Thursday, March 27, 2014

Ichabod Is Unique Because...



A short time ago I met a cheerful conservative gadfly in the tiny Bella Vista Post Office, so small it should be called the Postette Room.

This meeting led to a local teaching assignment that I enjoy immensely, force-feeding English to reluctant young college students. Various claims are made about this class, some of them true. I did promise to flunk instantly all who spelled Bible as "bible" and run them out of the college for good measure. One of the terms they are learning is hyperbole.

I was happy to send the baseball team on their tour with my favorite sound effects machine. The recipients lit up - but others cringed at the thought of hearing it on the bus - for hours.

My entire day is spent teaching, either online or in the classroom, on blogs and Facebook, or through publishing and giving away books. I am the Johnny Appleseed of libraries. When I find a good book someone would like, off it goes, from my ever-changing collection to theirs. Books are like seeds - they should not be stored in dark places without being broadcast.

Recently a former confirmation student wrote about home gardening, so I sent him Wormhaven via Dropbox, through Facebook. When a graduate student wrote about losing two daughters, I sent her Angel Joy, the same way. She thanked me and shared it - so easy to do on the Net.

Unique
One of the current language felonies is saying "very unique," which is wrong. Unique means "one of a kind." Nothing can be very one of a kind.

This blog is unique because I earned a PhD in theology. When I look at various blogs, and even at blog hives, where various Lutheran bloggers buzz about UOJ - I find no academic credentials. The exception is Lito Cruz, PhD, who earned his degree in math and computers. His writing is a model of critical thinking.

http://extranos.blogspot.com/

The Lutheran Church used to have respect for credentials. The European Lutheran theologians earned doctorates as a necessary union card.

Now the "conservative Lutherans" get drive-by DMins and call themselves "Dr" five seconds after graduation - often before. Two Shrinkers in Columbus - who did so much to damage young Tim Glende - went about bragging that they had been in doctoral programs - Floyd Luther Stolzenburg and Robert Schumann. Neither one finished, of course, because that requires work rather than gabbing and bossing people around.

The most ironic example is the man at the pinnacle of conservative Lutheran publishing - Bruce Kintz. He has a drive-by "doctorate," which he managed to obtain online in three years at Lindenwood - while switching from financials at an airplane factory to publishing theology books. Pretty agile, eh? How many people can pivot from Excel into education while working in a full-time job that has nothing to do with all previous work? And become "Dr"?

A master's in education, online, normally takes two years. I know - because I teach in one such program. Needless to say, I have never heard of Lindenwood University, which went bankrupt in 1989.

Paul McCain comes to mind for hanging around Ft. Wayne extra years and earning nothing. Perhaps he did too much xeroxing, if you get my drift. I xeroxed for the Yale Medical Library, but I never put my name on the articles I sent to the doctors who requested them. I would have loved the honors - "Livers in Diseased Cows" by G. Jackson, etc etc. I would have published letters thanking me for my writing - "Thank you Dr. Jackson. Now I understand Bossy so much better - and she is giving much better milk. Keep up the great work on livers." George Bauer

I am sure Matt Harrison is called "Dr" by everyone, even though he failed to finish an in-house degree at a Concordia. When an LCMS pastor becomes SP, they get someone to grant an honorary doctorate, to fool the maximum amount of people. A genuine honorary doctorate is worth more than an academic degree, because academic peers grant it to honor intellectual achievement. Perhaps working with ELCA while running as a conservative is proof of cerebral dexterity. If that be the case, then McCain should get one for plagiarizing Rome and promoting UOJ while posing as a "confessional Lutheran."




PhD
A PhD program can teach the basics of scholarship, doing original research. The original meaning of scholarship comes from the Greek word for leisure - taking the time to study a subject at great length.

Brett Meyer has shown everyone the meaning of scholarship. He has relentlessly pursued what others have claimed for UOJ and compared that to the Scriptures and the Book of Concord. He is polite and reserved while the UOJ Storm-Brownies boil over with incoherent rage. He is also in contact with like-minded Lutherans and asks for opinions and facts.

Not all PhDs are scholars. Many put their brains on hold and teach the same things until they reach room temperature. They can teach a lifetime on the strength of a dissertation that no one except the committee members read.

Being a PhD does not mean being right all the time. Ideally, it means developing a habit of research and independent thinking. My information about Kintz and McCain comes from their own LinkedIn profiles. Unlike news stories, the only one who can change the LI profile is the individual who posted it. The claims are the ipsissima verba of Kintz and McCain, though they may change when the horrified authors realize they are being quoted verbatim.

Dr. does not mean smarter than anyone else. The word means "teacher" and not "physician." The physicians were the first to change the name of their degrees, to add prestige. An MD who gets a specialty earns the MA degree. He has to enter a PhD program to earn a PhD in his field. My best friend at Yale, the sainted Bruce Wenger, explained this to me. He earned an MD at Yale Medical, then a PhD in physiology at Yale. LI gave him this evaluation at the age of four, "You are a pretty smart fellow, Bruce." Bruce smiled.

Lutherdom suffers from a superfluity of parsons who want to teach without studying. That is why the Net is burdened with endless excursions about forgiveness-without-faith, repeating the same errors. They start with Pietism and Halle (Easter absolution) and circle around the same modernist experts, Talmud-like, burying the original text in their unwarranted opinions.

Unpleasant Truth or Smooth Lies?
The complainers love to gripe about my posts, but I am dealing with cancer, not PR. When my dermatologist diagnosed a patch on my leg as basal cell carcinoma (skin cancer), he blasted it with a cattle prod for a long time. Smoke rose from my BBQed calf, not the roast I wanted.

He should have begun with, "This will only hurt for a few months." It was numb at the time, but not later. And it really, truly hurt - as any deep burn would - for many weeks.

Lutherans are dealing with their cancers by using makeup, band-aids, and excuses.


Does It Work To Deceive People into the Kingdom of God?

The leaders of ELCA and The Episcopalian Church,
in America - and Canada, eh?
The Fabian approach worked to transfer leadership
to the radical Left feminist coven.
ELCA Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton was an unknown and undistinguished bishop in Ohio when the famous 2009 ELCA vote approved the ordination and marriage of homosexuals.

Everything Eaton said about the vote was a lie, claiming that it really changed nothing. [GJ - Then why the vote and $250,000 donated to swing the vote?] Everyone should stay calm and carry on regardless.

In 2010:
    “The Reverend Bishop Elizabeth Eaton of the Northeastern Ohio Synod presided over Trinity's celebration of the gay and lesbian-inclusive legislation passed at last summer's Churchwide Assembly. She preached for members of several local Lutheran, Unitarian Universalist, and United Church of Christ congregations as well as guests from Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries, Lutheran Chaplaincy, and Dennis Kucinich’s office... Bishop Eaton thanked the GLBT people and their friends and families who had patiently endured their second-class status within the church for so long. She also expressed a hope that the rocky reception of this vote across the country will resolve into positive innovation in the church.” (see here) - From Exposing the ELCA.

---

Celebration At Trinity Lutheran Church

A festival service was held at Trinity Lutheran Church of Lakewood on February 28th, illuminating the Lenten season with a celebration of last summer’s vote of the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to allow the ordination of partnered gay or lesbian clergy. The Reverend Bishop Elizabeth Eaton of the Northeastern Ohio Synod preached to members of several local Lutheran, Unitarian Universalist, and United Church of Christ congregations and guests from Lutheran Metropolitan Ministries, Lutheran Chaplaincy, and Dennis Kucinich’s office. Pastor Paula Maeder Connor of Trinity had chosen texts about Ruth’s steadfast love for her mother-in-law Naomi in spite of the social liabilities of such loyalty (Ruth 1: 8-19), Christ’s call to us to resist slavery (Galations 5:1), and Jesus’ relaying His Father’s commandment that we love one another (John 15:9-17). Bishop Eaton thanked the GLBT people and their friends and families who had patiently endured their second-class status within the church for so long. She also expressed a hope that the rocky reception of this vote across the country will resolve into positive innovation in the church. During the prayers, one of the parishioners thanked God for giving us the gift of love in all of its many shapes and forms. Joyful music was given by Trinity’s choir, soloist Brenna Connor, and organist Dave Debick of the Brecksville United Church of Christ.
After the service, attendees enjoyed a bountiful potluck supper in Trinity’s colorful community room, with dinner music provided by Louis Kalotaris of Hope Lutheran.
Trinity Lakewood and Hope Lutheran are the only two Northeastern Ohio ELCA congregations to have become “Reconciling in Christ” congregations, meaning that they welcome all people, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, age, ability, or other identifications.
***

Hochmuth's current LinkedIn profile
fails to mention being in the slammer
for swapping man/boy rape videos and graphics.


GJ - I had other material, about Eaton's letter as a mere bishop, after the vote. I could not find it again, even though I published it here. However, this joyous Lenten service in Lakewood, Ohio is even more illuminating about Eaton's agenda. She was on the cutting edge of the lesbian buzz-cut, and it quickly elevated her to the top position in ELCA.

Hochmuth (above) and SP Mark Schroeder deplored the 2009 ELCA vote in a mutually signed letter -and WELS congregations reproduced the apostolic letter until it was copied into this blog. Then - poof!

Naturally, the LCMS loathed the same actions of ELCA, though they voted overwhelmingly to work with ELCA.

What has changed? Mark the Bookkepper and Matt the Fat should get Oscars for their performances, acting so wrathful about ELCA affecting the reputations of the soi-disant conservative Lutherans, but eagerly working with ELCA while sheltering their own felonious child abusers.

As the Fiddler in the Roof song asked,
"Where does it stop? Where does it stop?"

Steadfast Laughs - Playing the Eighth Commandment Card

http://peelingbackthecurtain.blogspot.com/2013/11/darwin-schauer-ex-lcms-pastor-and.html

Time to Cease, a word from BJS editors.

April 12th, 2012Post by 
One of our goals here at BJS is to be the “go to place for Lutheran news and commentary.” We are not afraid to take some liberties that more official Lutheran news media may not be able to. We also have a liberal commentary policy. Sometimes comments push the boundaries of the 8th commandment. In an effort to be responsible stewards of the trust with which you have graced us, we are ceasing reporting, commentary and comments on the child molestation story. The two postings on it already have been taken down. We thank you for your patronage of this website and will seek to continue reporting important news and trying to balance the cutting edge of news with the need to put the best construction on all things.

We have been in contact with the president’s office in St. Louis and have been assured that this matter is being handled with absolute integrity. [GJ - So how does Matt the Fat explain Paul McCain's plagiarism - with integrity?] We take great comfort in that and also ask that our readers continue to pray for all involved in this very serious matter.

Also, you may be interested to know that at the recent BJS conference we reformulated our Board of Directors and are working on a new version of BJS that will have less reporting of and commentary on church political news and more articles encouraging confessional understanding and edification in good piety and spiritual exercise.
Rev. Dr. Tim Rossow, Editor
Rev. Joshua Scheer, Associate Editor

---

*****


 It’s time…

I went down to Park Rapids two weeks ago, to the Hubbard County Detention Center, and spoke with Darwin Schauer for about an hour. (I had tried to see him a week earlier but was unable to see him due to an ongoing shift change of jail personnel at the time.) On March 4, 2012, I met with Minnesota North District President Donald Fondow (Fondow), Bemidji Circuit Counselor Allan Wierschke, and the congregational president of Trinity, Lake George to discuss what I had learned as laid out in Schauer’s current criminal charges and to discuss further action on our part. It was determined that Rev. Wierschke would render pastoral care to Schauer since I had a clear conflict of interest. Still, it was necessary for various reasons for me to talk to Schauer about what had transpired. When I met with him, I immediately advised Schauer that I was not there as his pastor or as a lawyer, lest he be given any expectation of confidentiality.

I now know from that conversation that The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS), particularly on the district level, was well aware of Darwin Schauer’s 1983 conviction for the sexual abuse of his 13 year old step-daughter and, in spite of it, assisted him in becoming a lay minister and chose to place him as a lay minister in Immanuel Lutheran Church of Cass Lake and Trinity Lutheran Church of Lake George without warning or advising the congregations that a sexual predator was being placed in their midst to render them pastoral care, to teach confirmation classes to 12 to 14 year olds, etc.

Fondow recently told me that when he was convicted in 1983, Schauer was told to resign his Synodically rostered position as a school teacher or he would be removed. He had resigned. I was upfront with Schauer and told him that we now knew about the 1983 conviction. We discussed that. I then asked Schauer how he got into the lay ministry program at Concordia College in Mequon,WI (now Concordia University-Wisconsin.)

He stated that, after his probation on the 1983 conviction was completed, he went to Rev. O. H. Cloeter, who was District President of Minnesota South District of the LCMS 1978–91. Darwin laid out everything about his conviction and asked if there was any way that he could still serve the church. Cloeter stated that being an ordained minister was out of the question, but that there were other ways around that. The answer was the lay ministry program that led to being commissioned as a lay minister in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. I do not know how involved Cloeter was in getting Darwin into the program, but he certainly had no objection to it and encouraged Schauer. Darwin stated that President Cloeter was a very nice, understanding man. No one has been able to explain to me how it is out of the question for a sexual predator to become an ordained minister but perfectly okay to be a lay minister, performing nearly all of the same functions as an ordained minister!

It seems that, given his previous undergraduate degree, Schauer spent only 6 months at Mequon to complete the lay ministry program in 1989 and was commissioned as a lay minister and was assigned to Immanuel, Cass Lake. His supervisor was a Rev. Rudder of Blackduck. Rudder knew all about Darwin’s conviction. Later on, there was some friction between Darwin and a pastor of the LCMS- sponsored Indian Ministry in Cass Lake. Rev. Richard L. Guehna, District President of Minnesota North District of the LCMS 1986-96, came up from Brainerd to personally meet with Darwin about the issue. He also brought with him the newspaper clipping that had been sent to him, the article in Darwin’s District file, and asked Darwin about it. Darwin again laid it all out on the table, explaining everything about what had happened, Darwin stated that President Guehna was a very forgiving man. Guehna took no action and, it seems, told no one in the congregation.

Later, Darwin was allowed to serve Trinity, Lake George with no objection and with no one at the congregation being told that their minister had a 1983 conviction for ongoing sexual abuse of his 13 year old step-daughter. As I now know from emails between Fondow and me in late 2007 – early 2008, and from what he has now confirmed, is that Fondow knew about the 1983 conviction at least as early as 2008, at that time discussing Schauer’s history and situation with MNS DP Seitz, Synodical Secretary Hartwig, and then Synodical 1st VP Diekelman, had possession of the 1983 newspaper article, and continued the District apathy toward the situation. He did nothing.

I thank everyone for their prayers and words of support to the congregation and me and especially to the victim and the victim’s family. Through these weeks we have learned that the glorious Gospel is indeed the Word of life. As we enter the Paschal Triduum let us remember that the Lord indeed has made all things new.

Thanks be to God.
Don Kirchner

---

Rev. Don Kirchner
April 5th, 2012 at 07:33  | #55 Reply | Quote

On March 4, 2012, at a meeting at the Lake George CafĂ© with Minnesota North District President Donald Fondow (Fondow), Bemidji Circuit Counselor Allan Wierschke, and the congregational president of Trinity, Lake George, we discussed what had happened and the fact that Darwin Schauer was being arrested even as we met. At one point, the congregational president excused himself to use the restroom. Fondow then advised Allan and me that he had looked through Darwin’s file when he retired (which would have been May or June of 2008, I believe) and that there was a newspaper article in the file about a similar sort of incident. The next day Fondow emailed me a scanned copy of the article which detailed Schauer’s 1983 plea of guilty to sexual abuse of a minor.

This seemed somewhat odd. I recalled a series of emails between us some years ago when Fondow had done some extensive checking of Darwin Schauer’s history. I had previously written to Fondow , inquiring about why the Minnesota South District had blocked Darwin Schauer’s path to ordination, which Schauer had told me happened, though Schauer did not tell me why. Fondow had responded with a non-answer, that Minnesota South had determined that he should not be allowed to complete such a path, confirming what we already knew.

On 10-08-07 I emailed Fondow, advising him that, given our membership at Immanuel, Cass Lake, (Darwin Schauer was serving that congregation and the congregation of Trinity, Lake George), my wife and I “would certainly would like the minister at our congregation to be an ordained pastor so that we can actually receive an indicative-operative absolution, etc. How do we go about getting Darwin Schauer ordained?”
I heard nothing back from Fondow. On 10-22-07 I sent him the exact same email. I heard nothing. On 10-26-07 I sent him the exact same email. On 10-30-07 Fondow responded, advising me that he had been checking on Schauer’s situation. He stated, “I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mails regarding Darwin. I am doing some more checking into this and will communicate with you as soon as I receive some more information and clarification.”

I waited a month and heard nothing further. On 11-30-07 I decided to get his attention. I emailed: “Having not heard back from you on this matter may I propose an action before Darwin retires? Is it okay if a few of us pastors go ahead and ordain Darwin Schauer, thereby formally establishing what already is in place- i.e., his call as a pastor to Immanuel, Cass Lake and Trinity, Lake George?”

That got a response. Within less than two hours, Fondow responded: “In my last e-mail to you I indicated that I would look into this matter. I have had conversation with President Seitz and Secretary Hartwig and asked them to find out information for me and I will be checking back with them.

In answer to your question and in keeping with the agreed upon protocol of our church-body it would not be in order for an Ordination such as you are proposing. I would ask you to be patient as I seek answers and clarification as to the reasons for past decisions in an effort to see that all things be done ‘decently and in order’.”

I replied, “Thanks for your reply and your response to my proposal. That’s why I asked, although to formalize or ‘ordain’ what already has taken place- Darwin’s placement as a pastor- would seem to be decent and in good order. As we all know a lay minister, in this context, is an oxymoron. but I understand your position. I’ll await to hear from you.”

Nearly three weeks later, having not heard anything, I wrote: “We’re coming up on the end of the year. What have you found out about Pastor Schauer’s situation?”

I heard nothing. A week later, I decided to press the situation again. I wrote, “We are now nearly into the new year, about a half-year from Darwin’s retirement. I still would like my pastor to be a legitimate pastor. A few of us were looking at possibly [of ordaining him.]” Fondow responded, “I understand your intention, however, I strongly advise against this course of action… I will be speaking once again with Secretary Hartwig about this matter as well as President Seitz…The fact that his Ordination was not approved sometime ago is what I am asking to have looked at now. We do need to things decently and in order and that is the way in which I am proceeding.”

I couldn’t understand the delay. On 12-31-07, I wrote, “I simply can’t understand why you are putting this off. The appearance, even though I’m not saying that it is the case, is that you simply are waiting for Darwin to retire so that the issue is moot. Meanwhile, my wife and I, along with the other members, cannot even receive an indicative-operative absolution from our pastor who is somewhat placed in the office but is not allowed the rite of the Office.”

On 01-02-08 (it was now nearly three months since my initial inquiry), Fondow responded: “I’m sorry if it seems that I am putting this off, it is not my intention to do so…I have spoken today with President Seitz and he is calling me back tomorrow. Also, tomorrow I will be in communication with Secretary Hartwig.”

I waited a week and on 01-09-08, having heard nothing further, I asked for an update. Fondow replied later that day: “I have spoken to both President Seitz and Secretary Hartwig. At the present time I am waiting to hear back from First Vice-President Bill Diekelman. So, I am following through as previously indicated and I will be in contact with you.”

I waited a week and, having heard nothing back, again inquired. Later that day, Fondow replied: “This morning I spoke once again to President Seitz and this afternoon First Vice-President Diekelman called me back. They have shared with me information pertaining to Darwin and his situation (past and present). To the end that, according to the Handbook of Synod, Darwin may apply for admission to the Pastoral Ministry (Ordained) Roster of the Synod…I would ask that if he is seeking to pursue this that he would contact me to schedule a meeting to discuss this and to request the necessary application forms and to schedule a meeting with the District Interview Committee (cf. 2007 LCMS Handbook)

Once again, I apologize for the delay in answering your initial straight forward question. Due to the fact that there was some previous history involved and with a desire to learn of the background and information pertaining to this matter and wanting everything to be done according to our agreed upon procedures, it has taken me longer than it should have.”

I was frustrated. I replied, “We’ve spent months and months, and you’ve needed to make numerous calls to a district president, a Synodical Secretary, and a Synodical VP so that you could tell me that Darwin is eligible to do what we already knew he could do- apply for admission to the Pastoral Ministry (Ordained) Roster of the Synod by colloquy according to Bylaw 3.8.2.4.2, (a) or (b)?”

I wrote to a friend that day, “There’s something going on here. At any time Fondow could have picked up the phone and said, “Sorry. Darwin would have to go through the regular colloquy process to be ordained. Nothing else can be done.’ But everything has been done quite formally, including Fondow’s stiff, formal, non-conversational tone which is quite unlike him, except in cases where he’s being wary and treading lightly.
So, the reason that Darwin was blocked from being allowed to do this back in the ’70s was…?
Something stinks…”
The next day, 01-17-08, Fondow snapped back, “Since you inquired, I felt that it would be well to check on the past history of his situation to see if there was anything that would prevent him from applying! If you already knew what he could do, then why did you ask me?”

Later that day, I replied, “I’m not sure why you are being this way, President Fondow. As I previously stated, normally you would pick up the phone and call me. Instead, you’ve been quite formal, cool, and careful with your statements. There was no phone call stating, ‘I checked it out, Don, and it looks like Darwin is going to have to go the regular route under the Synodical Bylaws. I realize that the chances of anything being done before his retirement are virtually nil, but it appears that there is no other way.’
No, it was a formal statement that Darwin ‘may’ pursue this under such and such rule, something that you and I both know he always could have done. Please go back and look below at your statement, President Fondow. It is a caricature of lawyerspeak.

And now you respond with a testy attempt to play word games. Of course I knew the Bylaw. You know quite well why I asked. I asked if there was a way that we could get him ordained given the time constraints. And by the way, after waiting months you now suggest that he take action similar to what he did years ago and which was denied him at that time. What has changed that you suggest that he should try again? Can you give any assurance that he would not simply be going through the motions (as if this could be done in 4 months) in order to again receive a denial? Bottom line- why not simply state, ‘Sorry, it looks like Synodical approval to ordain Darwin is not going to happen, given his probable retirement in May’?”
Schauer retired a few months later.

---


Now, before we see the usual “circle the wagons” mode with suggestions such as that putting forth Schauer’s conversations with District personnel is hearsay (it is not), information is from a secular reporter and we know what they’re like (a classic argumentum ad hominem), and other such fallacies and irrelevancies, let me state the main reason why I make these things public and why I am not doing so.
With the events of the past month I have become beyond cynical with District interaction. I have virtually no trust left. The continued verbal dancing and passing of the buck continues. Our DP met with the congregation on March 7th and claimed little or no knowledge about the newspaper clipping of the 1983 incident, claiming that all knowledge rested with a man who is now in heaven (former DP Guehna).
On March 13th, our DP emailed me, now even suggesting that he showed me the newspaper clipping on February 7, 2008. He did not. But it is a classic red herring, intended to divert. For the sake of argument, even if he had shown me the article, I was covering a vacancy in Duluth at the time. Our DP was the ecclesiastical supervisor and it was he who bore responsibility to Trinity Lutheran Church of Lake George, a congregation with which I had no relationship at the time. Most importantly, our DP’s suggestion that he showed me the article confirms that HE had knowledge of it at least in early February of 2008, while Darwin Schauer was still serving Trinity of Lake George and Immanuel of Cass Lake.

Keep in mind that Schauer also continued on the Synodical roster after his retirement, filled in for me at Trinity the last several years when I was out-of-town, filled in for at least one other Circuit pastor/congregation, attended winkels, etc. until March 4th when the horror began for the congregation. Thankfully, and that is what we look to, that is the day that the horror for the young victim ended. Somewhat, for the victim will never be the same. What was taken can never be replaced. Only the Gospel can give that peace that passes all understanding, the victim knowing that he or she is a lamb safe in the Good Shepherd’s arms.

It goes on. Our DP attended Schauer’s arraignment on March 19th. One of our congregational elders is a court bailiff for Hubbard County and also was at the hearing. Afterwards, our DP approached the elder and told him that he had been trying to contact “Pastor Kirchner” and that he wanted to meet with me and congregational leadership. My response to the elder was that this simply was baloney! Our DP has my email address. He has my cell phone number. He had used both to communicate with me until recently when, suddenly, there is silence. He hasn’t been trying to contact me!
I expect that the silence is due to my announcement to our DP, on March 15, 2012, that our congregational delegate and I will not be attending the District Convention later this month. We simply see it as a waste of time for us. Our view is not only that there is nothing beneficial in doing so but that we trusted District and District leadership allowed a child predator in our midst without telling the congregation. The congregation asks me why, and I have no answer for them. I do not know why church leadership does this– past, present, and regrettably probably into the future.

I also have no expectation that anything will be done at the District level to hold anyone accountable. The time when the integrity of leadership– The buck stops here, this happened on my watch and, therefore, I must step down– is long past the present day. Leaders don’t do that anymore. Thankfully, the secular entities that some disdain will hold Schauer accountable. Our DP will be re-elected, probably on a unanimous ballot, and Synodical life on the District level will go on. The only change I foresee is that I will become an outcast in District circles, maybe even disciplined.

Brothers and sisters, I hope that I am wrong about much of this. Perhaps I will be surprised. I realize my cynicism is great, spiritually unhealthy, and sinful. Tomorrow, at a Circuit Treore service, I will preach on the words of our Lord, “Father forgive them.” Do we forgive those who have wronged us? Of course! For this Christ died! Because of the forgiveness won for us on the cross we get to forgive others. That is the joy this Holy Week.
Trust? That takes time.
 [End of Rev. Kirchner's article and comments]


******

After the editors at Steadfast Lutherans deleted Rev. Kirchner's posts, Rev. Todd Wilken responded on the same blog with an excellent post of his own:

Some Thoughts about the Man Behind the Curtain
by Todd Wilken


It isn’t a sin to question the actions of our ecclesiastical supervisors. They should be ready to give an account for their actions.


It isn’t a sin to demand that our church body do what is right, not merely what is legal –especially when doing what is merely legal is easier than doing what is right.


When the safety of “these little ones” (Matthew 18:6) is at stake, a healthy skepticism of our too often self-protective bureaucracy is completely proper in a church body that ought to have nothing to hide.


If we rightly require that our individual pastors meet the Apostolic standard to be “above reproach,” then we should require the same of every official action of our congregations, districts and synod.
******
(Wilken himself eventually left Steadfast Lutherans taking his posts with him.)

Clearly, somebody in the Synod wants to keep this story quiet. What is the lesson to be learned by this? Many Christians, including many of my fellow Confessional Lutherans, think that gross sin such as child abuse and systematic coverup happens only in denominations that have bad theology or teachings, and that it won't happen in our church or churches because we have "good" theology. This is not the reality of the situation. While it is true that false teaching can increase the amount of child abuse and coverup (e.g. IFB fundamentalism), all of us are going to have to deal with the "wolves in sheep's clothing" that the Lord Jesus Christ warned us about until He returns. The real scandal occurs when church leaders give in to the sinful temptation to cover up child abuse and similar sins and abuses when they occur in the church or the Christian context. They do this because they are afraid of theirs or the church's image being tarnished, when what really stains the church's reputation is the coverup, and the failure of the leaders to do the right thing.

Current LinkedIn Profile

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Heckyl and Jibe Continue Their Patronizing Tone Toward Brett Meyer,
Who Does Buzz with the UOJ Hive





Rev. David R. Boisclair (Drboisclair)
Advanced Member
Username: Drboisclair

Post Number: 509
Registered: 1-2002
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 2:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Joe, it is there, but Brett gets confused when we speak of Christ being guilty by imputation. We are guilty by nature; Christ is innocent by nature; Christ is guilty by imputation; we are innocent by imputation. I guess the poor man has a spinning head.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Schumacher (Lex)
Advanced Member
Username: Lex

Post Number: 800
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 2:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

I think that a lot of folks get a "spinning head" when they do not take the Scriptures as they are. Until Brett understands that Christ was found to be guilty of our sins he will not understand Scripture. There really is no reason to go beyond that with Brett. - When the breaker is tripped, replacing the bulb will not help.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 172
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 6:56 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Dave, please step back to my post today at 10:15am and prove the point you are promoting - that Christ was guilty of the whole world's sins and that Christ was forgiven. Please use Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions to anchor your contention.

Pastor Holzer asks, "I’m puzzled Mr. Meyer, but what part of, “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the WORLD,” is not consistent with objective justification?"
It doesn't mean what the doctrine of OJ states - that God has absolved the entire world of unbelievers of their sin, declared them justified and righteous. What it means is that the iniquity of the world was placed on Christ and He paid the all sufficient penalty for them.

Did the unbelieving world's sins really get taken away such that God has absolved them of all sin? Scripture teaches that contrary to UOJ the unbelieving world will die in their sins because they do not believe in Christ. John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. Clearly the unbelieving world's sins were not taken away since they will die in them through unbelief. And here too, Matthew 6:15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. No God did not take away the unbelieving world's sins.

The Christian Book of Concord:
86] But since we receive remission of sins and the Holy Ghost by faith alone, faith alone justifies, because those reconciled are accounted righteous and children of God, not on account of their own purity, but through mercy for Christ’s sake, provided only they by faith apprehend this mercy. Accordingly, Scripture testifies that by faith we are accounted righteous, Rom. 3:26.We, therefore, will add testimonies which clearly declare that faith is that very righteousness by which we are accounted righteous before God, namely, not because it is a work that is in itself worthy, but because it receives the promise by which God has promised that for Christ’s sake He wishes to be propitious to those believing in Him…
http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justificati on.php

Contrary to UOJ which teaches Christ has Mediated on the cross the wrath of God over the unbelieving world’s sins and that God is now propitious to the whole unbelieving world. God is propitious to those believing in Christ. Not those who reject Christ and remain in unbelief. Thanks for your question.

In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Schumacher (Lex)
Advanced Member
Username: Lex

Post Number: 801
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 8:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Brett,
To avoid wrangling with you about me saying that Christ committed sin, please reference Pr. Boisclair's statement: "Of course, Christ wasn't a sinner intrinsically or as a perpetrator of sin, and those who accuse us of saying so are liars. Christ was MADE SIN by the imputation of all sins to Him (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21 and Isaiah 53:6)."

I know it seems a subtle distinction, but Scripture makes this very distinction. It's an important one.

I said: "Christ was found to be guilty of all our sins.: and "Christ was forgiven of all our sins".

If I can prove that the first statement is true, then it should be self-evident that the second is true (although the Scriptures attest to both also).

To prove the first; if Pr. Boisclair's scripture ref. is not good enough (which it most certainly is), just listen to Jesus Himself: "My God, my God, why hath Thou forsaken me?"
If God had forsaken Christ, what does that mean other than Christ had been condemned?
If Christ was not found to be guilty of sin, how could God have condemned Him? God does not condemn a righteous person.

Now before you accuse me of being novel in my doctrine, read what Luther said on the subject.

"And this is our highest comfort, to clothe and wrap Christ this way in my sins, your sins, and
the sins of the entire world, and in this way to behold Him bearing all our sins. When He is beheld
this way, He easily removes all the fanatical opinions of our opponents about justification by works. For the papists dream about a kind of faith “formed by love.” Through this they want to remove sins and be justified. This is clearly to unwrap Christ and to unclothe Him from our sins, to make Him innocent, to burden and overwhelm ourselves with our own sins, and to behold them, not in Christ but in ourselves. This is to abolish Christ and make Him useless."

"If the sins of the entire world are on that one man, Jesus Christ, then they are not on the
world. But if they are not on Him, then they are still on the world. Again, if Christ Himself is made guilty of all the sins that we have all committed, then we are absolved from all sins, not through ourselves or through our own works or merits but through Him. But if He is innocent and does not carry our sins, then we carry them and shall die and be damned in them. “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.” (1 Cor. 15:57.)".

Sorry for the unusually long post.
I thank God that you have not abandoned this discussion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Breitenfeld (Dbreitenfeld)
Advanced Member
Username: Dbreitenfeld

Post Number: 850
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 9:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

The reason why the unbelieving world is not justified and sins not forgiven, is because they still remain in their sin, a slave to their master: Satan and sin/flesh, and under God's wrath of condemnation, ie Hell. Whether people believe this or not. (Please note: this is just like UOJ, in the sense, God has already declared people wicked, evil, sinful, full of hate, a slave to Satan, can condemned. Does this apply to those who do not believe (faith)? All people are conceived with Adams's transgression of sin with it's full effect: guilty before God, an enemy towards God and haters of God, and to hell is where we all belong. God's work is to give them faith so that God's work of reconciliation can be implemented. This is where those who reject UOJ are confused. The trespasses of sin is not like the gift of forgiveness of sins.

UOJ is God demonstrating his love for his enemies. ".Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.:"

Reconciliation
1. To reestablish a close relationship between.
2. To settle or resolve.
3. To bring (oneself) to accept: He finally reconciled himself to the change in management.
4. To make compatible or consistent:

Reconciliation is ALL of God's work done through Christ planed before the world. This work is the steps and process to make satisfactory and appease the wrath of God upon all humanity to bring righteousness/justification to all people. God did this on the cross, it is complete: forgiveness of sins for all. Christ was sin for the whole world, all the peoples guilty and punishment for sin was taken by Christ. Christ went to the throne of God to pay for our sins. God accepted it as payment in full. Jesus is found righteous.
The righteousness Jesus attained for the whole world is for all of humanity= UOJ.

God must now implement His work into all people by giving the people the gift of faith. The gift of faith is a person being born of God. God's work is complete: it is the vicarious atonement. God now gives this to everyone. It is not automatically applied. God has to apply it(vicarious atonement: ie redemption to people to take affect. This is the difference between the gift of God and the trespass of sin.

This gift of UOJ is not like the trespass of original sin. Nor can the gift of God's reconciliation: UOJ be compared with the result of one man's sin: original sin. Faith has to believe this to be true. This faith is not found in man, so he still condemned and under the wrath of God. Those who reject UOJ will say, "See everyone is not declared Justified and you can only be justified by faith." These people willfully compare the affects of the trespass: original sin, too the gift of God as the same when Scripture warns us not to do this comparison. By failing to heed this warning leads you into false teachings. Those who reject UOJ will avoid this warning at all cost and not apply it.

Where does this lead a person?

Roman Catholic: Jesus's work on the cross was not complete for you, you must do works to atone for your sins. This denies UOJ.

Mormons: Jesus was a good role model. His atonement was for his own sin, you must shed your own blood. This denies UOJ.

Jehovahs Witnesses: Jesus's death did not atone for your sins. He died and is in the ground. You have to do works to gain entry into heaven.

Reformed: Jesus died for those who have faith (elected). His blood covers only those who have faith.

Universalism: all are just and righteous whether they believe it or not, so when they die they will go to heaven.

Without knowing the proper distinction between the gift of God and the result of one man's sin, is like mixing up the proper distinction between: justification and sanctification; works and faith, Law and Gospel, God's work and man's work, God's character and man's character, the Spirit of God and the work of the flesh. etc.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 173
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 10:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Rev. Boisclair, you made the following statements in this discussion. I questioned whether you intended to make these statements but didn’t get a response.
Tuesday, March 25 6:54pm
“However, to deny that God on His own for the sake of Christ has reconciled Himself to the world for the sake of Christ is to deny what the Bible clearly states in 2 Cor. 5:18-21.”
Wenesday, March 26 11:07am
“One of the worst errors that we have seen in this latest exchange is Mr. Meyer's denial of Christ's redemption by itself reconciling God to the world.”

Why exactly do you believe God needed to reconcile Himself to the world in your version of UOJ? God is perfectly righteous and just. The world is by nature completely sinful, lost and condemned. Why was God reconciling himself to the world in your doctrine – where in Scripture is the direction of reconciliation that of God being reconciling Himself to the world as though there is some change in God that was required? Scripture teaches that men require reconciliation with God – a gracious change in men. It may be tied to UOJ’s perversion of Scripture and it’s demand that God can declare something to be true, bestow something, but it doesn’t affect that which He declares or bestow upon that which was His object of bestowal.

Scripture teaches the world requires reconciliation with God and not God to be reconciled to the world. UOJ is a whirlwind of contradictions.
Colossians 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
2 Corinthians 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.


Joe states, “From Brett Meyer's post #168: "The Holy Spirit graciously works faith in those God has called." I'd like a clarification of this. From what I know God has called all men. This sounds at least to me that God chooses who will have faith and who won't.
George, Rev. Boisclair, Franz – do you also believe God has called all men? Or is Joe Krohn teaching another version of UOJ?

Dave, you provide these quotes that are supposed to prove Christ was guilty of our sins.
"And this is our highest comfort, to clothe and wrap Christ this way in my sins, your sins, and
the sins of the entire world, and in this way to behold Him bearing all our sins. When He is beheld
this way, He easily removes all the fanatical opinions of our opponents about justification by works. For the papists dream about a kind of faith “formed by love.” Through this they want to remove sins and be justified. This is clearly to unwrap Christ and to unclothe Him from our sins, to make Him innocent, to burden and overwhelm ourselves with our own sins, and to behold them, not in Christ but in ourselves. This is to abolish Christ and make Him useless." 

No guilt here Dave. Christ was wrapped in the sin of the whole world – does not state that Christ, the Righteous One, was guilty of our sins. Still not Scripture proving your contention that Christ was guilty of our sins.

"If the sins of the entire world are on that one man, Jesus Christ, then they are not on the
world. But if they are not on Him, then they are still on the world. Again, if Christ Himself is made guilty of all the sins that we have all committed, then we are absolved from all sins, not through ourselves or through our own works or merits but through Him. But if He is innocent and does not carry our sins, then we carry them and shall die and be damned in them. “But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.” (1 Cor. 15:57.)".

I commit this to poorly chosen words by Luther when he states ‘made guilty of all sins that we have all committed”. In this regard I would liken it to Rev. Boisclair’s contention that it is a reference to the imputation of the whole world’s sins upon Him. Even then Christ is not guilty of any sins, wasn’t justified of any sins He was supposedly guilty of and therefore another tenet of UOJ is destroyed – Christ’s supposed ‘Justification’ is not the ‘Justification’ of those whose sins He bore since Christ as Propitiator is only through faith as Scripture teaches and the BOC confirms.

In Christ,
Brett Meyer
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Schumacher (Lex)
Advanced Member
Username: Lex

Post Number: 802
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 11:18 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Brett,
Was Christ condemned for our sins?
Christ Himself said He was. "My God, my God, why hath Thou forsaken me?"
What say you? Do you "commit" this to poorly chosen words too?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dave Schumacher (Lex)
Advanced Member
Username: Lex

Post Number: 803
Registered: 6-2003
Posted on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 - 11:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Brett,
If you can't answer that question - if you can't explain what being forsaken by God means - if you can't explain what what Paul meant when he said "Christ, who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us.",then you should not judge Luther's choice of words.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 174
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2014 - 12:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Dave, yes, Christ was condemned for our sins. This is the definition of paying the penalty for the whole world's sins.

Does this quote of Christ teach that Christ was guilty of our sins? No. The iniquity of the whole world was laid upon Christ - that doesn't mean Christ was guilty of the whole world's sins.

When you realize that you can't prove your contention simply by asking questions - please provide the Scriptural and Confessional proof that Christ was guilty of the world's sins.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brett Meyer (Brett_meyer)
Member
Username: Brett_meyer

Post Number: 175
Registered: 1-2008
Posted on Thursday, March 27, 2014 - 12:16 am:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post

Dave, do you agree with Joe Krohn's confession of Objective Justification that God has called the whole world?

Joe states, “From Brett Meyer's post #168: "The Holy Spirit graciously works faith in those God has called." I'd like a clarification of this. From what I know God has called all men. This sounds at least to me that God chooses who will have faith and who won't.