DK has left a new comment on your post "The Little Sect on the Prairie Is All About Doctri...":
Hi Professor Jackson
I have a UOJ question for you. I’ve talked with several WELS and LCMS pastors about UOJ. Out of 6 or 8 pastors, 1 from each synod has responded in what I would call ‘very favorable’. (each has told me they are going to read Thy Strong Word).
The rest of the pastors kindly, but very definitely blew me off. “Of course Christ Objectively Justified the whole world!”, went the general theme. The more questions I ask the more vague the response until the wind of conversation dies out, replaced by awkward silence…(crickets chirping…) The agony of it makes me ask a benign question, one I know will warm the marrow quickly. “Are you going to watch the Packers this afternoon?”
Even though I think that Pastors ought to be engaging me in this conversation (instead of the other way around) I really do get the distinct impression that the guys I talked to, at least, believe that Faith Alone justifies; It’s almost as if the words they use are jumbled, confusing and misleading but their belief is alright. Using the word ‘reconciliation’ as a direct synonym for ‘justification’ is a pretty big error, but look at our times!
We’re experiencing one of the biggest butcheries of English in the history of the language. The poor uneducated Confederate soldier had a bigger vocabulary and better usage and grammar (I’ve read countless letters) than any collection of M.DIVs from any synod. This degredation(sic) of English is particularly bad in the WELS—there(sic) fetish for misspelling words only scratches the surface.
So my question for you is this: In your opinion, what percent of UOJ defenders actually don’t believe the substance(sic) of that doctrine? How many of them are unaware that the Equivication(sic) changes what they are saying? And how many WELS pastors, considering the WELS MO is K.I.S.S., ever actually talk about UOJ? And as far as that goes, how many of them even think about UOJ? I’m just wondering if you think that UOJ is having a negative threat on the Whole WELS or only on the movers and shakers, who in turn affect the whole WELS?
Sorry, maybe this is a dumb question… Oh but good news! I purposefully misspelled words for affect (and effect) and added (sic) for you so you didn’t have to. Cheers!
***
GJ - I have always appreciated doctrinal questions. WELS/LCMS laity got me interested in the issue, and some badly brain-washed UOJ-CGM laity raved at me for being influenced by laity. (Self-loathing laity?)
By now most pastors know that UOJ is the Third Rail of the Synodical Conference - touch it and you die. The Cascione junkyard dogs rant, rave, and lie through their fangs about it. The CG leadership of all three synods adore UOJ, so pastors interested in keeping their calls would rather avoid the issue.
WELS pastors have avoided doctrinal issues for several decades and have grown anemic and lethargic in their discernment. Missouri and the Little Sect are no different.
My experience is that many pastors trained in UOJ cling to the words but do not believe the heresy. A certain percentage of those pastors think OJ is the Atonement, so they may say the UOJ words while expressing the Biblical concept of justification by faith. Other pastors do not accept UOJ because they realize it is utter hogwash. Some are more frank with me, and some will argue the issue when given the chance.
I think SP Schroeder gave the entire synod permission to study doctrine again. There will be conflict, but that is not all bad. "There must be heresies and divisions among you to prove what is acceptable." Suppressing doctrinal discussions is foundational for apostasy.
The more I studied UOJ, the more I saw it as an expression of the Enthusiasm which gushed forth from the Pietistic founders of the Synodical Conference. When they were not praising themselves for being so orthodox, they were busy creating a hybrid of Pietism and Lutheran Orthodoxy. Now they are shocked that their husbandry has created a sterile mule? They should have spent more time on a farm growing up.
Perhaps this anecdote will illustrate what is going on about UOJ. I was at an independent conference when someone gave an incoherent presentation. Archbishop-to-be Jim Heiser was there and said, "He denied OJ!" I am not sure what the presenter said, although he was clearly against baptismal regeneration. Later, when Heiser read the justification chapter of Thy Strong Word, he was appalled at what UOJ really meant. Like me, he took the term to be a synonym for the Atonement. Heiser told me that another pastor read that chapter and was also shocked. Both of them were at The Surrendered Fort while Robert Preus was president.
When Fake Ichabod made its brief, odoriferous debut, the authors refused to link the chapter while maladroitly presenting their favorite heresy, which is wedded to Church Growth. People need to read copious quotations from both sides, not the repeat-after-me nonsense of Enthusiasm. What are the pastors afraid of - the truth?
The UOJ Stormtroopers are afraid these issues will come out in the open as they discuss the Book of Concord. The laity and a few brave pastors will have to pursue the Biblical concept of the Means of Grace as it applies to UOJ.
One thing leads to another. As I wrote before, laity got me involved in the UOJ issue. I spent as much time as I could gathering UOJ materials. Now others are opening up new understanding about its origin - including original research about the Pietist Knapp. Copying false doctrine did not begin with Paul Calvin Kelm.
