Tuesday, December 19, 2023

Daily Luther Sermon Quote - Christmas Day - "They had neither money nor influence to secure a room in the inn, hence they were obliged to lodge in a stable. O world, how stupid! O man, how blind thou art!"

 



Complete Sermon -> 

Luke 2:1-14. Christmas Day



9. See, this is the first picture with which Christ puts the world to shame and exposes all it does and knows. It shows that the world’s greatest wisdom is foolishness, her best actions are wrong and her greatest treasures are misfortunes. What had Bethlehem when it did not have Christ? What have they now who at that time had enough? What do Joseph and Mary lack now, although at that time they had no room to sleep comfortably?

10. Some have commented on the word “diversorium”, as if it meant an open archway, through which every body could pass, where some asses stood, and that Mary could not get to a lodging place. This is not right.

The Evangelist desires to show that Joseph and Mary had to occupy a stable, because there was no room for her in the inn, in the place where the pilgrim guests generally lodged. All the guests were cared for in the inn or caravansary, with room, food and bed, except these poor people who had to creep into a stable where it was customary to house cattle.

This word “diversorium”, which by Luke is called “katalyma” means nothing else than a place for guests, which is proved by the words of Christ, Luke 22:11, where he sent the disciples to prepare the supper, “Go and say unto the master of the house, The Teacher saith unto thee, Where is the guest chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?” So also here Joseph and Mary had no room in the katalyma, the inn, but only in the stable belonging to the innkeeper, who would not have been worthy to give shelter to such a guest. They had neither money nor influence to secure a room in the inn, hence they were obliged to lodge in a stable. O world, how stupid! O man, how blind thou art!

11. But the birth itself is still more pitiful. There was no one to take pity on this young wife who was for the first time to give birth to a child; no one to take to heart her condition that she, a stranger, did not have the least thing a mother needs in a birth-night. There she is without any preparation, without either light or fire, alone in the darkness, without any one offering her service as is customary for women to do at such times. Every thing is in commotion in the inn, there is a swarming of guests from all parts of the country, no one thinks of this poor woman. It is also possible that she did not expect the event so soon, else she would probably have remained at Nazareth.

12. Just imagine what kind of swaddling clothes they were in which she wrapped the child. Possibly her veil or some article of her clothing she could spare. But that she should have wrapped him in Joseph’s trousers, which are exhibited at Aix-la-Chapelle, appears entirely too false and frivolous. It is a fable, the like of which there are more in the world. Is it not strange that the birth of Christ occurs in cold winter, in a strange land, and in such a poor and despicable manner?

13. Some argue as to how this birth took place, as if Jesus was born while Mary was praying and rejoicing, without any pain, and before she was conscious of it. While I do not altogether discard that pious supposition, it was evidently invented for the sake of simple minded people. But we must abide by the Gospel, that he was born of the virgin Mary. There is no deception here, for the Word clearly states that it was an actual birth.

14. It is well known what is meant by giving birth. Mary’s experience was not different from that of other women, so that the birth of Christ was a real natural birth, Mary being his natural mother and he being her natural son. Therefore her body performed its functions of giving birth, which naturally belonged to it, except that she brought forth without sin, without shame, without pain and without injury, just as she had conceived without sin. The curse of Eve did not come on her, where God said: “In pain thou shalt bring forth children,” Genesis 3:16; otherwise it was with her in every particular as with every woman who gives birth to a child.

15. Grace does not interfere with nature and her work, but rather improves and promotes it. Likewise Mary, without doubt, also nourished the child with milk from her breast and not with strange milk, or in a manner different from that which nature provided, as we sing: ubere de coelo pleno, from her breast being filled by heaven, without injury or impurity. I mention this that we may be grounded in the faith and know that Jesus was a natural man in every respect Just as we, the only difference being in his relation to sin and grace, he being without a sinful nature. In him and in his mother nature was pure in all the members and in all the operations of those members. No body or member of woman ever performed its natural function without sin, except that of this virgin; here for once God bestowed special honor upon nature and its operations. It is a great comfort to us that Jesus took upon himself our nature and flesh. Therefore we are not to take away from him or his mother any thing that is not in conflict with grace, for the text clearly says that she brought him forth, and the angels said, unto you he is born.

16. How could God have shown his goodness in a more sublime manner than by humbling himself to partake of flesh and blood, that he did not even disdain the natural privacy but honors nature most highly in that part where in Adam and Eve it was most miserably brought to shame? so that henceforth even that can be regarded godly, honest and pure, which in all men is the most ungodly, shameful and impure. These are real miracles of God, for in no way could he have given us stronger, more forcible and purer pictures of chastity than in this birth. When we look at this birth, and reflect upon how the sublime Majesty moves with great earnestness and inexpressible love and goodness upon the flesh and blood of this virgin, we see how here all evil lust and every evil thought is banished.

17. No woman can inspire such pure thoughts in a man as this virgin; nor can any man inspire such pure thought in a woman as this child. If in reflecting on this birth we recognize the work of God that is embodied in it, only chastity and purity spring from it.

18. But what happens in heaven concerning this birth? As much as it is despised on earth, so much and a thousand times more is it honored in heaven. If an angel from heaven came and praised you and your work, would you not regard it of greater value than all the praise and honor the world could give you, and for which you would be willing to bear the greatest humility and reproach? What exalted honor is that when all the angels in heaven can not restrain themselves from breaking out in rejoicing, so that even poor shepherds in the fields hear them preach, praise God, sing and pour out their joy without measure? Were not all joy and honor realized at Bethlehem, yes, all joy and honor experienced by all the kings and nobles on earth, to be regarded as only dross and abomination, of which no one likes to think, when compared with the joy and glory here displayed?

19. Behold how very richly God honors those who are despised of men, and that very gladly. Here you see that his eyes look into the depths of humility, as is written, “He sitteth above the cherubim” and looketh into the depths. Nor could the angels find princes or valiant men to whom to communicate the good news; but only unlearned laymen, the most humble people upon earth. Could they not have addressed the high-priests, who it was supposed knew so much concerning God and the angels? No, God chose poor shepherds, who, though they were of low esteem in the sight of men, were in heaven regarded as worthy of such great grace and honor.

20. See how utterly God overthrows that which is lofty! And yet we rage and rant for nothing but this empty honor, as we had no honor to seek in heaven; we continually step out of God’s sight, so that he may not see us in the depths, into which he alone looks.

Monday, December 18, 2023

A Famous Orator Was Named After the Chickpea.
I Also Like Marcus Tullius Garbanzo

 

Cicero's name is Latin for chickpea, which I enjoy every day at lunch.
Charlie Sue enjoys the last of the vegetable stew and some sausage.
    "Cicero’s writings barely waned in influence over the centuries. It was through him that the thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment discovered the riches of Classical rhetoric and philosophy."



Chickpeas also provide a variety of vitamins and minerals, as well as a decent amount of fiber and protein. A 1-cup (164-gram) serving of cooked chickpeas offers (1Trusted Source):

  • Calories: 269
  • Protein: 14.5 grams
  • Fat: 4 grams
  • Carbs: 45 grams
  • Fiber: 12.5 grams
  • Manganese: 74% of the Daily Value (DV)
  • Folate (vitamin B9): 71% of the DV
  • Copper: 64% of the DV
  • Iron: 26% of the DV
  • Zinc: 23% of the DV
  • Phosphorus: 22% of the DV
  • Magnesium: 19% of the DV
  • Thiamine: 16% of the DV
  • Vitamin B6: 13% of the DV
  • Selenium: 11% of the DV
  • Potassium: 10% of the DV

As you can see, this legume is a particularly good source of the mineral manganese and the B vitamin folate.

Fellow Lutherans - You Do Not Understand the ELCA-LCMS-WELS-ELS Betrayal.
They Will Never Allow the Same Destruction To Be Used Against Them!

 

Listen up, folks. This is my last post on Lutheran apostasy...
until tomorrow.

Anyone complaining about the decline of the synods must understand it as a coordinated, military style war that the present managers fashioned for their own prestige, luxuries, and loot. 

They worked together while pretending to be disgusted and alarmed at the other synods, which made cooperation much easier long ago, starting with seminary professors and Lutheran insurance. But let us get down to the basics.

Justification Without Faith was a bit difficult, in one form or another, but they all built up a great war machine against anyone who criticized Objective Faithless Justification or another generic brand - Universal Salvation (all grace, man, all!). That has been completed 100%, so that anyone with an IQ will find a truckload of manure poured on him and anyone he knows. 

Parallel is the attack on the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible. But there was more on the Greek text (called Byzantine, Traditional, or Apostolic) since Judaism did not throw away the Old Testament the way the 20th century Lutherans repudiated theirs, with a vengeance.

Lenski, like several other respected Biblical scholars, fell for the phony Greek texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus  of the 1881 KJV Revision) that the Bad Bible Brokers have used ever since. The genius of the BBBs comes from erasing passages for the most part - like the empty tomb in Mark 16. They teach the poorly educated seminarians with enough conjured contradictions that the poor things graduate full of confusion and weak on faith in the efficacious Word.

I predicted this in 2015, with Photoshop, no magic globe needed.


The "conservative" Lutherans bray about Biblical inerrancy - like donkeys on a forced march - but they prove all their Bibles to be errant, contradictory, and false, negating inerrancy completely. (Thanks Rev. Lito Cruz, PhD.) The NIVs do not even agree with each other on the Chief Article.

This two-pronged attack (Bibles and Biblical doctrine) has turned the synods listed into a joke, still trying to be good businesses while their management and sales schemes falter and fail. Not long ago, their heroes questioned the Lutheran basics and fought to change them. Traditional clergy were shunned and ridiculed because they clung to their KJV Bibles and their old hymnals. One WELS clown said, "We have to give up a whole generation of the retired to attack the youth of tomorrow." Does that sound like Paul Kelm and his buddies? How well has it worked?

The managers, sub-managers, and disciples stand together against anyone favoring Reformation doctrine, the KJV, and good hymnals. The synod parasites will spread any falsehood to keep their Thrivent goodies flowing, from deluxe conferences to special deals known only to them. 

 Hundreds of pounds later, these three Bachelor of Divinity graduates are still keeping
us stunned by their lack of sincerity.



Cry the Beloved Country Church Growth

Waldo Werning serviced pastors in WELS, ELS, and LCMS.

I knew "Dr" Waldo Werning fairly well - but not that well. He admitted that he studied at Fuller Seminary, which I recorded in my Day-Timer. Later, he denied it and I cited his admission from my Day-Timer. An ELS pastor asked me what made Werning fly into a rage.

Others, like his pal David Valleskey, also had the practice of gushing over Church Growth - and raging if anyone told the truth about him. I asked him face-to-face and poor David did his best to not answer. David's buddy Frosty Bivens blurted the same denial, even though he admitted going to Fuller and loving it. DP John Seifert was there when Bivens made his confession and denied the truth about Frosty twice. Fuller-denial was once a deadly virus that even spread to those who knew but did not know.

Now that the dust has settled, does anyone have any claim that Fuller Seminary and copy-cats caused the Christian Faith - or even statistics - to grow during those decades of folly, lying, and  disgrace?


 

Lutheran Library New Releases




 +++

Daily Luther Sermon Quote - Christmas Day - "This Gospel is so clear that it requires very little explanation, but it should be well considered and taken deeply to heart; and no one will receive more benefit from it than those who, with a calm, quiet heart, banish everything else from their mind, and diligently look into it."

 



Complete Sermon -> Luke 2:1-14. Christmas Day



TEXT:

Luke 2:1-14. Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. And all went to enroll themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David; to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child. And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were full, lied that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

And there were shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock. And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them; and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this is the sign unto you: Ye shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, and lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased.

THE STORY OF JESUS’ BIRTH.

1. It is written in Haggai 2:6-7, that God says: “I will shake the heavens; and the precious things of all nations shall come.” This is fulfilled today, for the heavens were shaken, that is, the angels in the heavens sang praises to God. And the earth was shaken, that is, the people on the earth were agitated; one journeying to this city, another to that throughout the whole land, as the Gospel tells us. It was not a violent, bloody uprising, but rather a peaceable one awakened by God who is the God of peace.

It is not to be understood that all countries upon earth were so agitated; but only those under Roman rule, which did not comprise half of the whole earth. However, no land was agitated as was the land of Judea, which had been divided among the tribes of Israel, although at this time the land was inhabited mostly by the race of Judah, as the ten tribes led captive into Assyria never returned.

2. This taxing, enrollment, or census, says Luke, was the first; but in the Gospel according to Matthew 17:24, and at other places we read that it was continued from time to time, that they even demanded tribute of Christ, and tempted him with the tribute money, Matthew 22:17. On the day of his suffering they also testified against him, that he forbade to give tribute to Caesar. The Jews did not like to pay tribute, and unwillingly submitted to the taxing, maintaining that they were God’s people and free from Caesar. They had great disputes as to whether they were obliged to pay the tribute, but they could not help themselves and were compelled to submit. For this reason they would have been pleased to draw Jesus into the discussion and bring him under the Roman jurisdiction. This taxing was therefore nothing else but a common decree throughout the whole empire that every individual should annually pay a penny, and the officers who collected the tribute were called publicans, who in German are improperly interpreted notorious sinners.

3. Observe how exact the Evangelist is in his statement that the birth of Christ occurred in the time of Caesar Augustus, and when Quirinius was governor of Syria, of which the land of Judea was a part, just as Austria is a part of the German land. This being the very first taxing, it appears that this tribute was never before paid until just at the time when Christ was to be born. By this Jesus shows that his kingdom was not to be of an earthly character nor to exercise worldly power and lordship, but that he, together with his parents, is subject to the powers that be. Since he comes at the time of the very first enrollment, he leaves no doubt with respect to this, for had he desired to leave it in doubt, he might have willed to be born under another enrollment, so that it might have been said it just happened so, without any divine intent.

4. And had he not willed to be submissive, he might have been born before there was any enrollment decreed. Since now all the works of Jesus are precious teachings, this circumstance can not be interpreted otherwise than that he by divine counsel and purpose will not exercise any worldly authority; but will be subject to it. This then is the first rebuke to the pope’s government and every thing of that character, that harmonizes with the kingdom of Christ as night does with day.

5. This Gospel is so clear that it requires very little explanation, but it should be well considered and taken deeply to heart; and no one will receive more benefit from it than those who, with a calm, quiet heart, banish everything else from their mind, and diligently look into it. It is just as the sun which is reflected in calm water and gives out vigorous warmth. but which can not be so readily seen nor can it give out such warmth in water that is in roaring and rapid motion.

Therefore, if you would be enlightened and warmed, if you would see the wonders of divine grace and have your heart aglow and enlightened, devout and joyful, go where you can silently meditate and lay hold of this picture deep in your heart, and you will see miracle upon miracle. But to give the common person a start and a motive to contemplate it, we will illustrate it in part, and afterwards enter into it more deeply.

6. First, behold how very ordinary and common things are to us that transpire on earth, and yet how high they are regarded in heaven. On earth it occurs in this wise: Here is a poor young woman, Mary of Nazareth, not highly esteemed, but of the humblest citizens of the village. No one is conscious of the great wonder she bears, she is silent, keeps her own counsel, and regards herself as the lowliest in the town. She starts out with her husband Joseph; very likely they had no servant, and he had to do the work of master and servant, and she that of mistress and maid, They were therefore obliged to leave their home unoccupied, or commend it to the care of others.

7. Now they evidently owned an ass, upon which Mary rode, although the Gospel does not mention it, and it is possible that she went on foot with Joseph. Imagine how she was despised at the inns and stopping places on the way, although worthy to ride in state in a chariot of gold.

There were, no doubt, many wives and daughters of prominent men at that time, who lived in fine apartments and great splendor, while the mother of God takes a journey in mid-winter under most trying circumstances. What distinctions there are in the world! It was more than a day’s journey from Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in the land of Judea. They had to journey either by or through Jerusalem, for Bethlehem is south of Jerusalem while Nazareth is north.

8. The Evangelist shows how, when they arrived at Bethlehem, they were the most insignificant and despised, so that they had to make way for others until they were obliged to take refuge in a stable, to share with the cattle, lodging, table, bed chamber and bed, while many a wicked man sat at the head in the hotels and was honored as lord. No one noticed or was conscious of what God was doing in that stable. He lets the large houses and costly apartments remain empty, lets their inhabitants eat, drink and be merry; but this comfort and treasure are hidden from them. O what a dark night this was for Bethlehem, that was not conscious of that glorious light!

See how God shows that he utterly disregards what the world is, has or desires; and furthermore, that the world shows how little it knows or notices what God is, has and does.

9. See, this is the first picture with which Christ puts the world to shame and exposes all it does and knows. It shows that the world’s greatest wisdom is foolishness, her best actions are wrong and her greatest treasures are misfortunes. What had Bethlehem when it did not have Christ? What have they now who at that time had enough? What do Joseph and Mary lack now, although at that time they had no room to sleep comfortably?

Sunday, December 17, 2023

Pastor Paul Rydecki's Letter, Leaving the ELDONUTs Behind
May 16, 2022

 

 WELS pastors were starting to see the light - about Justification by Faith when
Rydecki left WELS, Steve Spencer and the rest went silent.

May 16, 2022Dear Bishop Heiser and brothers in Christ in the ELDoNA: Ten years ago, when I was suspended from the WELS, I was, for a brief time, an independent pastor, and you know the challenges that come with being alone in the ministry (not that we are ever truly alone), the main challenge being perhaps the tendency of each of us to stray from pure doctrine and salutary practice when there is no brother in the ministry to caution or encourage us. I prayed that the Lord would guide me to a group of pastors with whom doctrinal fellowship could be recognized, who would help one another remain faithful in doctrine, practice, and Christian living. 

Nine years ago, Bishop Heiser and those of you who were in the diocese at that time, and one who has now fallen asleep, served as the Lord’s instruments of comfort to me and my congregation in Las Cruces after the turmoil we faced leaving the WELS. I will not say that you supported me. I will say that, together with me, you supported the good confession about Christ and His vital teaching of justification by faith alone, which required a repudiation of the false teaching of Objective Justification as it has been defined and taught by the synods. I will never be able to express the joy that filled my heart when I heard the Theses on Justification read for the first time. I was so thankful to God for giving me a group of Christian brothers who not only believed as I did, but who were willing to confess the doctrine of Christ openly and receive me into their fellowship, in spite of the reproach you suffered from the synods because of it. I still give thanks for it. 

The idea of an ecclesiastical bishop, as I understood it and as I found it described in the ELDoNA Charter and related Theses, seemed like a fine way to ensure that all the member pastors taught and lived well, and would continue to teach and live well, in accordance with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. We cannot all be looking into one another’s practice and life on a regular basis, nor, I dare say, would any of us welcome such a constant intrusion coming from every pastor in our fellowship, so having one man appointed for this task seemed good to me. I happily applied for membership in the diocese and have enjoyed interacting and working with you all over these past nine years. 

Over the past year, it has become increasingly clear to me that the office of bishop, as understood by the bishop and others in the ELDoNA, includes more than the Scriptures or Confessions include or than the founding documents of the diocese spell out. Having a “Church Order” handed to us and “authorized” by the bishop in 2021 took me off guard. Certain statements in the Church Order troubled me, such as, “No variation from the text of the creeds set forth in the Service Book…may be used in the Divine Service” (Missal, p.40), “It should also be noted that the selection of the Office Hymn is to be strictly adhered to as appointed for use in this diocese” (p.41), and “Under no circumstances may any unauthorized form of general prayer be substituted for those appointed for use in the diocese” (p.42). Exchanges with the bishop over the past year also pointed in this direction. 

But this understanding was solidified in the Episcopal Address and ensuing discussion that took place at the 2022 Synod. I am very disappointed to discover that it is, in fact, the prevailing understanding and expectation within the diocese that the bishop’s responsibility of “oversight” and “administration” “encompasses all that has been associated with this [episcopal] polity in the historic sense,” as stated in the Bishop’s Episcopal Address, including “obliging the parsons and deacons of their superintendency to conform in all things according to our ‘Church Order.’” Page 2 

This came as a surprise to me, because episcopal polity in the historic sense is not what we have ever known in the ELDoNA. The Evangelical Episcopacy, as, for example, in the superintendency of Martin Chemnitz (explained in his Church Order of 1569), was a human arrangement set up for that time and place in history in response to the recent finding that “a large portion of [the pastors and ministers of the church in that principality] were not real pastors, but rather unlearned and unfit mercenaries, acting as hired hands” (p.4). The Superintendency described by Chemnitz was made up of many specificsuperintendents, five general-superintendents, and a consistory made up of superintendents, theologians, and political appointees, all of whom were answerable to Duke Julius. (Indeed, it was the duke who authorized and mandated the use of Chemnitz’ Church Order within his territory, not the superintendent.) We have never had anything resembling this situation. For one thing, our ministers have not been found to be “unlearned and unfit mercenaries,” necessitating strict enforcement of a Church Order. As for the individual superintendents of the 16th century, they had far less authority than the ELDoNA bishop is claiming for himself, as important decisions were made within the consistory and not by any individual superintendent. 

Furthermore, a bishop/superintendent in the historic sense had jurisdiction within the congregations themselves, including the examining and confirming of confirmands and the excommunication of parishioners who were not members of his own congregation. Indeed, the local pastor was allowed to excommunicate no one without the approval of the superintendent and the consistory. For that matter, the local pastor wasn’t even supposed to commune his own members unless he had followed the procedure prescribed by the Church Order of obligating the parishioner to submit to private examination every time he or she wished to receive the Lord’s Supper—something that clearly went beyond the Scriptures. In their attempt to keep “good order,” I believe that princes and bishops/superintendents in the historic sense often went too far. 

Thankfully, however, unlike historic Lutheran bishops/superintendents, the ELDoNA bishop’s jurisdiction has always extended only to the pastors who are members of the diocese. It has never extended to the flocks over which the Holy Spirit has made us all overseers (or “bishops”). 

Therefore, when seeking to understand what the ELDoNA bishop’s responsibilities were, I turned, not to history, but to the diocesan Charter and related Theses, where no mention is made of “obliging the parsons and deacons of their superintendency to conform in all things according to our ‘Church Order.’” The Charter of the Diocese clearly delineates how we pledge to work together within the diocese. It was to this that I agreed when I joined the diocese. I urge you all to reread what is actually written there, as opposed to what some claim to be the unwritten intention. “Therefore, we pledge ourselves to work together in the diocese as follows,” with nine points following, none of which includes agreeing that the bishop may determine all matters of adiaphora for us (in our worship or otherwise) or that we bind ourselves to follow his determinations in matters of adiaphora or church ceremonies within our own congregations. 

The first of the nine points is an agreement to “uphold those principles which Dr. Chemnitz affirmed regarding the Superintendency.” “Those principles” do not include everything Chemnitz wrote in his Church Order. The statement is followed explicitly by the four principles from Chemnitz which we agree to uphold. None of these four principles grants the bishop the authority to decide on all matters of adiaphora (or any matters of adiaphora, for that matter) within our congregations. When Chemnitz states that “each one does not build up himself or act as lord in his congregation and do what he pleases…” this does not imply that the bishop may then act as lord in our congregations and do what he pleases. It implies that we will each be careful not to act in ways that cause offense within our own congregations or among our sister congregations, but will take one another into consideration in love and not enact practices that are likely to cause offense. Page 3.

I agree with the Malone Theses when they state that “we seek to achieve a high degree of uniformity in the liturgical expression of our theological agreement.” I never understood this, however, to mean absolute uniformity or the imposition of a single service which must be strictly followed as published. I agree with the Malone Theses when they state that “we commit ourselves to endeavor over time, by common consensus, to minimize local deviations from common practice.” I never understood “common consensus,” however, to mean the necessary consensus with whatever the bishop determines to be best.

 Another of Chemnitz’ stated principles in the Charter is that “when some complaint arises, the matter must be put before the conference and settled while the meeting is still in session.” This is what I attempted to do during the Tuesday morning meeting at the 2022 Synod. I was later reprimanded (not by the bishop, but by his deacon) for bringing up the matter during the meeting, as if that were not the proper time or place to bring up such a complaint. Again, I urge you all to read what is actually written in the Charter. 

But if the Episcopal Address describes the actual polity of the ELDoNA going forward, then the Charter is flawed and should be corrected and expanded so that it says what it means. To expect pastors and congregations to understand from the Charter, as worded, that the ELDoNA bishop’s responsibilities “encompass all that has been associated with this [episcopal] polity in the historic sense” is both unreasonable and dangerous, because much has been associated with “episcopal polity in the historic sense” that is neither Scriptural nor beneficial to God’s Holy Church. 

When the bishop seeks to “authorize” Bible translations, orders of service, specific prayers, hymns, lectionaries, dialects of English, etc., for use within our congregations, branding some as “licit” and others as “illicit,” he is implying that the authority for us to worship as we do in our congregations comes from him. I do not find this to be a Scriptural principle. My understanding is that Christ has called me to shepherd the flock which He entrusted to my care through their divine call, which entails working with them to establish and enact forms of worship which are in keeping with sound Christian (i.e., Lutheran) practice. While I have always welcomed the counsel and advice of the bishop in these matters (and have usually followed his advice out of love), I do not believe he has a divine call to dictate or to mandate worship forms for my congregation. I did not call him to do this by the act of joining the diocese. My congregation also does not acknowledge having called him to do this. Nor was there a magistrate who appointed him to oversee my congregation. I asked him to be my overseer when I joined the diocese, to look over my life and my ministry and to correct me on the basis of Scripture if I strayed from what God would have me do as a pastor. That is all. 

To state the matter simply, I wish to pursue unity in the Holy Scriptures, as we have understood them in the Lutheran Church, and to be ruled and restrained by the Scriptures alone, in conformity with the Lutheran Confessions and in love toward my neighbor. And I am willing and eager for a brother in Christ to apply those Scriptures to me if I err, whether he holds the title of bishop, or pastor, or simply Christian. This is the kind of unity I seek and the kind of unity I thought we already had in the diocese for the past nine years. 

Others, however, seem to wish to pursue unity in the doctrines and traditions of men, seeking unity in the utter sameness of a single manmade Church Order imposed across an entire continent, which goes far beyond the Scriptural requirement of things being done “decently and in good order.” They seek unity in 4 being ruled and restrained by one who is not only a bishop who holds the power of the Keys, as all ministers do according to the Gospel, but who also holds power delegated to him by human right. Indeed, they are willing to be disciplined by the bishop for things that are neither contrary to Scripture nor causes of offense to members of Christ’s flock. I cannot abide by such an arrangement. It is like building on the foundation of Christ with wood, hay, and straw. 

 I warned Rydecki about the Right Reverend Bishop James Heiser's papal personality. I have nothing against costumes and masks for the insecure, but puh-lease tuck that belly-button in.


As far as I can tell, this is a fundamental difference of understanding among us that prohibits me from continuing as a member of this diocese. Therefore, I hereby resign from membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. My congregation also met on Sunday, May 15th, in formal assembly and approved the following statement of their own composition to pass on to the diocese, together with their grave disappointment in the direction the diocese has taken: 

We the members of Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church support our pastor in his decision to leave the ELDoNA. As the Lord emphasizes humility for all of his people, He makes this a priority for his shepherds. This is one of the last lessons he taught his disciples by washing their feet on Maundy Thursday. The bishop’s “episcopal Address to the 2022 Synod of the ELDoNA” is inconsistent with Christ’s example. We recognize that it is our pastor’s decision to be made, but believe that it is appropriate and useful to support him and declare unity with respect to this matter. With a sad heart, we unanimously agree that he should leave the ELDoNA. 

I will continue to pray for you all and ask for God’s blessings on your families and on your ministry. To be clear, I am not declaring myself to be out of fellowship with you, as I consider you neither false teachers nor enemies of Christ nor my personal enemies, but as my friends and brothers in Christ who are going down a dangerous path on which I cannot follow. It is not safe to build on the foundation of Christ with wood, hay, and straw, which includes, in my opinion, yielding your God-given authority in your congregations to one who has no call to your congregations, and submitting to being disciplined in matters that God has left free. … 

May the merciful Lord guard and defend you from the dangers associated with this sort of polity, as it is being defined and as it is being conducted, and may He guard me and those with me as well, that we may all build on the foundation of Jesus Christ with gold, silver, and precious stones, and not with wood, hay, and straw. Whether you think of me as such or not, I remain your friend and brother in Christ. 

A servant of Christ Jesus, 

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki Emmanuel Lutheran Church Las Cruces, New Mexico

 Some WELS pastors attended the Southern Baptist convention to learn about faith, since the latest NIV - hated by the Babtists - insert Objective Faithless Justification in Romans 3.