What do you do before you jump into the pool? Usually you put a toe in to test the water. Then you jump in and someone shouts.."how's the water?" From what I sense the WELS water is cold. So we start bailing out the cold water.
One commenter asked why I started to this blog. Actually I restarted this blog. One reason was to pick up synod discussion where Aaron left off. The discussion was revolving around the convention. But the the cold water runs deep.
Another reason is I have serious questions about the erosion of doctrine and practice in the WELS. Again, I was told that I made broad generalizations. Yet I gave specific unscriptural examples. I have brought these concerns up the chain. What happens is a blind eye is turned which indicts a lot. And simply look at most authors in FIC. The strong, sacramental and liturgical pastor or churches aren’t highlighted.
I am wondering if the church and change conference will eventually offer a workshop on how to conduct a liturgical service. That would be a change for many.
I was also asked again about the double standard in the WELS. One private commenter shared their story with me. I listed my issues below. Again, I wonder why a blind eye is turned. I believe most all are familiar with the case the DP Janke brought against Pr. Berg. Oh my, the kids at the college are talking theology brought on by thoughts from a Magpie. The synod wants no part of this and out goes Berg. And this list of resignations out west goes on and on. An Apache pastor is giving the locals too much control. A charge (later dropped) is drummed up and another one is ousted. Ok..then along comes the cover up…a charge against an ole’ synodical boy from the southwest. This charge is covered up. We must not hurt this man’s name. It does seem that there is a double standard. I wonder if a study should be done on resignation (or in most cases forced resignations).
How's the water? Test the water.
7 comments:
a few coments:
Due to your refusal to post all coments i dougbt this will be posted but here goes.
I have said this before, on an unposted response, and i say it again: Who are you to comment on how the Synod or a DP disiplines a Pator in his district. These matters are none of your buisness. Those who you got your information from are Breaking the eigth commandment by telling you, and you too are breaking the eigth commandment by repeating it. You need to stop.
Hi:
I just looked through a copy of the September FIC. On the back page was a wonderful, gospel centered and gospel motivated article on the doctrine of fellowship, written by a pastor in California. If FIC was trying to silence faithful, confessional pastors, such an article, along with so mmany others, would never be printed.
"Who are you to comment on how the Synod or a DP disiplines (sic) a Pator (sic) in his district."
Jared,
You are wrong about the 8th commandment. Please re-read Luther's explanation in the large catechism. Moreover, your comment above simply reinforces the point that John is making. Are you saying that Synod and DPs are unaccountable for their actions? Sounds a little pope-ish to me.
LM
I am concerned by the lack of accountability within our leadership. DPs are basically allowed to do whatever they want without anyone really checking their actions.
I personally am uncomfortable with the idea that the DPs and other WELS leaders are little demi-gods who can NEVER be questioned. We are to, in love, hold one another accountable--no matter the ranking of that person in the church.
To me, the 8th Commandment has been stretched beyond the original meaning--it's been used to condone and protect those who are actively sinning in their actions because of their last name or rank in the WELS.
Was Martin Luther sinning and breaking the 8th Commandment when he wrote to and confronted the "powers that be" in the Catholic Church?? Should he have remained silent??
I am so confused, we laud Luther as a strong, independent leader used by God to bring back the TRUTH to the world, yet we freak out if someone holds a DP accountable for their actions? Is that not a bit hypocritical?
Jared after you wrote to admonish me I returned to Luther’s 8th commandment and found this explanation.
What Luther says…
---------------------------------
All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in the entire world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public that every one may learn to guard against it.
----------------------------------
The matters I brought forth are there so that everyone may learn to guard against the double standard. Do you assume to believe that the laity should allow the DP not to be held accountable for those whom he “disciplines?” Again, maybe there should be a synod “task” force on the resignations of called workers. I do know that there is an appeal process. But I also know that synod names run deep and there are connections. So I truly believe that a double standard is present when a small town pastor or a pastor smelling of high church tendencies is ousted compared to a Synod heavy who is having parish “issues”.
Anonymous said...
Hi:
I just looked through a copy of the September FIC. On the back page was a wonderful, gospel centered and gospel motivated article on the doctrine of fellowship, written by a pastor in California. If FIC was trying to silence...
----------------------------
Anonymous – I do understand that there are a few confessional writers in FIC. But if one was to do a numbers comparison (maybe Charis could do this for us) one would see a much heavier slant toward the fluffy Church growth promoted by oft contributors like Parlow, Kelm, Patterson, Gunn, and etc. I remember the days when Parcher was allowed to write in the NWL (FIC). Give us the meat and potatoes of solid confessionalism.
John wrote:
"But if one was to do a numbers comparison... one would see a much heavier slant toward the fluffy Church growth promoted by oft contributors like Parlow, Kelm, Patterson, Gunn, and etc. I remember the days when Parcher was allowed to write in the NWL (FIC). Give us the meat and potatoes of solid confessionalism."
Are you implying that any of these faithful shepherds are not strongly confessional? If so, it would seem that the label "confessional" has lost its original meaning among us.
Post a Comment