Brandon Booth
MollieMore media coverage of Issues, Etc.
Synodical officials aren’t permitting any coverage of the events surrounding Issues, Etc., but that isn’t keeping other media outlets from reporting on the situation.
In World magazine, LCMS journalist, author, scholar Gene Edward Veith reports on what happened with Issues, Etc.
‘Issues’ no longer
Cancellation of LCMS radio show raises ruckus
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has 2.4 million members, a vigorous Christ-centered theology, and the largest Protestant network of Christian schools. And yet much of Christendom and the secular culture hardly knows it exists. So a hallmark of synodical president Gerald Kieschnick’s administration has been the “Ablaze” program, focusing on personal witnessing, church planting, and evangelism.
So why did that administration suddenly eliminate what may be its best known, most respected, and most effective vehicle for evangelizing the lost, interacting with other Christians, and bringing Lutheranism into the public square?
Issues, Etc. was a radio talk show hosted by Todd Wilken, a pastor who combined wit, charm, and theological substance. The show’s producer, Jeff Schwarz, arranged conversations with theological heavyweights (Alister McGrath, N.T. Wright) and lightweights (Bishop Spong, Jesus Seminar members). He also put together discussions of movies, politics, and contemporary cultural issues. (Disclosure: I belong to the LCMS and was a guest on the show.)
Much of the show’s content appealed to Christians of all stripes, but it was also distinctly Lutheran. Many people reported becoming converted to Christianity through Issues, Etc. Many listeners became Lutherans.
Then on March 18, Wilken and Schwarz were called to LCMS headquarters in St. Louis. David Strand, executive director of the Board for Communication Services, told them they were fired. According to an official statement from the LCMS, the show was canceled because it was too expensive to operate and did not reach a big enough audience.
Fans of the show suspected another reason: The mode of outreach the current LCMS administration favors comes from the church growth movement, which Issues, Etc. consistently criticized.
Under church growth methodology, traditional worship styles, theological rigor, and denominational distinctives can be “obstacles” to church growth. Being “negative,” as in theological polemics of the sort that Issues, Etc. was known for, “turns people off.”
Though Issues, Etc. was careful to avoid intra-LCMS controversies, recent programs included hard-hitting critiques of Islam, women’s ordination, and superstar preacher Joel Osteen. Such treatments could only be embarrassing for officials wanting to project a kinder, gentler Lutheranism.
But when news of the cancellation came out, the blogosphere erupted. An online petition to bring back the show collected over 7,000 signatures. Congregations and entire denominational districts registered their disapproval.
The last time grassroots Missouri Synod Lutherans got this angry was in the “Battle for the Bible” of the 1970s. Then the issue was whether the LCMS would reject biblical authority to join mainline liberal Protestantism. Now the issue is whether the denomination will reject its theological identity to join generic megachurch Protestantism.
And those are “Issues” not just for Lutherans, but for the Reformed, Baptists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, and every other Christian tradition.
Filed under: Updates
From Veith’s recent book: The Soul of Prince Caspian. “We need Christian scholars in every field. Nudging the dominant worldviews in a more biblical direction requires action on a number of different fronts. As Lewis himself said, ‘What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians on other subjects- with their Christianity latent.’”
As a Lutheran pastor I can’t say how much I am encouraged by the Mollies, Genes, and Jeffs (Schwartz) of this world.
Not only are you gifts in “nudging the dominant worldviews” in culture, but I would also say that your work in your respective fields is also a gift (and lightening rod I would assume) at this moment toward challenging dominant worldviews within the church. Thank You.
Rev. Rufner: Well said. Thanks.
Another amen to Rev. Ruther.
And a third amen!
Forgive me if this as already been mentioned but I see that President Kieschnick’s Bio on wikipedia has been updated to include the Issues, Etc controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_B._Kieschnick. Guess this would fall under Reference Media?
Mollie has done an awesome job keeping up on all of this for all of us.
The Ohio District should recommend that she get 25-cents a “hit”. This is almost like a full-time job for her — something which she does not for personal gain but does it all for the love of what Issues, Etc. offers and represents.
While we’re commending the Mollies, Genes, Jeffs, and Todds, I think it’s also time for the dedicated Augsburg1530 readers to take note of who has NOT gone public in support of Issues, Etc.
You may recall names which have been noteworthy for workshop lectures or seminary professorships or whatever. Shouldn’t we ask why THEY have not come out in vocal support of Issues, Etc. and in public protest of the Kieschnick administration? Should they not have used their expertise and renown to speak out sharply and and to go into print openly against the theology and practice of Ablaze!?
If ever the synod gets turned around, be careful of those who remained silent when it might have been “dangerous” to confess the truth — but who all of a sudden want to be recognized as leaders in the church. They are the ones who have turned their godly calling into a religious “career.” They have exchanged vocational faithfulness for job security.
I think that might be a bit harsh… in most cases that’s like saying the same of any parish pastor. I happen to know that many of our professors (at least at the seminary level) are seriously overworked. Some are taking on overloads of classes and others are remaining faithful to their calling long after they could have retired - because they are committed to their tasks.
I think it’s legitimate to ask the question about why they were silent, but I’m not sure we should assume it was because they chose to remain silent “when it might have been ‘dangerous’ to confess the truth…” Often times, it’s simply because they were being faithful with what they have been given and not arrogating to themselves something which has not been given to them.
Okay. Overworked.
They’re too busy to stand up and say that the firing of Wilken and Schwarz was wrong and they’re too committed to their task to state publicly that the Ablaze! movement in the majority of its methods an content is contrary to the Gospel.
Just what IS their task as pastors and professors if it is not to address the dangers confronting the church here and now? Is it their vocation to wax eloquently on the details of the 4th Lateran Council in such a way that they don’t have enough time to stand up against the theology and practice of the Ablaze! movement? Do they have to spend all their time to distinguishing between Patripassionism and opera ad extra indivisi sunt so that they can’t be bothered with what’s going on regarding Issues, Etc. and Ablaze! rallies in their own districts?
Is it “arrogating to themselves something which has not been given to them” if they would have spoken out against Issues, Etc. and Ablaze!? Are these matters private — or are they affecting the church at large? Do pastors and professors have any responsibility to speak to the church at large when such movements are afoot?
Conversely, are those pastors who have chosen to speak out — yes, sharply at times — being unfaithful to their vocation when they speak out against what they see being foisted upon the church at large because they took the time to go on record?
Are there legitimate reasons for remaining silent? I’ll grant that there may be — just as I grant that there are reasons for people using pseudonyms for posting comments on blogs. But I will use my own name and I will speak up — even sharply if that is what it takes to rouse people to action — until such time as I may lay aside strong words when we are united with one voice and one confession, one heart and mind in Christ Jesus.
There are those of us who are willing to suffer the consequences of appearing to be too harsh if only people will be stirred out of their lethargy and complacency and lukewarmness.
I find it ironic that people will castigate me for speaking too strongly but they will not likewise publicly take to task those who are perpetrating such horrible theology and confounding Law and Gospel so miserably among us.
If I have been a bit too harsh, then I deserve to be admonished. I shall apologize and ask you to forgive me. But when I see the mass denigration of our Lutheran identity proceeding by leaps and bounds and I happen to speak strongly against those who claim to be faithful but who choose to remain silent on a matter that is so urgent — I just might in fact sound a bit too harsh.
Pastor Brondose, thank you for your strong and needed words! Truly taking a stand in defense of the Gospel of Jesus Christ means by default we stand against error of any kind. In your post, you articulate so clearly what taking sucha firm stand means.
Of course, we all know that in saying “we take our stand,” we stand firm not in ourselves but in the grace of Christ Jesus alone who died and rose for us. (Rom. 5:1-2.
I continue to pray for those professors ad synodical leaders who have spoken out against Ablaze and against the unjust firings of Confessional pastors/missionaries. Such professors and leaders know the line of fire in which they stand and yet are willing to endure it by the grace of God. In the words of our rich hymnody, we pray, “Lord, keep us steadfast in Your Word.”
David Roenkoetter
Matt. 28:19-20
Don’t get me wrong - I applaud (and continue to pray for) all those who have chosen to speak out - parish pastor, professor, laymen alike. It’s important that they speak out and it’s important that bad theology be exposed.
–”They’re too busy to stand up and say that the firing of Wilken and Schwarz was wrong and they’re too committed to their task to state publicly that the Ablaze! movement in the majority of its methods an content is contrary to the Gospel.”–
It seems to me a better use of time for professors (seminary and undergraduate) who are dedicated to training “the next generation” - if they spent it soundly teaching their students how to identify and avoid bad theology for themselves instead of spoon feeding them the “right” answers. With so many of our students who would “cooperate to graduate,” a certain reticence to speaking publicly on these matters makes sense. It’s easier to weed out or correct the theology of the student if they aren’t parroting back what they think you want to hear.
Therefore, I can see very legitimate pedagogical reasons for some to remain silent “publicly” while still working where possible to affect change and teach according to the truth.
–”Conversely, are those pastors who have chosen to speak out — yes, sharply at times — being unfaithful to their vocation when they speak out against what they see being foisted upon the church at large because they took the time to go on record?”–
Certainly not! They are to be commended for their forthrightness and it is certainly part of their vocation to speak to the church at large in such a forthright manner. Such confessing pastors are what is needed most. It is important to encourage others (laity and clergy alike) to be so forthright.
My concern is in the public castigation of others who choose to fight the battle in a manner different than you might wish. I would rather the good, confessing professors keep their jobs (not for their own sake, but for the sake of the church) and continue training our future leaders than have them canned and replaced with sycophants who would “toe the party line.”
If you have evidence that they have “turned their godly calling into a religious ‘career.’” beyond their reticence to speak in a manner you would dictate, then your comments may very well be legitimate. However, to say, “they have exchanged vocational faithfulness for job security,” on the basis of only their lack of public statements is what seems harsh. It is equally possible that continuance in their position is of longer term benefit to the church at large than a flash-in-the-pan demonstration with little lasting effect.
–”I find it ironic that people will castigate me for speaking too strongly but they will not likewise publicly take to task those who are perpetrating such horrible theology and confounding Law and Gospel so miserably among us.”–
The irony may be more apparent than real… However, the individuals “perpetuating such horrible theology” are not even the enemy (Eph 6:12) - it’s the theology itself that must be attacked and soundly shown to be false - a difficult task which often goes undone.
As long as we continue to focus on personalities (our own or others’) and individuals (ourselves or others), we’re going to lose.
It wasn’t Sebellius or Arius that was the problem, it was Sebellianism and Arianism. It isn’t Kieschnick who is the problem, it’s the bad theology that’s being peddled.
Until others are absolutely convinced that the theology is bad, it will be hard to rouse them from their slumber. The longer we simply point fingers and shout “heretic,” the less credibility we will have. It’s this type of behavior which got us into this mess. We ought to be about the hard work of showing others their error not simply denouncing them as in error (Proverbs 18:19, Jas. 5:19-20).
Joel Brondos castigates unknown persons for not doing the very same thing Issues, etc. never did: openly rebuking and condemning the errors of The LCMS, not harshly rejecting Ablaze! and other such things by which, apparently, Rev. Brondos now wishes to include as marks of orthodoxy.
I sure hope that when Rev. Wilkens is back on the air again, the show doesn’t turn into a radio version of this blog site, or CHRISTIAN NEWS, or LutherQuest.
We need better than that, and I hope that the next incarnation of Issues, etc. continues to take the high road and not devolve into some kind of sectarian Missouri Synod soap opera.
Perhaps Rev. Brondos should stick to the issues, just like Issues, etc. always did, and very well.
I think the point Rev. Brondos is making may be more apparent when the next incarnation of Issues, Etc. comes out. Will the same seminary professors who were interviewed on the old Issues, Etc., be wiling to be interviewed on the new Issues, Etc., or will they fear the “powers that be” in the LCMS. I hope they will only fear the real Power Who IS and continue to publicly proclaim Christ’s truth.
It’s too soon to draw conclusions about a show that has yet to debut.
Thats fair to say, Josh.
Stick to the issues? Here’s the issue: remaining silent about injustice and false doctrine under the ruse that you can do more good by teaching right theology in the meantime.
Tell that to St. Paul, St. Peter, Polycarp, and Lawrence. “Hey, St. John the Baptist. If only you had kept silent about a particular issue, you could have kept on making disciples — AND kept your head.”
Martin Luther was a Doctor of the Church. I suppose he could have kept silent, “safely” teaching good theology at little university in a muddy Wittenberg and not attack the Pope and Erasmus and Eck and Albert by name. He wouldn’t have been put under the ban and his life wouldn’t have been threatened. But if he had done that, we wouldn’t have had the Reformation.
The issue is this: men are keeping quiet when we could have stood together with one voice to denounce Ablaze! firmly and directly. But some don’t want to lose their positions — so we teach future pastors to keep learning good theology, but keep quiet and don’t rock the boat, while in the meantime, inferior theology takes a greater and greater hold on the synod.
You think that Kieschnick isn’t the problem? Our Lord doesn’t tell us to hang millstones around the neck of the THEOLOGY of those who mislead little ones. And the Apostle Paul mentions BY NAME the likes of Hymenaeus, Alexander and Philetus. You think that the Sabellius (note the spelling) and Arius weren’t the problem — just their theology? Theology doesn’t just exist by itself. It has to have a source and proponent. The Confessions mention the names of these groups and men AND condemn their theology.
You want to lump this blog site with Christian News and LutherQuest? You’ve got to be kidding. But in any case, you imagine that by mentioning those names you are able to discredit the argument. Have you addressed the argument by doing so — or have you fallen into slinging stereotypes about, thinking to smear those upon whom you hope it will stick?
My original point was this: Wilken and Schwarz got fired for standing up and speaking the truth while pastors and professors are “safe” in their positions. We’ll probably never know what could have happened if we had all with one mind and one voice taken a stand against the theology of Ablaze! If ever the tide is turned against Ablaze! — as I remarked — take note of those who come out of the woodwork when it’s safe and want to be leaders while those who spoke out openly and bore the brunt and bruises of the struggle are dismissed as troublemakers.
As demonstrated in my own blog, I have not engaged in mere logomachy or ad hominem attacks. I have named names — and used my own name, not a pseudonym — and have given detailed facts. You say that “until others are absolutely convinced that the theology is bad” . . . EXACTLY. We must do this convincing and we must demonstrate where this bad theology is taught and put into practice AND who is perpetrating this bad theology.
If and when that ever happens, it will happen because people stuck their necks out publicly to say “THIS IS WRONG.” It isn’t likely to happen sometime in the future where seminarians have been taught quietly that you can have good theology while keeping your mouth shut. That simply means that for one or two more generations we will let bad theology have its day openly and publicly, harming the faith of thousands in the meantime.
An interesting comparison and contrast: Not only did Todd and Jeff never name names of the proponents of bad theology in the LCMS, they didn’t bring it up, even though Ablaze and many of its proponents bear the signs such as Church Growth, Emergent (or emerging?), etc. But they did criticize these theologies and practices directly WITHOUT connecting any dots to the LCMS. They followed Pastor Brondos’s theological job security theory to be a good theologian but keep your job but they still got fired anyway.
I liken this somewhat to President Bush’s recent criticism of history’s well-meaning appeasers, to which Barack Obama took personal offense. To paraphrase Bush’s response, “Well, Barry, I wasn’t talking about you, but if you’re taking it personally, and if the glove fits…”
Do you think the Synodocrats took it personally when Issues, Etc. criticized CG, Purpose Driven, and Emergent doctrine and practice generally? Does the glove fit?
“…when the next incarnation of Issues, Etc. comes out. Will the same seminary professors who were interviewed on the old Issues, Etc., be wiling to be interviewed on the new Issues, Etc., or will they fear the “powers that be” in the LCMS…”
We should pause and think about all of the victims of Lord Keishnick’s reign who haven’t yet been invited to such a medium. There are the likes of Rev Cascione, or Rev Otten. Not forgetting the congregations who’ve suffered within the TX District, there was an entire flock of pastors who left the LCMS in the 1980’s for WELS and other places. They were already sounding the alarms of problems that were growing. There have been flocks of pastors who have been “fired” from their congregations, and congregations who’ve already left the LCMS.
Issues, Etc has been good to avoid real programmatic issues; and been good in keeping to Christ-centered, Christ-focused items. It has been a great, relatively pure teaching medium. For related, but slightly tangential issues, there are other voices that could be heard that would never have been heard in Issues, Etc’s first incarnation.
What topics would Cascione and Otten talk about that would be of interest to the broad audience of Issues, Etc?
Then, to summarize:
1. Veith’s article notes that Issues, Etc. didn’t name names, that it “was careful to avoid intra-LCMS controversies,” even though Issues, Etc. did mention Joel Osteen by name as an “extra-LCMS” controversy.
2. Wilken and Schwarz got fired, (we believe despite the official denial to the contrary), because they dealt with the issues in an open and forthright manner, even though they didn’t mention names in internecine LCMS squabbles.
3. There are those who choose to remain silent, not dealing with or criticizing the issues openly but privately — and they may be keeping their positions because they have chosen to proceed in this manner. Some maintain that they should speak up publicly to oppose and resist bad theology. Others believe that it’s okay for them to remain quiet because this is the only way that they can ultimately preserve the theology, i.e., if they lost their positions, they wouldn’t be able to teach.
(I believe my original point may have been lost in the tete-a-tete, that those who want to lead in the future ought not be silent now. And those who are not silent now would welcome those who are more knowledgeable and insightful to come to the fore, speaking up.)
4. Some believe it is all right to name names. Others think that only issues should be addressed and not names.
5. Some believe that when a parish pastor or seminary professor speaks out publicly, that is tantamount to arrogating a work to one’s self which has not been given them in their calls. Others believe that it is a duty to speak out when a wrong is observed, especially when people’s faith is being misled.
6. Some believe that it is best to avoid intra-LCMS controversies in public. Others believe that dealing with intra-LCMS controversies directly by name or indirectly by topic is where the rubber meets the road.
7. Some believe that it is all right not to engage specific details and program methods in public during a time of confessional controversy. Others believe that leaders should lead in a time of controversy, to make a clear signal. “For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?” (1Cor 14:8) — if in fact what we are experiencing IS a battle . . . there may be those who object to using such terms.
I wouldn’t mind if someone wishes to refine or even correct this summary. If we are not able to argue among ourselves to come to a point of agreement, then we certainly cannot expect to do it with those who hold contrary doctrines. If I have been guilty of hyperbole or error, I will be happy to be corrected and ask for forgiveness. My polemics is born of personal experiences and the disappointment of seeing so much bad theology go uncontested while so many people are misled in this Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod.
“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.’ “So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me.” (Eze 33:6-7)
“They have blown the trumpet and made everyone ready, But no one goes to battle; For My wrath is on all their multitude. The sword is outside, And the pestilence and famine within. Whoever is in the field Will die by the sword; And whoever is in the city, Famine and pestilence will devour him. ‘Those who survive will escape and be on the mountains Like doves of the valleys, All of them mourning, Each for his iniquity. Every hand will be feeble, And every knee will be as weak as water.” (Eze 7:14-17)
Well, thank God we have courageous heroes like you, Pastor Brondos. I’ll sleep securely tonight knowing you are standing your post on the walls of Zion.
Henry: It’s not that I can’t take a compliment, but you really ought not refer to me as a courageous hero. A stubborn jackass would be more appropriate — and I really wouldn’t mind.
I’m just tired of the “political finesse,” the rationalizing about why we can’t do this or that in order to confess the truth — and why we cannot exhort and admonish those who are publicly reserved so that they would with one mouth, voice, and mind take issue with those who are perpetrating Ablaze! theology to our children and grandchildren, to our family and friends.
I’ve been terribly disappointed by those who claim to be able to deal with the problem in a more refined and intelligent way than the approach I’ve been using in the last 4 years. If those in positions of authority — those who have been called to be “doctors of the church” — were confronting the false theology and practice of Ablaze! I’d be happy to be busy with other things. There are others who are much more capable of cutting to the chase than I am.
But they aren’t doing it. At least, not in the manner of public confession and complaint in the way that I expect. And perhaps that really is my problem rather than theirs — like “Marcus Jones” and “Lutheran Confessor” contend. Still, I don’t think so.
At the same time, I’m not pleased with disgruntled people who just like to complain. They’d be complaining no matter who was in charge because they are only capable of defining themselves in terms of what they are against instead of what they are for.
The air is thick with egotism and punditry. There are those of this party and that party, the wannabes and the good old boy networks. And then there are just plain old stubborn, stupid jackasses like myself.
Courageous heroes look more like Wilken and Schwarz who have what it takes to confess the truth in their winsome and skilled way — and to turn down the synod’s hush money and severance packages in order to look them square in the eye and to do and way what is necessary.
Lastly, I know very well that there are those who are like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea who are “afraid of the Jews,” men who, when the Peters and Jameses and John Marks have fled the scene, are there to do such business as taking down, caring for, and entombing the grisly, precious body of the Lord. Not everyone can stand up and speak out at this moment, though there are those we would expect to do so.
Aren’t there?
Pastor Brondos,
I think also that there is a generational component to this. For some of our older pastor and people, controversy equals scandal. Therefore all controversy must be dealt with behind closed doors so as to avoid the scandal. Scandal is further seen as something that will destroy us.
For our younger people, controversy or misconduct is not a scandal. Further they don’t see scandal in as negative of terms - provided the matter is dealt with openly and decisively. It is the belief that dirty laundry aired out becomes clean. So this generational dynamic is at work here as well.
Hmm, Rev. Walter. A very interesting observation. Now that you mention it, I think the older generation sometimes acts as if it’s unkind to ask pointed questions.
The irony of this is that the “older generation” (If I, at 51, may include myself therein) grew up in the 60’s, the Me Generation, the Now Generation, the group which questioned and challenged every authority, premise and tradition.
So, if they rebelled, sat in, turned on and tuned in (was it?), why aren’t they so “hip” these days in questioning the synodical powers that be? :)
Pastor Brondos -
I appreciate your summary and think the attempt to figure out the framework within which to discuss the issues is an important step in the right direction. Thanks for bringing some clarity!
In general, I believe the summary you have given is fair. here would be my comments
Re: #1
#1 is a good point of reference upon which to base discussion of the “best” manner in which to proceed.
#2 is a catalyst for the current discussion. Whatever the reason for their dismissal, I think it’s water under the bridge. The questions need to continue to be asked, but the situation is symptomatic of a larger issue. Whatever the answers are, these events have served their purpose in bringing serious issues to light.
Re: #3
The summary is fair. Where I come down on this is to say that it is up to me to do what is within my own ability and influence to effect change. It is not my place to tell others what they should/shouldn’t be doing. By all means, I would encourage them and attempt to spur them on to act differently, but to impugn (directly or indirectly) their motives or intentions is, to me, out of bounds without clear and convincing proof.
–”I believe my original point may have been lost in the tete-a-tete, that those who want to lead in the future ought not be silent now.”–
Your original point is precisely the issue. The argument that these people are somehow being unfaithful is literally an argument from silence. But (if you’ll pardon the expression) silence is in the ear of the beholder. Just because they are not proceeding in the manner you would have them proceed doesn’t mean they aren’t making progress toward the same goal.
It’s legitimate to question the effectiveness of the current tactics and suggest others. It would be legitimate to ask “where were you when….” if someone were to put themselves forward as a leader. However, to call someone a people-pleasing hireling (which is how I read your statement) is quite another issue without clear and convincing proof.
Re: #4
Related to #3 - with clear and convincing proof of intentions and motives, naming names is valid. To cast aspersions and impugn character without it is not.
Re: #5
“Arrogating” was my word, and it was a poor choice. I apologize. I did not intend to imply that it is not “their place” (although that’s what I ended up saying). My primary contention was that some of those who are being criticized are working very hard to be faithful to what they have been given.
As I’m sure Pastor Brondos knows and I have myself experienced, it takes a significant amount of time to be attentive and “speak out” in such a way as to not only be heard, but PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD (case in point - this comment is taking over an hour to draft).
My point is that, the net was thrown fairly broadly. My intent was to defend those who, from my observation, simply do not have the requisite time to do it right and they make the choice to spend their time toward the same goal by different means.
As I previously mentioned, the question as to why they did not speak out is valid. And if they were to seek (or be recommended to) a position of leadership, it would be legitimate to raise the question. My objection was specifically to the last paragraph of Pastor Brondos’ comment:
–”If ever the synod gets turned around, be careful of those who remained silent when it might have been ‘dangerous’ to confess the truth — but who all of a sudden want to be recognized as leaders in the church. They are the ones who have turned their godly calling into a religious ‘career.’ They have exchanged vocational faithfulness for job security.”–
Rereading it, I’ll admit I may have over-reacted. The sentiment is, in my opinion, valid - we should be very discerning with regard to those whom we place in leadership positions. It’s perfectly legtimate to ask them tough questions with regard to why they did/didn’t act in certain manners and accept only forthright answers.
At the same time, to PREJUDGE them as “ones who have turned their godly calling into a religious ‘career.’ ” and say that they “have exchanged vocational faithfulness for job security” is what I have difficulty with.
–”Others believe that it is a duty to speak out when a wrong is observed, especially when people’s faith is being misled.”–
The question is, where is the line to be drawn? How much time ought to be devoted to these types of issues? At what point does conforming one’s actions to accomplish this “duty” lead one to unfaithfulness in other duties? Which “duties” are more important - faithfulness in the direct tasks of vocation or dealing with these other “wrongs”? Can both be accomplished by some other means? And what if the manner in which one chooses to accomplish this “duty” is different from what someone else would have done? — to whom are they responsible?
Re: #6
–”Others believe that dealing with intra-LCMS controversies directly by name or indirectly by topic is where the rubber meets the road.”–
I’ll put myself in that category, but in the “indirectly by topic” camp. I don’t think political maneuvering can solve anything — it usually makes things worse. The issues need to be confronted head-on - theologically - clearly articulating the problems. Only AFTER this has been done should names become involved, but they are often unnecessary since people will already know, “those who teach x,y,z, teach wrongly and should be avoided.” It then becomes redundant to say, “Person A teaches X,Y,Z.”
As I see it, the hard theological work is not being done, too often something is denounced as “bad” or “wrong” without clear articulation of why.
For example - SPECIFICALLY, what is “wrong” with Ablaze!(tm)? What is the teaching that’s wrong? Precisely WHY is it wrong? Is it ALL of Ablaze!(tm) or only certain aspects? Are those aspects being carried out by Synod, or by congregations/districts/RSO’s/other organization?
Re: #7
–”Some believe that it is all right not to engage specific details and program methods in public during a time of confessional controversy.”–
IMHO - There is no problem in dealing with “specific details and program methods in public” so long as that’s what is really occurring. Too often, however, the trumpet is sounded not based on “specific details and program methods” but on assumption, supposition, and partial information. In such cases, neither side is heard and understood and accusations and denunciations fly and nothing ever gets accomplished.
Dealing with the specifics is hard and dirty work. It’s time consuming and difficult. It’s the most important and often the most thankless task because if it’s done well, the answers appear “self evident” and “obvious” to everyone.
–”And then there are just plain old stubborn, stupid jackasses like myself.”–
I’ll add my name to that list…
–”Not everyone can stand up and speak out at this moment, though there are those we would expect to do so. Aren’t there?”–
I can’t answer the question, but I can say that I am very appreciative of all those who do.
=-=-
(P.S. I am not a professor at nor employed by any LC–MS institution - although I have recently attended one of our fine institutions.)
Dear Lutheran Confessor,
You may find an explanation of what is wrong with Ablaze! at this web site: http://fp1.centurytel.net/itiswritten/
I hope you find it helpful.
Kathy
Dear Lutheran Confessor,
If you were taught well at one of our fine institutions, you would know whatspecifically is wrong with ABLAZE! However, you may go to this web site to read a paper that explains the specifics–at least some of them: http://fp1.centurytel.net/itiswritten/
Speaking of those who are not at this time speaking up, for whatever reason…
Does anybody know why our Sem Presidents and CTCR approve of Ablaze!? What can be so wrong with it if they have openly written that it is theologically correct?
God’s richest blessings upon you, Rev. Brondos.
We all have our different gifts as part of the Body of Christ. I appreciate your gift of polemics and bravery in asking those pointed questions.
Please never stop doing so, faithful watchman.
Thank you Lutheran Confessor for your gallantry and consideration in pointing out that not everyone fights against heresy and injustice so publicly.
I believe that it IS important to name names so that the sheep can identify the wolves and avoid them. Not so much to publicly castigate them, but with the earnest desire that they may repent of misleading the flock and straying from the Truth.
Anon–any movement such as Ablaze that spends money on leather sofas for cafes were people can socialize rather than purchasing a van for an inner-city church to shuttle people to church and Sunday School where they can hear the Word preached in the NID is woefully misguided. Spending money on road sign advertising supposedly signed by “Satan” instead of funding mission work by Rev. May in Africa to get the Gospel message out is downright sinful.
“Church growth” without the Gospel attached is merely a cancer on the Body of Christ. This is what Ablaze is.
~Respectfully submitted with deep Christian love for Rev. Brondos and Lutheran Confessor
I’m just speculating here in no particular order about the Seminary presidents:
They like their jobs, seminary presidents who have spoken out on synodical issues made themselves polarizing figures, speaking out can negatively affect fund raising, the president of the Synod is 1/4th of the committee that calls a seminary president, and other reasons I’ll leave for others to type.
As for the CTCR, no opinion they publish or produce is binding unless adopted by the Synod at convention. And Ablaze! is kinda nebulous anyway, in that nobody seems to know exactly who came up with it, how it is funded, how it functions, who is in charge of it, what its doctrines or practices are or are not. So how is a deliberative body supposed to condemn something so poorly defined?
I know what I, personally, believe is wrong with the Ablaze movement, but apparently I must be wrong because those who are more theologically trained than myself (the theologians who train theologians and pastors) have done more than simply not speak out negatively–they’ve publicly endorsed Ablaze!:
“LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick cites a statement issued by the four theologians in the June issue of President’s Leadership News, an insert carried by Reporter, the Synod’s official newspaper.
The four who issued the statement are Dr. Dale Meyer, president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; Dr. Dean O. Wenthe, president of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, Ind.; Dr. L. Dean Hempelmann, executive director of the Board for Pastoral Education; and Dr. Samuel H. Nafzger, executive director of the CTCR.
“We are committed to and engaged in mission and outreach and are eager to be a resource for the entire church in sharing the Gospel. Following a review of the Ablaze! initiative we do not find anything in it to be inconsistent with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions,” the four theologians say in their joint statement. “To be sure, while some might raise legitimate questions about certain points not included in this initiative, as well as about certain exegetical details, we feel that the materials prepared by the Board for Missions sufficiently answer these concerns.”
They do not find ANYTHING in the Ablaze! initiative inconsistent with Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions, whereas many here say there are numerous inconsistencies. So who should I listen to?
Kathy -
Thank you for pointing me to the article by Dr. Schulz. As Josh pointed out, “Ablaze” is fairly nebulously defined. There are definite aspects which raise serious red flags in my mind, some of which were pointed out by Dr. Schulz.
The questions in my previous post were not exactly written for me to gather information for myself. While I’m not completely versed in the details, I am aware of many of the difficulties perceived with the Ablaze! initiative.
The questions I asked were indicative of the types of questions that we must be prepared to carefully and comprehensively answer if the conversation is going to get anywhere. And we must clearly communicate those answers in the proper manner in order to have any hope of changing the course of things.
Dr. Schulz made a good beginning with regard to Ablaze! but even He indicates he is entering a conversation on the topic. Sadly, I’m afraid this is not the only inroad for bad theology within the Synod. I personally have similar “red flags” with the BRTFSSG [Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synodical Structure and Governance] principles. These have a comment deadline of September 1 which is when things will start moving forward based upon those principles.
I’m sure there are other things “out there” that require attention and critique.
The question before us is how BEST to move forward in making critique and engaging in the necessary conversations without casting aspersions, wrongly attributing motives and still being firm confessors of the truth.
I have a hard time believing that the proponents of those things we find objectionable in Ablaze! are consciously and intentionally trying to destroy Lutheranism and the Synod (which is what the accusations often sound like). I’m sure they believe they are doing just the opposite.
I think that, while they are misguided in the path chosen, they have nothing but the best of intentions and are convinced that they are on the right path.
The question before us is how convince someone who is in power and thinks they are absolutely doing the “right thing” that the path they are headed down is counter productive and actually imperils the very souls of those they claim they are attempting to “reach.”
The only ammunition we have that is worth anything is “Scripture and Plain Reason” (in that order - taking “Scripture” broadly to include the correct exposition of Scripture in the Lutheran Confessions). Ultimately it is Scripture that will prick the conscience and bring about a change of heart. Reason can be helpful in showing how Scripture and false teachings don’t match up.
In my view we must carefully and comprehensively compare the teachings that concern us to the Norming Norm of Scripture. To do that, we need to be sure that we properly understand those teachings so that we aren’t accused of misrepresenting the views of others with the result that we ultimately shut ourselves out of the conversation. Luther spent YEARS giving the Pope excuses for the bad theology within the Roman Catholic Church (for example, “perhaps your advisors are working without your knowledge”) before he gave up and called the Pope the Antichrist. And that didn’t occur until some time AFTER he was excommunicated.
All of our efforts need to be done in a spirit of brotherly love and mutual respect so that we may win our brother(s) back and not drive him(them) further away from the truth. It’s hard work that is very time consuming. It’s often frustrating because something so obvious is simply not understood by the other person. And, its very often a thankless task that doesn’t “win friends” or “influence people.” As a result, there are mighty few who are undertaking it. I thank God for those who are and where possible I hope to be able to contribute.
LC
This is whack-a-mole. The first Sem prof or president to stick his head up and criticize gets whacked. Everyone knows it. So everyone keeps quiet to keep their jobs so they can retire in peace. As soon as I see Sem profs leaving in a-blaze of confessional glory I will believe they are the men of honor and courage that I would hope they are.
Where’s the bonfire for the Papal Bull? Until then, the Lion is really a mouse. I can understand them not wanting to be martyrs when out of 6000-8000 other pastors, there are only a handful that will stand up and leave or put their goods, fame, child, and wife on the line for the Kingdom.
The presidents said they could find no major problem. That does not mean Ablaze!(tm) is not bad and that if they put their faculties on it, the faculties would have ripped it to shreds. Due to the last convention, the board of regents are stacked with libs. So profs and presidents take the easy route to a steady pension.
It takes the CTCR years to produce politically correct statements where the only “good stuff” is found in the minority opinions that come out 6-9 months later and get otherwise buried. If Lehre und Wehre were published today it would take the CTCR 2 years to comment on a single issue and then they would trash it.
The best source is Schulz’s paper on the topic–though it covered a number of other issues too. http://fp1.centurytel.net/itiswritten/
Lutheran Confessor,
I’m very interested in your take on ‘red flags’ in the BRTFSSG ‘22 princples’.
Sometimes I wonder how small the “silent minority” of confessional Lutherans is in the LCMS. I wonder if the LCMS is even worth fighting for or if I belong to such a small group of confessional Christians that I am best off just living my life, belonging to a congregation with a confessional pastor, and letting the world of the LCMS go by. Then I hear men like Rev. Brondos and I am inspired to at least think about standing up to defend the faith in the LCMS from those who would rob the Gospel and truth from our midst.
My sources at both Missouri Synod seminaries make it very clear that the two seminary presidents REFUSED and REJECTED Rev. Kieschnck’s request that the seminary faculties offer a word of endorsement for Ablaze! They told the Synod president they would not ask their faculties to “review” Ablaze! because the faculties would in fact be strongly critical, so they issued their tepid response and now Kieschnick has waved that around as an endorsement of the entire Ablaze nonsense.
Perhaps it is time to put the question directly to the two seminary presidents: did you, or did you not, ask your faculties to review the Ablaze movement? If not, why not?
I’d be more interested in full disclosure of the specific list of documents that WAS reviewed. The “letter of support” was based on a review of specific information, not just anything that has the ABLAZE logo on it. So what was THAT and does it differ from the ABLAZE as it is today?
Rev. Schulz comment is very appropriate:
—QUOTE—
It is also therefore both curious and troubling that other official definitions of the “Critical Event” are now floating around in the LCMS. For what purpose? A “Lutheranized” definition of the Critical Event has been published, first in the little-known journal Missio Apostolica, where it is defined by the LCMS president as: “When one Lutheran Christian gives witness about Jesus of the hope that is within him or her to another person so that person may encounter Christ that results in, or can be measured by, Baptism and/or Confirmation and a life of faith and good works in that person.” The confusing wording may say more about the confusing goals than it intends to. The Ablaze!® website insists that we “are not specifically counting baptisms or conversions.” Are we or aren’t we? Such confusion!
—END QUOTE—
I’m guessing the answer is “No” the faculties were not asked, but the presidents did review material and issued the statement. The question is exactly WHAT material. It may be that we could all agree on THAT material… but the endorsement has been transferred to a bunch of other stuff (as mr801 says).
The bigger problem is that, since ABLAZE was adopted by the Synod in Convention, all criticism MUST go through official channels (circuit meeting –> CTCR or district convention –> overture to Synod in convention) to be dealt with. As I understand the Constitution and Bylaws, that’s what signatories agree to.
But that applies ONLY to what was passed by the Synod in Convention. Perhaps it would be of benefit to pull together all the ABLAZE resolutions into one place so at the very least, when stuff comes out with the ABLAZE stamp that doesn’t conform to THAT we can deal with it.
LC
Here’s the web page for the 2004 Convention including PDFs of all the resolutions passed:
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=5429
(I haven’t reviewed them yet.. it’s on my list of “things to do”)
LC
Regarding the statement on ABLAZE! from Drs. Meyer, Wenthe, Hempelmann, and Nafzger, I’ve always wondered why they issued a statement in the first place. Mr801 provides an explanation which seems credible. I understand how his sources might want to remain anonymous, but it would be good to have this explanation as more than hearsay.
Does anyone know if incumbents of these various offices have ever before issued a joint theological statement? It seems to me that we’ve never done it this way before. If that’s the case, it does prompt one to contemplate what exceptional circumstances would have prompted such an action.
“Ablaze” is a slippery term. On the one hand, who can be against speaking to your neighbors about Jesus or even encouraging others to speak to their neighbors about Jesus or inviting them to church?
The powers that be have applied the term “Ablaze” to every outreach effort. There was a very good BIble study on Baptism that was called an “Ablaze” Bible study. All mission work is called “Ablaze.” It is said that Ablaze is just a movement to spread the Word of the Gospel. If I happen to tell my neighbor that Jesus loves him, that is Ablaze. If you work to feed the poor, that is Ablaze. It is all very clever Who would be foolish enough to stand up against spreading the message of Jesus?
Since the language has already been established by our opponents, we need to be careful to specify what it is about what is being done in the name of Ablaze that is objectionable. The seminaries approved the principle of spreading the Gospel. They did not approve all the things that are being done under its cover.
We need to turn it around and be Ablaze with a renewed study or the Bible and the Confessions so that laypeople know the difference. I believe that is what Terry Cripe was trying to tell us.
mr801, I like your suggestion about asking the seminary presidents for a straight answer — and I think that District Presidents like Rev. Cripe and Rev. Mueller and those from the districts where the pastors passed resolutions should be the one to put the question to them formally. Or maybe a district pastors’ conference should make such a request of the seminary presidents — who are pssibly more likely to respond to their questions than the synodical president.
To me, the question to ask is “does it serve the Synod for our seminary presidents to lose their jobs?” which is very possible with the current Board of Regents situation for either seminary. The best thing they can do is to train confessional pastors so that they may go out and teach their flocks, be delegates to the conventions, and act according to their consciences.
I remember what the seminary was like when it was under the control of those sympathetic to Bohlmann. If Wenthe and others need to remain quiet and issue vague endorsements of a vague program in order to keep our seminaries safe at this time, then God bless them. They can teach the men there how to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves and to act according to Scripture and their own consciences.
Luther did put his life on the line many times, but he was also willing to go into hiding and take on aliases to do so, and he was able to do all that he could because he was under the protection of his prince, who could play the diplomatic game. There was also a reason why Luther didn’t write the Augsburg Confession. He was too controversial to be the one to get the job done when it came to really and truly defending the faith before the Holy Roman Empire. It fell to someone who was calmer and more diplomatic, Melancthon. And whatever we might think of what he did after Luther’s death, he was both brave and diplomatic in his writing of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, and more effective because of that.
We need men who are willing to put it all out on the line, and we need men who know that there role is to do otherwise until in the tumult, quieter men will be needed to lead. This may be frustrating to those who are speaking out, but we also need to respect that these mens’ consciences have not been so provoked that they are moved to do so yet. Not everyone who is quiet is assenting. God is using them as well for His divine will. We need to trust in that and respect it.
Lutheran Confessor,
The ablaze! site on the LCMS webpage says the following:
“The materials from LCMS World Mission cited in the statement include a document titled, “The Ablaze! Initiative in the LCMS Theologically Considered,” which deals with Ablaze! from the perspective of LCMS doctrine and practice.”
The link is to this article:
http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/World%20Mission/Foundations-of-Ablaze.pdf
Here it is -
The ablaze! site on the LCMS web page says the following:
“The materials from LCMS World Mission cited in the statement INCLUDE a document titled…” (emphasis added).
The fact that this document was included gives us a pointer to ONE of the documents, however, the word “includes” also indicates that there were others. The question is, what were the other materials included? That’s not answered by the web site or any public information that I have (yet) found. If you know of other documentation, I’d be happy to look at it.
RPW -
Thank’s for the historical perspective! I think we often forget some of these details.
Reading your post reminded me of a story I heard in ethics class once. There was a Lutheran in Germany who was in charge of routing rail deliveries for the Nazis. He knew if he didn’t do the job, someone else would. So he didn’t quit, instead he took opportunities to misdirect rail shipments away from the concentration camps in order to at least save SOME lives. If he had quit (or been fired), the next person might have been more “efficient” and more lives would have been lost.
LC
LC,
That’s all I know. Sorry. Looking forward to finding out more, if possible, along with you.