuted within the WELS and excluded from its fellowship” and your conclusion that his decision about what to do is “best left to his conscience and sound Christian judgment”. (You may have a specific case in mind — I do not, and do not have personal knowledge of such a case.)<br /><br />Let’s consider first of all the case where this pastor has not only been excluded from the WELS but has also been terminated from his call because the congregation insisted that its pastor be a WELS pastor in good standing. In that case, the man is no longer a pastor, because he has no call. This is truly a tragic and lamentable situation. Still, he has no “right” to employment as a pastor and if he, indeed, has no actual differences with WELS doctrine and practice, then he has no reason to look for a home in any other church body, particularly not one that actually and officially is at odds with his own confession of faith.<br /><br />Now let’s assume that this pastor’s congregation decided to keep him in his call even after he was excluded from the WELS ministerium. In that case the congregation, too, will likely be leaving the WELS, because by retaining him they are declaring that they are no longer walking together with those that pushed their pastor out — they are terminating the voluntary association that was their membership in the synod. But if they still believe as they did before, associating with a new synod whose doctrines and practices are at odds with theirs isn’t an option either. Will they and their pastor have to go it alone? Possibly — there are more than a few congregations out there doing just doing just that. But there is no command in Scripture (or the Confessions) that compels congregations to join synods or denominations — and thus there is no kind of extenuating circumstance that could justify this WELS-minded church holding the congregational nose in order to join a body they were not in full agreement with. Again, it’s a tragic situation, but that tragedy doesn’t make for exceptions to confessional standards.<br /><br />And I would have to answer your question about this persecuted pastor and the large group of confessional Lutheran pastors he found in the LCMS — “Should he refuse to join them in their fight for the truth because others in that synod are fighting for error?” — with a strong “Yes, he should refuse.” Because our standards of fellowship are not based on people’s hearts or motivations, they are based on complete agreement in doctrine. And someone who truly believes what we in the WELS believe could not find himself completely in agreement with the LCMS.<br /><br />(continued below)Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-72770944791208238902010-12-10T09:28:36.391-07:002010-12-10T09:28:36.391-07:00Pastor Rydecki — By all means, please be a part of...Pastor Rydecki — By all means, please be a part of the discussion. And I encourage others to join in, too, as I’ll have to give up posting here after these few responses, at least until after Christmas — too much work to be done, and I have no call to serve the internet!<br /><br />Anyway, to your comments:<br /><br />1) Are the Lutheran Confessions the sole benchmark to be used in “narrowing” views and practices in the WELS? I appreciate that neither you nor I feel that anyone should be imposing our own arbitrary norms on anyone — but you would not consider the agreed-upon positions of the WELS that stand as confessions of our faith and practice beyond the Confessions to be “arbitrary”, right?<br /><br />In other words, you would have the same problems with and would suggest the same kind of dialogue and discipline with a pastor in our fellowship who, for instance, began teaching a symbolic understanding of the Lord’s Supper as you would with one who began teaching post-millenial dispensationalism — the first being something clearly addressed in the Book of Concord, the second being something not mentioned in the Confessions but addressed in our own WELS doctrinal statements.<br /><br />2) We recognize together that there is a huge difference between what you called “variance of practice and doctrinal expression” and actual diversity in doctrine. When we talk, however, about the differences between LCMS and WELS, we are not talking about things that are merely expressed in different ways (as is the situation between WELS and ELS) — we are talking about actual differences in doctrine.<br /><br />And so someone who holds to LCMS views while a pastor in the WELS, in contradiction to the doctrine and practice of the WELS, is someone who by definition doesn’t really belong here. And by the same token, someone who holds to everything the WELS teaches while a pastor in the LCMS, since those WELS doctrinal statements reject the positions of the LCMS, also doesn’t belong there.<br /><br />Now it’s one thing if you’re a pastor in Missouri who starts off comfortable with their doctrinal diversity and then later comes to find he disagrees with that — he has a call and a position, not to mention a history, to consider before “calling it quits” and leaving as a matter of confession. But it’s another thing entirely to come to the LCMS with your eyes wide open, knowing ahead of time that you are in disagreement with it both in terms of official doctrine and in terms of its tolerance of false doctrine and practice. To do that you must either close your eyes (and hold your nose) or change your own positions — or admit that you didn’t really believe as the WELS did all along.<br /><br />(continued below)Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-62911314444291630752010-12-10T09:22:24.259-07:002010-12-10T09:22:24.259-07:00As someone who has large amounts of family in both...As someone who has large amounts of family in both WELS and the LCMS, I'd make two quick comments, and then raise a question that I've always wrestled with. <br /><br />First, I appreciate what Pastor Rydecki writes about the dilemma faithful, Confessional LCMSers face. My family members have wrestled with the best way to testify to the truth in the LCMS. Do they stick with their congregation, which appears to be Confessional, so that through their local they might be a voice of change for the larger church they belong to (the LCMS)? What is the time-frame for marking and avoiding? These are hard questions, and as Pastor Rydecki pointed out, must be left to individual conscience. <br /><br />Secondly, I do not believe it's entirely honest to compare the "wide variety of conflicting teachings and practices" in the LCMS to the WELS. Yes, there are some troubling practices in the WELS. But even here and on Pastor Jackson's site (where he's more willing to "name names"), we're still talking about a handful. And of those handful, it seems to be somewhat "complicated." I.E. A church abandons the Western Rite and adopts more sectarian style of worship. That's very unwise. I wouldn't say it is in itself false doctrine, but I could see where it would lead to the erosion of sound doctrine. But this is NOTHING compared to the LCMS. You have hundreds of congregations in the LCMS that are charismatic. You have the widespread calling for female ordination. (As opposed to the ONE example Pastor Jackson cites of a church in Appleton that refers to a woman as a minister. Again, unwise... but the same as Missiouri? Not close.) It is widely held in the LCMS that the synod has no rights of the church. I would guess that in at LEAST a third of LCMS churches, Communion is open to anyone. The explanation I frequently hear is that, "It's between a person and God to know if they're ready." <br /><br />Is there practices in the WELS that deserve scrutiny? Absolutely. A church full of sinners is going to make mistakes. But is it equivalent to the LCMS? Nonsense! <br /><br />Finally, the question. When do we encourage people to take Romans 16 to heart? I'll use my LCMS family members as an example. They are "fighting the good fight." But finally, the parameters for fighting for truth are not determined by our good intentions, but by the Word. The road to you know where is paved with good intentions. EVENTUALLY they need to acknowledge two things. First, if you are part of a LCMS congregation that is Confessional, you STILL have issues because you are in fellowship with a plethora of LCMS congregations which have been heterodox for decades now. So eventually, through Romans 16 God would seem to say, "I know your intentions are good, but I am smarter than you. Here is the way you fight for truth in the LCMS - 'Keep away from them.'" I am not a mind-reader, and even less of a heart-reader. But in talking with my LCMS family, I wonder if some of them really are in the LCMS because they want to fight the good fight... or because they're comfortable in their home congregation.<br /><br />There is a burden that falls upon us too, brothers. My "patience" in dealing with my LCMS family... is it me being evangelical? Or is it simply that I love my family and don't want to upset them? Pastor Samelson raises good questions. One the one hand, I want to be charitable with anyone who would jump into the LCMS, even thought they know full well what is widespread there (and uncorrectable without a split, in my opinion). On the other hand...? <br /><br />I wrestle with this regularly. I pray to the Spirit of Truth for guidance and wisdom. I pray to the Son that my actions might always seek his glory, and not my or my family's comfort. And I pray to the Father for mercy for the times I have failed in this dilemma. <br /><br />Well, I've rambled long enough. God bless.<br />Daniel KastensAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-1313776864887502872010-12-09T20:28:23.326-07:002010-12-09T20:28:23.326-07:00Anonymous said...
"...a synod that unque...Anonymous said...<br /><br /> "...a synod that unquestionably tolerates a wide variety of conflicting teachings and practices..."<br /><br /> But doesn't this describe the WELS too?<br /><br /> Mr. Adam Peeler<br /><br /><br /><br />Mr. Adam Peeler makes a a very good pointAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-27754493974469366382010-12-09T05:35:14.128-07:002010-12-09T05:35:14.128-07:00Pastor Samelson,
As usual, Pastor Rydecki, makes...Pastor Samelson, <br /><br />As usual, Pastor Rydecki, makes my point better than I do. I couldn't have said it better. <br /><br />Not to put too fine a point on it - it is simply untenable to say that to be in the LCMS makes one, ipso facto, an unconfessional Lutheran. <br /><br />Again, thanks for your comments and questions. They have made for an interesting and necessary discussion. <br /><br />Pastor SpencerIntrepid Lutheranshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-74890639239127762842010-12-09T00:07:26.429-07:002010-12-09T00:07:26.429-07:00Pr. Samelson,
I hope you don’t mind if I interjec...Pr. Samelson,<br /><br />I hope you don’t mind if I interject a few comments here in your dialogue with Pastor Spencer.<br /><br /><em>And I seem to recall that one of the purposes or goals of Intrepid Lutherans is to work against and "narrow" the perceived broad range of views and practices in the WELS.</em><br /><br />Yes, as long as by “narrow” it is understood that we are using the Lutheran Confessions as the benchmark, not some sort of arbitrary norm that we would impose on anyone.<br /><br /><em>So a diversity of doctrinal views and pastoral practices in a church body is something we -- as confessional WELS Lutherans -- are supposed to see a bad and intolerable thing, aren't we? </em><br /><br />Yes, although we recognize that this does not necessarily mean lockstep interpretation of every Bible passage or an absolute conformity in expression. As Walther stated in his theses on Open Questions, the best we can hope for this side of heaven is fundamental agreement in doctrine. That may leave room for a variance of practice and doctrinal expression, even as we see between the WELS and the ELS in some areas.<br /><br /><em>So wouldn't we have to assume that a pastor who is comfortable enough with such a situation to join a synod that unquestionably tolerates a wide variety of conflicting teachings and practices must not see that diversity as such a bad or intolerable thing? And that he therefore has either standards or beliefs at odds with our own? </em><br /><br />In an ideal world, I suppose you would be right. But in the Church Militant, one is not always left with the option of a perfectly united church body to join. Let’s imagine that a pastor is unjustly persecuted within the WELS and excluded from its fellowship. No one should doubt that such a thing could happen in a church body made up of sinners. Should that pastor form a synod of one? Or, let’s say he found a very large group of confessional Lutheran pastors in the LCMS who are still fighting to restore the full, Biblical truth to their synod – perhaps championing confessional Lutheranism more loudly in that synod than we do in our own. Should he refuse to join them in their fight for the truth because others in that synod are fighting for error? I think that is a decision best left to his conscience and sound Christian judgment.<br /><br /><em>I guess what it boils down to is that I do not see it as possible that someone could have the same theology as the WELS and be a member of the LCMS, because our (WELS) understanding of fellowship and doctrinal discipline would make membership in Missouri an impossibility. </em><br /><br />I think this creates a false dilemma for our confessional brothers in Missouri who still hold to the Synodical Conference doctrine (I’ll call it the Synodical Conference doctrine rather than “WELS” doctrine). “Either leave Missouri and remain confessional, or stay in Missouri and automatically become non-confessional.” Remember, if it is difficult for WELS to identify which is the real Missouri, how much harder must it be for those in Missouri, especially if you’ve grown up around solid, Synodical Conference-type pastors and congregations (“your grandfather’s church,” as they call it), and especially since the synod’s own doctrinal statements have been in flux over the last 70 years, sometimes worse, sometimes better. I commend those Missourians who left Missouri when they saw large groups within her persisting in error long ago. But I cannot fault those who have chosen to stay and fight, or accuse them of internal unionism. I would be foolish (and arrogant) to insist that they either join WELS/ELS or else forfeit the confessional Lutheran status – not as long as they are confessing and teaching the truth in their vocation and preaching against the errors that surround them.Rev. Paul A. Rydeckihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01447491206453142100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-44779600765767893372010-12-08T23:31:27.999-07:002010-12-08T23:31:27.999-07:00"...a synod that unquestionably tolerates a w..."...a synod that unquestionably tolerates a wide variety of conflicting teachings and practices..."<br /><br />But doesn't this describe the WELS too?<br /><br />Mr. Adam PeelerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-17005376385755522702010-12-08T21:43:39.562-07:002010-12-08T21:43:39.562-07:00Pastor Spencer:
I guess I'm still not followi...Pastor Spencer:<br /><br />I guess I'm still not following your reasoning on this.<br /><br />It's not exactly news that there is a wide range of theological views in the LCMS. That is, in fact, precisely why we broke fellowship with Missouri -- because they tolerated such a wide range of doctrines and practices among their faculties and clergy and did not make sufficient effort to bring everyone to agreement on the truths that our synods had jointly confessed for so long.<br /><br />And I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that that diversity of views and practices is a primary reason why the WELS has not seriously considered any kind of new relationship with Missouri in the last 40 years (not even since Preus cleaned house at the time of Seminex). Not only because we'd never know "which Missouri" we might be dealing with, but because we still saw that situation as incompatible with biblical, confessional Lutheranism.<br /><br />And I seem to recall that one of the purposes or goals of Intrepid Lutherans is to work against and "narrow" the perceived broad range of views and practices in the WELS.<br /><br />So a diversity of doctrinal views and pastoral practices in a church body is something we -- as confessional WELS Lutherans -- are supposed to see a bad and intolerable thing, aren't we? So wouldn't we have to assume that a pastor who is comfortable enough with such a situation to join a synod that unquestionably tolerates a wide variety of conflicting teachings and practices must not see that diversity as such a bad or intolerable thing? And that he therefore has either standards or beliefs at odds with our own?<br /><br />I guess what it boils down to is that I do not see it as possible that someone could have the same theology as the WELS and be a member of the LCMS, because our (WELS) understanding of fellowship and doctrinal discipline would make membership in Missouri an impossibility. And I would hope that anyone in the WELS ministerium who finds he holds to "Missouri" positions we have rejected -- on things like the roles of men and women or fellowship -- would have the integrity to leave the WELS and go elsewhere rather than conceal the truth or agitate for change.<br /><br />Now if the situations you're thinking of are more along the lines of "agree with the WELS on just about everything except x" or agree with the LCMS on just about everything but y" that's a different question, I guess. But then again, we view full agreement in doctrine as the basis for fellowship -- or synodical membership.<br /><br />(And incidentally, I don't believe we usually use the word "heretical" for views that put one at odds with the WELS unless those views are, well, heretical, i.e. denying the basic truths of Christianity.)Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-77446703491590534572010-12-08T11:08:27.461-07:002010-12-08T11:08:27.461-07:00"there is a fairly broad range of theological..."there is a fairly broad range of theological views in the Missouri Synod"<br /><br />I agree. <br /><br />The Missouri Synod tolerates a wide range of theological positions, including Confessional Lutheranism. The Wisconsin Synod also tolerates a wide range of theological positions, but it sometimes seems to me that one position it doesn't tolerate is Confessional Lutheranism. <br /><br />If I were a Confessional Lutheran pastor, I think I might feel more at home within the Missouri Synod. Sad, but true. <br /><br />Mr. Adam PeelerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-43504441147039922232010-12-08T08:48:05.504-07:002010-12-08T08:48:05.504-07:00Excellent and thought-provoking question, Pastor S...Excellent and thought-provoking question, Pastor Samuelson! <br /><br />It would take more time than I have today to thoroughly and completely answer your question, so I’ll give a brief response and let others take their turns. <br /><br />My answer – “not necessarily.” <br /><br />In point of fact, there is a fairly broad range of theological views in the Missouri Synod, just as there is getting to be in WELS. Its just not quite as evident yet in Wisconsin – at least to most. <br /><br />But, for example, there are still Pastors and congregations in the LCMS that do not have “women voters.” Also, I happen to know personally currently serving Missouri Pastors who are not in full agreement with what is perceived as their view of Church and Ministry, but have more of a “WELS view.” There are many other examples. <br /><br />Thus, it is possible, however difficult it might be, but possible, to have the same theology as WELS and be a member of Missouri Synod, and perhaps also the other way around. <br /><br />Thus, in my opinion, the mere fact that a man leaves WELS, or is removed from its ministerium, and joins the ranks of the LCMS, is not, by itself, proof that the man held heretical views of some sort.<br /><br />Perhaps others have a different take, but that’s how I see it. <br /><br />Pastor SpencerIntrepid Lutheranshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-34178215191908654372010-12-08T08:27:56.756-07:002010-12-08T08:27:56.756-07:00Pastor Spencer (and anyone else who wishes to resp...Pastor Spencer (and anyone else who wishes to respond):<br /><br />I'm just going to throw this out there, because there's apparently something I don't understand in what you're saying.<br /><br />This question/comment comes from your discussion about Pr. Berg's case, but isn't so much about him or his situation (I don't know him and know next to nothing about his situation) and is more general:<br /><br />If a pastor, upon leaving the Wisconsin Synod (whether voluntarily or involuntarily), finds a home and is content to be a pastor in a church body with which we have not been in fellowship for almost 50 years -- the LCMS -- wouldn't that be a kind of prima facie evidence that that pastor's doctrinal positions (and perhaps other things) were and had been at odds with those of the synod and his brother pastors in the WELS, and that he thus did not belong in its ministerium any longer?Pastor Jeff Samelsonhttp://www.christlutheran.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-53169249994453028672010-12-08T03:59:56.155-07:002010-12-08T03:59:56.155-07:00Pastor Spencer: "If my memory serves, AZ-CA J...Pastor Spencer: "If my memory serves, AZ-CA Janke gave the “reason” for Fr. Berg’s suspension during a District President’s Report at a Pastor’s conference. I cannot remember if it was part of the text or a verbal addition. But the reason was given publicly so I don’t think my comment on this blog is the first “outing” of the reason."<br /><br />Is burying the reason for Fr. Berg's suspension in a publication that no WELS layman will ever read "public" disclosure? Please don't minimize the minimize the importance of your "outing" of the reason for the Berg suspension. You have lifted the veil of secrecy over WELS DP church discipline for all WELS layman. You are an Intrepid Lutheran in word and in deed! <br /><br />Pastor Spencer: "Your point, as I understand you, that some things in the WELS are done so quietly as to seem to be “in secret” is, I believe, accurate, and needs to change. However, it is a long and deeply ingrained part of WELS culture and will be hard to alter."<br /><br />Yes, but you and the Intrepid Lutherans have made a start. Perhaps someday, in the not-to-distant future, Luther's guidelines for church discipline will be followed by WELS district presidents. The date, time, and reason for disciplinary hearings will be published in advance. WELS district pastors and laymen will be invited to attend, give testimony, and hear the verdict of the Presidium.Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-47378571431141526442010-12-07T06:27:23.474-07:002010-12-07T06:27:23.474-07:00Daniel,
Two quick points:
- If my memory serve...Daniel, <br /><br />Two quick points: <br /><br />- If my memory serves, AZ-CA Janke gave the “reason” for Fr. Berg’s suspension during a District President’s Report at a Pastor’s conference. I cannot remember if it was part of the text or a verbal addition. But the reason was given publicly so I don’t think my comment on this blog is the first “outing” of the reason. Again, I was not convinced of the accuracy of that reason then, and I said so publicly, and I still don’t agree with his conclusion. <br /><br />- When it was reported that Fr. Berg’s church was “closed” in the WELS Statistical Report the following year, I objected that this was false and misleading, and again publicly corrected that information at the next District Convention, and gave the “official” reason in my comments on the floor of that convention. <br /><br />I had worked and prayed for a different outcome for the whole matter, but that was not to be. Father Berg seems quite content in the LCMS English District, and I continue to pray for him and his ministry. He is a faithful servant of Christ and a good and loyal under-shepherd of our Lord and Savior. <br /><br />Your point, as I understand you, that some things in the WELS are done so quietly as to seem to be “in secret” is, I believe, accurate, and needs to change. However, it is a long and deeply ingrained part of WELS culture and will be hard to alter. <br /><br />Pastor SpencerIntrepid Lutheranshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-13128904834709029862010-12-06T22:23:35.317-07:002010-12-06T22:23:35.317-07:00Thanks for your "corrections" Pastor Spe...Thanks for your "corrections" Pastor Spencer. For the most part, they confirm my main points. The AzCa district announced Pastor Berg's suspension without providing any information regarding its circumstances. A request for the reasons for the Berg suspension produced this response from the synod's Q&A website:<br /><br />"WELS does not carry out discipline of its called workers on the synodical level. All disciplinary matters are wholly carried out by the district in which the minister serves. So I cannot answer your question on our synodical Web site. <br /><br />I will, however, apart from this response which may be helpful to other respondents, forward your e-mail address to the district president. Please be ready to consider that the reason for his suspension may lie apart from the Magpie."<br /><br />The contents of e-mail may be publicly disclosed only with the consent of the author. So, as far as I know, the reasons and circumstances of the Berg suspension have remained secret until you publicly disclosed them on this blog.<br /><br />Note: Pastor Berg's church was also suspended when it refused to rescind its divine call for a secret cause that the district has never publicly disclosed.Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-7177211623923914522010-12-06T19:50:02.105-07:002010-12-06T19:50:02.105-07:00Pr. Rydecki wrote:
"We were made aware not to...Pr. Rydecki wrote:<br />"We were made aware not too long ago of a congregation that was planning on using a Beth Moore Bible study for their women's group. As a Baptist minister who seeks to "serve women of all denominations," Beth Moore cannot be expected or trusted to teach orthodox Lutheran theology. We contacted one of the pastors and had a long conversation with him. He was very receptive to our admonition and, I hope, will be persuaded not to allow this foolishness."<br /><br /><br />Very good! This is the kind of specificity that will help readers hone their abilities of discernment. <br /><br />The more specific you get the better. (i.e. a entire post showing how Beth Moore is leading people to unionism) <br /><br />Please, as you hear of things, bring them to light and expose them. Dig in! How about a condemnation of the core Seeker Service mentality?<br /><br />Andy GroenwaldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-29632506596189618042010-12-06T13:50:36.120-07:002010-12-06T13:50:36.120-07:00Pastor Rydecki,
Thank you!
Scott E. JungenPastor Rydecki,<br /> Thank you!<br /><br />Scott E. JungenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-49192398395140065252010-12-06T13:11:00.138-07:002010-12-06T13:11:00.138-07:00Daniel,
I am very familiar with Father Berg'...Daniel, <br /><br />I am very familiar with Father Berg's case. I was a good friend of his while he was in WELS, and still consider myself such today. <br /><br />If ever there was a case that needed to be overturned, his was it, in my opinion. I encouraged him to appeal, but he decided not to. <br /><br />A couple of corrections to your points, however: <br /><br />- While it is true that the "trial" was held in "secret" so to speak, others besides Fr. Berg and the officials were present, at least as I understand it. Still, I felt strongly at the time, and still do, that the entire matter should have been conducted at an open conference, held for this purpose only. <br /><br />- There was a reason given. Fr. Berg was found not to be in agreement with the WELS on the doctrine of Church & Ministry. However, I do not believe this was or is the case, nor to I believe this was the real reason for his suspension from the WELS. There was much more involved, most of it - interestingly enough for we who run Intrepid Lutherans, revolving around the "Motley Magpie." <br /><br />- The "judgment" was officially made by the AZ-CA District Presidium, albeit strongly encouraged by then DP Janke. All three men bear responsibility for this action, as does the entire District and the synod as well.<br /><br />This is but one of the many "warts" on the WELS nose, of which there are many in every church body. It would probably not be possible to go back and deal with them all, but some, such as this one, should perhaps be looked at again at some point in the near future. Again, in my opinion. <br /><br />Pastor SpencerIntrepid Lutheranshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05867580862562801804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6881617320676906596.post-26593536219068220562010-12-06T12:43:07.457-07:002010-12-06T12:43:07.457-07:00Pastor Spencer: "Historically, however, churc...Pastor Spencer: "Historically, however, church discipline has been used sparingly by the federation, whether operating as a whole body or as a committee of the whole. A District President suspending a person from the ministerium is probably the most common example, but even that is fairly rare."<br /><br />Unfortunately, WELS DP suspensions have not followed Luther's Reminiscere Sunday Sermon/Large Catechism's guidelines for church discipline (e.g., the 2006 AZ/CA Berg suspension):<br />1. The trial is held in secret.<br />2. The false teaching is never publicly identified or corrected.<br />3. The judgment is made by one man.Daniel Gormannoreply@blogger.com