Missouri Attorney General's Office: 'Fact Finding' on LCMS

[C.F.W. Walther]

February 25, 2007

Missouri Attorney General's Office: 'Fact Finding' on LCMS



An Attorney in the Missouri Attorney General's Office reports that he is now
"fact finding" in regard to allegations that the LCMS is operating in
violation of Missouri not-for-profit corporate law.

The Attorney also reports that he has received numerous communications,
talked with LCMS pastors in Missouri and throughout the United States, and
received a great deal of information about these allegations.

The LCMS November-2006 Board of Directors Minutes states that three
different law firms have advised the LCMS that it is not following Missouri
Corporate Law. Missouri Law requires that a corporation must be governed by
a Board of Directors with no other entity (such as the current LCMS
Commission on Constitutional Matters [CCM]) exercising authority over the
elected Board except the stockholders and/or the Convention.

As part of the settlement for the failed class action suit filed against
President Kieschnick, Kieschnick agreed in May of 2006 that he would remind
LCMS Districts to follow the By-laws directing Districts to merge circuits
that don't meet the criteria to form a voting circuit.

In 2004, Kieschnick signed delegate exceptions for a record 176 delegates
from gerrymandered LCMS circuits that did not have the necessary 1500
communicants and seven congregations to qualify as a voting circuit at the
2004 Convention. Kieschnick won reelection by less than 60 votes.

With typical bravado, Kieschnick has ignored the agreement and signed
exceptions for 130 delegates to the 2007 Convention. An agreement with
Kieschnick, with no means to enforce it, isn't worth the paper it's written
on.

Reclaims News has been predicting that Kieschnick will win reelection by
62.5% within a plus or minus margin of 3%. However, this prediction is
based on the fact that Kieschnick's potential legal problems with the State
of Missouri will not prevent him from seeking reelection.

Kieschnick has aggressively power-played and machine-politicked his way to
the LCMS Presidency. He has boldly taken every advantage to seize and hold
power. As a creature of the LCMS Council of District Presidents, he is also
aware that some of the hands he may shake are also the same hands that are
sending information to the Missouri Attorney General's Office.

The President of the Council of District Presidents (COP), the liberal
Michigan District President, William Hoesman, has formed strong alliances in
the Council and is Kieschnick's primary opponent. But Hoesman is little
more than the COP's insurance policy that the COP will continue to control
LCMS congregations with their current church growth agenda.

More than any of the other District Presidents, Kieschnick is highly adept
at seizing the moment, while others choose to be more cautious.

Kieschnick made many political enemies when he supported Atlantic District
David Benke's prayer fellowship with Moslems in Yankee Stadium, when he
supported the removal of Rev. Wallace Schulz as Lutheran Hour Speaker, when
his appointees on the CCM consistently overruled the LCMS Board of
Directors, when he kept all CCM rulings from review at the 2004 Convention,
and when 38 LCMS missionaries were recalled while he exploits missions under
the banner of "Ablaze."

Despite all this and the fact the LCMS has shrunk by more than an average of
25,000 baptized souls each year he has been in office, the tenacious
Kieschnick won re-election in 2004 and is expected to win by a greater
majority in 2007.

Be he friend or foe, Kieschnick has to be admired for the way he vanquished
his inept opponents in the attempted class action lawsuit and now trashes
the settlement agreement he made; a settlement which was really nothing more
than a complete surrender.

Kieschnick understands power and he doesn't hesitate to use it. He has the
courage to risk everything and he keeps coming out on top.

When no District President would dare to run against the popular Al Barry in
1998, Kieschnick was not ashamed to loose with a meager 47 votes. He made
the same effort in 2001, but, to everyone's amazement, Barry died in
February of 2001 and Kieschnick was elected President. None of the other
District Presidents were prepared to announce their candidacy.

He has silenced the cautious liberals; the steadfast traditionalists; the
hyper-euro-Lutherans; and he continues to master Synodical politics.

[dinkime]

interesting

i live in missouri (within miles of LCMS HQ) and have heard nothing regarding this at all -- i wonder if it is a common topic of discussion in LCMS churches?

[TheCosmicGospel]

Kieshnick may turn out to be the best friend TAALC ever had. While Missouri is offering fellowship, perhaps some in the troubled waters may begin wondering why not consider it then altogether. When the skunk won't leave your house, at some point it may be easier to just move.

How do you move from a 60 vote margin to a 63% margin? That's what I would like to know. Is it the machine is too well oiled or the conservatives feeling the fight is not worth it. Time will tell. It will be an interesting year again in Missouri.

Keep us posted.
Cosmic

[Studeclunker]

So sad to hear this...:( Where did you get this information from, Rad? Was it an article somewhere?

[DaRev]

First, I don't believe that if Keischnick is re-elected that it will be by a "63% margin." If it happens, it will be closer than that... closer than in '04. I'm not really all that certain that he will be re-elected. (That's my prediction.)

The problem in the past is that the ultra-conservatives in the synod have put up canidiates who are simply un-electable because of their radical views. There are a number of good Confessional moderately-conservative (politically speaking) men out there who are indeed electable and stand a good chance of being elected. The problem is that the conservative side of synod are not all that united. I would say that they are much closer together now than they have been at anytime since the walk-out, but we'll see how that pans out in Houston in July.

God help the LCMS. :crossrc:

[DaSeminarian]

First, I don't believe that if Keischnick is re-elected that it will be by a "63% margin." If it happens, it will be closer than that... closer than in '04. I'm not really all that certain that he will be re-elected. (That's my prediction.)

The problem in the past is that the ultra-conservatives in the synod have put up canidiates who are simply un-electable because of their radical views. There are a number of good Confessional moderately-conservative (politically speaking) men out there who are indeed electable and stand a good chance of being elected. The problem is that the conservative side of synod are not all that united. I would say that they are much closer together now than they have been at anytime since the walk-out, but we'll see how that pans out in Houston in July.

God help the LCMS. :crossrc:


So who is on this illustrious list? Dale Meyer perhaps?

[DaRev]

So who is on this illustrious list? Dale Meyer perhaps?

Of which list do you speak?

[Flipper]

interesting

i live in missouri (within miles of LCMS HQ) and have heard nothing regarding this at all -- i wonder if it is a common topic of discussion in LCMS churches?

Same here, and it's not in mine as well - I get more information about the synod here than from my own church.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Candidates:

John Wohlrabe: President or first Vice President

Wallace Shultz: President or first Vice President

Elder McCants: Vice President

David Adams: Vice President

Glen Huebel: Vice President

Scott Murray: Vice President

[Flipper]

Where did you get the article you reprinted in the OP, or is it your commentary?

[DaSeminarian]

Of which list do you speak?

I meant who would you like to see go up against the great and mighty Kieschnick? Is there any particular person with whom you think can win and be effective?

[Confess]

First, I don't believe that if Keischnick is re-elected that it will be by a "63% margin." If it happens, it will be closer than that... closer than in '04. I'm not really all that certain that he will be re-elected. (That's my prediction.)

The problem in the past is that the ultra-conservatives in the synod have put up canidiates who are simply un-electable because of their radical views. There are a number of good Confessional moderately-conservative (politically speaking) men out there who are indeed electable and stand a good chance of being elected. The problem is that the conservative side of synod are not all that united. I would say that they are much closer together now than they have been at anytime since the walk-out, but we'll see how that pans out in Houston in July.

God help the LCMS. :crossrc:
You confuse me with your ultra-conservative jargon. I have no idea where you are at. :scratch:

I don't understand where the extremist views you see are within men like Marquart, Preus and Schulz of previous conventions.

[Confess]

What I see is the problem for the Synod as far as electing men who are actual theologians (remember, Kieschnick says, "I am no theologian") is that there is a problem in the LCMS as far as teaching what we believe.

People have been taught an apathetic faith, they go to church, raise thier children in the church, never speak out when the pastors are teaching falsely, treat Confirmation as graduation and don't expect their children to come back.

What pastor has gone out and stressed to his congregants that the head of the family should be teaching the small catechism? What pastor has given instructions of how to go about doing this? What pastor tells Mothers and Fathers that before the child comes into confirmation class, they need to have a foundation laid by the family pertaining to things like the OT stories, the commandments etc.

So far, I have had 5 LCMS pastors and NONE of them held family devotions with the exception of one who began doing it late in his children's lives (they were teens).

It seems like a pastors job these days excludes expecting something from the parents, mainly, holding parents accountable for teaching their children the basics.

Now, I can understand catechizing those children who are new to the faith, but why is it that children who have been baptized as an infant are treated the same as those who have never heard about Jesus? They are taught as if they have never learned about David and Goliath, Noah or the story of creation?

Why doesn't the church say, "Parents, we preach, teach and believe that you have a responsibility to raise your children in the faith as you promised in your child's baptism. So IF you want to begin confirmation class, then it is required that you show some effort in teaching your children the basics of the faith so that the pastor can teach them the fundamentals found in the Catechism."

[Flipper]

What I see is the problem for the Synod as far as electing men who are actual theologians (remember, Kieschnick says, "I am no theologian") is that there is a problem in the LCMS as far as teaching what we believe.

People have been taught an apathetic faith, they go to church, raise thier children in the church, never speak out when the pastors are teaching falsely, treat Confirmation as graduation and don't expect their children to come back.

What pastor has gone out and stressed to his congregants that the head of the family should be teaching the small catechism? What pastor has given instructions of how to go about doing this? What pastor tells Mothers and Fathers that before the child comes into confirmation class, they need to have a foundation laid by the family pertaining to things like the OT stories, the commandments etc.

So far, I have had 5 LCMS pastors and NONE of them held family devotions with the exception of one who began doing it late in his children's lives (they were teens).

It seems like a pastors job these days excludes expecting something from the parents, mainly, holding parents accountable for teaching their children the basics.

Now, I can understand catechizing those children who are new to the faith, but why is it that children who have been baptized as an infant are treated the same as those who have never heard about Jesus? They are taught as if they have never learned about David and Goliath, Noah or the story of creation?

Why doesn't the church say, "Parents, we preach, teach and believe that you have a responsibility to raise your children in the faith as you promised in your child's baptism. So IF you want to begin confirmation class, then it is required that you show some effort in teaching your children the basics of the faith so that the pastor can teach them the fundamentals found in the Catechism."


We do HOME Groups - some of them are families, and some of them are in different life groups, as in age, marital status, etc., and some are for families. The Leaders are trained by the Pastoral staff.

The way we do Confirmation classes is that every other week, the child is in class with the Pastor learning about the fundamentals, and on the opposite weeks, they are in small groups of 10 divided by boys and girls, meeting at differen't kids' houses, and lay people leading them in learning how to apply what the Pastor teaches to their lives. Then after they are confirmed, they are encouraged into joining older small groups, and onward.

The concept is to get into small groups, whether it be by family, or other peers. I think this, more than the services themselves, have encouraged more family devotional periods than anything else that I've ever seen. There are I don't know how many sermons given on the importance of family devotions, and there are materials at the information desk for anyone who wants them.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Where did you get the article you reprinted in the OP, or is it your commentary?Reclaim News sends then out to people that subscribe.

http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/subscribe.htm

[Flipper]

Reclaim News sends then out to people that subscribe.

http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/subscribe.htm

THANKS! :thumbsup:

[C.F.W. Walther]

The ultra-conservative moniker is a missnomer. They are confessional Lutherans that are concerned about the way the synod is heading. They only get that "ultra" connotation becasue they are the only ones willing to bring synod to bear. "Ultra's" are also the only ones that you will get the true "news" about synod from. None of the rest of the moderates and liberals will tell you what's goiong on because they're afraid of Kieshnick and loosing their retirement, insurance and perks from the synod.

[DaRev]

You confuse me with your ultra-conservative jargon. I have no idea where you are at. :scratch:

I don't understand where the extremist views you see are within men like Marquart, Preus and Schulz of previous conventions.

I am a Confessional. Conservative in theology. I try to stay out of the political nonsense in the synod except when it becomes a hindrance to our theology (as it has become of late).

The late Kurt Marquardt was quite radical in his thinking, including his public denial of the holocaust. (Could you imagine him as president of the LCMS?)
I do believe that Daniel Preus would be a great president of synod, but he got himself into some trouble for making some untimely comments concerning the synod and the Yankee stadium fiasco. I'm not so sure that he would be elected if he was nominated. (Remember, he was voted out of the 1VP office.)
Wallace Shultz would also make a good president, but I truly believe that all the negative press about him (again following the Yankee stadium fiasco) kind of makes him unelectable. But he is a great Confessional Lutheran.

In my view, the "ultra-conservatives" are the ones who make the Confessional position a political one.

[C.F.W. Walther]

In my view, the "ultra-conservatives" are the ones who make the Confessional position a political one.But if they didn't make it political nobody would know what a mess synod is in. Just like our posters have said. They have never heard of any of this. The average parishoner doesn't want to get involved and the pastors wouldn't say anything; so the synod goes do the tubes. Then synod goes ultra liberal and everybody says "How did this happen?"

[filosofer]

I am a Confessional. Conservative in theology. I try to stay out of the political nonsense in the synod except when it becomes a hindrance to our theology (as it has become of late).

The late Kurt Marquardt was quite radical in his thinking, including his public denial of the holocaust. (Could you imagine him as president of the LCMS?)
I do believe that Daniel Preus would be a great president of synod, but he got himself into some trouble for making some untimely comments concerning the synod and the Yankee stadium fiasco. I'm not so sure that he would be elected if he was nominated. (Remember, he was voted out of the 1VP office.)
Wallace Shultz would also make a good president, but I truly believe that all the negative press about him (again following the Yankee stadium fiasco) kind of makes him unelectable. But he is a great Confessional Lutheran.

In my view, the "ultra-conservatives" are the ones who make the Confessional position a political one.

I think Marquardt discovered after the 2004 Convention that what he advocated was being taken much further than he ever intended. If you notice he backed away from the radical views after that convention.

The "ultras" are those who not only make their position political, but narrowly define confessional to be only what they advocate.

Probably the most gifted leader is Jack Preus, III, president of Concordia Irvine and son of J. A. O. Preus, II. He and John Wohlrabe were doing graduate studies at CSL when I was finishing my MDiv and working on my STM (they were both much younger than I, though).

In Christ's love,
filo

[Confess]

I am a Confessional. Conservative in theology. I try to stay out of the political nonsense in the synod except when it becomes a hindrance to our theology (as it has become of late).

The late Kurt Marquardt was quite radical in his thinking, including his public denial of the holocaust. (Could you imagine him as president of the LCMS?)
I do believe that Daniel Preus would be a great president of synod, but he got himself into some trouble for making some untimely comments concerning the synod and the Yankee stadium fiasco. I'm not so sure that he would be elected if he was nominated. (Remember, he was voted out of the 1VP office.)
Wallace Shultz would also make a good president, but I truly believe that all the negative press about him (again following the Yankee stadium fiasco) kind of makes him unelectable. But he is a great Confessional Lutheran.

In my view, the "ultra-conservatives" are the ones who make the Confessional position a political one.
I could care less if the man thought Hitler was a black man. And I never understood why a person's historical take on an event was considered theologically important especially considering the fact that the most electable man ended up being one that professes NOT to be a theologian.:confused: :doh:

Because the Holocaust is such a stumbling block that I believe the enemy uses in this Synod ... I could care less if it happened or not! And I tend to get upset when people bring it up when it concerns the health of the Christian church because the holocaust has nothing to do with the doctrines of the church! GRRRR :mad: :mad: :mad:

As for Preus. I don't get that either. I mean he said everything I was thinking. So what that his letter got out at an "inappropriate" time. The truth is the truth and the only reason why it was not embraced was because of the lack of catechises in the Synod that has aided in the unionistic views of the pastors and laity who later elected the man that best represented them.

The best way IMO to get a solid man elected into the church lays on the shoulders of the pastors to teach the congregations who will then have a voice of conviction for the Truth. I believe the MS has a very long way to go before that is to happen. IF Kieschnick does not get elected, it will only be because the MS delegates fells in love with a moderate.

[DaRev]

I could care less if the man thought Hitler was a black man. And I never understood why a person's historical take on an event was considered theologically important especially considering the fact that the most electable man ended up being one that professes NOT to be a theologian.:confused: :doh:

Because the Holocaust is such a stumbling block that I believe the enemy uses in this Synod ... I could care less if it happened or not! And I tend to get upset when people bring it up when it concerns the health of the Christian church because the holocaust has nothing to do with the doctrines of the church! GRRRR :mad: :mad: :mad:

But someonewith such a radical position on such matters could not possibly represent the Synod effectively. His politics would simply become the same distraction as is the current president's.

As for Preus. I don't get that either. I mean he said everything I was thinking. So what that his letter got out at an "inappropriate" time. The truth is the truth and the only reason why it was not embraced was because of the lack of catechises in the Synod that has aided in the unionistic views of the pastors and laity who later elected the man that best represented them.

I agree with you. I am just speaking on whether or not one could actually get elected if nominated. I truly do not believe that he could.

The best way IMO to get a solid man elected into the church lays on the shoulders of the pastors to teach the congregations who will then have a voice of conviction for the Truth. I believe the MS has a very long way to go before that is to happen. IF Kieschnick does not get elected, it will only be because the MS delegates fells in love with a moderate.

But you forget, Keischnick IS a moderate. What we need is a Confessional leader.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I could care less if the man thought Hitler was a black man. And I never understood why a person's historical take on an event was considered theologically important especially considering the fact that the most electable man ended up being one that professes NOT to be a theologian.:confused: :doh:

Because the Holocaust is such a stumbling block that I believe the enemy uses in this Synod ... I could care less if it happened or not! And I tend to get upset when people bring it up when it concerns the health of the Christian church because the holocaust has nothing to do with the doctrines of the church! GRRRR :mad: :mad: :mad:

As for Preus. I don't get that either. I mean he said everything I was thinking. So what that his letter got out at an "inappropriate" time. The truth is the truth and the only reason why it was not embraced was because of the lack of catechises in the Synod that has aided in the unionistic views of the pastors and laity who later elected the man that best represented them.

The best way IMO to get a solid man elected into the church lays on the shoulders of the pastors to teach the congregations who will then have a voice of conviction for the Truth. I believe the MS has a very long way to go before that is to happen. IF Kieschnick does not get elected, it will only be because the MS delegates fells in love with a moderate.

Sadly we will hear less and less in our churches because power is being consolidated to the pastors.

I have friends in different parts of the country and the report that more and more churches are switching over to the PLI, Willow Creek format. With pastors as CEO's the catechis of the church will fall by the wayside in favor of "what does the pastor say about this" attitude. Actually that is just carrying on the tradition that has held sway in the LCMS for years anyway.

Our pastors have been derelect in "equipping the saints".

PLI is feeding the egos of the ministers and taking them from their original call which was to look after the spiritual needs of the flock and administer the sacrements.

[DaRev]

Sadly we will hear less and less in our churches because power is being consolidated to the pastors.

I have friends in different parts of the country and the report that more and more churches are switching over to the PLI, Willow Creek format. With pastors as CEO's the catechis of the church will fall by the wayside in favor of "what does the pastor say about this" attitude. Actually that is just carrying on the tradition that has held sway in the LCMS for years anyway.

Our pastors have been derelect in "equipping the saints".

PLI is feeding the egos of the ministers and taking them from their original call which was to look after the spiritual needs of the flock and administer the sacrements.

Don't be so quick to throw all of us under your umbrella, Rad. Just because you've dealt with a few renegades doesn't mean that we are all such. I resent your remarks. Perhaps you should stop a think a bit before posting such comments in the future.

[TheCosmicGospel]

Just what is PLI?

Here we go again. You stepped on DaRev. Why not agree where possible? Rad made some good points. On what you disagree with, tell us. This is the same attitude in the synod. We have created a punching bag mentality. I think an apology is in order so the real issues may be dealt with.

Since Rad did not say all pastors, you need to be more constructive in your comments, DaRev.

Cheers,
Cosmic

[C.F.W. Walther]

Don't be so quick to throw all of us under your umbrella, Rad. Just because you've dealt with a few renegades doesn't mean that we are all such. I resent your remarks. Perhaps you should stop a think a bit before posting such comments in the future.
Actually your response just supports my premiss. Since you are "leader" of your congregation you resent anyone questioning your opinions. That goes as far as someone posting in this forum to. Hence the onset of PLI and pastors being CEO's. They want the power and authority. *I'm the ultimate authority since I have an MDiv or Ddiv or an office in synod*.

Just like myself sometimes, you read too much into a comment.

"Renegades" come from the PLI movement and not the supposedly ultra-conservative factions. There is nothing renegade about some wanting to support the confessions.

[Confess]

Since you are "leader" of your congregation you resent anyone questioning your opinions. So was Luther such a man Radidio?


I saw someone's CF character holding a beer. I think I going to buy me one.

[Confess]

PLI = Pastoral leadership institude

http://www.pli-leader.org/article.cfm?id=47

This is where some in the MS take laymen and train them in a sub-Seminary way to become lay leaders and then pastors. It is not formally recognized by the Synod, but some are pushing for it.

[Confess]

But someonewith such a radical position on such matters could not possibly represent the Synod effectively. His politics would simply become the same distraction as is the current president's.

A person's views on a war that happened 70 to 80 years ago? That is nit-picking IMO.

Any public figure will get nit-picked. But this issue goes far beyond nit-picking, it infuriates people. Why? Who cares if he denies that there were gas chambers and such things. It is all in the past and has nothing to do with THEOLOGY. This is not political, it is historical views. EVERY war has people who disagree with what truly happened, the victor tends to write the history, we know this. What is taught in England about the Revolutionary War in some areas are FAR different then what we teach ... that's life.

It is sad that so many would allow themselves to be used of the enemy to stumble on such trivial matters.

[C.F.W. Walther]

So was Luther such a man Radidio?


I saw someone's CF character holding a beer. I think I going to buy me one.We are not Luther? I'm not sure what your point is?

[Confess]

Radidio,
While I don't agree with you about the pastors acting like they have to much power (I have only seen pastors being "wooped" into submission by voters), I do agree that pastors are not doing their job ... especially the ones calling themselves confessional/conservative. I hear a lot of talk, but find that many of them fear their congregation.

[Confess]

Luther did not have voters assemblies. Luther had "all the power" in his congregation. I was just wondering that since you made a blanket statement which says that, "since you are the leader of your congregation, you resent anyone questioning your opinion."

That implies that all who lead their congregation resents others who question them and since Luther was such a leader, do you reckon the same for him?

[C.F.W. Walther]

Well how do you explain PLI and the total dictatorship? There's nothing to be afraid of from the congregation. It is being initiated exponentialy. If the members "woop" the pastors then how does a pastor get that much power without a fight?

[Flipper]

A person's views on a war that happened 70 to 80 years ago? That is nit-picking IMO.

Any public figure will get nit-picked. But this issue goes far beyond nit-picking, it infuriates people. Why? Who cares if he denies that there were gas chambers and such things. It is all in the past and has nothing to do with THEOLOGY. This is not political, it is historical views. EVERY war has people who disagree with what truly happened, the victor tends to write the history, we know this. What is taught in England about the Revolutionary War in some areas are FAR different then what we teach ... that's life.

It is sad that so many would allow themselves to be used of the enemy to stumble on such trivial matters.


I hardly call the Holocaust, where MILLIONS died because of their religious beliefs, trivial - and I can't believe you are comparing it to things like the Revolutionary War as far as how it is taught. That's comparing apples to watermelons.

You forget history, you are doomed to repeat it, no matter how much faith and how good a Christian you are. That's a part of history that should not be made light of, or forgotten - I don't care how long ago it was, or in what context it was brought up.

Bad enough the World Court just now found Serbia not guilty of their armies massacring millions of Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s - I guess they already forgot.

I bet if it was 6 million Christians who were killed instead of 6 million Jews, or millions of Muslims, you wouldn't think it was trivial or simply political. It's genocide, not politics!!!

[C.F.W. Walther]

He was dealing with mostly unschooled, ignorant peasants. Very few educated people.

[Edial]

A person's views on a war that happened 70 to 80 years ago? That is nit-picking IMO.

Any public figure will get nit-picked. But this issue goes far beyond nit-picking, it infuriates people. Why? Who cares if he denies that there were gas chambers and such things. It is all in the past and has nothing to do with THEOLOGY. This is not political, it is historical views. EVERY war has people who disagree with what truly happened, the victor tends to write the history, we know this. What is taught in England about the Revolutionary War in some areas are FAR different then what we teach ... that's life.

It is sad that so many would allow themselves to be used of the enemy to stumble on such trivial matters.
One's theology often shapes not by Bible alone, but also politics and personal leanings.

The best "thology" of a person is when it is complimented by one's personal desire to search truth in all matters regadless of it's popularity or palatability.

If one says that there were no gas chambers despite of pictures of such and testimonies of many people that witnessed them, then one's credibility as a leader in theology is questioned.

Bible is just a part of one's theology.
Anyone could obtain that part.

Personal search for truth however, confirms one's theology, since theology has many ways to be used, whether for good or bad.

Thanks,
Ed

[Edial]

One might just wonder if these two guys are related ...

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar110812_2.gif (http://radidio.christianforums.com/)

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/customprofilepics/profilepic110812_2.gif

[Confess]

He was dealing with mostly unschooled, ignorant peasants. Very few educated people.
Soooo, whats your point. How many people in your congregation know what is in Luther's Catechism? Far to many don't even own one (most who do only own one because the church gave it to them). Even more of them have not opened one AT HOME in years. And lets not even think about the likelyhood of reading or owning the BoC.

Today's Lutheran member is rarely Lutheran in confession.

[Confess]

I hardly call the Holocaust, where MILLIONS died because of their religious beliefs, trivial - and I can't believe you are comparing it to things like the Revolutionary War as far as how it is taught. That's comparing apples to watermelons.

You forget history, you are doomed to repeat it, no matter how much faith and how good a Christian you are. That's a part of history that should not be made light of, or forgotten - I don't care how long ago it was, or in what context it was brought up.

Bad enough the World Court just now found Serbia not guilty of their armies massacring millions of Bosnian Muslims in the early 1990s - I guess they already forgot.

I bet if it was 6 million Christians who were killed instead of 6 million Jews, or millions of Muslims, you wouldn't think it was trivial or simply political. It's genocide, not politics!!!
OK first. Did you read my post??

Did I compare the two wars or did I say that people on either side recount the events differently?

You can say all you want about what you believe about it, I could care less. I have never given my position on the war only that it has nothing to do with Lutheran theology TODAY. The MS is in serious trouble. And for people to get caught up and discount good theology from a man based on his views on one historical event is no different then discounting Martin Luther because of a few letters he wrote that offended you pertaining to the faiths of pagans.

[Edial]

One might just wonder if these two guys are related ...

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/customavatars/avatar110812_2.gif (http://radidio.christianforums.com/)

http://www3.christianforums.com/images/customprofilepics/profilepic110812_2.gif
... forgot the smilie :)

[Confess]

One's theology often shapes not by Bible alone, but also politics and personal leanings.

The best "thology" of a person is when it is complimented by one's personal desire to search truth in all matters regadless of it's popularity or palatability.

If one says that there were no gas chambers despite of pictures of such and testimonies of many people that witnessed them, then one's credibility as a leader in theology is questioned.

Bible is just a part of one's theology.
Anyone could obtain that part.

Personal search for truth however, confirms one's theology, since theology has many ways to be used, whether for good or bad.

Thanks,
Ed
Then to follow such line of thinking, one would have to really distrust much of what Luther says because of some of his positions that we consider questionable.

Truth is that you will not find a theologian that you agree with 100%. He sins just like you and me. I have learned from some great pastors who couldn't control their daughters, they came to church wearing less and less clothes every week. One can argue that if a man cannot control his own home, then how can he control a congregation?

Lets deal with the planks that are in the eyes of the MS and stop looking at splinter in the eyes of those who are willing to serve to help take out such planks.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Luther did not have voters assemblies. Luther had "all the power" in his congregation. I was just wondering that since you made a blanket statement which says that, "since you are the leader of your congregation, you resent anyone questioning your opinion."

That implies that all who lead their congregation resents others who question them and since Luther was such a leader, do you reckon the same for him?

Soooo, whats your point. How many people in your congregation know what is in Luther's Catechism? Far to many don't even own one (most who do only own one because the church gave it to them). Even more of them have not opened one AT HOME in years. And lets not even think about the likelyhood of reading or owning the BoC.

Today's Lutheran member is rarely Lutheran in confession.That's kind of a missleading analogy since it is well know that people today are far more educated than they were in 1528. Even if some don't pick up the catechism the remaining are educated enough to voice opinions on theology and synod politics. The gap between pastors and parishoners has markedly dwindled in 480 years.

[Confess]

That's kind of a missleading analogy since it is well know that people today are far more educated than they were in 1528. Even if some don't pick up the catechism the remaining are educated enough to voice opinions on theology and synod politics. The gap between pastors and parishoners has markedly dwindled in 480 years.
I disagree. I think that the void remains but is different. We are more educated today yet educated in the wrong areas.

We are lazy Christians today who have learned a lot of theology from the faiths of others and have intergrated it into our own faith.

Many do not understand how a baby can be saved in baptism.

Many do not understand why we have closed communion.

Many do not understand why liturgical worship is so beneficial.

Many don't see what is wrong with female pastors except that they wouldn't want one.

Many do not think that receiving forgivness of sins is important for their faith.

Many have listened to so much contemporary music that the false doctrines it sings has latched on to them and have become their false doctrines.

Many don't understand why unionism is unbiblical.

There is a whole slew of things that a majority of people in a congregation are mislead in. And thus, they are no different from those who were unlearned in Luther's day.

So the point is still valid pertaining your view of pastors who lead their congregations as you said to DaRev.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Actually I have to agree with you in you assesment somewhat. Our church and synod has failed to "equip the saints". But we wouldn't have the large confessional movements within our church and the information handed down by them if all people were ignorant. The ratio of informed people is larger now that in Luther's time. Unfortunately with the "dumbing down" of the PLI initiative it might make it worse.

[Confess]

Actually I have to agree with you in you assesment somewhat. Our church and synod has failed to "equip the saints". But we wouldn't have the large confessional movements within our church and the information handed down by them if all people were ignorant. The ratio of informed people is larger now that in Luther's time. Unfortunately with the "dumbing down" of the PLI initiative it might make it worse.
I totally agree with that ... BUT :(

The MS has a far way to go. My husband was a delegate during '04 convention. We were given this big impression that the confessionals were a large group.

In truth. The votes tended to show differently. My husband was usually in the bottom 1/3 of votes.

When the voters voted on doctrine, they voted away from Scripture and few had the guts to say anything about it. When all was said and done, Kieschnick's reply to a vote against Scripture was dealt with a vote of the delegates to determine whether Kieschick was right or the pastors and delegates were right in opposing him.

Kieschnick always won.


There is a looong way to go.

[C.F.W. Walther]

Kieshnick's antics are just fodder for the confessional's to shot him down. Maybe not the last convention but hopefully the one coming up. The Missouri Attorney General's office might help facilatate that. As you have said previously "hope springs eternal".

[DaRev]

Actually your response just supports my premiss. Since you are "leader" of your congregation you resent anyone questioning your opinions.

What I resent is people making statements or claims about me when they don't even know me at all and know nothing about me... kind of like you are doing here.

That goes as far as someone posting in this forum to. Hence the onset of PLI and pastors being CEO's. They want the power and authority. *I'm the ultimate authority since I have an MDiv or Ddiv or an office in synod*.

So, because I'm not an "ultra-conservative" political monger, then I MUST be aligned with PLI. Is that what you're getting at??
Again, I will suggest that you think before you type.

"Renegades" come from the PLI movement and not the supposedly ultra-conservative factions. There is nothing renegade about some wanting to support the confessions.

No, there is nothing "renegade" about supporting the Confessions. There is, however, when they say and do things that cause more division and seperation than addressing the real problems. This is the problem with the ultra-conservative types who are also "renegades".

There are three sides to this. There are the liberals (called "moderates" in the Synod) who want to grab the Synod and run as far left as they can; the ultra-conservatives who want to drag the Synod in the opposite direction as the liberals, regardless of where that may lead; and there are the rest of us who are fighting to keep the Synod from being ripped apart by the renegades from both sides.

God help the LCMS!

[C.F.W. Walther]

What I resent is people making statements or claims about me when they don't even know me at all and know nothing about me... kind of like you are doing here.



So, because I'm not an "ultra-conservative" political monger, then I MUST be aligned with PLI. Is that what you're getting at??
Again, I will suggest that you think before you type.



No, there is nothing "renegade" about supporting the Confessions. There is, however, when they say and do things that cause more division and seperation than addressing the real problems. This is the problem with the ultra-conservative types who are also "renegades".

There are three sides to this. There are the liberals (called "moderates" in the Synod) who want to grab the Synod and run as far left as they can; the ultra-conservatives who want to drag the Synod in the opposite direction as the liberals, regardless of where that may lead; and there are the rest of us who are fighting to keep the Synod from being ripped apart by the renegades from both sides.

God help the LCMS!Ok I was a little rash and assuming in my comments. Maybe my loyalties are sometimes missguided but I feel very strongly for the confessional side of the synod. I apologize for offending you DaRev.

[C.F.W. Walther]

I'm just curious as to the strategy of the non-aligned moderate confessionals? Is their strategy to not get involved in synod politics? Will they ignore Kiesnick's monarcy and his flaunting his liberal agenda in front of them? Will they condone his flagrant abuse of not-for-profit laws. Will they ignore the findings of the Atorney Generals office?

What about the spiritual side of the synod's liberal leanings? What are their intents and strategy?

[filosofer]

Luther did not have voters assemblies. Luther had "all the power" in his congregation. I was just wondering that since you made a blanket statement which says that, "since you are the leader of your congregation, you resent anyone questioning your opinion."

That implies that all who lead their congregation resents others who question them and since Luther was such a leader, do you reckon the same for him?

Just to make it clear, Luther was not the pastor of a congregation. Bugenhagen was. Luther preached at the local congregation but he was not the pastor of that congregation.

In Christ's love,
filo

[DaRev]

I feel very strongly for the confessional side of the synod.

As do I. Moreso than you probably think. I just don't think that politics is the way to deal with the situation. I am looking for a strong Confessional synodical leader who can lead theologically instead of politically. Perhaps I'm dreaming, but I honestly feel that's what we need.

We need another CFW!

I apologize for offending you DaRev.

Accepted. And I apologize if I seemed a bit harsh. I guess we share both our zeal for and our frustration in the state of the Synod.

[C.F.W. Walther]

April 6, 2007

“Wallace Schulz Writes about Problems in the LCMS”

Doctor Wallace Schulz, former Second Vice President of LCMS, former speaker
for 25 years on The Lutheran Hour, and now candidate for the LCMS
presidency, posted a lengthy essay on the internet at
http://fp1.centurytel.net/itiswritten/ (http://fp1.centurytel.net/itiswritten/) titled, “It is Written.”

One would have wished that Schulz had been this forthright about his
opinions years ago.

Schulz addresses far too many issues to cover in this release, including
problems with fundamentalism, inerrancy, so-called conservatives, Seminex,
the disintegration of the LCMS, Yankee Stadium, 911, and much more.

Reclaim News has reproduced a few quotations from Schulz’s essay and gives a
brief commentary as follows:

Quotation 1: “The following is an informal essay written in a popular style
about the church in which I was born and raised. This church is now deeply
divided and increasingly directionless, causing some to drift away to other
churches, and many to no church at all (Hebrews 2:1).”

Quotation 2: DON’T LIVE IN DELUSION. CHURCH POLITICS HAS ALWAYS TURNED
STOMACHS!
As we move along in this discussion, let’s keep another point in full view:
to see early governance of the LCMS as some type of “lily white” operation
is “romanticized,” fictional, and wrong. Governance of the external
structure of the church has always been difficult. At times, man’s worst
character traits often show through in church administration matters,[8]
since church governance is never totally free of man’s sinful “behind the
scenes manipulation.” So, what is the answer?

Quotation 3: By intent, or by default, Ablaze!® theology/missiology not only
permits but actually promotes Fundamentalist theology and methodology, a
foreign theology now taking deep root in our church. This will be discussed
as the essay moves ahead.

If the post-Seminex LCMS leadership had made as their litmus test for the
LCMS’s future the “efficacy” of the Word (as Luther discusses it in his
commentaries on John, Genesis, etc.) instead of the inerrancy of the Word,
this reprioritization would have prevented much current confusion and
division. It would have caused the entire Synod to have the proper and most
important “WORD” orientation, therefore also helping the LCMS to remain on
the historic “middle road,” a road between Catholicism and the rest of
Protestantism, a lonely way, but a God-pleasing way. Historic Lutheranism
has never joined forces with those of other doctrinal persuasions, such as
Fundamentalism, even to fight the common enemy of liberalism! Although the
historic LCMS did not teach that there are errors in the Bible, “inerrancy”
is not the doctrine of Christ that drives Lutheran teaching. It is rather
Jesus’ teaching in John 6:63, “The words that I have spoken to you are
Spirit and are life.”

Quotation 4: Here is one of the great impacts Ablaze!® and “Igniting
Congregations” will make on the future of the LCMS. In their effort to get
people into the churches, sincere and well-trained LCMS pastors attempt to
put together a church service using standard, historical liturgical
terminology while simultaneously integrating a Protestant worship format,
including popular singspiration hymns. This is to say, well-intended LCMS
pastors who use “blended” services may well end up producing fruit they
neither expected nor intended!

Quotation 5: We in the LCMS need to set aside the minimum tillage of
Ablaze!® and “Igniting Congregations,” as inviting and as alive these may
seem, and return to our Christ’s Great Commission missiology. We need to get
the old “teaching machinery” out of the shed (no one in U.S. Protestantism
has anything like what we in the LCMS have) and set our hand to the plow, as
Jesus has commanded. We can then be sure that the harvest for eternity will
be great. “And the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and
thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11).
----------------------------------------------------------
Reclaim News Commentary:
Schulz as done some excellent work in this essay. Yet he could have named
many more problems such as the collapse of congregational polity, usurpation
of congregational authority, rejection of forensic justification by seminary
professors, rabid hyper-euro Sacerdotalism, open rejection of the Trinity
and the Two Natures of Christ by many LCMS officials and District
Presidents, corruption of the delegate selection process, corruption of the
Dispute Resolution Process, violation of Missouri Corporate Law, and the COP
using 80 cents on the dollar of all mission funds. The districts only send
about 20 million of the 120 million they collect every year to the Synod.
They waste at least 50 million on their own bureaucracies.

Schulz shows his lack of understanding about the nature of the Synod with
the following quotations:
“The following is an informal essay written in a popular style about the
church in which I was born and raised.”
“Governance of the external structure of the church has always been
difficult.”
“The LCMS is not a corporation, but rather a confessing movement.”

The LCMS is a corporation as clearly stated on page 203 of the 2004
Handbook. The Articles of Incorporation were approved on July 3, 1894.
Schulz was raised in an LCMS congregation not the LCMS Inc. The LCMS was
once correctly called, an “Evangelical Lutheran Synod” or group of churches
walking together, not a “Church.” The LCMS has never been a church. Schulz
obviously doesn’t understood Walther’s “Church and Ministry.”

The LCMS President is elected every three years. He has no call. He can’t
consecrate the communion elements at the Convention. No lay person belongs
to the LCMS or has any rights in the LCMS. The LCMS can’t baptize, commune,
or excommunicate anyone. The LCMS doesn’t have the marks of the church.
The LCMS is a not-for- profit corporation and nothing more than a
corporation that is now assuming authority over congregations that created
it.

If a man doesn’t know the difference between church and corporate politics
he can hardly be effective. I was removed from the clergy roster by the
Michigan District President over disagreement with a CCM ruling which has
nothing to do with Article II of the LCMS Constitution, faith, God, the
Bible, the Lutheran Confessions, or confession of anything. Schulz’s
so-called “confessional movement” removes anyone it chooses who doesn’t
confess their CCM rulings which the corporation creates at will, rulings
that are binding on all parties without a vote of the congregations.

We thank Doctor Schulz for speaking out.

[TheCosmicGospel]

Rad,

Tryin to make heads of yer last post. You sound in favor in Shulz but not a 100%. What percentage are you for Shulz? 85%? 75%

Do you really wanna know what CFW would do? It is time to separate the goats from the sheep, the lizards from the men. Raise the Saxon flag cause this thing is goin up in smoke. English perverted this synod. We are going back to German. Sure keeps down a lot of arguements. That's why it worked so well for so many years. No one understood us or wanted to. Suited us Saxons jes fine too.

[C.F.W. Walther]

It's an article from reclaim news and not my opinion. See the link at the bottom.

[DaRev]

It's an article from reclaim news and not my opinion. See the link at the bottom.

It's a weird article because it starts out praising Shultz and ends up slamming him.

:scratch: :confused:

[DaRev]

Rad,

Tryin to make heads of yer last post. You sound in favor in Shulz but not a 100%. What percentage are you for Shulz? 85%? 75%

Do you really wanna know what CFW would do? It is time to separate the goats from the sheep, the lizards from the men. Raise the Saxon flag cause this thing is goin up in smoke. English perverted this synod. We are going back to German. Sure keeps down a lot of arguements. That's why it worked so well for so many years. No one understood us or wanted to. Suited us Saxons jes fine too.

Well, that would be reason enough for the SELC to secede.;)

[TheCosmicGospel]

After reading the entire article, I must say Shulz has a lot to say. And most of it very, very good. At the same time, it is very depressing. Does anyone know where the methodology for Ablaze actually comes from? Who sold it?

Just who is Reclaim News for one? Seems quibbling to me in their limited commentary. They should address the concerns that Schulz presented. Pea brains!

I vote we turn this ship around and head back to Germany. Is it too late?

Waiting,
Cosmic

[C.F.W. Walther]

Ablaze is a spin off of the Willow Creek Assoc founded by Bill Hybel which I think is Fundamentalist Baptist in origin. It has spawned the PLI or Pastoral Leadership Institute progam in the LCMS, and taught at the seminaries, to make Hybel clones and happy clappy churches.

[DaRev]

Ablaze is a spin off of the Willow Creek Assoc founded by Bill Hybel which I think is Fundamentalist Baptist in origin. It has spawned the PLI or Pastoral Leadership Institute progam in the LCMS, and taught at the seminaries, to make Hybel clones and happy clappy churches.

While I am neither a fan of Ablaze nor PLI, I'm not sure where you get your information. That statement is the silliest thing I have ever heard. None of that was taught at the LCMS seminary I attended. What seminary did you attend, Rad? :scratch:

[C.F.W. Walther]

Advocated at LCMS is a better choice of words.


To Enroll
To enroll in PLI, a pastor of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod must be nominated. The nomination process is diverse and provides adequate avenues to avoid personal prejudice in selecting candidates.
Nominations can originate from
1) LCMS district president
2) LCMS Mega-Church Pastors Conference members
3) One of the two LCMS seminaries
4) A staff member of the Board for Congregational Services, LCMS
5) A staff member of the Board for Higher Education, LCMS
6) A staff member of the Lutheran Church Extension Fund, LCMS
7) A current PLI Pastor
8) Two parish pastors
Letters of nomination are sent to:
Pastoral Leadership Institute
12300 Ford Road, Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75234-8108
What’s Next?
After nominations are received, the names of the pastors from each district are sent to their respective district president. The district president is requested to affirm the pastors he feels are qualified for enrollment in PLI.
He has the authority to add or delete from the list. Application information is sent to all nominated and affirmed pastors in early October of each year for enrollment the following June.
Further Questions
If you have questions regarding this procedure, contact Rita Wagner at PLI: (469) 522-5200

[Studeclunker]

Just to make it clear, Luther was not the pastor of a congregation. Bugenhagen was. Luther preached at the local congregation but he was not the pastor of that congregation.

In Christ's love,
filo

That may be true, still, wasn't it Luther who returned and dismissed Bugenhagen after the revolt and excesses when Luther was in seclusion? If my memory serves me correctly, that would put Martin Luther in the position of senior pastor and Bugenhagen as junior pastor. Or is my memory all buggered up again?:sorry: