Cyberstones-A Lutheran Blog

Comments...

• Oct 02, 2006 07:28:35 Re: The Current Crisis - Peter
  For what it's worth, I think that our prosperity, wealth, and love of many have had a corroding effect. If the church flourishes in persecution, it languishes in good times. Without difficulty, there is no sense of urgency or seriousness. Wealth encuorages the types of behavior that fights against the core of what it means to be a Christian. Our own churches are modelled on those of their successful neighbors (keeping up with the Joneses). It's easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, than for a rich church (society) to remain faithful. No wonder, instances of the faithful church are coming from such places as Siberia and Madagascar.
  • Oct 02, 2006 07:51:10 Re: The Current Crisis - Peter
    Whoops. Love of "money!" Now that's funny - - a nice Freudian nod to syncretism.
• Sep 30, 2006 16:49:58 Re: The Current Crisis - Josh Osbun
  I would propose that while a lack of understanding of the pastoral office is very high on the list, the problem even extends one step back from there. People are disconnected with the Word of God. They don't read it in their homes. They don't teach it to their children. They don't study it at church. They get their one hour of Jesus every/most/many/some Sundays, but then they forget that there are still 168 hours a week. If they know the Word of God then they have a solid foundation for everything that is built on It.
• Sep 30, 2006 11:38:12 Re: The Current Crisis - Carl Vehse
  The defining issue of the the first generation of the LCMS was the legitimacy of the Ministry. Yes?
  
  No. The defining issue of the first generation of the LCMS was the understanding of the doctrine of Church and Ministry. This doctrinal issue was infected with Stephanism leading to the Saxon's emigration to America; the infection burst when Stephan was deposed by the Saxons; it was ignored by the clergy when Vehse's "Protestation" document prescribed the confessional Lutheran treatment, which was later used by C.F.W.Walther in the Altenberg Debate. It was adopted by historic Trinity Luthern Church, incorporated into the polity of the Missouri Synod; and ultimately accepted as the correct doctrinal understanding and formalized in C.F.W. Walther's Kirche und Amt.
  
  This defining doctrine of Church and Ministry is still at issue today in fighting the infections of the CEO mentality of the JerryFirst and DazedStar groupies on the liberal extreme, and the Loehe/Grabau mitre-wearers on the Romanist/Eastern extreme.
  • Oct 01, 2006 17:35:30 Re: The Current Crisis - Joanne
    I'm glad that Carl Vehse mentioned the Altenberg Debates. My first reaction to Pr. Peterson's presenting statement was, "Ministry? No, I think it was the church." - and that from reading, many years ago, the ADs.
    
    I would compare the frontier Saxons to the group that had followed Jim Jones to Jonestown, Guyana. I would compare Bishop Stephan to Jim Jones. The difference of course being the power of the Word of God.
    
    Instead of Satan taking all the Saxons to death and hell as did Mr. Jones with his group, the Saxons saw the devil in their Bishop and threw him out, but just in time.
    
    But in throwing out a Bishop, did they also throw out the church? Are we still church in this God forsaken wilderness without a Christian Prince? Where is our connection to the church? Are we still church with no connection to a hierarchy. What authority do we have to call our selves a church? Where do we go from here? Back to Germany and humilation?
    
    More questions than answers, but the answers came and they were powerful, back to the bedRock answers.
    
    Walther surprised me by how much time he took discussing the question of a lack of a Christian Prince - by how seriously he took that question. An American mind just doesn't get it? How could a prince be involved in the ligitamacy and governance of the church? But, European minds had to have a prince in the equation.
    
    The RC church has it's own Emperor and princes (paperocaesism) and carries them wherever it goes. The Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches are lost in America without their princes. Where is the temporal prince of the church who will enforce the rules?
    
    Would I be insane to suggest that having no enforcer is and has been a major problem for the church in democratic environments?
    
    Is the pastor the enforcer? Is a group of pastors the enforcer? Is the president of an association of congregations the enforcer?
    
    Who, in the Lutheran Church, is going to excommunicate the wayward Archbishop of Africa?
    • Oct 01, 2006 19:36:22 Re: The Current Crisis - Carl Vehse
      The Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran churches are lost in America without their princes. Where is the temporal prince of the church who will enforce the rules?
      
      Well, perhaps the Eastern and Anglican churches are lost without their temporal princes. But orthodox Lutherans certainly need none, though the JerryFirst and DazedStar crowd seem to think the Missouri Synod needs at least a CEO.
      
      Thesis X on the Ministry is perfectly clear. It also helps to remember Thesis IX on the Church.
      • Oct 02, 2006 13:08:18 Re: The Current Crisis - Joanne
        I think those were the exact places where CFW went to conclude his debate with a resounding YES, we are the church. Even with no bishop, even with no prince, even with no letters of affiliation with a missionary society in Neuendettelsau. Out of necessity, the Saxons had to return to what the church was before Constantine. The Saxons had no earthly form of legitimacy; they had only the Holy Spirit in Word and Mysteries, rightly preached and administered. Out of the depths, Walther sweated blood to get to the root.
        
        On the issue of enforcement, the WELS certainly is still capable of "thowing out" and perhaps even excommunicationg without princes or bishops. Would I be insane to suggest that "throwing out" and excommunicating are actions the presence of which indicate health in the church, the absence of which indicate a sickness in the church.
        
        Just plain logic would tell us how unlikely it would be that the church could go 20, 30 years without "throwing out" some wild tares. How long was Paul away from Corinth before it all went to heck in a hand basket?
        
        Surely, the church in this modern, relative, free thinking, cafeteria, syncretistic world of super-abundance must need to "throw out" dozens of the unrepentant every week? Or why not? Are you boys that good in getting us to repent and return to the Way?
        
        Do you think that Wiig and Centani had any worry whatsoever about denying Christ before the whole world and converting to a Satanic Cult (a very large satanic cult). Did anyone imagine that they might have to face church discipline when they got home? Are they now returned to the level of catecuminoi who must reenter the church again?
        
        Well, it would be unpleasant, and it would upset the ladies. It would be bad form and impolite. I apologize for bring up such a distressing issue at the dinner table. May I be excused?
        • Oct 02, 2006 14:23:46 Re: The Current Crisis - Petersen
          The ability to "throw out" is easily abused. Refusing to deal with necessary discipline for the sake of public relations is most certainly a sickness that leads to death. But "throwing out" is easily imitated and readily embraced by all sects and legalists. It is not a mark of the Church.
          
          The LCMS has been weak on discipline for at least the last 40 years, but she does discipline. Not as well, not as often, as she should, and more for moral issues than theological (though moral issues must also be disciplined), but she does remove men from her roster on a very regular basis. The euphemism is "resigned." The trick, of course, is that we rarely know when "resigned" means "resigned" and when it was forced. But then when does it really matter to those not directly involved?
          
          But that is regarding those under orders. You are writing of those in the pews. Why not dozens each week? Because it is a last resort, an action to be feared on all sides. But again, it happens on a very regular basis. The Church in America is a voluntary organization, a fact much relished by our own pseudo-Vehse. There is no prince and the people are free to quit. They do it all the time. We are left with not much we can do outside of warn the person as much as we are able (sometimes they won't take our calls or letters). But isn't that what excommunication is meant to be? Isn't the purpose to warn the offender of the danger of his offense and not allow him to take the Sacrament lightly?
• Sep 29, 2006 21:13:24 Re: The Current Crisis - Ryan J. Markel
  I would go another step and outline it as a crisis of not understanding (or willfully subverting) vocation.
• Sep 29, 2006 11:29:26 Re: The Current Crisis - annonymous
  The root cause of all the crises is one of authority. Who has the right to define and enforce doctrine.
• Sep 29, 2006 10:01:37 Re: The Current Crisis - Petersen
  BTW: I recently asked by Dr. David Scaer (CTS, FW) and Dr. John Stephenson (CTS, St. Catharines, On) this same question.
  
  Scaer: " The Sacraments, our people are protestants."
  
  Stephension: "Pluralism."
  
  I am starting to own up to the idea that there is no single clear issue. Our current problems are complex and at least partially due to the fact that we haven't ever solved a controversy. The issues of the past generations still haunt us.
  
  Certainly, sin or heterdoxy and heresy are the ultimate problem and will not cease to be until Our Lord returns. But all our battles seem to me to be centered on our understanding (or lack thereof) of the Gospel. From the Gospel springs the right understanding and appreciation for the Sacraments (for they are the Gospel), the Liturgy, the Ministry, and the Scriptures. It is shocking that there are some among us who think the Bible was given to us to show us how to live, until you realize that they think that is the purpose of the Gospel. So also it is shocking that some among us think the service should be casual and comfortable and even spontaneous, until you realize that they think the Gospel is having "a relationship" with God. So on down the list it goes. The Gospel is defined by nearly meaningless cliches and everything crumbles.
  
  I don't find that a very satisfying answer. It is not much different than the sin or Christology answer. So I am still looking for that single defining issue. The fact that we can't come up with it scares me. It makes me think we are still confused about who we are and where and how to fight.
  • Sep 29, 2006 15:04:10 Re: The Current Crisis - Eric Brown
    Well, I think the problem you might have is with the question - addressing the current situation as a "crisis".
    
    There are times in the history of the Church where there is a specific crisis. You have the Trinitarian Contraversy or the Christological Contraversy. The battle for the bible would be a contraversy over the inerrancy of Scripture.
    
    But there are also time periods of general decline - where there is no great battle to be fought, but rather just an attempt to hold the line - an attempt which seems to fail. The 10th Century (with what in hindsight is called the "pornocracy") is one of those times. The 13th Century is another century of decline, as the Church abandonned her heritage for the novelty of Aristotle.
    
    We are just in a period of malaise - a slow, broad decline - where the line is pressed on many fronts, rather than a massed assult in one place. Thus is life in the Church militant.
    • Sep 29, 2006 18:52:34 Re: The Current Crisis - Petersen
      Well said.
• Sep 29, 2006 08:18:18 Re: The Current Crisis - Pr. Danny Mackey
  All of the other posts have mentioned very good ideas, and I believe there is a thread that ties them all together--and, no, it is not sin. I also have become convinced that this was the defining issue of the 20th century, not only for Lutherans but for Christendom as a whole: ecumenism on steroids (a.k.a. syncretism).
  
  The 19th century was a struggle between “Old” and “American Lutherans.” It was a battle that was won by the “American” camp, while the “Old” maintained some ground in Missouri (Thanks be to God!). A constant bombardment of unionism plagued the Lutherans in this country, and many succumbed to the illness. It did not go away, but was minimized by compromise among Ohio, Buffalo, and Iowa synods, forming the ALC, which would later become the beast of the ELCA. With each merger, compromise and loss of that which is distinctively Lutheran (read: Christian) has further weakened the pure preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments according to Christ's institution.
  
  At the same time, ecumenism, the newly re-packaged unionism, was going whole-hog: fundamentalism, WCC, NCC, LWF, JDDJ, etc., etc., ad nauseum. The false doctrines and heresy of ecumenism (in the hopes of establishing an outward unity of faith) forgot something: a confession of the faith. It became enough to call yourself “Christian,” rather than what you actually believe--Disciples of Christ have perfected this travesty. We experience this at the lay-level when a pastor better not say anything bad about the fact that Grandma Schmidt's grandson or granddaughter has become Baptist--after all, we all believe in the same God, don't we? We also experience this at the “highest” of ecclesiastical-levels when <He Who Must Not Be Named> approves of <Another He Who Must Not Be Named> wages a terrorist attack on Christendom and the Gospel by worshipping with not only heretics, but also outright heathens, including the notorious <She Who Must Not Be Named>--after all, we all believe in the same God, don't we?
  
  Ecumenism, unlike in the majority of 20th century, is no longer concerned with the Household of God, but now encompasses the entire cosmos and all its various deities. Why do we tolerate it? Why does Christology and the Office of the Public Ministry and the Liturgy and Biblical inerrancy and human sexuality and vocation suffer attack? Why do we allow the attacks? All for the sake of conformity!
  
  We are losing our distinctiveness in the world. As the Lord Jesus prayed, we are to live in the world, but not be of the world. In our desire to fit in, we (both clergy and laity) have compromised the Gospel, stayed silent when God speaks, and denied our Lord in the face of persecution (and, yes, though subtle, it is still persecution).
  
  I commend the Wyoming District for their identification of their identification of those five issues. Yet, we had these mostly resolved, didn't we? We've spent much ink on all of these, though Ecclesiastical Supervision hasn't quite reared its head this way before (correct me if I'm wrong). All these debates among us, I believe, have resulted because of our attempt to deal and to compromise with our “erring” and “separated brethren.”
  
  And, now, it looks as if the Mohammedans are included with that lot.
• Sep 28, 2006 15:36:56 Re: The Current Crisis - Eric Brown
  - Lack of Christian Submission -
  
  I think focusing on the OPM, well, it's not self serving, but it's an aspect we all see tossed up in our face. I think the root problem is we don't like Ephesians 5:21 - Submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ. Rather than being those whose focus is on showing love to the neighbor, we work more on being God ourselves - on forcing others to accede to our will.
  
  I think this shows the root of the lack of respect for the Office - it's not so much a lack of understanding - but wanting the Pastor to do what *I* want him to do. But we also see this attitude shown forth in the other problems of life. False doctrine comes from a lack of wishing to submit oneself to the Word. Relativism is simply placing my views and wishes above all others. Tradition is no longer viewed in terms of how it serves (and certainly not how it serves others) but whether or not I like it.
  
  We are not content to follow Christ - we would have ourselves be God - and that is shown more and more in society and Church today.
  • Sep 28, 2006 21:30:43 Re: The Current Crisis - Eric Brown
    Thinking this over - to put my idea in a positive rather than a negative (a lack of something) - Vocation. That's the issue. Even before it was talked about, there was an innate sense of vocation. There was the idea that everyone would do his part - and that assumes that people do in fact have parts to play. If you loose vocation you lose the demonstration of Christian love - and faith without works is dead - choked off by sinful selfish desire.
• Sep 28, 2006 14:31:27 Re: The Current Crisis - Stiegemeyer
  Pragmatism. Relativism. And Individualism. And sin.
• Sep 28, 2006 14:02:25 Re: The Current Crisis - Chi Chi
  Cholak and Mayes are right. Remember, Satan is subtle, but he's also predictable. His first attack is always on God's Order, established by His Word.
  
  Satan's first attack was not by tempting Eve with the apple, but by not speaking to her husband first (Order). God reveresed this by speaking to Adam first.
  
  Satan's attack now is on the established Order of the Office of the Holy Ministry, Christ's undershepherd, the spiritual "father," Christ's groomsman.
  
  Witness: every baptized "priest" is now a "pastor," people in the pew are "ministers," "lay ministers," clown and balloon "ministries," hire and fire your pastor, pastors are "servant leaders," spiritual "coaches," or business model types.
  
  Anything but "in the stead and by the command of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ." Our sinful flesh knows the tune and the pied piper (Satan) plays it well.
• Sep 28, 2006 12:36:53 Re: The Current Crisis - Pr. HR Curtis
  All the issues lifted up below are certainly important, but how shall our arguments about them be decided? If we can't decide that, then we'll never solve those arguments.
  
  Thus I think the problem is more foundational: Tradition and Scripture or Norma normata et Norma normans.
  
  In the "post-modern" world everyone is a pope: This is what this Bible passage means _to me_. This is how _I_ want Church to be. This is what AC XIV means _today in my context_. _I_ hear Matthew 28:16-20 speaking to laity, not pastors.
  
  How can you argue a point if everyone's views are equally valid and acceptible? How can you know whose are more and less valid without some kind of context?
  
  We've become unhinged from the controlling, curbing force of Tradition. Each man, woman, and child comes to the Scriptures with only his own experiences and knowledge and sanctification instead of being helped along by the experiences and knowledge and sanctification of our Fathers in the faith. Unless and until that is settled, nothing else will be.
  
  +HRC
  
  
  • Oct 01, 2006 13:03:49 Re: The Current Crisis - Rev. Benjamin Mayes
    The fact that people don't listen to their fathers in the faith is certainly a problem. But I don't think "tradition" fixes this ego-centric reading of Scripture. For people easily become historical relativists and apply their method of reading Scripture to their reading of other documents. I do think we must hear and obey our right-believing fathers in the faith. But Scripture itself is also clear on the dogmas of the faith.
• Sep 28, 2006 11:18:40 Re: The Current Crisis - Jason
  I might propose this as the fundamental issue: What does it mean to be Lutheran, and thus, what does it mean to be Lutheran in America? I believe this to be at the root of every issue since Lutheranism crossed the Atlantic. We've tried to answer it time and again, either unsuccessfully or unsatisfactorily.
• Sep 28, 2006 10:46:09 Re: The Current Crisis - Rev. David M. Juhl
  The Holy Preaching Office, Vocation and the efficacy of the Means of Grace.
  
  Ultimately all these issues are Christological. Christological issues are also Trinitarian issues.
  
  The problems we face are the same problems all Christian communions face. We want to make ourselves god and let the Truth twist in the wind.
• Sep 28, 2006 09:49:01 Re: The Current Crisis - Jason H
  From a strictly lay perspective I'd say it's a matter of orthodoxy. As Western believers are constantly bombarded with multiculteralism there is a tendancy in the church to integrate whatever sweeping movement (environmentalism, the cult of self-esteem, <insert the latest Oprah topic here>) has been the rage in the last five years.
• Sep 28, 2006 09:19:58 Re: The Current Crisis - Steve B - poor miserable sinner
  Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. Ultimately all "sides" of the conflict in our synod claim "quia" subscription to our confessional texts. Yet how we interpret those texts and how we act on that interpretation has caused the current ruckus
• Sep 28, 2006 09:10:03 Re: The Current Crisis - Pastor Cholak
  It seems as if the same problems resurface...it has to be the understanding of the ministry. If you don't get the office right, then you don't get Christology right and if you don't have the right Christology, then you can't have the right understanding of worship. The pastors of the Wyoming District came up with five defining issues that are facing our synod. They were: The understanding of the Word, the Office of the Holy Ministry, Worship, fellowship, and Ecclesiastical Supervision. As we studied them...it showed us that they are all related to the office of the holy ministry.
  • Sep 28, 2006 11:10:02 Re: The Current Crisis - Rev. Benjamin Mayes
    Cholak is right. Those are the issues. I might add one(?) more: the manifold ethical repercussions of the sexual revolution.