http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/02/intrepid-lutherans-what-on-earth-could.html
Just a note from one who has had his name removed. I had joined Intrepid with the original concern about "Church & Change". The justification issue is recent to the blog. I have been told that this controversy will be addressed and indeed my circuit is doing so now. I will present a critical review of S. Becker's paper on OJ. Also will cover Dr. Moo's (of the NNIV) universalism. So I have not retreated from my concerns. I don't wish to be tied to any article that appears on IL - which unfortunately is done by many within the synod. Ken Engdahl
Thank you Mr. Engdahl for explaining the reason for your name's removal from Intrepid Lutherans. I certainly respect your decision. I hope it was not done under threat of the "left foot of fellowship". I pray things go well for you presenting a paper which could be critical of a WELS "name".
I have been in the WELS too long to take any stock in "we're looking into it", "it's being handled", and "will be addressed".
"...the cry goes up 'how long'?...."
Scott E. Jungen
I have been in the WELS too long to take any stock in "we're looking into it", "it's being handled", and "will be addressed".
"...the cry goes up 'how long'?...."
Scott E. Jungen
When I first saw this post I thought it would either draw lots of comments or very few. I guess the few are winning to date.
The response of the CoP should not be unexpected. As the article alludes to WELS has been changing and adapting to fit into the world around it for a long time.
Hopefully all of our Pastors, Teachers and WELS members remember the First Commandment as they examine their courses of action. Also to keep in mind, (and I go from memory here), as they ponder what actions to take or not to take to "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thy own understanding."
Perhaps simplistic advice but so be it.
Lee Liermann
The response of the CoP should not be unexpected. As the article alludes to WELS has been changing and adapting to fit into the world around it for a long time.
Hopefully all of our Pastors, Teachers and WELS members remember the First Commandment as they examine their courses of action. Also to keep in mind, (and I go from memory here), as they ponder what actions to take or not to take to "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thy own understanding."
Perhaps simplistic advice but so be it.
Lee Liermann
Rev. Engdahl,
I, for one, thank you for your past public support and for your continuing active concern over issues we mutually recognize. I had responded to Vernon's note, above, last night, in order to defend the character of those who've decided to remove their names, but sat on my response until now. I include it in the next comment, but before I do that, I want to highlight your leading comments, "I had joined Intrepid with the original concern about 'Church & Change'. The justification issue is recent to the blog." For the record, we had no interest in addressing the issue of Justification when we started. It soon became clear, however, that it would be impossible to talk about Law & Gospel (an important issue to address, if we are going to discuss the pattern of "relevant" third-use sermon topics promoted by CGM), without also referring to Justification. Law & Gospel teaches the saving message of Justification, so it is inevitable that the issue would be taken up. Since it was a matter of hot debate in some quarters, especially by those sharing a concern over CGM, we addressed it by posting Rev. Kurt Marquart essay on the Kokomo thesis, and Rev. Carl Manthey-Zorn's explanation of the issues surrounding the Election debate, and we were content to leave it at that. Until Joe Krohn was drop-kicked out of Synod. Just like Rick Techlin. Without the discussion he implored his church leadership to have with him. Just like Rick Techlin. By a church leadership apparently committed to CGM. Just like Rick Techlin. Then, it was felt, there was little choice but to seriously look into it. How could there not be?
Just so you know, this issue is no longer limited to just a few laymen and pastors, but has spread wide over American Lutheranism. It is growing now, and it is not going to go away. Like it or not, that's the reality. Just like a new look was required in the 19th Century due to controversy, a new look is now required in the 21st. Let's hope we don't have inflammatory personalities, like C.F.W. Walther and F.A. Schmidt, involved, personalities which, history tells us, didn't help bring matters to a peaceful resolution, but exacerbated the conflict. If genuine unity is what is desired, then now is NOT the time, for anyone, to take hardened positions and stridently advance them, but to engage in patient and cautious discussion, as they strive to handle the Word of God, the Confessions, and the facts of history with the fidelity they deserve.
My Opinion.
I, for one, thank you for your past public support and for your continuing active concern over issues we mutually recognize. I had responded to Vernon's note, above, last night, in order to defend the character of those who've decided to remove their names, but sat on my response until now. I include it in the next comment, but before I do that, I want to highlight your leading comments, "I had joined Intrepid with the original concern about 'Church & Change'. The justification issue is recent to the blog." For the record, we had no interest in addressing the issue of Justification when we started. It soon became clear, however, that it would be impossible to talk about Law & Gospel (an important issue to address, if we are going to discuss the pattern of "relevant" third-use sermon topics promoted by CGM), without also referring to Justification. Law & Gospel teaches the saving message of Justification, so it is inevitable that the issue would be taken up. Since it was a matter of hot debate in some quarters, especially by those sharing a concern over CGM, we addressed it by posting Rev. Kurt Marquart essay on the Kokomo thesis, and Rev. Carl Manthey-Zorn's explanation of the issues surrounding the Election debate, and we were content to leave it at that. Until Joe Krohn was drop-kicked out of Synod. Just like Rick Techlin. Without the discussion he implored his church leadership to have with him. Just like Rick Techlin. By a church leadership apparently committed to CGM. Just like Rick Techlin. Then, it was felt, there was little choice but to seriously look into it. How could there not be?
Just so you know, this issue is no longer limited to just a few laymen and pastors, but has spread wide over American Lutheranism. It is growing now, and it is not going to go away. Like it or not, that's the reality. Just like a new look was required in the 19th Century due to controversy, a new look is now required in the 21st. Let's hope we don't have inflammatory personalities, like C.F.W. Walther and F.A. Schmidt, involved, personalities which, history tells us, didn't help bring matters to a peaceful resolution, but exacerbated the conflict. If genuine unity is what is desired, then now is NOT the time, for anyone, to take hardened positions and stridently advance them, but to engage in patient and cautious discussion, as they strive to handle the Word of God, the Confessions, and the facts of history with the fidelity they deserve.
My Opinion.
Vernon,
Everything you say is true. But let me defend those who've requested removal, and even those who've been reluctant to lend us their names all along. Regarding the former, in Footnote #3, I noted that we have testimony from several former signers who've indicated their continuing support, but are responding to negative and threatening pressure from those around them. Their decision to lend us their names was voluntary, based on a number of factors, many of which are subjective. Of the latter, many of whom agree with us in principle, they have not been involved with us directly for a number of subjective reasons, such as, perceived weaknesses of the forum and/or method employed, and in a couple cases, the fact that they weren't in charge of the effort themselves. Whether this amounts to abandonment or not, I guess we'll see.
In addition, one must be careful with the recitation of publicly and generally known facts in the post above. They are rather unflattering. I don't pretend that these are all the facts which can be known, but leaders who are accountable to the high-standard of "unreproachable before the world" will be judged by the public on public facts, not secret details. This is just the way it is, and they know this. Leadership is a difficult job in its many aspects, and this is one of the difficulties that is endured by them.
Finally, regarding your statement I am reminded yet again that Jesus' disciples fled at the first indication of real trouble. But Jesus' love for his disciples was such that he still chose to call them brothers after his resurrection. -- the sermons from Dr. Hoenecke that I will be posting during this Lenten season focus especially on the events of the last hours of his life, and in two cases, those of abandonment and betrayal by those closest to him. Today will be Judas. There is much to learn from Hoenecke in this sermon, much of it I've never heard before. In two weeks, he focuses on the betrayal of Peter. The comparison and contrast of these two betrayers is remarkable, beginning with the fact that Judas' betrayal was private, while Peter's betrayal was public. Jesus handled them differently, but no less directly. These sermons are not to be missed.
Douglas
Everything you say is true. But let me defend those who've requested removal, and even those who've been reluctant to lend us their names all along. Regarding the former, in Footnote #3, I noted that we have testimony from several former signers who've indicated their continuing support, but are responding to negative and threatening pressure from those around them. Their decision to lend us their names was voluntary, based on a number of factors, many of which are subjective. Of the latter, many of whom agree with us in principle, they have not been involved with us directly for a number of subjective reasons, such as, perceived weaknesses of the forum and/or method employed, and in a couple cases, the fact that they weren't in charge of the effort themselves. Whether this amounts to abandonment or not, I guess we'll see.
In addition, one must be careful with the recitation of publicly and generally known facts in the post above. They are rather unflattering. I don't pretend that these are all the facts which can be known, but leaders who are accountable to the high-standard of "unreproachable before the world" will be judged by the public on public facts, not secret details. This is just the way it is, and they know this. Leadership is a difficult job in its many aspects, and this is one of the difficulties that is endured by them.
Finally, regarding your statement I am reminded yet again that Jesus' disciples fled at the first indication of real trouble. But Jesus' love for his disciples was such that he still chose to call them brothers after his resurrection. -- the sermons from Dr. Hoenecke that I will be posting during this Lenten season focus especially on the events of the last hours of his life, and in two cases, those of abandonment and betrayal by those closest to him. Today will be Judas. There is much to learn from Hoenecke in this sermon, much of it I've never heard before. In two weeks, he focuses on the betrayal of Peter. The comparison and contrast of these two betrayers is remarkable, beginning with the fact that Judas' betrayal was private, while Peter's betrayal was public. Jesus handled them differently, but no less directly. These sermons are not to be missed.
Douglas
For the record, I was not removed from the synod for questioning objective justification. I did not raise that issue with my former pastors, nor was it ever discussed.
If I had been asked whether God forgave the sins of the world, I would have said: "yes." (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV (II): Of Justification, paragraph 103: quoting St. Ambrose of Milan).
Thank you.
Rick Techlin
If I had been asked whether God forgave the sins of the world, I would have said: "yes." (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article IV (II): Of Justification, paragraph 103: quoting St. Ambrose of Milan).
Thank you.
Rick Techlin
 |
| Your bad, Rick. Quote the Apology instead of Jay Webber. |
