SP Mark Schroeder Wanted a Group To Support Him, But He Did Not Want Them to Think Too Hard

Jeffery Clark

5 hrs

I wonder where this President Schroeder has gone...

Intrepid Lutherans: WELS Synod President Mark Schroeder issues scorching rebuke of Church Growth...

OK, Mr. Lindee, you've touched a nerve.Re: Pres....

INTREPIDLUTHERANS.COM

Like   Share

• 4 people like this.
• 

  Joe Jewell It's just curious that by almost any observable measure I can think of (new mission starts with questionable worship and an allergy to the word "Lutheran"; wholehearted embrace of NIV2011 and watered-down language in the name of outreach, and advocacy thereof by synodical types, most egregiously various professors; video screens everywhere; proliferation of the various "traveling praise band" acts which serve to spread CoWo around the synod; worship conferences which feature the same) the practices against which President Schroeder spoke in 2009 are more frequent, more accepted, and seen in more places now than they were six years ago.
  
  I like what President Schroeder said in 2009 both in content and in tenor, and like many here, I've told him that personally on more than one occasion. I just think he has been fairly quiet since then (and I've told him that, too), and that this reticence has not been beneficial for the WELS. If that counts as an "issue with President Schroeder", there it is.

  4 hrs · Edited · Like · 8
• 

  Andrew Rusch I'm curious. Does WELS have an equivalent to Higher things in the LCMS?

  2 hrs · Like · 1
• 

  Jeffery Clark Not really. Starting one has been discussed in the past, but the discussions generally fizzle with not much being decided.

  1 hr · Like
• 

  Seth Bode Has President Schroeder wholeheartedly embraced NIV11?

  39 mins · Like
• 

  Jason Sturgill I've been out of the loop. What's the latest with the NIV'11? I thought Schroeder recommended that we look at other options.

  33 mins · Like
• 

  Jeffery Clark The synod in convention voted to adopt an eclectic approach, cherry-picking the best from different translations. In practice, everything *new* out of NPH has used the NIV11. The new hymnal project is using the NIV11. The new catechism isn't done yet, but I doubt it'll depart from the NIV11 too much. So despite the synod convention's vote and President Schroeder's suggestion, we have de facto NIV11.

  17 mins · Edited · Like
• 

  Jason Sturgill So he lied.

  23 mins · Like
• 

  Christian Schulz That sounds WELS all right. Oops, I'm former WELS. My comments are nullified despite our mutual claim the Confessions. My apologies to the members of this group who are deeply offended when non-WELS folk comment.

  21 mins · Like
• 

  Jason Sturgill Sometimes I wonder if WELS is worth saving. I have always defended it. I don't think I can anymore. We don't have good leadership.

  19 mins · Like · 2
• 

  Christian Schulz I hate to sound antagonistic, but that's just going to be default for anything I post. You're right, Jason Sturgill, that's why many have left. There's been years of promise, years of statements like Pres. Schroeder's with absolutely no action and nothing but compliance. It's over. WELS is going where it has chosen to go. It's time to step back, grasp the Confessions and laugh, not in a comedic way, but in a nervous, anxious laugh about where it's headed. Nothing changes no matter the movement, the tact, or the people behind reforming WELS back to Confessional Lutheranism. It's over. At least go to a Synod or Diocese that lets you be Lutheran without repercussion. I think it's fair to say we've all tried and it's failed. How many more years will we bitch until we realize it's time to leave? I mean, seriously.
  
  Anyhoo, I'll get back to my corner and let you all continue in the years of "discussion" which produces no real results. Like I said, the WELS is on a train and it's not intending to stop. Remember, we gotta "change or die." So when you present, to them, the "die" side, there's no room for discussion. The WELS has already boarded the train despite the "good," spineless, and "powerless" pastors who oppose.

  3 mins · Edited · Like
• 

  Joe Jewell Seth Bode--President Schroeder wrote an open letter in May 2013 opposing the adoption of NIV2011, six weeks before the Synod Convention that year (in it, he cited from the ELS and LCMS rejections of the NIV2011--passages that a seminary professor had accused me of "misleading the room" with when I shared them verbatim with a roomful of pastors, teachers, and laymen a year before). 
  
  It was a decent letter but about, oh, 18-24+ months too late, given that the Translation Evaluation Committee had been laying the groundwork for the NIV2011 since 2009 and vigorously promoting it since 2011. Where was he then? The 2011 Convention was highly skeptical of the TEC's shoddy work when it became clear that they had ignored their mandate to "find the best translation" and narrowed the scope of their work to "is NIV2011 acceptable" while ignoring better options. President Schroeder needed to get on top of that then, if not before.
  
  So no, he didn't personally support NIV2011. But he also did not make use of his public position very effectively and in fact (it seemed to me) only did so at all reluctantly.