This Must Not Be Your Grandfather’s Pope

Reporter Online, the online version of the official newspaper of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, has a glowing review of Pope Benedict’s visit with LCMS leaders.

Apparently, the LCMS lacks the political savvy of a seasoned politician. I doubt you’ll see Hillary hobnobbing with George Bush Sr., or John McCain golfing with Fidel, yet the LCMS seems positively elated with it’s consort with the Pope, whose office Luther rightfully labeled the anti-Christ. Ecumenical dialogue is one thing, but this was nothing more than a photo-op in which the body of Christ had nothing to gain, and much to lose.

Have we fallen so far that we can’t see the satanic lie that the Pope represents? This is the man who calls himself God’s vicar on earth, thus taking Jesus Christ’s rightful throne, attempting to make himself our mediator (the Pope's office, not necessarily any particular Pope). This is the man who believes that communion is a sacrifice, thus earning merit for a human work and rejecting Christ’s all-atoning sacrifice. This is the man who would have us all assimilated into the Catholic Church. This is the man who calls justification by grace through faith anathema. What do righteousness and wickedness have in common? What fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

LCMS attendees included President Gerald Kieschnick, Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger, and Atlantic District President David Benke. The article goes on to list members of the ELCA who attended as well, as though their presence justified the LCMS presence. The article also carefully points out that it was an "ecumenical meeting," as though that justified the LCMS presence.

The article quotes Dr. Nafzger:

"Especially meaningful," he added, "was the inclusion in the worship program of the following quotation from the pope's 2005 address at the World Youth Day: 'Among Christians, fraternity is not just a vague sentiment ... it is grounded in the supernatural reality of the one Baptism which makes us all members of the one Body of Christ."

It is often stated that satan’s lies contain a majority of truth, with just enough falsehood mixed in to deceive the elect. I can think of no better example than the Pope’s rhetoric. Luther would shake his head in embarrassment, and then he would speak up in protest.

Lest We Forget

From Luther's Lectures on Galatians:

"I am saying this in order that we may learn the doctrine of justification with the greatest diligence and distinguish most clearly between the Law and the Gospel. On this issue we must not do anything out of insincerity or yield submission to anyone if we want to keep the truth of the Gospel and the faith sound and inviolate; for, as I have said, these are easily bruised. Here let reason be far away, that enemy of faith, which, in the temptations of sin and death, relies not on the righteousness of faith or Christian righteousness, of which it is completely ignorant, but on its own righteousness or, at most, on the righteousness of the Law. As soon as reason and the Law are joined, faith immediately loses its virginity. For nothing is more hostile to faith than the Law and reason; nor can these two enemies be overcome without great effort and work, and you must overcome them if you are to be saved."

Where Were the District Presidents?

There seems to be a disconnect here. To date, five dauntless LCMS districts have come out with official resolutions voicing their displeasure over the cancellation of Issues, Etc., and requesting the show’s reinstatement. They are the Central Illinois District, Iowa District East, South Dakota District, the South Wisconsin District, and the Southern Illinois District. All five of these resolutions are worded strongly enough that it’s reasonable to conclude that they are in opposition to the statement adopted by the Council of Presidents (The COP, which is composed of the President of each of the Synod’s districts) on April 22 “without dissenting vote.”

So where were the District Presidents when their districts formulated their resolutions, and when the COP statement was formulated? Note that the COP response was signed “without dissenting vote.” Was that a disingenuous statement? If my football team finishes 13-0-1, I can claim it’s undefeated, but it’s still a disingenuous statement, because there was one game I didn’t win. Did all the District Presidents sign the COP statement? If so, some of them must be sulking in a corner somewhere, because their district went over their head, either before or after the fact.

The COP statement said “We must regard with Christian charity and trust the judgment of our duly elected brothers and sisters in Christ on the BCS [Board of Communication Services], along with its Executive Director, Mr. David Strand.” That trust hasn’t panned out so well for all five of the dissenting districts, since they all requested that Issues, Etc. be reinstated. Both Southern Illinois and South Dakota stated “official explanations for the show’s cancellation have not satisfied or answered the concerns of many.” Southern Illinois said brothers Wilken and Schwarz were dismissed for “undocumented reasons,” and Iowa District East claims “for widely-disputed reasons.” Where’s the trust? They also had this to say:

Resolved, That the Board of Directors of Iowa District East of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod requests, for the sake of trust and unity, that Mr. David Strand and the Board for Communication Services make public all internal documents and memos concerning this cancellation, and, in addition, allow for a complete, independent, and publicly documented audit of KFUO finances, including directly comparable financial performance of all of the station's programs.

The COP also stated that they didn’t agree that “the manner in which this decision was implemented lacked Christian compassion.” The South Wisconsin District doesn’t seem to share the COP’s view, saying things like “This could have been done by giving the Rev. Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz two month notification of the cancellation of their employment,” and “express with a united voice their displeasure with both the cancellation of the program and the way it was handled.”

The COP statement ends with a pious sounding plea for unity. Their closing sounds a little different than the closing of the Southern Illinois District:

RESOLVED, that Pastoral Conference of the Southern Illinois District officially petition the Board of Communications Services to revisit the decision by its Executive Director, David Strand, to cancel Issues, Etc. and also petition the Board to reinstate both Pastor Wilken and Mr. Schwarz to their positions, restore the ministry of Issues, Etc., and make a public apology for the offense this cancellation has caused.

While you may not be able to point to any one spot in the COP statement and say it’s wrong, taken as a whole, it seems to be a carefully crafted document designed to squelch dissent, not one of pastoral wisdom.

I assume that the majority of the District Presidents of the five districts above were in favor of those resolutions, and were likely instrumental in their execution, and I commend them for those resolutions. But the question remains, if they were, why did they sign the COP statement, assuming they did? The two seem mutually exclusive to me. If they believe that the truth was somehow maligned, whether they signed the COP statement or not, I hope they and other Presidents like them will personally speak up for the truth. Of course that’s easier said than done. It’s not easy speaking out when your job may be threatened, but as Christians, we’re called to defend the Truth at all times and in all places. Unity is only achieved by real agreement, not by covering up the truth.

Doctrine Influences Practice

"This is only the beginning of what this church is willing to do to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

The above quote was posted by "Teaching Pastor" Ben Gonzales on his blog. (Isn't "Teaching Pastor" redundant?) Pastor Gonzales is one of the pastors at Jefferson Hills Church in Imperial, Missouri, the LCMS church that brought us those swell billboards like the one above.

I guess he's not kidding.

At first glance, my thought was that their practice will influence their doctrine. But I'd have to say that their doctrine is driving their practice, a doctrine that has apparently been heavily influenced by something other than that contained in the The Book of Concord. What next?

Self-deprecation

Praise the Lord for RSS feed aggregators. I was reading through the posts of various people's blogs this morning when I came across my own blog, which I include in the aggregator to double-check my own work, or for narcissistic reasons - reader's choice here. The last line of my "The Transformation Process" post read "I hope you'll take the time to read Chris Rosebrough's short post, and education yourself on the transformation process." Now that's writing with a flare! My fourth grade education level really shines don't it? I've subsequently corrected it, but if you read the RSS feeds, you can praise the Lord too for a little extra giddy laughter in your day.

Words Are Important

Pastor Larry Beane, in his Father Hollywood post titled "Bad Language", discusses the linguistic evolution of the word church, and how we now have come to the use of the words churched and unchurched. He discusses the importance of words, and how their careless misuse can water down our confession. Here are a few of the highlights:

However, I'm seeing quite a lot of uses of the word "churched" coming from Protestant sources, which has spilled over into our own Lutheran vocabulary. In fact, with the Ablaze!(tm) program, nearly every correspondence from synod or district includes the word "unchurched" describing the intended target of our mission endeavors. The words "churched" and "unchurched" are adjectival variations of the word "church" used as a verb. In this case, "church" is not being used as it is in the creeds, as a noun, a thing we confess as an article of faith, but rather it has become an verbal adjective to describe something one does. In fact, we often run into a strained related expression: "to do church."

I don't believe this is a natural evolutionary shift in language to accommodate changing realities, rather I think this is symptomatic of a shift in confession. If "church" is a verb that we can "do," than it is no longer a mystery to confess, but rather an activity, like swimming or throwing a baseball. And a "churched" or "unchurched" person is not defined by membership in the church (the noun), but rather by what he does (i.e. "going to church" as an activity, a verb).

So, the word "church" used as a verb has been around for six centuries, but there has still been a recent subtle shift in meaning. For in 14th century England, everyone (with very few exceptions, such as Jews) were members of the Church. There simply were no "unchurched" people in the way the term is used today. A woman who was "churched" was not a person who didn't go to church, or who had never heard of Jesus. Rather to be "churched" was literally to be brought to the building to receive a rite. This rite is today called the "Blessing of a Mother After Childbirth" (LSB Pastoral Care Companion, p. 59).

This bringing of believers into the building to receive a rite is not how our synod uses the term in speaking of reaching "unchurched" people (meaning unbelievers). The word "unchurched" is not biblical, nor is it traditional in this context (just as "doing church" is neither biblical, creedal, nor traditional).

Click HERE to continue reading >>

The Transformation Process

Chris Rosebrough at Extreme Theology has a post in which he states "...I am going on the record by saying that I am 99.9% convinced that LCMS President Gerry Kieschnick is engaged in a full scale, strategic campaign to radically overhaul and change the LCMS."

He goes on:

I've taken the time to read through his actions, writings, statements and the suggestions of his Blue Ribbon Task Force and am convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he is following a well scripted, well planned Change Initiative, the goal of which is to insure that the LCMS becomes and will forever remain a purpose-driven / church-growth denomination.

...The Change Management process that Kieschnick and the consultants that are advising him are using is straight out of John Kotter's book "Leading Change". This book is considered to be the BIBLE for change management and in my professional opinion, Kieschnick and his consultants are following Kotter's approach STRAIGHT DOWN THE LINE.

Chris then reproduces a portion of Kotter's book showing "The Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change," a process which I definitely do not remember reading about in the book I prefer to turn to for transformation tips, the Bible.

If you're at all familiar with the business world, or have been in a church that has been "hijacked" by Church Growth Movement proponents, you will immediately recognize these steps. There are many variations from author to author on the exact steps to achieve transformation, but they generally follow the pattern set out in Mr. Kotter's book.

It is important to be able to recognize these transformation process steps so that 1) You will be able to recognize and address any unbiblical steps set forth within your particular synod, and 2) You will be able to recognize and address any unbiblical steps within your own congregation. I hope you'll take the time to read Chris Rosebrough's short post, and educate yourself on the transformation process.

Rescue From Abbreviation "Hell"

If you’re hopelessly stumped like I am by abbreviations used in blog posts, websites, and forums, the cavalry has arrived. I’ve compiled a list of the more common, and some of the more arcane, churchly abbreviations. If you’re up for it, take the test and see how you fare. If not, click on "Read More..." for your rescue from abbreviation "hell." Feigned apologies in advance for the name of any pastor whose name happens to appear in the answers. I already know he’ll laugh.

Take the Test:

Instructions: Read through the list. Write down the abbreviations you know on a piece of paper. Then compare your answers with the correct answers by clicking on "Read More... ." Add up the number of correct answers, and see how you rank. When finished with the test, post answers on refrigerator door for future reference. For extra credit, leave me a list of your abbreviations.

Your score indicates:

If you got less than 10 right: Ignorance is bliss
10-23: A seasoned layperson
24-36: Church worker
37-43: What have you been readin’?
Above 43: You’re a synodocrat

AALC=
AFP=
ALOA=
BBOV=
BCS=
BHCM=
BOC=
BOD=
BRTFSSG=
CCM=
CECW=
CHI=
CID=
CLCC=
COP=
CPH=
CSE’s=
CTCR=
CUW=
DP=
EOC=
ESV=
ILC=
IMHO=
LAMP=
LCC=
LEA=
LFL=
LHM=
LLL=
LSB=
LSSDR=
LTSG=
LWML=
MLC=
MSP=
NIV=
NRM=
NT=
OT=
PIF=
PLI=
PLU=
RCM=
RIM=
RSO=
SELK=
SMO=
VBS=
VDMA=
VL=
WELS=
WT=
WWW=

Click HERE to continue reading >>

Pastor Harju (again)

Pastor Benjamin Harju has a wonderfully pastoral post entitled Unity Ablaze! In it he discusses union versus unity in the LCMS. Pastor Weedon already pointed out Pastor Harju's post, but it was too good to pass up. Here are several quotes:

"If we in the LCMS no longer have unity, then it is because we have not turned away from everything in us, everything in the world, everything we know and hold dear, and turned to Christ empty, sinful, pathetic, weak, and needy. The path to unity in the LCMS must begin with each one of us. I don't mean to say that we start with ourselves and work to Christ, but that in the face of Christ's reaching out to us we come to the total abandonment of everything we are and have so that Christ may be our Head and Leader, rather than start with dialogues, small group meetings, and convocations. If we begin with these latter things we will only push headlong into the frightful things St. Paul warns St. Timothy about in 1 Timothy 6:4."

"Where we abandon everything in us to the waters of our Baptism, which is Christ's death, and wait in empty silence for God to raise, feed, and guide us, there we will pass over from the lonely individualism of sin and death into the unity of the communion of saints that abides in righteousness and life. This self-abandonment is impossible, unless Christ Himself is present to step in and become all in all."

"If this repentance truly describes us, then we will not find ourselves proposing things to God, but only receiving from Him, for one who has abandoned everything in himself and the world has nothing left to propose. If this is our condition, then we will not propose new worship to ignite the emotions or to be more relevant to man's world (for this turns the "self" into a contender for co-Shepherd and co-Counselor). Instead we will receive from God what the Scriptures say and do (which means that is what we will say and do), and thus God would bring us into His new world. If we were to abide in this self-abandonment, then we would not constantly ask, "Does Scripture force me to do this or that?", but rather we would say, "How much of what God shows and gives in the Scriptures can we keep and live and abide in?". Remember, the law requires against our nature, the gospel resurrects our nature into that which follows along willingly. (In regards to worship, I have some thoughts on that here.) We all are at different places, subjectively speaking, when it comes to humility and faith before God (repentance). We should be gentle with one another in all this, even as God is gentle with us in Christ. This is the way of unity. Unity must first be received from God and in God before it can be given or "achieved" between Christians, much less in the LCMS as a whole."

"The cross is not locked up in the sacraments in order to transform our lives in the world into glory. Rather the cross is imparted through the sacramental life of the Church so that we may take up our cross and follow where our Good Shepherd leads."

Faulty Predestinarianism

Is the LCMS guilty of faulty Predestinarianism? Pastor Harju thinks so. I'd have to agree with him, as far as it used in the context of his post LCMS Ablaze! Here's a portion of what he has to say:

It seems that in the LCMS a different model of Predestination is at work. The salvation of the elect is not dependant on God's secret decision from before the foundation of the world. Otherwise, why does our leadership illustrate the Ablaze! missions agenda by rapid finger snapping (snap, snap, snap, snap, etc.) and then say something to the effect of, 'This is people dying without knowing Jesus, and we need to do something about it.'?

Now for Dr. Mattes' Uzzah analogy: what happened when Uzzah reached out to steady the Ark? He died. Why? Because of his lack of faith. The Ark was not his to steady. It belonged to God, and it was the sacramental vessal [sic] of God's presence among His people. God had provided means for its care. Uzzah looked up and saw how the Ark was unsteady, and he attempted to rescue God. His faith was not in God's word, command, and promise, but like St. Peter who sank in the water when he experienced the wind and waves, Uzzah's faith became distorted and misplaced. And what happened to Uzzah? He died.

The Church is the Ark of God. The Church fulfills the OT Ark of the Covenant (as does the BVM, but we won't go into that correlation here right now). The Church is the bearer of His presence, but it is God who is at the helm, God who is driving everything, and God who has arranged for His elect to come on board and receive safe passage. What will happen to the LCMS if, by taking our eyes off of God's promises and worrying over the "wind and the waves" and the "stumbling oxen", we insist on reaching out our hand to steady things? The answer is obvious. (Great analogy, Dr. Mattes.)