The Presentation of the Augsburg Confession, June 25, 1530

The Sin of LCMS District Presidents. UOJ Denies Faith and Bears No Fruit

http://priestlyrant.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/deliberate-choices/#more-900

Now so far this may all sound like esoteric nonsense, but I think it does begin to explain why so many of our men are simply left naked along the road of CRM, and why Synod is reluctant and/or unwilling to help: moral decisions have no spiritual/moral consequences for the man who makes them. A District President for example, can completely ignore a man under his supervision for years-as happens frequently-and still be considered a “man of the Church.” He can justify his ignorance of the man-or have it justified for him, as also frequently happens-thus nullifying any question of moral conduct, by saying “We are all sinners,” or perhaps even more asinine, “I’ve repented.” It seems to me, that the more I deal with the issue of CRM, the more I hear one of those two phrases, so in essence an acquiescence of sin and the cheapening of grace become the “moral” ground for the deliberate choice to ignore a man and his family on CRM.

But how can this be? How can one remain a “man of the Church” or even “confessional” if the ultimate purpose of his life is not to live for the praise of God’s glory? How can a man logically be a “bishop” (as a District President pointed out to me that he was) if his deliberate actions refuse to “reflect the splendor of that [God’s] glory”? I think we need to be clear: mercy is a deliberate act and it is a choice that we make. On a very simple level, if mercy is deliberate, it seems to me that negligence is also deliberate. I’m trying to find a moral or an ethical reason for negligence within a Church to be deliberate, and there doesn’t seem to be one.

As I said above, “sin” has become the default position of the institution of the LCMS whenever it fails miserably, as it has in the case of our wounded. “Repentance” has become little more than a whore whose sole purpose is to make sin more palatable, and both of these positions make an utter and complete mockery out of the scriptural concepts of sin, repentance and grace; the very words in the LSB’s Rite of Individual Confession and Absolution (pp. 292-93) conclude with these words on the part of the penitent: “I am sorry for all of this and ask for grace. I want to do better.” Repentance, if you believe the Parable of the Prodigal Son, by its very nature, implies a complete reversal of course, and so it is never enough to simply say “I’ve repented,” and yet left an action or a situation unresolved. It’s nothing to do with “perfection”; rather it is simply the scriptural outcome of the act of repenting-that is if you believe St. Matthew.

If in fact a tree is known by its fruit, what can be said of the spiritual condition of a man who is in a position to help yet does not? And bear in mind we’re not talking about protecting the “hem of the bride’s garment,” as a Circuit Counselor recently told me, from the profane touch of some man who is on restricted status, status is not even part of this discussion; rather, basic humanity is, the humanity of Genesis 1.26-27,Genesis 4.9, Galatians 5.14, and perhaps Paul’s own warning in 15. You can’t magically separate the realm of District or Synod President, from the realm of mercy; neither do moral considerations simply stop when one assumes office. It seems to me then to be impossible to live for the praise of God’s glory and deliberately allow men and their families to remain on CRM for years. And how could it possibly not be deliberate?

I’m convinced that negligence doesn’t even describe what is going on, and I’m willing to bet that the average District President has no idea the level of grief in the lives of these men and their families that he has deliberately chosen to ignore. I think the best word to describe it is inhumanity. There is not now, nor does it seem it will ever be “time” for these men or their families, and so I’m forced to deliberately work around the very institution that promised its priests that it would be there for them.

***

GJ - Dear CRM Pastors. You do not need the synod - the synod needs you. Simply jump ship, thumb your nose at these criminals, and start your own mission.

Use your home (if allowed) or rent a room. Gather some good hymnals, an altar and font, plus communion ware. A pulpit/lectern is good to have.

Start a Bible study, a worship service, or both. The Word will create a community. Broadcast on Ustream and start a blog. Both will help and provide world-wide broadcasting of the Word, which is clearly described in Mark 4/Matthew 13.

God will provide. Read the Luther sermon for this coming Sunday. 

Crying Fowl When Birds of a Feather Do Flock Together

LPC has left a new comment on your post "UOJ Enthusiasts Are All Law - Except for Themselves...":

All that Rev. Boisclair have to do to dispel the guilt by association is denounce what Edward Preuss has done. Birds of a feather flock together. He should show that such a saying does not apply.

LPC

***

GJ - Boisclair tries to use the guilt by association (sui generis) fallacy to escape the Edward Preuss quotation lovingly cited by Robert Preus, then Jack Cascione and Paul McCain.

A claim is a logical fallacy when the argument is irrelevant. The UOJ Hive at LutherQuest (sic) tried that when they condemned me for getting a PhD at Notre Dame. That made me a Roman Catholic, they imagined. When I pointed out how many of their Concordia Ft. Wayne faculty had doctorates from Notre Dame, the clamoring ceased. Likewise, the rabble thought I joined too many synod. But I listed the carefully hidden history of St. Al Barry's synod memberships (four) - and they were silent again.Bob Preus had three or four under his belt, and Rolf already has four, including the Rolf Synod that kicked him out.

The UOJ Enthusiasts buzz and swarm without edifying anyone or learning anything. This quotation is significant because it can only be cited with approval when someone fails to grasp Biblical, Lutheran doctrine based on the efficacy of the Word in the Means of Grace.

If a Calvinist translated Knapp's words into double-justification,
that makes OJ/SJ harmonious with...
A. Calvinism.
B. Pietism.
C. Lutheran doctrine?
D. A and B only.

Divorcing the Holy Spirit from the Word (Enthusiasm) is the basis for all false doctrine, including pagan religions.

Boisclair was careful not to denounce the quotation, only my use of it in the context of justification by faith. So far he seems to agree with it. To disagree would make Robert Preus, Paul McCain, and Jack Cascione fallible. Everyone knows that Holy Mother Missouri is infallible, so any suggestions to the contrary are blasphemous.

Boisclair has such a feeble grip on his own synod's history that he did not know that their founder, Martin Stephan, attended Halle University and taught his Pietistic justification (Easter absolution) to Walther. Stephan brought the Saxons to Missouri, a slave state, and controlled the clergy around him as the guru of their Pietistic cell. Other Lutherans despised the slave states and would not settle there, but the Moravian Pietists had no problem with slavery - and neither did Walther.

Treating young women as sexual slaves for Stephan was no problem for the clergy leaders around their bishop. Walther ignored it, even acted as the enforcer for Stephan, swearing his allegiance to Stephan as his bishop-for-life. Walther was cagey, biding his time until the outbreak of syphilis among the young women devotees created a crisis he could manage for his own benefit. Walther's first move upon "discovering" the adultery, was to steal 40 acres of land from Stephan. He did that on a trip from St. Louis to Perryville instead of confronting his bishop about the adultery. Walther organized the hand-picked mob to come down to Perryville to threaten, rob, and kidnap the bishop. This became the template for ELS, LCMS, and WELS polity - overlooking clergy adultery, breaking the law, kangaroo courts, and greed.

I can prove UOJ a dozen times over from Lutheran documents, if I confine myself to the era of Pietism. But -  as Hunnius observed - not one orthodox Lutheran taught any form of universal absolution during the Reformation or in the decades following the Book of Concord.

WELS is busy hunting heretics now - not focusing on the Church and Changers - but on justification by faith.

Does any Lutheran leader or political professor
take these words from the Book of Concord seriously?

PS - I am Robert Preus' biggest fan, because he continued to study and grow. He was prevented from leading Concordia Ft. Wayne, and he might have simply retired in peace. Instead, he saw the school descending into Romanism and wrote his Justification and Rome before he died.

As one astute commenter wrote -
follow the use of imputation and you will
understand what justification by faith means.