Click above to email President Kieschnick, Secretary Hartwig, and the board of communications. The email is already written for you, all you need to do is sign it.
Get connected
• Join Our Yahoo Group
• Subscribe to our RSS feed
Sign the petition
While it's not our goal to bring "Issues, Etc." back to KFUO, we still encourage you to sign the petition and show your support for the show.
Okay, we’ve spent more than enough time figuring out that we’ve got some problems on our hands.
We tried many good faith efforts to get the LCMS leadership to listen to us and they decided not to.
So what do we do? Do we sit around and keep complaining? Or do we work to retain our Lutheran identity?
What is the best way to do this?
Filed under: Updates
 | Harry B. Madsen on Comment line is open! |
| SteadfastLutherans.o… on When District Presidents … | |
| SteadfastLutherans.o… on Comment line is open! | |
 | Beth on Cringe inducing |
 | Helen on As I was saying . . . |
What do we do? We do exactly what Pastor Todd tells us to do: we uphold our faithful pastors, we continue to go to church and receive Christ’s gifts of Word and Sacrament, and we continue to refuse to accept these counterfeit gifts of “market-centered, purpose-driven” crap. Either one of two things will happen: either we’ll take back the Synod from these yuppy megachurch wanna-bes, or in 20 years, there won’t be a Missouri Synod anymore. Either one is fine with me, as long as my pastor is still faithfully preaching Christ crucified, and continues to give me His body and blood.
Oh, but in the mean time, we can still exhort (a better word than “complain”), and remind each other what it is that our grandfather’s church stood for, so that we don’t grow weary and give up the struggle.
I like what Mr. Peterson says.
I think it’s hard to know what to do.
I’m not willing to give up on the LCMS. I’m fortunate because my pastor is confessional and wonderfully Lutheran.
On the other hand, there are other Lutheran bodies out there that are faithful to the Scriptures and the Confessions and are liturgical. I get a little tired of hearing about “the beloved Synod.” What should be beloved is what we believe, teach, and confess.
This is a great question, Mollie. I’d like to hear others weigh in.
It’s clear that Issues Etc won’t be returning to KFUO’s airwaves, so I think the next step is for those of us who support confessional Lutheranism to get Todd and Jeff back on the air with another station. There can be no hard feelings on Synod’s part, if there was no motivation other than financial cuts, for eliminating the program. People in the know and with the expertise for getting something like this off the ground can step in and figure out what needs to happen to allow this audio beacon of Lutheranism to continue. I imagine that it’s quite a bit more complicated to get all new radio contracts, etc, but while all that stuff is being worked out, I imagine that it would be rather easy to get an Internet broadcast restarted almost immediately, and radio air time could follow as that is arranged. Someone else had pointed out that many congregations in regions beyond St. Louis had contracts with local stations to broadcast the show–those should be able to be reestablished, right? Apparently all the Reformation club and other donors are still around, right? I mean we signed the petition! And without being taxed 40 cents on the dollar, the money should go a lot further! This is a golden opportunity to show how confessional Lutheranism has vitality and magnetism, and a show like this can continue to be an impact in the church, culture, and world abroad. And I’m sure that Todd and Jeff have at least a months’ worth of ideas that have been missed, and I for one miss their cultural analysis and Christ-centered programming everyday!
Oh, I just read the Iowa District East post…I hope I’m not premature in asserting that KFUO won’t be reversing the cancellation of Issues. I hope that the resolution achieves its intended effect…but don’t these things tend to drag on forever? In the interim, can’t we get back at least an internet broadcast, and support the Wilken/Schwarz fund so that six months from now we won’t still be wondering? My first preference would be for KFUO to take Issues back, and maintain the honorable legacy of Christian broadcasting that it has, but in the meantime, is there any reason why some interim programming can’t happen? If Todd and Jeff steer clear of any discussion of the firing, but just continued their regular style of programming, would that in any way violate a gag order?
Since the expectations of Synod remind me of those the Catholic Church had when it presented the Confutation, we gave you answers now get in line, I’d like to see a document produced that at least gives a rough list of grievances or if necessary a list of actions and practices of specific churches or officials and explaining how they violate the confessions and synodical law. It would not only give confessional lutherans a document to rally behind and a clear voice in this matter but would also challenge synod to answer specific questions. If we can’t produce a document to articulate our questions surrounding the termination of Issues etc., our problems with their answers and of churches becoming more of the world than just in the world, since they all seem to be connected, then I don’t think any positive movement will solidify enough to force a proper response from synod. If the division within the LC-MS continues to be ignored by synod it will only get worse and worse and congregations will eventually begin leave just as has happened in other denominations. Since the 95 Theses were written to be approximately 100 points to debate, something of that format may be appropriate for this setting as well. Though a more fleshed out document similar to the Apology or Formula of Concord could be more thorough and avoid being dismissed as easily with poor responses. I also think that working on such a document can help us to refine our own arguments to ensure that poor arguments are not perpetuated by people with similar concerns and thus hurt the effort for answers and a church that stands by the Word of God and the Book of Concord, a genuinely Lutheran church. Even if we are proved wrong on some points, by at least initiating a proper discussion of grievances we can hope to have some semblance of unity within synod.
Don’t count your cows before the chickens come home to roost, as they say. I think you have a point. The Interweb is a good place to start. We could try to get Jeff and Todd to do some kind of web casting. Surely we could get a microphone or two, and a mixing console. Start putting new recordings on the Interweb. From there, they could try to get the stations that originally carried the program in syndication to broadcast the recordings.
I like Joshua’s idea! My husband was talking in the same way and this needs to be looked at as a proper response to what has happened. Something may take place to allow for KFUO to put them back, but we have to deal with the facts and what we know, not what might be, “tomorrow has enough worries of its own”. Also an internet broadcast can start reaching people for Christ sooner. This inter-LCMS stuff seems to be like the ever-ready batteries “they just keep going and going and going”.
In regards to F. Petersons response I would say I am happy for him but it is not just about the individual believer but about the body of Christ. We need to work together as a body, I hope we are not at the point of “I’ve got mine you go get yours”, or “every man for himself”. That may not be the intention but it is hard for me to not read it like that.
Start planning with fellow confessional Lutherans in your congregation and circuit on what (and who) to look for in a district and synod convention delegate, not just one of the “good ol’ boys”. Maybe some training should be considered for those who are selected on how to be an effective delegate. This means understanding Lutheran doctrine, distinguishing good and bad phrases in overtures and motions, and the ability to use Robert’s Rules of Order.
I realize we’re all assuming that Todd and Jeff want nothing more at the moment than to return to the air and give us our Issues fix again as soon as possible, but…
If rumors that the show will return in one form or another are true at all, we should work as quickly as possible to return the show to air, beginning with the internet broadcast, as Josh says. This could accomplish three things:
(1) It would show that we, clergy and laity together, CAN and WILL stand together to defend orthodox doctrine and teachers (beware, powers that try to be!).
(2) It would force the show’s cancelers to show their hand. What would they do if we solved their business stewardship and programmatic problems for them?
(3) It would be an even bigger thorn in the sides of those who oppose orthodox doctrine and practice. An independent program, I imagine, might not be so reticent to address the promotion of heterodoxy best practices within our our churches.
Anonymous’s suggestion of drafting a document enumerating our grievances and issues with the situation is also excellent. Reread his comment for the benefits of that action.
And one other thing–we could also implement Anonymous’s idea in a manner similar to the petition by placing it online and allowing supporters to sign it.
Here’s a thought….
1. Congregations must identify themselves as the holders of the Office of the Keys, over and against man made Synodical Entities. For a statement of this Biblical, Christ centered starting point, with plenty of Walther quotes, I invite folks to read my paper at the following site:
http://www.markvpublications.com/Keys_LCMS.pdf
2. Congregations should investigate other congregations in their circuit practicing open communion (this is a public not a private policy of that congregation, therefore it is every person’s right to know and judge if wrong) and make that a discussion in Bible class and Voter’s Assembly under the guidance of the Scriptures and Confessions. That is, raise the Biblical fellowship issue. The point of fellowship in identifying congregations practicing open communion (see my paper above) is that it is a public sin against the Second Commandment and an abuse of holy Communion (whose use is to sanctify / take away sin, not to affirm sin- that is its administration according to the GOSPEL).
3. Let the lines so form in the circutes and see what happens from there. Admonition can be given congregation to congregation and God-pleasing repentance my happen at the congregational level, or the lines with be formed.
Fellowship is not somthning that is institutional, nor can it be forced, it is to be recoqnized and that confesses and acted upon. First apply the test of the Marks of the Church recognize where fellowship exists and where it doesn’t and then act upon it prayerfully and thankfully to the LORD of the keys.
JRBaseley
Dearborn, MI
Josh -
This was my first inclination when I first heard about Issues being yanked (45 days ago today!). From what I understand, there are a few “sticking” points right now (last I understood, one of them was the conclusion of Todd and Jeff’s severance negotiations – I haven’t heard an update since Mollie briefed us on the BCS meeting).
But — to let you know, there is already a group that is working on this. For more info (and to find out how you can help) go to http://laymenetc.org
It’s not the way I would have done it personally, but… these are good people and seem to have it together and are making good progress…. not sure things would have progressed as far if I were to do it (see also – http://firstpersonlife.blogspot.com and http://uaclutheran.info )
Anyway, as others have said, what needs to happen is that we need to continue to “believe, teach, and confess.” That’s all that true Lutherans (from Martin onward) have *ever* done in religious matters.
What’s lacking, I think, is that being at the University in Wittenberg, Luther had a significant network built up. Also, with the printing press, his message was spread far and wide (often against his will).
What I think needs to happen is that we need to begin building productive, transparent networks so that we can support each other (especially getting professional church workers to support one another and share their efforts).
Too often, one of the following happens: (NOTE: I admit, I make sweeping generalizations below… which means it’s not absolutely the case for everyone, these are just trends I’ve noticed)
(1) [Most typical of good, solid, Lutheran congregations]
The pastors (and other professional church workers as well as the congregations as a whole) lose sight of the fact that “The Church” is more than just the local congregation – it is a universal reality.
They operate as Islands and their pastor operates “on his own” – which means, unless They’re using something published by someone else – they have to come up with ALL their own bible-study materials, VBS materials, Sunday School materials, as well as try to interact with their community (newspaper articles, etc), and produce all the content for the congregational newsletter. This is true even if there are multiple good, solid LC–MS congregations in a fairly small geographic area (i.e., within a city).
What’s worse, this means that members of those congregations have little in common with the other congregations around them and end up further isolating themselves. This is pretty befuddling in an era when communications is quick and (for the most part) easy.
It seems like some of this workload could be spread out among several congregations (e.g. pooling resources for a weekly newspaper column/radio broadcast/etc. to discuss religious issues, develop VBS materials, coordinate Sunday School and Bible Study lessons, not to mention being able to do multi-congregational service projects [habitat for humanity, etc.])
(2) Recognizing their isolation and the ability to coordinate, there is a belief that there needs to be a large organization set up to get things done. This is where we get the jokes about “How many Lutheran’s does it take to change a lightbulb?” — so boards and committees are set up to handle all the details – and then everyone is so burnt out that nobody is able/willing to do whatever it was they set out to do.
(3) OR – In an effort to pool resources, congregations and pastors are not discerning in whom they partner with so they end up partnering with the churches of whats-happenin-now that denies infant baptism/the real presence/etc. and begin downplaying the real doctrinal differences that exist in order to “get along” with one another and do the task at hand… leading to a loss of Lutheran identity (and sound doctrine)…
My opinion is we need to flatten (not do away with) most of the structures we impose on ourselves and think about new ways of sharing with each other what we’re working on and begin to work together when projects local to OUR congregation can be merged with a project of another congregation to take advantage of a larger pool of resources — that WAS the original point of Synod before Synodoracracy set in…
The technology for collaboration has changed from paper/pen which required people to be geographically close in order to do anything in a reasonable amount of time… we should start using it.
Anyway, I’ve rambled long enough for a comment… More of my thoughts (as I write them) on how such cooperation can happen even across large distances (and some tools to start doing it), can be found at http://uaclutheran.info
Matt
What to do?
It seems to me that the question is what to do long term short term in the local church and then what to do long term short term with respect to the denomination. Both Pastor Cwirla and a gentlemen at Extreme Theology have pointed out that the LCMS is following a plan set out by a Mr. Kotter; one of the more dangerous points of the plan is that they are determined to root this church growth idea in the denominational structure (as I understand it, church growth is already passe and the next wave is emergent church theology). We have a wonderful new medium, the web, which allows people to connect and organize and we should use it. We are blessed to have so many who are doing so.
At the level of the local church, we should continue to be confessional Lutherans. Focus on who God is and what He has done in Christ, the Word and Sacrament. But we also need to organize via the web with respect to the meeting in Houston (?); withhold funding from the denomination (I have read that the denomination takes a 40% skim from any money raised by sub groups such as KFUO); and plan to withdraw from the denomination and join with other local churches that are confessional rather than trying to hang on.
With respect to the LCMS (I have read that Luther thought the Pope was the antiChrist because of catholic teaching regarding the Gospel; the Pope added human works to that of Christ), I think we need to organize to try and elect someone who is confessional as President and if that fails to make plans to join with other confessional Lutherans to create a denomination that is confessional.
At my Church we have a recent graduate as our Pastor who is confessional and a fine young man. But what happens if he receives a call from another church. I realize these movements come and go. I am old enough to have had friends who spoke in tongues, but what strikes as really dangerous about these church growth types is that they want to capture the denominational structure to force the denomination to change. And they don’t tell you the truth when they talk to you (remember the joke about lawyers: how do you know when a lawyer is lying, he lips are moving). They may say Christ rose from the dead, but they don’t mean that in a literal sense, but they won’t speak plainly.
My two cents
Before we start creating a ‘movment’ (sorry had to throw that word in for the fun of it) perhaps we should consider whether Pastor Wilken or Mr. Schwarz actually want to repristinate Issues, etc. I don’t know Todd personally, but from what I’ve heard over the years I’m not sure he would want to establish an entity that is contra church so to speak. I’m not sure he want’s to be a voice outside the church speaking in. That is, an internet version of Herman Otten and Christian News. We already have an alternative youth organization (Higher Things) but the Synod ignores that and moves on with their own programs, wishing and hoping that those pesky ‘others’ would just go away. Again, is bringing back Issues somewhere else the best thing to do?
harrisonforpresident.org
One thought is to redirect financial support that you would otherwise give to synod instead to go directly to confessional Lutheran organizations, such as Higher Things, Augustana Ministerium, Lutheran Heritage Foundation, directly to LCMS World Relief IF we can be sure it would not be diverted to Ablaze!, Luther Academy, our seminaries, and, of course, Issues should it return in some form or place.
By the way, does anyone know if in fact money has been diverted from LCMS World Relief to Ablaze!? We have heard this, but I’m not interested in anyone’s heresay. If anyone knows for sure, could you please answer that? Thank you.
We could nail 95 theses to the door of the synodical office building:
http://adelphoitouchristou.typepad.com/savethelcms/a-new-95-theses.html
It would seem wise to have one spot or destination that would unite us in our news and updates. There are many confessional Lutheran sights out there, which is wonderful. However, I read above of action plans to get Pastor Wilken and Jeff back on the air and I read at another site (Laymen with Issues) that they are already working on this. A centralized point of information distribution will be essential to keeping everyone updated and also will be helpful in raising funds.
I had one other question….When will Pastor Wilken or Jeff actually speak about what occurred and how they wish to proceed from this point. I have spoken to a few folks that are on the fence until they actually hear from the men involved.
He is Risen!
News and updates can be submitted by ANYONE to: http://uaclutheran.info (click on the “Submit an Article” link on the left of the main page, or the “Contribute” link in menu across the top of the page) — this was one of the intents of this site.
[Anyone willing to help out culling through submitted articles (kind of like a "desk editor"), email dentm42 (at) yahoo {dot} com.]
As to “reinstating Issues” – visit http://laymenetc.org – they’re already working on it…
Rev. Cwirla,
The 95 Theses posted at Save the LCMS! are compelling…save for the fact that no one had the guts to put their name to it. As I posted there (and got no response), the author needs to step forward. These theses or an alternative could be very powerful–but anonymity isn’t.
For those of us that are not yet Lutheran and were listeners to Issues could there be a list complied of the congregations that are confessional and Christ-centered, Cross-focused preaching?
Aside from nailing 95 theses, here are some other thoughts:
1. Continue to preach, teach, and practice according to our Lutheran Confessions. These are what defines us as Lutherans.
2. Endeavor not to make the Lutheran road so narrow that no one but you and your two best friends can walk on it, yet not so broad as to lose the Lutheran distinctives.
3. Be willing to get your hands dirty in the politics of the synod, if you want to keep the LCMS. Be willing to step up and fill important positions. Today’s synodocracy didn’t happen overnight or by accident.
4. Recognize ties of fellowship where they already exist. There are plenty of confessional Lutherans out there, not under the institutional umbrella of the LCMS.
5. Be prayerfully patient. I think confessional Lutheranism is in a state of flux today as the old synodical structures deteriorate and new lines of fellowship are being laid down. You neither want to hasten nor hinder the process. It’s a little like cell division. A lot goes on before the cell wall forms and division takes place.
6. Don’t panic. God always has His remnant.
What now?
Well, considering that the synod is primarily a business whose leaders are elected through a political process, someone needs to be found who is popular, well-spoken and can garner the immediate support of us all. To continue to split our support among several presidential candidates will only result in making sure we never regain control of our synod. Present a single candidate and I have little doubt victory would be trivial.
How about Rev. Wilkins?
As much as I would like to see him return to Issues, Etc., he does have everything it would take to get him elected….solid theology, name recognition, popularity, excellent public speaking skills, etc.
Would he do it?
There’s got to be some sort of mechanism within the system to review actions to assure that they are in compliance with LCMS teachings and regulations.
We already know that several violations took place: a called pastor was fired without proof of false doctrine or immoral behavior, and the decision was made without the Board’s vote which I believe is required for anything like that to happen.
It’s also been pointed out that these churches without the name Lutheran are violating a synodical resolutions.
So is there no measure in any of synod’s policies to investigate and correct policy violations?
Does anyone know? If there isn’t, why not? We need one.
Regarding Mr. Petersons first statment. I also have a wonderfully confessional Pastor and he is training us in Bible Study to understand how “style and content” impact each other. It is a blessing to be where I am. But my heart still breaks for our brothers and sisters in other LCMS congregations who are loosing confessional faith and practice in their own congregations. There are many out there who are grieving and feeling helpless. As an aside, I wonder how many members have been lost in congregations that have adopted Ablaze! methods J(like JHC and many others throughout the synod)? I am sure they can tout their their “new members” but what is the accounting on lost members or members who stay because it’s “their church” but their heart is bleeding. I know that God will always have his remenant. When the LCMS finally splits, we have seen by this latest incident that we will have brothers and sisters to join with. But from what I’ve seen that takes a long time. I recomment to all who are reading Mollie’s wonderful blog to also take a look at the “Save the LCMS” blog and also”Laymen With Issues Etc”.
Its about leadership. People talk & nothing happens because no one steps up to lead. Kieschnick is a leader, a bad one, but a leader. In my opinion, the key players in the district and pastoral resolutions need to come together and send someone or a delegation to the palace to meet with the current head honcho and demand some changes. But as long as the COP issues non-dissenting statements and K keeps yelling 4 and 8 (with an emphasis on 4) nothing will happen. We need a leader with a true Christian heart and spirit. No more so called confessional loud mouth self-righteous folks who with their websites, email forums, and newspapers presume to tell everyone else what is right and correct and who will beat and bash all dissenters. Their public hatefulness killed the past conventions. We need a true genuine Christian leader who is brave and courageous to stand for the truth, can organize those who still desire to keep the best of our grandfather’s church but can do so in a kind, gentle, and pastoral way but without compromise – just no hatred like before.
How about a vote of no confidence in the current administration with a call for the resignation of President Kieschnick? Congregational / Circuit / and then District resolutions could be passed calling for such a vote, or they could even take such a vote and publish the results. This coupled with a restriction of funds to District and Synod until a new administration is in place is likely the only way to bring change. Remember though that the liberal elements of Synod maneuvered (Jesus First and their ilk) Kieschnick into power in the first place. First they drove change from the bottom up by staying hid and marshalling their political forces. Now they are driving change from the top down. The confessionals tried it too, but the problem in the previous rounds, as the previous post hit on, was the rudeness of some of the more visible leaders who some sort of need for attention.
Cathy Poindexter:
Who said anything about individualism? I’m talking about the Body of Christ doing what the Body of Christ is: that is, coming together to support the right proclamation of the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments. My initial proposal isn’t something that takes place apart from the Body of Christ, but, on the contrary, can only take place within the Body and for the support of the Body.
Mueller has a track record of confessional and pastoral leadership. He’d make a great president for the LCMS.
SID Board of Directors Weighs In
The Board of Directors
The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod
1333 S. Kirkwood Road
St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
Dear Friends in Christ Jesus on the Board of Directors of Synod and the Board for Communication Services:
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
We, the Board of Directors of the Southern Illinois District of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, wish to go on record in expressing our disappointment over the cancellation of Issues, Etc. This radio program has been a great blessing to the pastors and people of the Southern Illinois District and has reached people around the globe with the good news of Jesus Christ. Even though Issues could be controversial at times, it addressed the important issues facing the church today and excelled in defending the truth of the Christian faith. Those interested in apologetics and in a careful, thorough treatment of God’s Word have lost a valuable resource.
Furthermore, official explanations for the show’s cancellation have not answered many of the concerns expressed by the pastors and people of our district. Sadly, the cancellation of Issues has left many with the impression that certain voices in the church are being silenced. These impressions will persist without a full disclosure of the reasons for the show’s cancellation.
We also wish to express our concern over the hasty terminations of Rev. Todd Wilken and Mr. Jeffrey Schwarz, both of which belong to congregations in our district. From our vantage point, Rev. Wilken did an exemplary job as host of Issues and Mr. Schwarz an exemplary job as producer. These faithful servants of Christ were dismissed without any prior notification or expressions of appreciation. Secular businesses may operate this way, but we expect more compassion and brotherly concern among the people of God.
Therefore, we, the Board of Directors of the Southern Illinois District, respectfully request that you and the Board of Communication Services revisit your decision to terminate Issues, Etc., restore the program, and reinstate both Rev. Wilken and Mr. Schwarz to their positions. We also request a full disclosure of the reasons why this show was cancelled. Too many concerns have been raised to keep your proceedings and rationale for termination a private matter. We urge that this issue be approached openly and in a spirit of love, asking the Holy Spirit to guide us and work among us as we fix our eyes and message on Jesus.
Respectfully in Christ,
Rev. Antonin Troup, District Secretary
Rev. Herbert Mueller, District President, SID
[This letter was adopted in the regular meeting of the Southern Illinois District Board of Directors on April 26, 2008.]
Yes, first check on the willingness of Todd and Jeff, allow time. Doing this to continue the work, not to get back at or rip admin, that, at this point will only make any path harder. Getting people to start sitting up and taking notice is a big first step.
Could create a media/ Internet financially supporting group, can such a group then extend an official “call” to them? Sounds too simple to be possible. Could ask already supportive districts to support a new ministry?
Possible do the subscriber at a very reasonable rate route. Maybe stream free, listen on demand at cents an hour.
Probably, internet is best, and least expensive to maintain, and likely to reach most anyway. Would have the longest long program life possibility.
And also, Pastor Cwirla’s list of considerations is well worth pondering.
Six is an unlucky number. Let’s shoot for seven.
7. Keep writing, thinking, analyzing, and discussing (not just among ourselves but with anyone who is willing to engage). Don’t let theological issues get swept under the purple rug of task force reports, CCM and CTCR edicts, or even convention resolutions.
As I wrote elsewhere, divisions such as these can serve to sharpen and define the debate. We need to seriously analyze the trends that are blowing through the church today – emergent church, seeker-sensitive church, purpose-driven church, as well as some fundamental presuppositions such as form/substance, doctrine/practice not to mention a proper hermeneutic and articulation of our confession.
>>someone needs to be found who is popular, well-spoken and can garner the immediate support of us all. To continue to split our support among several presidential candidates will only result in making sure we never regain control of our synod. Present a single candidate. . . .How about Rev. Wilkins?<<
Well, it doesn’t speak well for his name recognition, if the person promoting him can’t even get his name right! :-)
I kid. But it is “Wilken,” not “Wilkins.”
Anyhoo, you are on the right track. A change in the synod president would be a major step in the right direction. But the person I think who has the best chance to beat Kieschnick is Matt Harrison, and for the reasons you listed. Next in my opinion would be John Wohlrabe, also a good guy.
Remember, each congregation can nominate two men for SP. At this point I think Harrison and Wohlrabe are the two names to nominate. Then we can see which gets the more nominations and all get behind that one name.
Also remember, there will be five names on the ballot for SP. Three of them are likely to be on our side, two on the Kieschnick side. That’s OK. The winner must get 51%, not just a plurality (like Clinton), so a little “splitting” is not disastrous–as long as we keep our votes in line on succeeding ballots, as our own favorite drops off. That’s what JesusFirst did in 2001–the Muchow votes all went over to Kieschnick when Muchow dropped off. Kieschnick never led until the fourth and final ballot.
That said, it is advantageous to get behind one guy, and I think the one with the best chance is Harrison.
>>Mueller has a track record of confessional and pastoral leadership. He’d make a great president for the LCMS.<<
He certainly is in the SP/1VP mix, which, right now, I see as consisting of four names on our side:
Matt Harrison, WR&HC
John Wohlrabe, 3VP
Herb Mueller, SIDP
Daniel Preus, former 1VP
(D. Preus, btw, is the only man, besides JK, to receive enough nominations to make the SP ballot the last three times.)
Three of these four names will be on the ballot for SP–probably Harrison, Wohlrabe, and Mueller. And three will be on the ballot for 1VP–probably Mueller, Preus, and Wohlrabe.
That’s my educated guess from two years out.
We must never give up the battle for the truth. We must keep our protest going. They think we will huff and puff a short time and then go away. They need to find out we will not go away because we stand on the truth.
They had to cheat and steal the election to hold the power they now have. You can be sure they are full of fear for their power. When you cheat and steal something from someone else you have to fear somone more clever than you may take it away from you also.
As I teach my own congregation from God’s word, I am finding that we need a new confession to clarify what is of God and what is not. Most folks in the congregation I serve hear the Word of Christ and accept it. A few do not however.
What is needed is for God’s faithful people to gather around a confession of His word. This is what the original Lutherans did and it is what is needed today.
The errors of the church growth movement are not as clear cut as the errors of Romanism but I am convinced that it is possible to set forth a “Formula of Concord” like confession that asserts the truth and denies what is false. (It is the denial that is most important in this case. The Church Growthers are adept at claiming to be confessional. We must clearly state what it is about thier practice that we reject.)
Once such a confession is drawn up, congregations one by one can consider it in thier voters assemblies and at the end of the day, those who confess it are one and those who reject it are not.
Such an exercise is not intended to be schismatic. Instead, it is intended to be uniting. it is intended to be uniting in the only way we can be united, around the confession of God’s word.
According to Bylaw 3.10.1, “The President and vice-presidents of the Synod in line of succession and the district presidents shall comprise the Council of Presidents.”
Does anyone know where 3VP John Wohlrabe and SIDP Herb Mueller were when the April 22 COP meeting adopted the Statement on the “Discontinuation” of Issues, Etc. with no dissenting votes?
According to Bylaw 3.10.1, “The President and vice-presidents of the Synod in line of succession and the district presidents shall comprise the Council of Presidents.”
Does anyone know where 3VP John Wohlrabe and SIDP Herb Mueller were when the April 22 COP meeting adopted the Statement on the “Discontinuation” of Issues, Etc. with no dissenting votes?
It pleases me to see the number of comments this place gets on a daily basis.
If I’m not mistaken, it’s actually picking up rather than dying down.
This comforts me a great deal. I think it’s pretty clear that we’re not going to just shut up and take it like they want us too.
[...] What do we do? Okay, we’ve spent more than enough time figuring out that we’ve got some problems on our hands. We tried [...] [...]
“One thought is to redirect financial support that you would otherwise give to synod instead to go directly to confessional Lutheran organizations, such as Higher Things, Augustana Ministerium, Lutheran Heritage Foundation, directly to LCMS World Relief IF we can be sure it would not be diverted to Ablaze!, Luther Academy, our seminaries, and, of course, Issues should it return in some form or place. ”
To this I add the caveat: only those organizations which open their ledgers to scrutiny. Those which don’t open their books are not worthy of support.
[...] is larger than a radio program. For those who realize the Lutheran identity is being lost the question has been posed. Okay, we’ve spent more than enough time figuring out that we’ve got some problems on our [...]
IMO, the only way that getting Jeff and Todd back on the air could be perceived as “contra-church” or as another Internet version of Christian news, would be if Synod “showed their hand” as someone pointed out above. If we grant them the benefit of the doubt, that the official story they are sticking to is true…about all the financial woes…then they would have no grounds to object to a resurrection of Issues Etc. In fact they might even want to applaud it, if prior BCS statements about the success and efficacy of the broadcast are true. :)
As far as trying to elect Wilken, I’d have to agree with Rev. Henrickson about Rev. Harrison being the best candidate. I think the reaction to Wilken would be much like King Ahab’s ironic reaction to Elijah…”Is it you, you troubler of Israel?” Elijah replied, “I have not troubled Israel, but you have, and your father’s house, because you have abandoned the commandments of the LORD and followed the Baals.” (1 Kings 18:17-18) I think Rev. Wilken is getting the typical ungrateful response against a faithful prophet.
My concern about the whole thing is that we have a great deal of lay people and pastors who are actively taking up this issue, but there are multitudes more who don’t know or could care less. Not that they would even be against the show, but that they’ve never heard it or understood what happened. Many of them would probably even enjoy the show if they had heard it (I suspect this would be true of many in my congregation, few of whom have ever heard it). This majority of people, it seems to me, would be likely to have Ahab’s reaction of “It is you, troubler of Israel?” So in other words, the blame falls on us for stirring things up, even though it was the abrupt cancellation of the show, the dubious practices in Synod, and the unsatisfactory explanations for the cancellation that are the cause of all the trouble.
So lets get them back on the air! I applaud the efforts of those who are already organizing!
Perhaps it is time for faithful LCMS congregations to leave the LCMS and to reform a type of Synodical Conference with the WELS/ELS.
I think we would all see a great benefit from this type of action. You could help restore a higher view of the OHM and the liturgy within the synod to which I am currently affliated. I think this is an easier job than reforming Kieschnick and his ilk.
Yes to Harrison. He is a wonderful combination–great theologian combined with compassion and humility.
I agree with Joshua; there are multitudes of people who don’t know or could care less about Issues Etc. Dare I say that that’s even true about the church growth movement in general? Is my perception true, that there are even sincere and honest pastors who are infected with church growth thinking without selling out to the movement entirely? It’s these pastors who concern me; mine is one of them. He’s generally sound in preaching and teaching, but has followed the crowd and sometimes been a bit fuzzy in practice. I have tried to talk with him about style/substance issues with limited success. I’m concerned that a new confession such as called for by Pr. Rossow might not reach a number of pastors and lay people who have been deluded by the church growth types who (as he says) are really good at sounding deceptively confessional. One way I’ve gained some ground recently with my pastor is by talking, not about the theology of the church growth movement, but its inherent philosophy and practice. Talking about deception, dishonest political and marketing maneuvers, and loveless rejection of people who get in the way of the “program” have gained me a hearing where pure theology did not. Could Issues Etc. become an “Exhibit A” for talking winsomely with some pastors and lay leadership who sit in the middle without thinking in depth about important concerns?
Words fail to describe just how sad I am that Issues, Etc. is off the air. I’m a law student so I don’t have time to devote to this movement, but I will never forget the actions of these LCMS leaders…so sad and disappointing.
I agree Marty Clark that much can be gained by convincing the mushy middle (like your pastor) that synodical leaders have practiced untoward political maneuvers in the case of Issues, Etc. and in other instances.
At the end of the day however, we are not left with much if that is all to which they will agree. They need to be asked to confess that the church is not to be organized around small groups, that a psychological and sociological presentation of the faith is contrary to God’s word, that leadership (and other sociological topics) are not fundamental to the faith, so forth and so on.
The church is founded on the pure teaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments according to Christ’s command. Ultimately it is only an afirmation of the pure Gospel and a rejection of what is false that brings true outward unity to the body of Christ. That is what the original reformers did and that is what is good for the church today.
I think you are on the right track by discussing the fundamental principles of the church growth movement but in the end, if our differences are not reducible to affirmations and rejections then I am not sure that we really have differences. I do beleive we have real differences and hope to contribute to a solution. Once we get the Brothers of John the Steadfast off the ground (www.laymenetc.org) I hope to see some of the brightest lights of the confessional movement put pen to paper and provide us with the necessary affirmations and rejections to give voice to the unity we have in Christ’s word in this post-modern age.
What do we do now? Work and pray.
I vote for Pr. Baseley’s suggestion.
Has anyone thought of doing something like the American Anglican Council? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anglican_Council)
I know we have the Augustana Ministerium, but I don’t really know much about it (or if it involves the laity). Perhaps we could have a network of parishes that have a common focus. Each parish affiliated could agree to the following points (or something similar):
1. To use a synodically approved hymnal only.
2. To agree to the historic and loving practice of closed communion.
3. To affirm AC XIV in practice as well as on paper.
4. To cooperate in mission work (that conforms to Lutheran theology).
5. Other points which I can’t think of at the moment.
Any thoughts?
Sorry…just looked at my last post. I need to proofread better. Here’s another point they could agree to:
6. To avoid the excessive use of parenthesis.
Mr. Henrickson, thank you for your posts. I have a question. Say the convention arrives and there are two groups, group 1 and group 2; and there are two candidates put forth by group 1 and 4 candidates put forth by group 2 for the first ballot.
So, just before the first ballot, one of the candidates put forth by group 1 throws his support to the other candidate. The supporters of group 1 are united behind one candidate; the supporters of group 2 split their vote among their 4 candidates. Who wins the nomination.
Would it be possible to have the 4 candidates in group 2 decide before the convention which of them would stand for election. Further, would it be possible to determine before the convention which congregations support a candidate from group 2 and make sure that everyone shows up so that they are united behind one candidate.
Mr. Henrickson, thank you for your posts. I have a question. Say the convention arrives and there are two groups, group 1 and group 2; and there are two candidates put forth by group 1 and 4 candidates put forth by group 2 for the first ballot.
So, just before the first ballot, one of the candidates put forth by group 1 throws his support to the other candidate. The supporters of group 1 are united behind one candidate; the supporters of group 2 split their vote among their 4 candidates. Who wins the nomination.
Would it be possible to have the 4 candidates in group 2 decide before the convention which of them would stand for election. Further, would it be possible to determine before the convention which congregations support a candidate from group 2 and make sure that everyone shows up so that they are united behind one candidate.
First of all, there won’t be one candidate on one side and four on the other. It will be two and three.
The JesusFirst side will have at least two candidates, Kieschnick and one other, token guy, probably their 1VP candidate, which means, probably Diekelman. Since Kieschnick is the incumbent, they will be backing him. And since congregations get two nominations, they will also have another name on the ballot, even though they all are really backing Kieschnick.
The confessional/conservative side will have at least two names, probably three, on the ballot. Harrison and Wohlrabe are locks.
The fifth name on the ballot is a “wild card,” but that person, along with Diekelman, will be the first ones to drop off if there are multiple ballots.
Remember, the winner has to get 50% + 1, not just a plurality. No Ross Perot Effect.
The key is to be united behind *two candidates*, or even three, if we have three on the ballot. The delegates on our side have to remain on our side when their own personal favorite drops off.
Even though the 2001 election went to four ballots, we effectively lost after the first ballot, when about 20 Hartwig votes migrated over to the Kieschnick/Muchow side instead of staying on the Wenthe/Preus side. The fact that the lib/growther side was “split” between Kieschnick and Muchow didn’t matter, because all the Muchow votes went to Kieschnick. The fact that the confessional/conservative side was “split” between Wenthe and Preus didn’t matter, because all the Preus votes went to Wenthe. Ballot discipline overcomes multiple candidates.
What is more important is what takes place *long before* the convention. Two things: Delegates and nominations. If we elect more voting delegates than they do, we will win. And if we generate more congregational nominations for our guy(s) than they do for Kieschnick, we will win. Both those things happen months *before* the convention. And we must be diiligent and get organized and see that those two things happen.
The convention is decided *long before* it actually meets.
When I say, “united behind *two candidates*,” that means you DON’T BASH the one that is not your personal favorite. For example, suppose your personal favorite is John Wohlrabe. Fine. Just don’t *bash* Matt Harrison! Make clear that we have *two* fine candidates, and that if either one wins, hooray!
And when nomination totals are announced a few months before the convention, and it turns out, say, that Harrison has a lot more nominations than Wohlrabe, then get behind Harrison (even though Wohlrabe is your personal favorite), because you realize Harrison has the best chance to win.
Or vice versa.
Charles Henrickson wrote: “What is more important is what takes place *long before* the convention. Two things: Delegates and nominations. If we elect more voting delegates than they do, we will win. And if we generate more congregational nominations for our guy(s) than they do for Kieschnick, we will win. Both those things happen months *before* the convention. And we must be diiligent and get organized and see that those two things happen.”
And then the synod will be united? Or will we still be split 50-50 & the liberals & neo-evangelicals will go into duck & cover mode until the next election, betting on the good possibility that a confessional or conservative administration will not use the same strong arm political tactics on them that they used on us?
I don’t disagree with you on the fact that electing a confessional/conservative would be far preferable to what we have now, but I think we need to put out an idea of what a confessional administration would look like & what expectations of it should be.
Because, frankly, if the next confessional president, if we ever have one again, is going to be left with a divided & financially bankrupt synod, a COP which is opposed to him, & a synodical bureaucracy which is opposed to him, what are we going to get? A strong confessional voice who is ineffectual administratively or a hatchet man who dismantles, using presidential fiat & a handpicked CCM, the bad structure of the synod & drives out the libs & neo-evangelicals. leaving us a broken & financially ruined synod?
Just questions I think we need some answers to, before we set our messianic hopes on the next election.
Just want to clarify to Pr. Rossow that I agree there are indeed serious theological issues that the mushy middle is, well, mushy about! I simply want to go on hoping that that could change for some if we don’t give up winsomely approaching them, as I haven’t given up on my beloved pastor. Not everyone, not even pastors, is a deep thinker, and too many just don’t take the time and effort to think through the presuppositions and implications of certain practices.
As you have said, the issues of church growth are not as clearcut as those of Luther’s Reformation. No, nor even as clearcut as our split in the 70s. That’s why there is a mushy middle, I’m convinced. And lots of dear and sincere pastors and people there. My heart cries out against splitting too soon. I know which way I’d have to go, but I’d have to leave a lot of precious people behind.
Finally, I didn’t mean to imply that I only want to get the mushy middle to agree on nasty politics. My dearest wish is to see my pastor (who is the only person I have any personal hope of influencing) to see the theological issues more clearly. Political issues are giving me a hearing with him. The connection that needs to be made, I believe, is that what has been happening politically is INTRINSICALLY part and parcel of the philosophy and practice of the church growth movement. Lots of people have pointed out the nasty corporate model it comes from. I’m just suggesting we use that as a starting point and take it further. It’s working for me, so far.
Mr. Henrickson:
Thank you for your reply. It is much appreciated.
You wrote: What is more important is what takes place *long before* the convention. Two things: Delegates and nominations. If we elect more voting delegates than they do, we will win. And if we generate more congregational nominations for our guy(s) than they do for Kieschnick, we will win. Both those things happen months *before* the convention. And we must be diiligent and get organized and see that those two things happen.
Could you answer another question for me. What do we in the pew need to do?
Something else that we need to start doing is to be more proactive on the “issue” votes that are brought before the convention. Here’s and example of what I mean:
We have had several CTCR documents over the years that address the role of women in the church. The opposition has the plan of forcing the study of that issue over and over again until they get the result that they want (women’s ordination). So let’s start drafting a resolution along these lines:
Whereas we as Lutherans believe that the Word of God is infallible and does not change, and
Whereas the question of a woman’s role in the church has been studied numerous times over the recent past, including (and list all of the documents put forth on this issue), and
Whereas we are called to be good stewards of both time and talents (including financial resources),
Therefore be it Resolved that the Synod in Convention declare this issue settled and be it further
Resolved that this topic will no longer be considered by future conventions of the LCMS, and be it further
Resolved that the financial resources that would normally be wasted on further study of this topic be re-allocated to the seminaries for the training of men preparing for the pastoral ministry.
I think that something along those lines would at least open the eyes of some people as to how much time and money is being wasted on studying an issue that should have been settled long ago. Especially if we spell out the waste in as much detail as we possibly can. In my humble opinion this is one more thing that we should be doing.
Yes Marty you are correct, the timing is everything. If highlighting the underhanded deeds of the other side helps us to get the mushy middle to be more open to sound theology and the sound practice that flows from it, then it is good to be patient. “How long?” is the question. I do not have the answer.
Should we abandon the notion of syod. No, I believe that synods are Biblical. (Marquart makes it clear in his book that in the New Testament “church” applies to the local congregation and to groups of churches.) I also believe that synods are only as good as the confession to which they subscribe.
Having said this, I agree with Haylor above. Eleections are imporant but do not bring unity. Only the Word of Christ does that. I have a huge amount of respect for my brother Pastor Henrickson and I am glad that there are people like him crunching the numbers to elect men who confess the pure Gospel, and I will follow his lead. However, elections and beauracratic decisions (to fire or even to rehire Pastor Wilken and Jeff S.) do not bring unity. At the end of today, as things stand in the LCMS today, after any vote there willbe approximately 50% of the pastors who oppose the other 50% in doctrine and practice. This I believe needs to be addressed with a new confession that sorts out one from another.
Come on…I mean, honestly. We hear this every convention. “Just unite behind one candidate and we’ll win!” Didn’t happen last convention…or the one before it. Who’s to say there won’t be Gerrymandering again? He got away with it last time without so much as a slap on the wrists. Remind me…how did that lawsuit turn out? That’s right; it didn’t change anything. People can whine all they want about how slim a margin he won by last time, but the fact is HE STILL WON.
Besides, even if someone more confessional did win (and that’s a snowball’s chance in hell…all the confessionals were sure he’d lose last time) do you really think that’s going to change anything? The majority of people in the pews will go on being blissfully ignorant as long as nothing disrupts the LCMS brand name. How is the synodical president really going to change anything? Sure, the brochures coming out of the Purple Palace will be less nauseating but if he does anything perceived as high-handed he’ll be out the next time around because he’ll be branded as a ‘controlling, unloving confessional.’ People certainly have fond memories of A.L. Barry, but he certainly didn’t stem the tide of this evangelical/emergent garbage either.
Let’s be honest with ourselves…if people didn’t oust Kieschnick after supporting a syncretistic worship service, do you really think axing a radio show while maintaining plausible deniability will galvanize the entire synod to action?
And with all due respect MJM…resolutions? C’mon. How many resolutions do we have on the books now that no one can/will enforce? Didn’t someone cite a resolution in Mollie’s last post about keeping ‘Lutheran’ on church signs? That didn’t really work out. What we don’t need are more documents and bylaws that nobody reads or cares about.
I don’t mean to rain on your parade here, but let’s wake up to reality, people. The only way we’re going to stay afloat is for one of three things to happen:
1. Jesus comes again, saving us from dealing with it.
2. We split in an organized way.
3. We catechize the crap out of the LAITY so that the factory worker sitting in the pew can tell you why this stuff is nonsense and why he won’t tolerate it.
Personally, I’d go for number three. The time when laymen force the pastor to put the praise band out of its misery (and not the other way around) is when real change is going to happen.
And Marty, we will always have squishy pastors sitting on the fence who will do whatever the majority of their congregation tells them. If they are telling him to do theologically sound things, however, the problem solves itself.
Keep on your pastor. But also try not to go it alone if possible. One parishioner airing grievances is one thing, but there is power in numbers. Do what you can to get solid theology to your brothers and sisters in the congregation too.
Sorry…don’t mean to be harsh, people. I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings, as we are all looking for answers here. We just need to be realistic.
Change CAN happen. Just look at the Tractarians. Getting there is going to be one hell of a fight, though.
An informed laity is an empowered laity.
A happy clappy laidty that relies on its emotions to know that “church has done its work” is the laity that can be led.
My dad once said, “We know what we believe.” Continue to teach it, support those organizations who teach it properly. If the synod splits, so blessed WHAT? It’s a synod, it’s not Christ. In Him we have all our hope.
Thus i don’t support LCMS, I do support those organizations that teach true Christianity. I’ll support the return IE to the air and the continuation of other truly Lutheran teachers on the air.
Kieschnick and his ilk want things their way, and blatantly work to change other people to be like them. We shouldn’t be so wordly. We should shake their dust off our feet and keep on keepin’ on.
Good point Deb. We need more organizations like Higher Things, IE, the soon to be Brothers of John the Steadfast, etc. (and working outside of official Synodical control) so you can do just that.
And if you intentionally quoted the movie Joe Dirt in your last sentence I want to buy you a beer.
Fyi, synod posted an Issues Etc. Q & A on their website. http://www.lcms.org/
We could always capitulate.
But, instead of falling prey to the cheesy, low-goal ablaze movement, we could join the Synergize! movement!
http://www.synergize.tv/index.html
Instead of going after only a paltry 100,000,000 souls, we should be going after a solid 1,000,000,000! And the good news is that we wouldn’t even have to leave our LCMS churches to do it!
Here is the link straight to the q&a pdf file:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Communications/issuesqanda.PDF
This is the direct link to the q&a PDF file:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/Communications/issuesqanda.PDF
As regards the faq on Issues Etc on the synodical website, one can only say that the BCS is in full CYA mode. All of the information they provided in the faq could have been provided in a timely fashion & without the half truths & figures massaging that David Strand appeared to do.
Anyway, I’m sure Mollie & others who have been involved in radio will be able to tear apart the faq, which still leaves substantial questions.
HROOUUUM! HRUUUM! Nooow leeet’s noooot beeee haaaastyyyyy!
All I ever wanted was to be left in peace to shepherd my flock of trees. But The Purple Isengard is Ablaze! Hacking, burning, destroying everything I hold dear!
Aw, Screw It!
*chucks boulder at Purple Isengard”
What to do next? All politics is local. The deligates to the National Synod Convention are elected in the local circuits. Informed laity listened to Issue, etc. and can get elected at their local circuits to go to the National Synod Convention.
alien ELCA refugee wrote: “Informed laity listened to Issue, etc. and can get elected at their local circuits to go to the National Synod Convention.”
And if they’re going to get elected, they’d better do it this time because after the next convention the administration will probably have its structural revisions to synod done, which will give larger, re: less lutheran churches, more voting delegates.
After that happens, there’s no hope for this synod politically, structurally, or corporately, & probably not theologically either.
But then we shouldn’t hope in the synod anyway. We should place our trust & hope in God. TLH #260, folks.
What? You expect the LORD to keep us steadfast to His Word, and not flashy marketing schemes and lively rock music?