 |
| This seems to be good reason NOT to copy Groeschel and the Catholic Encyclopedia, but it also explains why Glende and No Call Paul McCain are FB friends. |
Book of Concord, Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, X, Adiaphora
5] Namely, when under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel].
10] We believe, teach, and confess also that at the time of confession [when a confession of the heavenly truth is required], when the enemies of God's Word desire to suppress the pure doctrine of the holy Gospel, the entire congregation of God, yea, every Christian, but especially the ministers of the Word, as the leaders of the congregation of God [as those whom God has appointed to rule His Church], are bound by God's Word to confess freely and openly the [godly] doctrine, and what belongs to the whole of [pure] religion, not only in words, but also in works and with deeds; and that then, in this case, even in such [things truly and of themselves] adiaphora, they must not yield to the adversaries, or permit these [adiaphora] to be forced upon them by their enemies, whether by violence or cunning, to the detriment of the true worship of God and the introduction and sanction of idolatry. 11] For it is written, Gal. 5:1: Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not again entangled in the yoke of bondage. Also Gal. 2:4f : And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.
***
GJ - The article on Adiaphora (matters of indifference) is used to advance false doctrine in the SynCon sects. Kudu Don Patterson's wealthy layman said, "Almost everything in worship is adiaphora."
Missouri has plenty of Fuller Seminary emergents, but also a boatload of papal-wannabees.
In all these cases, the article on adiaphora is a staggering blow against their craft and assaults, their deceit and trickery. This is a time of confession, because the Church of Rome is using all its power, wealth, and pageantry to weasel Protestants into the fold. Note the constant promotion of Roman terms among the Lutherans today, the persistent references to the great and wise papalists (like the pope), the obsession with Roman customs, liturgical colors, and lectionary readings (three-year, another gift from Rome).
Missouri, WELS, the Little Sect, and the toxic CLC (sic) have all done things to express unity with Rome.WELS-ELS had a bishop march in procession at a religious service at Bethany (aka The Little Schoolhouse on the Prairie) and an archbishop pedophile teach at Wisconsin Lutheran College. Weakland's priests also taught in that series of lectures. How many were in his harem, no one will ever tell. They have all joined with ELCA (!) to use the Roman three-year lectionary and the gay Roman liturgical colors.
Need I mention the aping of everything from Fuller Seminary? Fuller doctrine and methods are the best way to get promoted in WELS, Missouri, the ELS, and the toxic CLC (sic). Those yearning to be president of The Sausage Factory better sign up for some Fuller courses, because that is the ticket. Ask Valleskey and Wendland.
Where has ELS Jay Webber, the Torquemada of Ternopil, been during this onslaught of Romanism and Fullerism? He battles constantly against justification by faith, but seems indifferent to the last days of an insane, old world. Has the ELS Bored of Doctrine even noticed the dominance of Fuller thinking in ELS/WELS? the Weakland and Martin Marty lectures? Mark and Avoid Jeske?
The innocent should consider how these noble Pharisees wrinkle their noses in disgust, if anything amiss is mentioned to them. WELS - You studied at Ft. Wayne? How tragic.
- ELS - You were WELS? I hope you recover.
- Missouri St. Louis - You only went to Ft. Wayne?
- Missouri Ft. Wayne - You are a St. Louis snob?
- CLC (sic) - You were not there when we began. Apostate!
 |
| This church building is held together by strands of giant steel dental floss, but Missouri spends its money on imperial salaries for seminary profs and CPH plagiarists. |
From Brett Meyer:
In
line with your post on Adiaphora I’m sending you part of the exchange with Holy
Trinity that highlights their leaving adiaphora behind in favor of a new
tactic. (W)ELS has moved far beyond issues of adiaphora and on to Rome’s
version of Principles and Application of Principles. May be too long for
posting but your call.
From: brett.meyer@comcast.net
[mailto:brett.meyer@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 3:22
PM
To:
Pastor
Schewe
Cc:
brett.meyer@comcast.net
Subject: July 9th
service
Importance: High
Pastor,
during the third reading today you had a responsive reading of Matthew
6:19-21,25- 34. Can you please explain why you had the women reading two parts
of the Scripture? Doesn't biblical doctrine teach that women should be silent in
the church, 1 Corinthians 14:34,35. This is clearly prohibited by our Orthodox
Lutheran doctrine and should not have been done.
1
Corinthians 14:34-35, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is
not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience
as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their
husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the
church.”
From:
Pastor
Schewe
To:
brett.meyer@comcast.net
Sent:
Wednesday,
July 12, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject:
RE:
July 9th service
Hi back
Brett,
I
thought I’d get back to you on your question. Our company from Wisconsin kept us
pretty busy the last couple days! Thanks for the question. I’m a bit surprised
that you asked this one because antiphonal formats have been used for quite a
while in our circles, and have been deemed an acceptable practice that does not
violate the man/woman roles God has established. I know that Holy Trinity has
used antiphonal formats in the past before I arrived. Also, we sang an
antiphonal hymn on Easter Sunday.
As far
as the verses from 1 Cor. 14, where it states that women should “remain silent
in the churches,” I’m going to assume that you already know that this does not
prohibit women from uttering noises in church. Otherwise, women couldn’t pray,
confess their faith, sing about the Law and the Gospel, or do any other
activities that involved their voice. So then, what does it mean that they are
to “remain silent?”
The
previous verses give the context for this. Paul writes that there has been
disorderly prophesying in the church at Corinth. People intending to teach the
group were speaking all at once, causing confusion. Paul therefore gives this
command in 1 Cor. 14, which is similar to 1 Timothy 2: “I do not permit a
woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
Therefore, it would be a violation for a woman to do things such as hold
pastoral office over a congregation, to lead Adult Bible Study over men, or to
exercise voting rights. It would not be a valid application of this teaching
principle to apply it to every use of women’s voices in worship or to antiphonal
formats of worship. If we were going to do that, we would have to eliminate
women soloists, female choirs, prominent women’s melodies in mixed choirs, women
and men singing the psalms antiphonally, etc. (Our teaching training college,
Martin Luther College in New Ulm, MN, has a very fine “Treble Choir” that sings
God’s law and gospel to God’s people) In fact, the music pieces and hymns would
be even more suspect than reading Scripture, since they contain interpretation
of Scripture. We’d even have to condemn women singing in the presence of men,
because the men might hear them. These activities, however, are viewed in our
circles as acceptable practices that do not usurp teaching authority and thereby
violate the Scriptural principle.
Hope
you’re having a good week! May God keep our families under his protecting
hand,
Pastor
S.
From:
brett.meyer@comcast.net
[mailto:brett.meyer@comcast.net]
Sent:
Wednesday,
July 12, 2006 10:20 PM
To:
Pastor
Schewe
Subject:
Re: July 9th
service
Pastor,
thank you for your response. You are correct, the same thing has happened at
HTLC before.
Only once while we were visiting. Pastor Buchholz was asking doctrinal questions
of men and women during the sermon and in turn they would stand and give an
answer to the entire congregation. My family and I immediately left the service
just as we did this past Sunday.
The
fact that Synod has accepted this practice and states that it doesn't violate
scripture means nothing to me if they can't back it up with scripture. And they
haven't provided any scriptural support for it other than to erode existing
passages (refer to the WELS question and answer below from the Synod website). I
also think this is indicative of the condition of our ELS and WELS
Synods.
When
women recite the creeds, sing hymns, pray the Lord's prayer they are doing so
with the entire congregation and are speaking to and being served by God
individually. They are not instructing the entire congregation during those
activities. When scripture passages are being read to the congregation then that
is an act of teaching the congregation God's words, God's doctrines. They are
speaking with God's authority, Holy Scripture, to the church. This is clearly
prohibited in 1 Cor. 14:34,35 and 1 Tim. 2:11,12.
It
is quite possible that this issue, and others, derive from our first contention
which is what is happening during the service. You've contended that primarily
we are serving God during the Worship Service and I contend that primarily if
not solely God is serving us during the Divine Service. Now if we are primarily
serving God, then how we worship and what we worship with becomes adiaphora and
subject to personal opinion and tastes. The hymns we sing no longer contain
scripture but focus on praise words and songs which magnify how we feel and what
we do. This trend toward focusing on us can be seen the change of names from the
Divine Service to the Worship service as Divine refers to God and Worship refers
to us and what we do. But if God is serving us then we no longer have such wide
choices and the liturgy is no longer adiaphora because God has chosen to serve
us through only two means,
Word
and Sacrament. Thus the entire service revolves around God's Word and his
Sacraments serving us. Convicting us of our sins and creating contrition in our
hearts through the Law, strengthening our faith in Christ's perfect work and
granting us the forgiveness of sins through the Lord's Supper and declaring us
righteous before God the Father by grace through faith in the
Gospel.
Also,
doctrine needs to be decided solely on scripture and not on practices or
traditions that would have to change because of the decision. For the Catholic
Church dictates doctrine based on tradition and they remain damned to this day.
There is nothing good in the Church Growth movement. Practice affects
doctrine.
In
Christ,
Brett
Q:
I
was reading on a past WELS q&a that it may be possible for women to be
lectors during a worship service (especially if the tone and inflection of her
voice is proper). I have several questions regarding this viewpoint. 1. This has
not been the viewpoint of some WELS theologians as is clear from articles
written in WLQ from the 60's and 70's. Has the WELS changed its interpretation
of the 1 Corinthians passages dealing with women remaining silent? 2. Does the
WELS now teach that it may be acceptable in some instances for a woman to read a
Pastor's pre-prepared sermon in front of the congregation since she technically
would not be teaching of having authority? 3. Are we witnessing the slippery
slope or frog boiling phenomena in the WELS with regard to its stance on women's
roles? I ask these questions only because I care deeply for the WELS and the
solid doctrinal stance it has held by the grace of
God!
A:
An
article in the 1981 Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (an exegesis of 1 Co 14:33b
ff.) points out that the matter of women being silent in the church is not the
principle but an application of the principle to the unique type of worship
service that existed in Corinth. The principle is that a woman is not to assume
authority over a man. This principle is not being denied by saying that a woman
could serve as a lector. The reading of a Scripture passage with men present is
not in and of itself assuming authority over the men. However, reading from the
front of the church with a posture and tone of voice that would signal a woman's
attitude of lording it over others would be a violation of this principle.
So
though it may be technically possible for a woman to read the Scriptures in a
worship service without violating her God-given role, there are a number of
other factors that need to be carefully considered before this is done. The
question that brought this matter up asked whether in and of itself reading the
Scripture lessons in church would be a sin for a woman. But since it is not
usually an "in and of itself" matter, it would be a practice that involves a
number of other important issues that need to be addressed before it is
done.
