The Queen James Bible: The next stage of "interpretive ambiguity"

Round and round and round it goes.
     Where it'll stop, who really knows?
          Or cares?

The strictures of gender-neutrality placed on the translation of the NIV 2011 superimpose a feminist worldview on the entire text of the Bible. But this is old news. The next controversial phase of attacks on God's Word is to superimpose a homosexual worldview on the Bible. How long will it be before confessional Lutherans join this movement? From the Product Description on Amazon:

A Gay Bible
The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.

Homosexuality in The Bible
Homosexuality was first mentioned in the Bible in 1946, in the Revised Standard Version. There is no mention of or reference to homosexuality in any Bible prior to this - only interpretations have been made. Anti-LGBT Bible interpretations commonly cite only eight verses in the Bible that they interpret to mean homosexuality is a sin; Eight verses in a book of thousands!

The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality: We edited those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations impossible.

Who is Queen James?
The King James Bible is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time. It is the brainchild and namesake of King James I, who wanted an English language Bible that all could own and read. The KJV, as it is called, has been in print for over 400 years and has brought more people to Christ than any other Bible translation. Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most Christians, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well-known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as "Queen James." It is in his great debt and honor that we name The Queen James Bible so...

[bold emphasis is mine]

Are confessional Lutherans ready for this? It only changes eight verses. How could that be so bad? Some confessional Lutherans are more than ready, I'm sure, but my guess is, most are not. Give it time, though. That's the way change takes place. Slowly, almost imperceptibly, but little by little until new ideas take hold and become normative. Give it a couple decades or so for a more emancipated social consciousness to work its way into the leadership and schools of confessional Lutherans. Maybe then they'll be ready for a Bible such as "The Queen James Bible." For now, I am sure that the ELCA is ready to endorse it as a translation which can be used with "a high degree of confidence," and that should be good enough to encourage the beginning and continuation of changes elsewhere.

Cultural Change and the Church
As Koehler pointed out to us in defending the Historical Disciplines (see the Introduction to my Conference paper, Why is this Happening to Us?), the only way to tell that change has occurred and is impacting the Church is to examine the past:

The truth must remain unchanged but the method must vary in order always to remain the spontaneous expression of the truth. Today we are confronted by new situations... They can be covered with one term, the intrusion of worldly ways into the church... It won’t do to go into isolation and pretend that problems do not exist... But neither is anything accomplished by making compromises and bringing the world into the church... What counts is that we actually stay with the truth in doctrine and conduct and actually shut our church against worldliness. What is the remedy?... In our case it is the historical studies that indicate that a change is taking place, and it is highly important that we do not remain inactive and let it dominate us so that our church may not be harmed by it.

[Koehler, J.P. (1997). The Importance of the Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Present. In C. Jahn (Ed.), Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 3 (I. Habeck, Trans., 1975). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published in German, 1904). pp. 436 - 437]

But once harmful change has taken root, it's too late. It's probably too late to reverse many harmful changes hindsight has been revealing to us, especially since the resolution is to bring "clarity" to confusion, while the harmful changes we see often have their root in a love for the power and independence that "ambiguity" brings to the individual.

As I stated in my last post, How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?, it used to be that among confessional Lutherans, "all doctrine was taken from direct positive statements of Scripture, only," – a grammatical definition – but now, "all doctrine is taken only from "clear statements" of Scripture" – a relative definition. It may seem like this sort of thing happens by accident. And maybe it does. But the strategic use of "ambiguity" is also a weapon, used by man to wage war against the clarity of the Scriptures. In fact, I concluded a previous post entitled, When the Third Use of the Law pre-dominates..., which characterized the decline of sound doctrine in the ELCA as a decline in the perceived "clarity" of the Scriptures, with the phrase, "Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny," and used that phrase as the title of two successive posts:

“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One
“Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two

These posts briefly examine the debate between Erasmus and Luther in their works on Human Will (Freedom of the Will and Bondage of the Will respectively), and focus on Erasmus' appeal to "the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture," characterizing such appeals as essentially the same sin of Satan himself – the sin of pride and of desiring equality with God (Ge. 3:1-19). Deliberately making wholesale changes to God's Word, even deliberately changing His Word in only eight places, to satisfy what seems to be laudable values of contemporary social consciousness, only vaunts ambiguity in Scripture in order to employ the freedom of man's arbitrative rights and obligations. Indeed, it often succeeds at inventing such ambiguity in the face of Scripture's clarity, in order that ambiguity can be claimed and strategically used to put man, and what man wants, in the place of God and what He says. This is a childish game played by man from a heart of sinful pride and a desirous love for freedom from Authority. And as the ELCA has amply demonstrated, ambiguity empowers this love, mightily.

Shall confessional Lutherans follow them?

The Gospel motivates fidelity to doctrine in practice: Brief words on the use of distinguishing clerical attire

Way back in September of 2010, I published a brief essay entitled, "How, then, shall we be attired?" or "Why I Wear a Tie to Church". It began with a statement in the introductory paragraph suggesting that there is a foundation in what people are convinced as a matter of Christian Conscience is True for how they act; suggesting, that is, that Christian doctrine may actually be the foundation of Christian practice rather than being completely disassociated from it: "There's a reason why people have reserved some of their finest clothing for Sunday, referring to it as their 'Sunday Best,' and I think there are good reasons for Christians to continue doing so. What we do is a reflection of what we hold to be True."

From this point my brief essay proceeded by describing some of the important Truths of Christian doctrine which confessional Lutherans, who recognize the significance of historical belief and practice, consider the ongoing realities of incarnational and sacramental doctrine, and suggesting that these realities, if they are actually regarded as such rather than merely claimed as such, are sufficient to motivate practice that is consistent with them. Namely, we believe that Jesus Christ is actually present in the Divine Service, and is there actively serving us. If we not only claim that this is true, but actually believe it is true, then we are apt to engage in practice that is consistent with actually believing it, rather than merely saying it. This includes our choice of attire, as I continued in that little essay. At no point was Law used as a basis for suggesting that certain attire may be more appropriate than certain other attire; instead, it pointed to the significance of the Gospel as motivation for the desire to represent with fidelity what we confess to believe. Indeed, it concludes with the strong suggestion that such practice is not only consistent with important Christian realities, but is evangelical as well: "The reality is, in Western Society, the Christian's 'Sunday Best' is his 'religious garb' – it openly communicates his Christian religion and his observance of it to those who see him, and opens doors of communication where inconspicuous dress would fail to do so."

Appealing to the Gospel, Rev. Michael Berg (WELS) suggested much the same thing in his excellent paper, The Beauty of the Western Rite, which he delivered at the 2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity – see pages 11, 26, 36 and 54, for example, or hear his comments @~5'45" to ~7'35", @~10'45" to ~11'50", @~38'10" to ~42' or @~44'35" to ~54' in the video we posted of his presentation. Who is actually present in the Divine Service, and how does that motivate the order of our practice? Rev. Berg offers a very compelling case.

Likewise, Rev. Anthony Voltattorni (LCMS), in a November 6, 2012 interview on Issues, Etc., makes a compelling and motivating case for the use of traditional clerical garb instead of the non-distinguishing casual wear that continues to grow in popularity as pastors grow more and more disconnected from their office, and take on the role of representing contemporary culture before the congregation rather than Christ.

Why Does a Pastor Wear a Clerical Collar? – Rev. Anthony Voltattorni (LCMS), 11/6/12

 

In this 30 minute interview, Rev. Voltattorni centers his discussion on the evangelical significance of Office of the Holy Ministry. He makes the point that according to this Lutheran teaching, the pastor does not represent the culture before the congregation during the Sunday morning Divine Service or through the week as he carries out the functions of his Office. On the contrary, the pastor represents Christ. The evangelical significance of this teaching is compelling enough to motivate the conscientious Lutheran pastor in his public practice, such that he strives to carry it out in an unambiguous and consistently representative way. The purpose of casual garb, observes Rev. Voltattorni, is to fulfill the former (and wrong) understanding of his role – that of representing the culture before the congregation – by drawing attention to himself as a representative of mankind. In contrast, the purpose of clerical garb is to fulfill the latter – of unambiguously representing Christ by adopting the attire recognized worldwide as peculiar to his Office – by reminding not only the congregation of this fact, but himself as well, helping him submit to his Office and refrain from frivolity and offense. Rev. Voltattorni proceeds by pointing out that distinctive clerical garb does draw attention to it's wearer, in agreement with one of the primary criticisms of its use. Yet, he continues, casual wear attracts attention as well – it does not make the wearer inconspicuous, it only makes his Office inconspicuous. Distinctive clerical garb, on the other hand, draws attention to its wearer as one who occupies the Office to which Christ appointed him through His congregation, and as one who is always eager to represent Christ and share his Message everywhere he goes. Moreover, concludes Rev. Voltattorni, by publicly distinguishing himself in this way, instead of remaining inconspicuous when in public, the pastor is not only announcing his desire to share the Good News of Salvation through Faith in the promises of Christ, he is also boldly inviting persecution from those who hate Christ and His messengers.

It is an informative and compelling little interview, and, of course, Rev. Voltattorni expresses himself far better than I have summarized him here. We recommend that our readers listen to and consider what Rev. Voltattorni has to say.

The Theological Disciplines, and the nature of theological discourse in WELS from a layman's perspective

When Lutherans confess orthodox teaching, we are not merely confessing that we "believe and teach everything the Bible says." All Christians who confess their faith do this. Yet, Christians disagree regarding what the Bible specifically teaches, and not in inconsequential matters, either. This is what makes "Confessions of Faith" necessary. Rather than asking whether a Christian "believes everything the Bible says," a Confession answers the question, "What do you say the Bible says." And when others agree, without reservation, to such a Confession, they are said to share the same Confession.

Thus, when Lutherans confess orthodox teaching, we are confessing what we are convinced as a matter of conscience the Bible says – and not only that, what we are convinced that it teaches in the face of those who are convinced otherwise. Making such a Confession is not an insignificant matter; it is not a so poorly considered act that, as if by the mere "formality of agreement," we are finally able to enter into voting membership of an organization or receive some other temporal benefit. Instead, a genuine "Confession of Faith" reaches to the convictions of Christian conscience itself – it is a Truth upon which the confessor is willing to sacrifice his life.

Indeed, the term "confessor" is closely related to that of "martyr:" in the Early Church, during the Ten Persecutions, for instance, the confessor was the one who was subjected to all manner of torture and threatened with eventual death in order to secure a denial of his Confession, who nevertheless stood on his Confession; the martyr was the one who went on to meet the death he was assured of as confessor¹. Even today, our Lutheran hymnals hold catechumens to this very high standard of confessional subscription in the Rite of Confirmation, which requires them to answer in the affirmative, with the help of God, the following question:

"Do you also, as a member of the Evangelical Lutheran church, intend to continue steadfast in the confession of this Church, and suffer all, even death, rather than fall away from it?"²

To agree to a given Confession of Faith is not, nor has it ever been, considered an insignificant thing. Yet, at the time of the Ten Persecutions, it wasn't necessarily dogma for which Christians died, but the very facts of Christianity themselves.

Shortly after the Persecutions were ended by Constantine, the Ecumenical Creeds were adopted, as necessary for the separation of orthodox Christian teaching from heterodoxy. At the time of Luther, the Augsburg Confession was necessary to distinguish ourselves from the errors of Rome, and he did so with the certain prospect of his own martyrdom. Though he escaped martyrdom, many Reformation Lutherans wear that crown having met their death clinging to their Lutheran Confession. Today, we continue, necessarily, to hold this Confession in the face of Rome, in the same terms expressed by Luther and other Lutheran Confessors and Martyrs. At the time of Chemnitz, the Formula of Concord was necessary to distinguish orthodox teaching from the errors of the Crypto-Calvinists who had crept in among the Lutherans, and also from the excesses of some of the Gnesio-Lutherans, along with direct repudiation of Reformed errors which were being directed at us from outside Lutheranism. It is necessary to continue to do so – especially as some modern Lutherans seem to be enamoured with Calvinist and Arminian teaching and with the sectarian practices which descend from it. At the time of Johann Gerhard, the vigorous academic offensive mounted by the Jesuits as part of the Roman Catholic counter-Reformation, in addition to the development of rather rigorous Reformed systematic theology, required that a shift in theological expression occur in Lutheranism as well, from the form of confessional "exegetical theology" (the Loci of Melanchthon and Chemnitz considered by them to be an essentially historical theological discipline) to that of scholastic "systematic theology" (a constructive theological discipline)³. This Lutheran response precipitated the 17^th Century Lutheran "Age of Orthodoxy," prompting Dr. Philip Schaff, the renowned 19^th Century church historian, to characterize Lutheranism with the words, "The Lutheran Church is a Church of theologians, and has the most learning and the finest hymns"⁴. Yes, we still recite the words of our faithful theologians, almost verbatim – and it remains necessary for us to do so in order to maintain our distinction from errorists and to maintain pure doctrine.

Yet, some Lutherans so sufficiently doubt their confession that a "fresh look" at the Scriptures always seems necessary, and it certainly seems a mark of credibility among them to feign objectivity, as if their conscience and confession are disposable things. Such an attitude seems to be a result of embracing the historical theological disciplines while despising the constructive. But if one discovers that his "fresh look" results in the same thing Lutherans have always confessed, then how fresh is it, really? It isn't fresh at all, it's just an intellectual exercise in rejecting one's confession for the purpose of rediscovery – raising the question of whether his confession was made as a matter of conscience in the first place. If on the other hand, one discovers that his "fresh look" results in some teaching other than what Lutherans have always taught, then he ought to have the decency to count himself among those who do not apply the label "Lutheran" to themselves.

Some Lutherans, however, rest so securely in dogmatic formulations, the mere suggestion that re-examination may be in order – perhaps, among other reasons, because there is evidence that such formulations were not entirely in harmony with Scripture all along, or because such formulations are sufficiently lacking in context that they are misunderstood and misapplied today, or because new arguments against certain dogmatic positions require additional clarification of the doctrine – strikes so severely at their sense of security that they are prompted to suspicion and anger, and adamantly refuse to entertain any discussion on the matter. Such an attitude seems to be a result of embracing the constructive theological disciplines while despising the historical. It was this attitude which (necessarily) reigned in confessional Lutheranism during the 19^th Century in America, and it contributed to the rise of the more thoughtful approach of the Wauwatosa Theologians of the early Wisconsin Synod, whose purpose was not to overshadow or despise the constructive disciplines, but to bring them back into balance with the historical. As a result, it is said, a peculiar practice developed within WELS regarding the question of dogmatic concerns: when a Brother clergyman brought forward a dogmatic concern, his concern was taken seriously by his Fellows, and together they studied the issue.

This seems like a good idea – a practice which displays a healthy balance between historical and constructive disciplines and a genuinely conscientious effort to keep sound doctrine. In fact, one cause for my personal optimism upon first becoming involved with Intrepid Lutherans two years ago was the belief that this practice was alive, if not in every part of the WELS, then in at least some important quarters:

“Finally,” I thought, “a public platform upon which vitally important concerns can be voiced! Surely, at least those who naturally resonate with these concerns will now hear them, and these issues can finally get the respect of concerned attention!”

Apparently this belief was rather naïve. The fact is, to date, I can say that I've only heard of this practice. In the past two years I don't think I have ever witnessed it – if I did, it was unrecognizable to me – and I am now under the distinct impression that, at best, stories of such a practice are merely historical artifacts, passed on from person to person and distorted slightly with each retelling of them. Instead, while I have observed both theological disciplines used in WELS, I have not observed them used in a balanced or coordinated fashion. Rather, it seems that either one or the other is practiced, depending on its immediate utility. For example, as our detractors in other Synods are quick to point out, Wauwatosa seems to have devolved into a virtual abandonment of the constructive disciplines and of true Confessional ardor, as if in an attempt to reinvent the present through continuous "rediscovery." After all, such is an incredibly useful approach if one is looking to excuse incessant and "innovative" change – of the sort those beguiled by the Church Growth Movement demand, for instance – and this seems to be its most effective and frequent use among us. On the other hand, I have witnessed the bald application of "dogmatic formulas," quite apart from genuine discussion with the one raising the questions, and apart from seriously offering to study the issue together with the questioner, but instead with what seems to be cross-armed and set-jawed suspicion followed by authoritative and final demands that the questioner cease with his questions and recant immediately and fully, or forfeit the blessings of fellowship. In fact, we have all very recently witnessed horrific examples of this "non-evangelical use of dogma" (as Rev. J.P. Koehler seems to have described it⁵) play out before us in public, as such tactics have been employed by WELS pastors against laymen; and we are likely to see such occur again.

True confessional Lutherans conscientiously endeavor to believe, teach and confess as the church catholic always has. This catholic continuity requires an historical perspective in our doctrine and practice, just as peaceful unity in all matters of doctrine and practice requires that concerns regarding them be taken seriously.

Are there any more WELS pastors who resonate with our concerns over doctrine and practice, who are willing to put their name on a public call for examination of the matters of doctrine and practice which we at Intrepid Lutherans have attempted to articulate in our What we Believe page, and in three hundred blog posts over the past two years? Laymen? Time is rapidly growing short – so is our optimism.

Click here to Stand With Us.



------------
Endnotes:

1. For more information, see the Conclustion to the series of posts: "Relevance," and Mockery of the Holy Martyrs
   
2. For more information, see the Agenda to The Lutheran Hymnal: The Lutheran Agenda. (1946). St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House. pg. 24
   
3. According to the Wauwatosa Theologian Rev. J.P. Koehler, the “historical theological disciplines” are historical and exegetical theology, while the “constructive theological disciplines” are systematic and practical theology. Please see the Introduction of my paper, Why is this happening to us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us, that was delivered at the 2012 Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity, for more details.
   
4. Schaff, P. (1996). History of the Christian Church (Vol. 7, The German Reformation: The Beginning of the Protestant Reformation up to the Diet of Augsburg). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. (Reprinted from the second edition, originally published in 1888). pg. 26.
   
5. Koehler, J.P. (1997). The Importance of the Historical Disciplines for the American Lutheran Church of the Present. In C. Jahn (Ed.), Wauwatosa Theology, Vol. 3 (I. Habeck, Trans., 1975). Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House. (Original work published in German, 1904). pg. 436.

The Next Conference of Intrepid Lutherans...

Commentary in Rev. Spencer's recent post, Ambivalent, seems to have gone in two directions; the first (naturally) is commentary regarding the topic of the post, the second (which is mostly my fault) is commentary responding to questions regarding the Next Conference of Intrepid Lutherans. So I am creating a post dedicated to soliciting comments from our readers regarding our next Conference, so as to avoid distracting from the important issues Rev. Spencer wanted discussed following his post. I'll start with my comments from his post:

Mr. Douglas Lindee said (June 27, 2012 2:52 PM)...
I'll also very emphatically add, regarding Conference attendance, that not only were we pleased with attendance, but that, given the number of signers we are privileged to have, given their disparate locations, and given the location of the Conference itself (in an area we were relatively certain would draw few supporters, but hopefully more of those opposed to our mission and message), our expectations were, in fact, vastly exceeded. We planned and budgeted for almost half the attendance we actually received, and were not confident as we planned that we would receive even that. Our Conference attendence thus turned out to be a great blessing to us, and a strong affirmation of our purpose.

As for our attendees, I was more than gratified to learn that the nature of the issues we represent and the content of the presentations we offered were of sufficient weight to draw concerned Lutherans from all over the Midwest -- from Michigan to western Minnesota, to Iowa. It was quite a humbling experience to have been a part of it.

It is clear to us, especially from the discussion among attendees during the Open Forums at the Conference, as well as during informal discussion with individuals throughout the Conference, that the issues we presented are recognized as substantive matters, and are of great concern to many. Thus, we are already in the very preliminary stages of planning our next Conference. We have discussed holding the next one further west than WELS NWD. We have also tossed around topics and a date.

Do any of our readers have suggestions for location, date, and topics?

Mr. Douglas Lindee said (June 29, 2012 9:21 AM)...
Dutch, Christian, Lee, Perry, Daniel -- Thank you all for your suggestions! And keep them coming everybody! ...Here are a couple more questions:


1. How long would you be willing to spend at such a conference? One day is not enough -- we know that now. Is two days enough? Is four days too much? And when during the week? I'm thinking a Thursday-Saturday conference, followed by the full Divine Service at the host church the following Sunday morning. This would mean Wednesday and Sunday are travel days for most folks. Probably doable for students and maybe pastors, not so much for regular folks with only two or three weeks vacation a year. I am assuming that summertime (with kids and teachers out of school) is the best time of year. What do you think?
2. Would our readers be offended if we declared the IL conference a "Free Conference" so that we could invite confessional Lutheran speakers outside ELS and WELS? This could be done if we kept a DS, joint prayer, etc., off the agenda (while offering Matins/Vespers/DS as off-agenda opportunities for those desiring to attend). I ask since there are some topics, like Vocation for example (which should definitely go on the list of topics), for which I personally know of no competent speakers in WELS, much less competent speakers willing to appear at a conference hosted by Intrepid Lutherans. Potential speakers from the ELS may be a different story, but if not, then we may feel compelled to look outside WELS and ELS. If we want the best speakers on the topics we choose, we may have to go outside WELS. What do you think?
3. Finally, I might as well ask this, too. For a multi-day conference, what would be the maximum you would be willing to pay, per day, assuming we also provide light breakfast, lunch and dinner?

---

So the questions we would like our readers to consider and answer for us can be summarized as follows:

1. Time of year
2. Duration of the Conference
3. Location
4. Topics of Interest
5. "Free Conference" so that non-WELS/ELS speakers (experts in a particular topic) can be invited?
6. Cost

---

Here are some responses we've had on these questions, so far:

Christian Schulz said (June 27, 2012 3:52 PM)...
Somewhere in Minnesota would be great, although that's just because I'm living there! But at the same time it would be nice to see if some MLC, Bethany, and Bethany seminary students could be recruited to come (that is, if the date were during the school year).

As far as topics go, I would really be interested in talking about justification thoroughly. Also, the Divine Service would be another great topic. Rev. Berg's presentation was outstanding. For next year, with Rev. Berg's presentation as the bread and butter from last year's conference, it would be great if it was more zoomed in on dealing with sectarian worship vs. the historic Lutheran Liturgy. Maybe expand upon the bound will and why sectarian worship undermines it as well as a treatise of Ap IV, 49. Oh! Maybe another topic could be on the Office of the holy Ministry? Those are just some very candid thoughts of mine...

Dutch Gray Stoeberl said (June 27, 2012 4:05 PM)...
What do differently...well.., my better half's (attendee) suggestions were, a pre conference packet for attendees. That way they know or can equate themselves with terms, topics, & information not readily available or known to laity. Speakers, notes, not word for word reading, from packet or prepared speech. More time for discussion & communication, per topic. Date, if it's a priority to you, you'll make a point to attend, like everything else. Location, it was 2 hrs for us. We would have gone to MI (never been), MN or IA. It's that important to us. Things happen, but it's about importance & priority.

Daniel Baker said (June 28, 2012 10:06 PM)...
...I would like to see the next conference in a larger city. This will come off as biased, but to the best of my knowledge the greater Milwaukee area is (at least for now) considered the center of the WELS world; I think that it would make a more suitable meeting location, and perhaps facilitate a larger attendance. Alternatively, other centers of WELS life like Watertown and New Ulm would be amicable.

I would also like to echo Christian's thought when it comes to furthering the examination of the Divine Service that we began at this conference. Aside from Justification, the matter of worship has to be at the core of our message. To that end, it seems to me that there is no better way to emphasize the importance of the Chief Divine Service than to actually celebrate it. As awesome as it was to experience the Divine Offices for the first time in a corporate setting, they pale in comparison to the Communion Liturgy. Just my two cents though. You also might consider consulting a more competent musician. ;-)

Lee Liermann said (June 29, 2012 6:23 AM)...
For the next conference I would like to hear an expanded discussion regarding Vocation.

Dear Readers, please let us know what you opinions are on these questions. We will use your answers as a basis for planning our next Conference.

Thank You!

It's time to register for Church and Continuity 2012!

Our first Intrepid Lutherans conference begins one week from tomorrow. Over 50 people have registered so far, and it's not too late to join them, but time is running out!

As a reminder, the conference begins on the evening of June 1st with dinner, followed by a highly relevant and scholarly presentation by Rev. Bob Koester on the issues surrounding the NIV 2011 translation of the Bible. The 12 districts of the WELS will be voting in the June district conventions whether to adopt the NIV 2011 now, or whether to put off the decision another year so that the NIV 2011 can be adopted then. At least, that's what some would like to see happen. As our readers know, we at Intrepid Lutherans are strongly opposed to the NIV 2011. Rev. Koester's presentation will demonstrate why.

Saturday, June 2nd, will be a full day of presentations, outlined in our conference brochure.

The deadline for registration is Tuesday, May 29th. Will we take last minute registrations after that date? Yes! Would we prefer to receive them before that date? Yes!

Go to our conference page and register now!