http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2013/08/afraid-to-drink.html#comment-form
There are in fact wolves out there, as has been clearly demonstrated in the very recent past.
But what are people really afraid of though? I know any number of confessional people in WELS who just are not willing to in any way accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, Holy Mother Synod might be wrong about something. I'm not sure that some people are afraid of losing their calls or being preyed upon in some other way, as much a they are afraid to admit that the WELS might not be as pure as they have always believed it was.
A.P.
But what are people really afraid of though? I know any number of confessional people in WELS who just are not willing to in any way accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, Holy Mother Synod might be wrong about something. I'm not sure that some people are afraid of losing their calls or being preyed upon in some other way, as much a they are afraid to admit that the WELS might not be as pure as they have always believed it was.
A.P.
Prof. Palmer,
Point well taken. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that our church body is a fallible human organization, full of sinful human beings, and therefore can, does, and will make mistakes. As the famous saying from that movie goes, they ". . . can't handle the truth!" Now, as to why THIS is, that is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Thanks for your comment.
Point well taken. Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that our church body is a fallible human organization, full of sinful human beings, and therefore can, does, and will make mistakes. As the famous saying from that movie goes, they ". . . can't handle the truth!" Now, as to why THIS is, that is somewhat of a mystery to me.
Thanks for your comment.
I think the problem may be a lack of direction. It is easy to sit around nodding our heads in agreement about Confessional issues. But intellectual assent doesn't translate into visible support. However, when a tangible cause based on our intellectual assent is put forward, it always has the potential to muster support. Take, for example, when IL sponsored that memorial against ToG at the 2011 convention. It garnered a fair amount of support! People are looking for something like that to rally around.
In contrast, when all we do is talk, enthusiasm wanes. God bless it - and heaven knows we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - but a lot of the time IL seems like a lot of talk with little action. And when one of you, the intrepid Pr. Rydecki, actually did take some action, he was summarily thrown out of the synod with little to no vocal support - and even some castigation! - from fellow IL pastors.
I for one have done my part. I regularly talk about "Confessional Lutheran" issues with my pastor and the pastors that I work for by way of the organ. But even then, the talking only does so much. I would happily rally behind some project or cause if there was one. If there is any hope for even a remnant of the synod (and I grow more and more skeptical every day), it's going to be because we decide to put our money where our mouth is and apply what we believe concerning the truth of God's word in a tangible way. There is strength in numbers. We need to find *something* to rally behind, and then get to rallying! Otherwise, IL is just going to fizzle out of existence, and the few holdout confessionals along with it.
In contrast, when all we do is talk, enthusiasm wanes. God bless it - and heaven knows we don't know what's going on behind the scenes - but a lot of the time IL seems like a lot of talk with little action. And when one of you, the intrepid Pr. Rydecki, actually did take some action, he was summarily thrown out of the synod with little to no vocal support - and even some castigation! - from fellow IL pastors.
I for one have done my part. I regularly talk about "Confessional Lutheran" issues with my pastor and the pastors that I work for by way of the organ. But even then, the talking only does so much. I would happily rally behind some project or cause if there was one. If there is any hope for even a remnant of the synod (and I grow more and more skeptical every day), it's going to be because we decide to put our money where our mouth is and apply what we believe concerning the truth of God's word in a tangible way. There is strength in numbers. We need to find *something* to rally behind, and then get to rallying! Otherwise, IL is just going to fizzle out of existence, and the few holdout confessionals along with it.
I would second Mr. Baker's comment.
Lee Liermann
Lee Liermann
Daniel,
I believe you are correct in your assessment. Both the editors and also signers and readers are somewhat divided in what direction to focus our attention. Should it be worship, outreach, administration, doctrine (justification, etc...), translations, or other issues? I myself believe that the liturgy and the "worship wars" should be our main focus, because that's where the "rubber hits the road" for most pew-sitters. But others believe their causes are just as important, if not more so. It just so happens that there are a lot of "fronts" in this war - way more than even just two! Where do we attack with our very limited resources, and how, and when? But you're right, unless and until we focus on something and make that the point of attack, our effectiveness will be very limited.
Thanks for the comment!
I believe you are correct in your assessment. Both the editors and also signers and readers are somewhat divided in what direction to focus our attention. Should it be worship, outreach, administration, doctrine (justification, etc...), translations, or other issues? I myself believe that the liturgy and the "worship wars" should be our main focus, because that's where the "rubber hits the road" for most pew-sitters. But others believe their causes are just as important, if not more so. It just so happens that there are a lot of "fronts" in this war - way more than even just two! Where do we attack with our very limited resources, and how, and when? But you're right, unless and until we focus on something and make that the point of attack, our effectiveness will be very limited.
Thanks for the comment!
Pastor Spencer,
I agree with you about the "worship wars." I have found the articles about them on IL to be very helpful when explaining the problems with sectarian worship. I would love to see more about it in future IL posts!
I agree with you about the "worship wars." I have found the articles about them on IL to be very helpful when explaining the problems with sectarian worship. I would love to see more about it in future IL posts!
Dear Steve:
You write, "Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that our church body is a fallible human organization, full of sinful human beings, and therefore can, does, and will make mistakes."
In my estimation, you have for many years seemed to be a victim of this very thinking, unable to "tolerate the fact that our church body is a fallible human organization, full of sinful human beings, and therefore can, does, and will make mistakes." Would following your solutions for "correction" suddenly make the WELS, its pastors, and its congregations pure, infallible human beings and human organizations? You seem to suggest that your way of addressing any issues that arise among us synodically and/or individually is the ONLY way of handling those issues, and if people don't subscribe your solutions they are somehow disinterested or unfaithful to the Savior and his Word; that yours is the only solution.
And you wonder why more folks aren't willing to "sign on"? Perhaps a moment or two looking in the mirror would give you your answer.
Godly repentance must always begin with me (Matthew 7:1-5), even as we "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). Let me assure you that the WELS, its pastors, and its people will never be perfect, at least not as long as I'm still alive and among you, "for I know my transgressions and my sin is always before me" (Psalm 51:3)
Grace and peace,
Peter Prange
You write, "Many simply cannot tolerate the fact that our church body is a fallible human organization, full of sinful human beings, and therefore can, does, and will make mistakes."
In my estimation, you have for many years seemed to be a victim of this very thinking, unable to "tolerate the fact that our church body is a fallible human organization, full of sinful human beings, and therefore can, does, and will make mistakes." Would following your solutions for "correction" suddenly make the WELS, its pastors, and its congregations pure, infallible human beings and human organizations? You seem to suggest that your way of addressing any issues that arise among us synodically and/or individually is the ONLY way of handling those issues, and if people don't subscribe your solutions they are somehow disinterested or unfaithful to the Savior and his Word; that yours is the only solution.
And you wonder why more folks aren't willing to "sign on"? Perhaps a moment or two looking in the mirror would give you your answer.
Godly repentance must always begin with me (Matthew 7:1-5), even as we "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4:3). Let me assure you that the WELS, its pastors, and its people will never be perfect, at least not as long as I'm still alive and among you, "for I know my transgressions and my sin is always before me" (Psalm 51:3)
Grace and peace,
Peter Prange
Peter,
Thank you for your comments.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever said that "my way" is the "only" way that problems in the WELS should be or need to be addressed. If I have, please know that I most certainly did not mean that to be the case.
When I and other students at Bethany noticed some unscriptural practices taking place back in the early 70s, we first went to the college leadership. When that didn't produce much, we went to WLS men supervising the then-"Mequon Program," which included O.J. Naumann, and things changed. There was no need to go further. When Prof. Hartwig's false teaching was rejected by two districts and the combined CPs of the synod in 1980 and '81, I naturally expected some discipline to take place. When it didn't, I went to the Pres. of DMLC first, then to the Pres. of the WLS, and finally to Pres. Mischke. I was promised action, although none ever took place. I brought the matter up time and again in circuit meetings, conferences, and convention, and still nothing was ever done. I learned that sometimes the "normal channels" don't always function. These are just two of dozen of examples I could give. I am certainly not opposed to following procedure, and have done so in nearly every instance when I have had concerns.
So, no I don't always think we MUST bring everything out into the open. And yes, I am fully aware that I am not perfect and make mistakes too. I've been called on them, and have repented and recanted when necessary.
I think you miss my point, however. It is not that everyone has to speak up and speak out, but that those that would otherwise do so, are afraid to due to fear of reprisals. In short, that speaking out publicly is "A" tool that could be used, along with meetings and conferences, but is not being used as often as it might due to these fears. That there is a "chill" in our circles that, in my opinion, comes from the almost unbridled power of the DPs over the Call process. Perhaps I am wrong here, but this is what I have been told on numerous occasions.
I have been "blackballed" more than once, and had DPs actually say those very words to my face - and not because of false doctrine or practice, but because I spoke out against problems. So, I know personally that this does indeed happen.
I do not say that every WELS Pastor and layman must sign on to IL or must speak up and speak out all the time. I'm only saying that there may be times when such is called for, but that even then, it seldom happens because of fear of "being eaten." That's all I meant, nothing more.
Thanks, as always, for your concern.
Deo Vindice!
Thank you for your comments.
I may be wrong, but I don't think I've ever said that "my way" is the "only" way that problems in the WELS should be or need to be addressed. If I have, please know that I most certainly did not mean that to be the case.
When I and other students at Bethany noticed some unscriptural practices taking place back in the early 70s, we first went to the college leadership. When that didn't produce much, we went to WLS men supervising the then-"Mequon Program," which included O.J. Naumann, and things changed. There was no need to go further. When Prof. Hartwig's false teaching was rejected by two districts and the combined CPs of the synod in 1980 and '81, I naturally expected some discipline to take place. When it didn't, I went to the Pres. of DMLC first, then to the Pres. of the WLS, and finally to Pres. Mischke. I was promised action, although none ever took place. I brought the matter up time and again in circuit meetings, conferences, and convention, and still nothing was ever done. I learned that sometimes the "normal channels" don't always function. These are just two of dozen of examples I could give. I am certainly not opposed to following procedure, and have done so in nearly every instance when I have had concerns.
So, no I don't always think we MUST bring everything out into the open. And yes, I am fully aware that I am not perfect and make mistakes too. I've been called on them, and have repented and recanted when necessary.
I think you miss my point, however. It is not that everyone has to speak up and speak out, but that those that would otherwise do so, are afraid to due to fear of reprisals. In short, that speaking out publicly is "A" tool that could be used, along with meetings and conferences, but is not being used as often as it might due to these fears. That there is a "chill" in our circles that, in my opinion, comes from the almost unbridled power of the DPs over the Call process. Perhaps I am wrong here, but this is what I have been told on numerous occasions.
I have been "blackballed" more than once, and had DPs actually say those very words to my face - and not because of false doctrine or practice, but because I spoke out against problems. So, I know personally that this does indeed happen.
I do not say that every WELS Pastor and layman must sign on to IL or must speak up and speak out all the time. I'm only saying that there may be times when such is called for, but that even then, it seldom happens because of fear of "being eaten." That's all I meant, nothing more.
Thanks, as always, for your concern.
Deo Vindice!
Another case in point:
Back in October of 2011, a pastor from the AZ-CA District of the WELS, during the discussion period of an exegetical paper on Rom. 3:21-26, dared to ask if the presenter was certain that the "all" who are said to be justified must, in context, refer to all people who have ever lived, whether they believe in Christ or not, or whether the "all" is not defined rather clearly in Rom. 3:22 as "all who believe." This pastor's doctrine was immediately (as in, on the floor of the conference) called into question for daring to disturb the "settled" doctrine of the WELS regarding Objective Justification. He was required to "apologize" to the conference for unsettling them with his questions.
That resulted in several hours of "alone time" between this pastor and the district president over the next days and months. This pastor pleaded with his brothers in the district, and with the presidium, that the issue be studied on a district-wide, open basis. His request was repeatedly denied. He was told that he had no right to question "settled doctrine," and if it were studied, it could only be studied with the understanding that it be studied to demonstrate how the WELS position is right. He was told that studying the doctrine may cause people to start to question it who otherwise are not questioning it, and therefore, studying the doctrine would be harmful to the synod.
Within 11 months of this conference, this pastor was branded a heretic in front of his congregation, and within 12 months, he was suspended, in spite of promises made to the congregation that the presidium would "continue to study the issue with" their pastor.
How willing is any pastor in the district now to ask questions at a conference, much less to speak out directly to a perceived problem or to disagree with a district president? Yes, there is plenty of fear out there--fear of the WELS leadership. But not nearly enough fear of God.
Back in October of 2011, a pastor from the AZ-CA District of the WELS, during the discussion period of an exegetical paper on Rom. 3:21-26, dared to ask if the presenter was certain that the "all" who are said to be justified must, in context, refer to all people who have ever lived, whether they believe in Christ or not, or whether the "all" is not defined rather clearly in Rom. 3:22 as "all who believe." This pastor's doctrine was immediately (as in, on the floor of the conference) called into question for daring to disturb the "settled" doctrine of the WELS regarding Objective Justification. He was required to "apologize" to the conference for unsettling them with his questions.
That resulted in several hours of "alone time" between this pastor and the district president over the next days and months. This pastor pleaded with his brothers in the district, and with the presidium, that the issue be studied on a district-wide, open basis. His request was repeatedly denied. He was told that he had no right to question "settled doctrine," and if it were studied, it could only be studied with the understanding that it be studied to demonstrate how the WELS position is right. He was told that studying the doctrine may cause people to start to question it who otherwise are not questioning it, and therefore, studying the doctrine would be harmful to the synod.
Within 11 months of this conference, this pastor was branded a heretic in front of his congregation, and within 12 months, he was suspended, in spite of promises made to the congregation that the presidium would "continue to study the issue with" their pastor.
How willing is any pastor in the district now to ask questions at a conference, much less to speak out directly to a perceived problem or to disagree with a district president? Yes, there is plenty of fear out there--fear of the WELS leadership. But not nearly enough fear of God.
An excellent article, Rev. Fr. Spencer!
Fear is often debilitating: fear of reprisal, being wrong, losing friends, losing fellowship, etc. That fear must be overcome, but the situation doesn't always involve heated conflict. I would encourage those who see a problem but are afraid to confront it to know that the Lord sometimes speaks in a still small voice, not always in a fire, wind, or quake. I was initially fearful of standing up and questioning my WELS pastor, and the Synod, but was confident in the Lord that I could do so. I did, with due respect, and eventually determined just to leave the WELS. I am fortunate to live in an area where there are multiple Lutheran churches and I was able to find one that is confessional and orthodox. Confronting, or even leaving, the WELS is not as hard as it seems. One has to be prepared for consequences, but they are not insurmountable. Push through them and stand firm and know that all things work together for the good of those who love God.
It is one thing to hold academic debates with no purpose, but when the purpose is confronting error, information is ammunition. Having that information can increase confidence and help overcome the fear. Sites such as IL are wonderful resources for solid theological information. In fact IL, along with Brothers of John the Steadfast, bookofconcord.org, were instrumental in my decisions. I appreciate the apologetics and polemics of this site, and would like to see more articles on wide-ranging Lutheran and Christian topics.
Spenglergeist!
Fear is often debilitating: fear of reprisal, being wrong, losing friends, losing fellowship, etc. That fear must be overcome, but the situation doesn't always involve heated conflict. I would encourage those who see a problem but are afraid to confront it to know that the Lord sometimes speaks in a still small voice, not always in a fire, wind, or quake. I was initially fearful of standing up and questioning my WELS pastor, and the Synod, but was confident in the Lord that I could do so. I did, with due respect, and eventually determined just to leave the WELS. I am fortunate to live in an area where there are multiple Lutheran churches and I was able to find one that is confessional and orthodox. Confronting, or even leaving, the WELS is not as hard as it seems. One has to be prepared for consequences, but they are not insurmountable. Push through them and stand firm and know that all things work together for the good of those who love God.
It is one thing to hold academic debates with no purpose, but when the purpose is confronting error, information is ammunition. Having that information can increase confidence and help overcome the fear. Sites such as IL are wonderful resources for solid theological information. In fact IL, along with Brothers of John the Steadfast, bookofconcord.org, were instrumental in my decisions. I appreciate the apologetics and polemics of this site, and would like to see more articles on wide-ranging Lutheran and Christian topics.
Spenglergeist!
I'd like to respond to Pastor Spencer's article and Mr. Dusek's assertion that "confronting, or even leaving, the WELS is not as hard as it seems."
This might be true for a layman, but it's not for a pastor. Let me explain...
I currently serve as a WELS pastor. A few years ago, several very vocal members of my congregation began pushing for contemporary worship. I explained my concerns with contemporary worship and opposed it in the congregation. These members then went behind my and back and issued a complaint with the District President. The DP then sat me down and explained to me, with a thinly-veiled threat, that I should "start exploring other options" for employment. He also let me know that he had already contacted the other DPs about this, implying that my name was on the blacklist.
So here I am in limbo, without many options. Should I continue to tough it out here? That's what I have been doing, but it's nearly impossible to preach or teach with authority when my members know they can run to the DP if I ever dare to say something they don't like. Should I wait for a call? Not going to happen--the blacklist is a very real thing. Resign and leave the WELS? Not as easy as Mr. Dusek thinks, especially when there's a large family to feed and my MLC and WLS diplomas aren't worth the fancy paper they're printed on--not in the real world anyway. Be brave and take a stand and sign my name onto the Intrepid Lutherans website? Why? I'm not even sure what IL stands for these days or what concrete goals it has. Signing my name would have a minimal impact on the synod, but a devastating impact on me and my family, as it would be the only excuse my DP would need to send me packing.
So, am I a coward? I suppose so. But perhaps IL should spend more time fighting against the abuses of power taking place all over the synod, and less time laying guilt trips on already-besieged pastors.
(For obvious reasons, I am submitting this anonymously and have no idea if it will be posted or not. I hope it is--I know I'm not the only WELS pastor in this position.)
This might be true for a layman, but it's not for a pastor. Let me explain...
I currently serve as a WELS pastor. A few years ago, several very vocal members of my congregation began pushing for contemporary worship. I explained my concerns with contemporary worship and opposed it in the congregation. These members then went behind my and back and issued a complaint with the District President. The DP then sat me down and explained to me, with a thinly-veiled threat, that I should "start exploring other options" for employment. He also let me know that he had already contacted the other DPs about this, implying that my name was on the blacklist.
So here I am in limbo, without many options. Should I continue to tough it out here? That's what I have been doing, but it's nearly impossible to preach or teach with authority when my members know they can run to the DP if I ever dare to say something they don't like. Should I wait for a call? Not going to happen--the blacklist is a very real thing. Resign and leave the WELS? Not as easy as Mr. Dusek thinks, especially when there's a large family to feed and my MLC and WLS diplomas aren't worth the fancy paper they're printed on--not in the real world anyway. Be brave and take a stand and sign my name onto the Intrepid Lutherans website? Why? I'm not even sure what IL stands for these days or what concrete goals it has. Signing my name would have a minimal impact on the synod, but a devastating impact on me and my family, as it would be the only excuse my DP would need to send me packing.
So, am I a coward? I suppose so. But perhaps IL should spend more time fighting against the abuses of power taking place all over the synod, and less time laying guilt trips on already-besieged pastors.
(For obvious reasons, I am submitting this anonymously and have no idea if it will be posted or not. I hope it is--I know I'm not the only WELS pastor in this position.)
