No wonder Prairie became a prison.
It reminds them of home.
People think they are arguing about different brands of Lutheranism when they compare synods. That is why "WELS and Other Lutherans" is the most popular post on this blog.
The various Lutheran groups are forms of Pietism. ELCA is radical Pietism - the legalism of Antinomianism. Anyone who opposes gay marriage and gay ordination should be kicked out. ELCA has already publicly branded them as unworthy of the name.
The key agenda item for Pietism is shunning, not doctrine. Shunning comes from the Mennonites, whose discipline means that a shunned person becomes invisible and cannot do anything with the elect. Nor will they even do business with him. Better to be a non-Mennonite than a shunned Mennonite.
Lutherans in America do not give a hoot about sound doctrine. If they did, their seminary faculties would be laughed off the stage at graduation. US Lutherans are devoted to the cult of shunning.
All the so-called fellowship rules among the conservatives are guidance for shunning. One family had questions about the dreadful Tiefel Christian Worship book. They were excommunicated for thought-crimes against the proposed hymnal. That is shunning at its best.
WELS and Missouri are just about the same in Pietistic doctrine, just as devoted to straying. Both must shun the other. Notice that WELS allowed the Leonard Sweet conference, Martin Marty lectures, and Archbishop Weakland gay lectures, but they banned the LCMS Hunter-Werning conference hosted by WELS Shrinkers. One could argue that Sweet is many times worse than Hunter or Werning, who are both copycats from Fuller, but marginal Lutherans. Even more could be said about publicly sponsoring the archfiend Weakland, who represented the worst in Romanism. But that is not the point. Missouri raises hackles that the others cannot.
The ELS and WELS shun each other, in spite of their pious statements otherwise.
Shunning--like voodoo--only works when someone takes it seriously. For instance, one WELS seminary professor made a big point of looking through me and avoiding eye contact. At my next opportunity, I went to him, shook his hand, and greeted him by name. He responded like a Hasidic rabbi touched by a Muslim (unclean! unclean!).
Here is a doctrinal debate in the synods:
Innocent - "This is false doctrine."
Synod Drone - "You are a bad person."
Innocent's Friend - "Innocent has some questions."
Synod Drone - "You are a bad person for listening to him."
2 comments:
Here's are a couple good examples of shunning in the WELS:
First, if someone doesn't believe in UOJ or that the pope is necessarily the anti-christ, perhaps preferring pan-millennial eschatology, that person can't sing in the choir or be a member of a WELS church even if they only told the pastor of their private beliefs. Now, how many choir numbers do you know that proclaim UOJ? Or that the pope is the Antichrist? None. So hypocrisy is not an issue here, i.e., singing about something you don't believe.
Second, pairs of people are usually listed in the bulletin and calendar for church cleaning. However, if the spouse or relative or good friend is not a WELS member but attends that WELS church, that non-member is not listed as cleaning the church, so it looks as though one person is cleaning the entire church his- or herself. Evidently, letting it be known that a non-WELS member cleans the church could lead to mass-apostasy, I guess the thinking goes.
However, this type of shunning will make it easier to rid the WELS of UOJ (or dismantle the WELS), since the foolish woman tears her own home down with her own hands (Proverbs 14:1).
I re-read this post and compared it to my experience with the WELS, and after reflection I'd say the post is 100% right on target, and actually makes sense of what goes on better than the current wisdom about why the WELS and even LCMS are the way they are. For example:
1) conventional wisdom says that the reason the WELS and LCMS can invite heretics to speak, e.g., Catholics and Sem-Ex, but not people who are nearly the same in doctrine and heritage, is that the presence of those who differ in one or two points leads to divisions and argumentation, but everyone can accept and tolerate and learn from those who are waaay different. But in reality, the Ockham's Razor explanation is that it's all about shunning, except that word shunning can't be mentioned because Lutherans don't do that.
2) I commented a few times on how I bought all the books and booklets that NPH and CPH had to offer on certain doctrines, but they didn't answer my questions or refute the heretics very well, so I had to look up Books in Print and write apologetics ministries for other resources. Not long ago I admitted to using the internet to study certain doctrines--to see what other authors of different persuasions were saying about certain doctrines. The WELS and LCMS people with whom I was shared this were appalled that I would, heaven forbid, look on the internet to find doctrinal resources!
3) That quip at the Mequon sem about only needing a Triglotta, Lenski and boxer shorts is meant to be taken more seriously than it sounds, meaning they want you to keep your nose in certain books and out of others.
Anyway, I'm confident that soon the true history of the synodical conference will appear (maybe on the internet), and then we'll know where all these doctrines and practices and shunning came from that separate the synodical conference Lutherans from other Lutherans, and I'm sure that the WELS, ELS and LCMS won't like it one bit.
Post a Comment