Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Homerun

I finally had time to listen to President Schroeder's address. I believe he hit a homerun tie tge score. He made continual reference to being a confessional Lutheran church body. It made me wonder if he is a Confessional crusader. You could tell his staunch position against the Church and Change crowd. Practice does influence doctrine.

It is unfortunate that the elected VP is a supporter of Church and Change.

Pres. Schroeder also laid out the financial disaster that faces the WELS. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the convention goes. Right now it looks like the score is tied.

115 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, He did make a good speach and made salient points that should make any confessional Lutheran proud, but warned of the continued dangers that we will always face. Stamp out one fire and Satan makes another to deal with.

To my C&C friends, did you hear his address? Understand now? We face the same rejection, the same ampathy, the same hatred as the 1st century or early church. Your innovations instituted to break down "Walls/barriers" to make "efficacious THE EFFICACIOUS" (there we go again using the C&C method of using capitals to try and confuse unwary) will not do the tough work that only the Law and Gospel and the sacraments RIGHTLY ADMINISTERED are meant to do.

His address not withstanding, we have to be emboldened to continue to address this continually and not think this is somehow over. Be bold and talk to your pastors. Pastors, talk to your circiut pastors. Talk to your DPs. Write to the President. CGM has its root cause is Pietism and that continues to come up in different forms over centuries. Pietism causes eventual apathly to the Word and Sacraments and lead away from Christ and to the idea of service. The axiom "service unites and doctrine divides" is the eventual ethos adopted.

God Bless our Synod President's forthright wisdom and boldness. Continue to pray for him and the cause of Christ not of man. Keep pressing against the dangers that would ensnare us and remain steadfast in His Word to do that. Study the Confessions or at least read them for the first time and start asking your pastors questions.

Sola Dei Gloria

LutherRocks said...

In case you missed it he also touched on the dangers of legalism.

Guys we are all on the same team. No one is keeping the score when souls are at stake, so please stop the divisive natures.

JK

Freddy Finkelstein said...

I agree with Anon @ 8:58AM. This struggle against CGM -- only the latest permutation of rank Pietism -- isn't over. It's just officially beginning. No more conjecture, we know that we finally have a leader now, and we know who he is. What folks on this blog and others, in publicly raising our concerns, and in carrying these concerns to our Pastors and congregations -- for all the effort it has been -- has only served to get us to this point: only the official beginning of the struggle.

James Huebner, a known CGM advocate, was called as 1st VP -- major blow, perhaps, but remember that just prior to his call, this position was reduced to part-time, effectively draining the position of some of it's power. Also, there is still the chance that he may decline the call -- we'll know shortly. At the same time, since the reason for this change was financial (an $80K savings), rather than political or structural, the status of this position will be reviewed by the Convention again in four years -- which gives us Confessional Crusaders some time work.

So celebrate, have a beer even. And then let's "up the action," just as Anon, above, encourages.

Freddy Finkelstein

Anonymous said...

President's report (print version)
http://beta.wels.net/news-events/events/2009-synod-convention/presentations

Anonymous said...

It's interesting that I agree with you because your point doesn't attack me directly regarding legalism. True enough about legalism, but also complete and unfettered gathering at the breast of heterodox, pietistic and misguided CGM gurus has left many longing for Lutheran teaching again. Leaders and laity (with good intentions)are missing the boat and, as you point out "souls at stake," with impoting of these means other than the Means of Grace.

Legalism no. Antinomianism no. Means of Grace yes!

S.D.G.

Gregory L. Jackson said...

SP Schroeder did a fine job and showed real leadership when others before him (various synods) have avoided the issues.

Michael Schottey said...

Krohn,

You need to understand that there is a far cry from legalism and confessionalism.

There is a difference between legalism and applying the law.

If somehow, you took any sort of balance out of the first 45 minutes of Schroeder's speech, you need to take the blinders off.

He called out Parlow, Ski, Buske and others who have worshiped at other alters and sat at the feet of non denominational and pan denominational teachers.

He called out though who think doctrine and practice aren't entwined.

He called out those who would hide their heritage (or the name Lutheran).

Do we all want to be careful about legalism? Of course! I will preach that as much as you will.

But being confessional and being legalistic are not the same.

Diet O. Worms said...

To touch on Pastor Jackson's point, even our confessional LCMS brothers have picked up on SP Schroeder's speech.

Anonymous said...

Good morning,

I wold concur that the president's remarks were effective and frankly what needed to be said. I not only found his remarks of concern regarding doctrine relevant but appreciated the fact that he laid out longer term goals and is not afraid to discuss where we are failing in terms of leadership and demanding "excellence." When I arrived here in Saginaw, my view was that we could survive without MLS. I still think we could. I am however more troubled.

The opening service was a remarkable and wonderful experience. Yet, as I looked out into the crowd gathered I couldn't help but notice how "white" we looked. It struck me that one of concerns as a synod is that we are not doing a good job reaching out into new populations.

I came to Saginaw a day early to see MLS and also tour the area. While I believe strongly that we can survive without MLS by using our area lutheran high schools more, and yes, recruiting from public schools much better (an experience we also need in our called workers)I also feel closing MLS may send a very wrong message. The Saginaw area is frankly depressed. It is filled with failed businesses, unemployment is excessive, and homes are boarded up in all areas. The whole community is a black cloud so to speak. I now question selling MLS in this environment. It might make a good prison (again) but there is no money in this state and the residential area makes that possibility less likley. However, the greatest concern is the message we send to the churches and the community. I question that we will do great damage to Saginaw. In the greatest of times of need, we are essentially walking away from the community and the problems here. While that may not sound like a logical or maybe scriptural reason I think we need to ask that question. Yet, if we abandon the ship in this severe time of need what message are we sending to the souls in this community and what will our churhes do?
Now if we kept MLS we also need to demand some things. First, we need the bashing of christian giving by the Michigan district to stop, including from the DP. We need to have a long term, aggressive fund development approach to make sure that MLS can survive. I do not think we should be recruiting only pastors for this area of ministry. Yes, it is time for lay people to help! We also need accountibility with fund development staff. The level of fundraising at MLS and LPS is frankly poor. The economy has little to do with that...it has to do with effort. Secondly, I think we should use the Saginaw situation as an opportunity. I know many don't like St. Marcus in Milwaukee however, I also stopped there on my way here and they are in fact reaching out in the inner city and growing. Their programs don't look "white" and they shouldn't be in that location. Neither should St. Paul's Saginaw. I truly beleive we need to develop a ministry plan for the Saginaw area that has MLS as a core purpose. However, if the pastors and churches in this area are more concerned with 'circling the wagons' than saving souls than it is time to close MLS. There is often a debate between pastors about the c and c crowd and its implications. However, I think we have to face the frank reality that we don't have a financial problem. WE have an apathy problem and a lack of aggressive planning and leadership to move in a positive direction. People can criticize the word excellence getting tossed around this convention but we have to ask when do we acknowledge the crisis of failing churches, declining schools, and decreasing activity in our church body. The other writer here stated we are in this together and not to focus on divisions. I agree and its time to get going.

Anonymous said...

Joel Voss elected 2nd VP. He chaired the Ad Hoc Commission. This is good news indeed. Also, Prof. Brenner's essay echoed all the thoughts of the president's report -- it was titled "Christ's love: The efficacy of the Means of Grace." Expect Pastor Jonathan Schroeder's essay today to do the same. Something is happening at this convention, and I like it.

Anonymous said...

..."but we have to ask when do we acknowledge the crisis of failing churches, declining schools, and decreasing activity in our church body. The other writer here stated we are in this together and not to focus on divisions. I agree and its time to get going."

There are a number of things that I could comment about, but I have to save something for Freddy.

Because you have been so engulfed in Chruch Growth thinking (and don't realize it)and Pietisic tendencies, and I truely mean this in the kindest way, because I was of the same mindset not too many years ago (see Ichabod - Convert From CGM, you do not see that what you are saying is exactly the problem that Pres. Schroeder was pointing out.

It is not by "let's get going, let's get a program, let's be guilted into doing something - ANYTHING", it's being motivated to share the truth of the whole counsel of God, personally (one to one) and corporately in our worship and tending to one another. Yes, we are moved by its message and we will share that.

You are also (and so was I at one time) showing the main thing that is the start of errosion on the Means of Grace and that is: "let's focus on doing something and not let divisions get in out way" or put more simply, "service unites, doctrine divides." (please view Jackson's study on Pietism via Ichabod). This is true and it leads to unionsim and will detract from the Means of Grace, because you are already going the way of "what can we do! We gotta do something!!" The ways of man and not of God however noble and zealous.

Here is what you are to do, teach, preach, practice the Word of God and rightly administer the sacraments in full subscription with the Lutheran confessions and GOD WILL BRING THE HARVEST WHERE AND WHEN IN PLEASES THE LORD. Even if we see no results for decades.

There are millions of those who have not done this, but with every pious effort have tried to serve God in some other way at the expense of the established means, all with the best of intentions. And it has consistantly lead away from Christ and the lofty goal that was hoped for in the first place. Service unites and doctrie divides in the modern day can be seen in its grossest example with Rick Warren's recent address to 8,000 Muslims. (see slideoflaodicea.com) "I want to have interfaith projects not interfaith dialogue" (because that would cause division) "look at what we could do by working together and help the world." Don't think it can't happen to the most of well inteneded souls. It can, it has and it will again.

Please read and study the Lutheran confessions and examine your motivation. Zeal is great, but only if focused thru the lenz of the confessions that have shown us the problems in the church historically and even presently. They are, as Pres. Schroeder said, a proper interpretation and exposition of the Scriptures.

S.D.G.

Anonymous said...

GJ- You would know what real leadership is all about, wouldn't you?

Anonymous said...

Fourth home run for confessional Lutheranism. Jon Schroeder knocked another one out of the park. Sermon, pres. report, and both essays are all saying the same thing and saying the right thing. What is happening here???

LutherRocks said...

Michael,

I did find some balance, but I did not hear him call out people by name.

In my experience, being Confessional for some has been a lot closer to legalistic than you think. There are folks who say that the only way to worship is page 5 and 15 of the Hymnal. Or you can only sing hymns in church. That is legalistic. That being said, I will say this: I have changed my views considerably over the last few months especially in light of what has happened to me personally. And on some of them 180 degrees. I have not spoken to Ski personally, but I will say the words from his blog may have not been prudent. St. Mark in DePere's membership in the Willow Creek Association may not be the most prudent either but I have not talked to any of those folks. But through all this we must remember it is not about being Lutheran or Confessional, but true to the Scriptures and being true Christians. This is as Luther would have wanted it and said so.

And you can call me Joe. It sounds less irreverent.

JK

The Lund's Lives as Lutherans said...

I watched the video summary of Convention Day 2 and was a bit concerned about Pastor Jim Heubner's comment about disagreeing with President Schroeder. The comment seemed very directed in a manner as to communicate there will be issues of disagreement. The smile on Pastor Heubner's face as he says that President Schroeder knows there are disagreements between them is disconcerting to me.

Anonymous said...

JK--Being true to the Confessions IS being true to scripture, assuming that you accept that the confessions as confessions BECAUSE they agree with Scripture. Lutheran teachers and pastors vow to teach in complete agreement with the Book of Concord BECAUSE the Book of Concord is an entirely correct exposition of the truths of the Bible.

DK said...

Hi Joe

I disagree with you on a number of matters, which we've been through in past conversations.

Now I'm going to ask you a couple questions to start (I hope) a productive conversation.

You said that Ski and St. Mark's have not been "Prudent". Why did you use that word? Imprudent is different than wrong, and I'm sure you'll agree. Because you haven't talked with them you are hesitant to say that their acts of fellowship with Baptists etc. is wrong? That's what it sounds like to me.

That's a little like saying "Well, I haven't talked to Ed Gein personally, so all I can say is that making furniture out of human body parts is not prudent."

The least you could say is "If the WELS doctrine of fellowship is correct, than Ski and others are wrong to promote worship with Baptist and Pentecostals."

Use language like you got a pair, dude. You be met with respect.

That's my obligatory chastisement of you--now the others will be less harsh on me. (hahaha)

Here's my real question Joe: What can we say to make the liturgical Nazis realize that their worship of the Book of Concord is just as much Enthusiasm (focusing on something other than JUST word and sacrament) as the Relational and Relevant Whoopee Worship that has infected the Lutheran Church?

Phil said...

It's not a worship of the Book of Concord, it's using the Book of Concord as a correct exposition of Scripture. A Baptist, a Lutheran and Mormon can all say, "I believe in the Bible."

There are doctrinal differences there which require an exposition of Scripture.

Anon 4:37 -

It's not a "bashing of christian giving" by the "Michigan District". It's a presentation of Law when it is said that we don't give enough. The gentleman from Antigua told the story, "We were under budget. The pastor made it known, he preached the Gospel, we gave." It wasn't, "How dare he? I give enough. We should set up more fund raising programs!"

You admit that this problem needs an application of the Law when you say, "It has little to do with the economy...it has to do with effort." and that "we have an apathy problem." What gets people out that? Preaching the Law in all its severity and the Gospel in all its sweetness. You can set up as many fund raising programs and aggressive financial development plans as you want, but if the Word isn't applied first, they won't work.

Anonymous said...

From the accounts of President Schroeder's speech it sounds like he has read or would enjoy reading the Motley Magpie!

Anonymous said...

....."Here's my real question Joe: What can we say to make the liturgical Nazis realize that their worship of the Book of Concord is just as much Enthusiasm (focusing on something other than JUST word and sacrament) as the Relational and Relevant Whoopee Worship that has infected the Lutheran Church?"....

Its not worship of the BoC. It's not putting above or in place of Scripture. It is as has been said repeatedly, "a clear, exposition and interpretation OF the Scriptures."

It sound as though you and Joe are trying to reinvent the wheel so to speak. Yes, we must always wrestle with what the Lutheran reformers and what they have written, else it would be placing the confessions above the Word. I see it all the time with my Reformed friends and all out Enthusiast friends who like to say, "let's just do what the Bible says and live like the early church," as if that is what we are as confessional Lutherans are not trying to do. Why not learn form the heresies and the stuggles of the past that still plague us? It's like telling the Supreme Court to not look at historical law and precedent.

As President Schroeder correctly pointed out in the beginging of his report, the WELS did not start as a clearly confessional Lutheran body. It was mixed Reformed and Lutheran. They took out the words about subscription to the BoC 1580 and intead wrote about being "Biblical" as if the term Lutheran has been anything other than Biblical. What church in history, other than the postmoderns, have wanted to adhere to anything other than the Bible. Calvin? Zwingly? Come on, it's not as though they said, let's be un-Biblical!

My personal experience when I was very open to any kind of worship, including p. 5 and 15 (as if that's what WELS uses anymore anyway), was that the snarky comments, like you ascribe to us, became more and more prevalent with my Lutheran friends. It was as though the distain for a good liturgy was for us "dead orthodox" types. A breeding ground for this type thinking in which we get the sanitized and condescending nod to "traditonal worship." We then became the ones getting run over with no regaurd or respect. Your words prove this. You are now seeing a back-lash.

How dare you call us liturgical Nazis. What a terrible thing to say to a Lutheran brother if you are!

S.D.G

Anonymous said...

In additon to my comments above, your claim of us being Enthusiast by worshipping the BoC, the use of Most of the contemporary services and other such innovations, do a couple of things:

1) They do not provide a clear confessional mark of difference between the heterdox and us as confessionalism has always done. It blurs the line.

2) It does not proclaim the Full counsel of Christ and the BIBLE'S teachings. I have often heard, "but the pastor still preaches the Gospel!" I hope so, for it has the power to save. But where are we taught that we should not preach the Law and the Gospel, the Full counsel of the Lord? Lots of heritics have certainly preached the Gospel too, but lots of error along side of it.

3) It gives a subtle overature or 'nod' if you will, to the heterodox with the message being, "see we really aren't that much different are we." If not to the learned, then to the casual worshipper who could then easily be lead away to their camp by not having been given clear statements in word AND practice. How many times I have seen this happen. Where did they go? Methodist, Non-denominational, Presbyterian, and so on. I could count them, but I would lose count.

And I, though very wary, used to be of your mindset. I let experience and time show me the fruit of this attitude.

S.D.G.

Anonymous said...

I agree with S.D.G. on the term "liturgical Nazi." Nazi is not a word that should be tossed about, especially if you understand that history of the Nazi takeover of religion in Hitler's Germany. What a careless, foolish thing to say to anyone!

While we are at it, what does this statement contribute to the discussion? "Use language like you got a pair, dude. You be met with respect."

Finally, if you are so critical of liturgical worship as to attach the word Nazi to those who support it, maybe you could then explain, using specific detail and logical argumentation, what contemporary worship accomplishes that liturgical worship does not and why that is a good thing?

LutherRocks said...

DK,

I'm not sure why you felt you needed to give me an obligatory chastisement. I didn't say anything wrong in my opinion. In fact I thought I was acting Lutheran by putting the best construction on those examples since I have not talked to any parties involved. To compare that to Ed Gein is a very poor analogy. He was convicted in a court of law by his peers. You as well as others are convicting said parties in an internet environment of blogging. That is imprudent. You would do well to temper your words before hitting the 'publish your comment' button. How is that for having a pair?

I don't think anyone is worshiping the BoC. I think what we need is a clarification on a lot of points. What is happening in the Synod right now in regards to doctrine is evidence of this and was echoed quite strongly in President Schroeder's address. I welcome a clarification so we know where we all stand. As I stated earlier, my opinions on a lot of issues have changed over the last few months; some 180 degrees in fact. Liturgical worship is one of them. I think we need to stay liturgical. But I also think there is some wiggle room within that paradigm. Doctrine does affect method and vice versa. This is most certainly true.

JK

Anonymous said...

The word "nazi" is only used by people who don't have any facts to support their arguments in order to emotionalize or polarize a debate. Thus, if someone calls you a nazi, it means they have conceded defeat and you have won the debate.

DK cheerfully said said...

Good job Joe! Your semantic is strong!

Now we are ready for a conversation. I thought you were equivocating by your use of the weak word "prudent". I think you might still be afraid to tell someone they're wrong, but whatever.

I think you are wrong on some pretty major things Joe. Therefore, I must point that out so that others don't think we're in total agreement. Where we ARE in agreement is that a large portion of the so called 'Confessional' Lutherans, ( the ones who get furious if the Western Rite is replaced) are engaging in legalism by their insistence that the Book of Concord is infallible.

So that's where we agree--and we should figure out what way we can talk about these things to persuade them of this.

The term "Liturgical Nazi" is unfortunately not my own. The name was coined by a few Confessional Lutheran Pastors who are remaining faithful to the Word but who have been getting flac from the Pentecostal-type LCMS pastors AND the High-church type LCMS pastors.

For those who don't understand the term "liturgical Nazi", think "Soup Nazi" (from Seinfeld)

Liturgical Nazis are the people who have invented a new form of pietism and legalism--those who equate the Book of Concord with the Holy Scriptures. Liturgical Nazis are the people who claim that the Western Rite is the ONLY proper way to worship God. Liturgical Nazis are the ones who insist on Weekly Communion and insist that the Pastor MUST consume the remaining wafer and mogan david. Liturgical Nazis are those who expend more energy learning 'official' liturgical terminology than they do in learning God's Word. LNs are those who belittle those who do not refer to a cup as a challis--mock them who don't give a damn about what a "Cassock" is.

It is a dirty self righteous pseudo roman Catholic version of Lutheranism. It is as disgusting as Ski and his pig circus.

I'm not calling any group as a whole Liturgical Nazis. I am if you fit into the description above.

There are many in the conservative circles who are tempted by the Lies of Liturgical Nazis. Don't be fooled--they are misleading God's church just like the Baptists are. It's understandable to want a reverent worship service. It's understandable to want to follow a historic service.
It's understandable to want to take communion every week. But when these things become a new Law they actually become sinful.

Beware of those who seem to say all the right things, but who would enslave you into the new Order of Pharisees!

Anonymous said...

>>>Liturgical Nazis are the people who have invented a new form of pietism and legalism--those who equate the Book of Concord with the Holy Scriptures.<<<

I am a WELS pastor. At my ordination I swore to uphold both Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Do you consider me a pietist, legalist, and Nazi?

If you do, then every single pastor in the WELS is a pietist, legalist, and Nazi. Every single Lutheran pastor in all of Christendom is.

Is that really the charge that you are making? I surely hope not.

(I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to such anti-Confessional nonsense. Go and learn what this means: norma normans, norma normata.)

Anonymous said...

DK,

Could you give us some written example of what term "Liturgical Nazism"?

Anonymous said...

DK writes,

"Liturgical Nazis...insist that the Pastor MUST consume the remaining wafer and mogan david."

I don't know about you, but my pastor calls that the Body and Blood of Christ and Christ says to eat and drink it. What are you talking about, don't you believe in the real presence?

Jo

dk said...

I never met Norma Normans. She sounds like a conflicted individual.

But you do not understand my point.

Here is the LN litmus test:

Do you think that the Lutheran Confessions are equal in authority to the 66 canonical books of the Bible?

Do you believe that the Western Rite or similar styles of worship are the only acceptable way to worship God?

Do you have spiritual pride in your knowledge and observance of Lutheran and ancient Christian traditions and practices?

Do you believe that the (extra-biblical) practices promoted in the BOC SHOULD be followed?

If you answered yes to one or more of the questions above, you may have contracted The Liturgical Nazi Syndrome. The cure is to only read the Bible.

The Book of Concord is a great theology book. And as far as their understanding of theology of the Bible they are right. Are there things in the BOC that add to Scripture? Yep. Mainly regarding worship practices.

But now that you mention it I would REALLY LOVE to see what you claim is Biblical justification for requiring faithful pastors-to-be to take an oath to a book that isn't The Word. I will be exploring this.

Thanks for the idea anonymous WELS pastor, if you are a pastor. Let me ask the general readership this. If a WELS pastor reads this blog AND took an oath to uphold a uninspired book don't you think that pastor would be courageous enough to leave his name? One wonders the strength of the convictions of this anonymous poster. I wouldn't be so quick to say this if this poster left a name--he could be a robot or a terrorist for all I know.

(I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to such anti-Christian nonsense.)

Joe are you getting any ideas how we can convince them that the BOC isn't the same as Scripture?

DK said...

Jo, read the sentence you criticized very slowly and focus on the word REMAINING. This word sometimes means 'extra' or 'left over'.

In case you weren't aware some Pastors insist that the only Correct way to end the Communion service is to finish eating and drinking the remaining bread and wine. Whatever is left over is eaten by the Pastor and Elders at the end of the service. Their assertion is that the bread and wine took on Christ's body and blood when the Word of God was spoken over it. The question is, they ask, is when does that Bread and Wine cease to be Body and Blood? This is done out concern for reverence towards the Body and blood of Christ.

This whole thing was very recently explained to me by a Liturgical Pastor. He finished his explanation by saying "What would it say about our church if we leave Christ's body and blood in a box until next Sunday..."


Do you believe that? Uh Hellooooooo transubstantiation!

So yes, Jo, I believe in real presence. I believe in Consubstantiation, the true teaching of Communion from the Bible. It is the Liturgical Nazis who add an unBiblical set of laws to the practice--just like the Happy Clappies who minimize the importance of Communion.

Anonymous said...

>>>If a WELS pastor reads this blog AND took an oath to uphold a uninspired book don't you think that pastor would be courageous enough to leave his name?<<<

Umm, dude, every single Lutheran pastor has taken a vow to uphold the Confessions. That's a standard part of the Lutheran rite of ordination. Seriously, I'm not making this up. Ask your own pastor.

And I wasn't kidding about the norma normans, norma normata thing. Before you expect anyone to take seriously anything you have to say about the Confessions, you've gotta know what those words mean.

Anonymous said...

Once again, DK

Could you give us some written example of what term "Liturgical Nazism"?

(Or are you just blowing smoke?)

Anonymous said...

DK, you wrote,

"Liturgical Nazis...insist that the Pastor MUST consume the remaining wafer and mogan david."

As I said, I don't know about you, but my pastor calls that the Body and Blood of Christ and Christ says to eat and drink it. What are you talking about, don't you believe in the real presence? (I assume you are not Lutheran, correct?)

Jo

Anonymous said...

"extra Biblical practices" -- You have fallen into the Reformed doctrine of primitivism. That is that only what the Bible authorizes must be allowed (e.g. - No hymns only Psalms). The Lutheran Church takes the opposite view, what is not forbidden is allowed. What is not allowed is any practice that weakens or replaces the means of grace. What that also means is that the Lutheran church is a Catholic church. A confession of the "Holy Catholic church" among men only where God's word in preached in its purity and that sacraments are administered according to Christ's institution. It is not that the Western Rite is the only way to worship God; it is that the Western Rite expresses the Catholicacy of the confession of the Ecumenical Creeds which define the Catholic faith. Or as a railroad worker once told me, "the Lutheran Church is nothing but the Catholic Church with all the baloney taken out".

Anonymous said...

DK you wrote,

"Do you believe that? Uh Hellooooooo transubstantiation! So yes, Jo, I believe in real presence. I believe in Consubstantiation, the true teaching of Communion from the Bible."

The word spoken by the celebrant at the command of Christ is that this bread is the Body of Christ, and this cup the Blood of Christ, (that is not transubstantiation which is a philosophical attempt to explain the real presence.) So we have a word of God that this bread/cup is the Body/Blood of Christ. Now, what word of God do you have that tells us it ceases to be so? Christ says to eat it and drink it. Why, for it is his body and it is his blood.

You believe in the false view of consubstantiation?! That, of course, is another philosophical attempt (and a bad one at that) to explain the real presence. Ironically, the Reformed believe in consubstantiation, though they do not call it that. Are you Reformed?

Jo

Anonymous said...

For the third time DK, I ask

Could you give us some written example of what term "Liturgical Nazism"?

And as I added, Or are you just blowing smoke? Of course you are and we know it. You use the device called setting up a straw man. You like a little child who learns a naughty word and keeps repeating it found yours, liturgical nazi. You attribute to someone out there views they do not hold, for no Lutheran holds the views you attribute to them, i.e. "insist the only way" etc.

So I asked for proof of such, knowing that none exists, thinking this should shut you up. Alas, I forgot this is the internet where one can say even that which is foolish.

Anyway, I will bow to your superior wisdom if you can produce such evidence.

slkrtr said...

Once again, DK

Could you give us some written example of what term "Liturgical Nazism"?

I haven't responded to that because the sentence makes no sense. I don't know how to respond. I really don't. Anonymous--read your thrice asked question again. Please explain (or go back to 6th grade english)

DK said...

Hey all

Don't mind my comments. Just keep doing what you're doing.

My reason for writing here is to push you off the cliff that you already want to jump off of.

Start a new church already. Do you really think that you'll be able to change the WELS into the sort of church you want?

um... Oh please.

Anonymous said...

>>>Start a new church already. Do you really think that you'll be able to change the WELS into the sort of church you want?<<<

Well, given the fact that every single pastor in the WELS has sworn to uphold both Scripture and the Confessions, perhaps it's you who ought to start a new church.

Anonymous said...

>>It is unfortunate that the elected VP is a supporter of Church and Change.<<

Right. Designate an area in the hen house for the fox, and have faith that God will protect the chickens.

These fails on two accounts.
1) They again test God with their smug attitudes.
2) The pastors are to protect their flocks.
WELS dementia has replaced the Word of God.

Anonymous said...

Oh please, a word was left out,

Once again, DK

Could you give us some written example of what YOU term "Liturgical Nazism"?

Anonymous said...

So much of this comes from people using the Book of Concord incorrectly.

The Book of Concord presents an accurate interpretation of what the Bible teaches. This is why WELS pastors subscribe to it "quia", because it does accurately present the doctrine of the Bible.

That said, the Book of Concord is not a rule book on things that are not doctrines of Scripture. For example, crossing oneself. It is an admirable practice and for the individual it may serve a great purpose. But since the Bible does not demand that we do that every morning, Luther´s words become nothing but a suggestion, rather than something mandatory. (To consider it mandatory makes laws that God does not make).

Another example involves the Lord´s Supper. Whereas some try to use the Confessions to make having the Lord´s Supper mandatory at every church service, such a mandate is not given in Scripture. We can therefore recognize it as a suggestion. (Once again, to consider it mandatory makes a law that God does not make).

These are just two of many examples of how people try to turn a book that the WELS has a quia subscription to(because it clearly presents the doctrines found in Scripture)into Lutheran canon law (in places where the Confessions speak about things God´s Word does not speak to). We subscribe to the book´s doctrine (it´s interpretaton of what Scripture says), not it´s views on practices that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God.

Anonymous said...

Anon wrote,

"Whereas some try to use the Confessions to make having the Lord´s Supper mandatory at every church service."

Who? (And written proof please.)

Thanks,
Kiki

Anonymous said...

Kiki,

No one does that. This "anonymous" is setting up a straw man.

Anonymous said...

You can look back to prior blog comments, from roughly a year ago I believe, in which people stated in no uncertain terms that churches which fail to have weekly communion aren't confessional Lutheran churches. That topic has been beaten to death on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Sure. That is what you say, if it is so easy, just show us. I am not going to go back, as you say, and try to find something that does not exist. It simply does not.

You are simply saying something that is not true. It is obvious you do not understand the Supper, let alone Lutheran theolgy, let alone honesty. You said something that is not true, prove it, or you prove yourself a liar.

Prove your statement (which I contend is a lie) "Whereas some try to use the Confessions to make having the Lord´s Supper mandatory at every church service."

Kiki

PS To the rest, why am I confronting this person? Because so many on this blog make these assertions with no quotes, no proof. What will happen now is that this anonymous will restort to vindictive, inane comments and will never prove their silly contention.

Anonymous said...

Kiki, here you go. This is a quote from the blog back in 2008:

>>>The "How Lutheran are you" test should have one question, "Do you attend a church which, every Lord's Day, celebrates the evangelically restored Mass?"…If you do not agree with the Lutheran Confessions you are not a Lutheran.<<<

The quote is a bit clearer in context, but here the Confessions are used to claim that anyone without weekly Communion can't be Lutheran because the Confessions say we have to have Communion every week.

Now, don't attack me saying that I oppose weekly Communion or any nonsense like that. I feel very strongly about encouraging and exhorting congregations to celebrate it weekly. But as a previous poster pointed out, a quia subscription to the Confessions is a doctrinal subscription. Having a quia subscription does not mean having to adopt all of the practices encouraged by the Confessors. That's an important distinction to maintain.

Now again, don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating, like the C&C crowd, that we casually discard all of the practices of the historic Lutheran church. Heaven forbid! I think we need to work to restore many of those practices. However, to tie them into a quia subscription and insist on them is an abuse of the Confessions.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

You are confused.

Is a pastor a confessional pastor if he doesn't proclaim the Gospel in his sermon? If there a "legal" mandate to do so? No, this is a Gospel mandate ("Preach the Gospel"). Since there is no legal mandate is he off the hook? No, he is not a confessional pastor because confessional pastors preach the Gospel.


Is there a legal mandate to offer the Supper? No, this is what those in the office do for those desiring it ("Feed my lambs"), this is an evangelical mandate. A pastor who does not do so is not a confessional pastor. To say that is not making a legal mandate but indicting the pastor.

You do not understand the confessions, they say, this is what "our churches" do, that is, this is what Lutheran churches do, what you (if you are a pastor) or your church does notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

Freddy,

As one who has worshipped now and then at the church served by the first VP, I'm astonished that you'd call him a known CGM advocate.

Your July 26 post on your own blog identifies Ev-Luth congregations. The things you say you're tired of enduring are not found at his church.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Give us the complete quote, for what you have is an incomplete thought which you say says "have to have Communion every week." It doesn't say that at all.

What is missing with the "..." and the context which you say makes it clearer.

Additionally, you miss the biggest issue, it is not that a church does not offer the Supper to souls in need but why it doesn't. If there are souls desiring the Supper must be offered. If the pastor doesn't offer it to souls in need he should be defrocked (and shot.)

Kiki

PS And yes, contrary to what you say, as the quote you offered says, if you do not agree with the Lutheran Confessions you are not a Lutheran.

PSS And do you even know what the "evangelically restored mass" is? I'll tell you since you appear not to know, it is the evangelical Supper offered freely to those with believing hearts who desire it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (who is in effect defending the Church Growth churches who are ashamed of the Supper by your defense of those pastors who don't offer the Supper),

One more question (if you belong to a Lutheran church). Are you saying that there are Lutheran churches where no one would take the Lord's Supper if it were offered? Your church? If the answer is, yes, some would come, then your pastor is negligent in his duties and forfeits the right to be called a Lutheran (as any congregation would be if it also opposed offering the Lord's Supper to those who desired it.)

Kiki

Anonymous said...

Sigh. Not this crap again.

I even went out of my way to say that congregations should be encouraged and exhorted to offer the Sacrament weekly.

But what is our reason for wanting weekly Communion? It's because we understand that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, not because the Confessions say so and thus we have to do it otherwise we deserve to be shot.

To use the Confessions in such a way is a total abuse of the Confessions. A quia subscription is a DOCTRINAL subscription, not a subscription to a list of practices one must do in order to be considered Lutheran. There's a huge difference between the two.

So let me just say this one more time, lest the rabid dogs jump back in and put words in my mouth. I love the Confessions. I believe that they are a correct exposition of the doctrine of Scripture. I love weekly Communion. I despise the Church Growth movement and Church and Change and all that crap.

It saddens me that the Magpie crowd is so vitriolic and rabid in what they say, making absurd charges against people who are actually on their side. What happened to patient and evangelic encouragement and instruction? Why try to win every argument by saying, "You're not a real Lutheran and you deserve to be shot."?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

You don't listen well do you? Once again you assert someone is saying something that no one says, to wit

"But what is our reason for wanting weekly Communion? It's because we understand that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, not because the Confessions say so and thus we have to do it otherwise we deserve to be shot."

I have asked again and again for you to prove this assertion. You wickedly and purposely twist this quote

"If there are souls desiring the Supper must be offered. If the pastor doesn't offer it to souls in need he should be defrocked (and shot.)"

Incredible! Where does it say what you say it says? Where, anonymous? You simply prove my point again about making straw men. And here it shows how terribly wicked you are to assert the exact opposite of what was really said!

I have read the Magpie to which you refer and it does not say what you say. If so, please prove it, otherwise you are lying again. One does not prove something by asserting and now proving. It simply shows how foolish you are.

If you truly love the confessions as you assert then you wouldn't make such assertions without proof (and do I need to quote from the Large Catechism on that?) As I said, that so happens on this blog, accusations without proof. I shown you repeatedly that is precisely what you are doing. Take some time out and actually read the confessions which you assert you love.

Kiki

Anonymous said...

Sorry if this posts twice.

Addendum. To be precise I have read the Magpie issues that have been posted online. If they say what you allege in an issue that wasn't posted (and I doubt it) then please show me. Otherwise prove your assertions or apologize and shut up.

Kiki

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

Here is how you debate, you quote from the sources, rather than making assertions and accusations. Go to the Motley Magpie site, Volume 1 number 3 and at the end of the article "Sacramental Goldilocks" you will find this,

"Do not interpret the use of this quote [from the Augsburg Confession] as the reason why Lutherans should work towards an every Sunday communion, (they did, we should) or this rant as how one goes about the catechization of a congregation. For that I quote the blessed Doctor Chemnitz,

'the rule about when and how often one should go to Communion must be taken from the teaching about the fruit and power of the Eucharist, namely, when and as often as we recognize that we have need of this power.'

Increased celebrations are not the answer, but hearts burdened and in need require them."

So this Magpie author says the opposite of what you attribute to this "Magpie crowd". Now if the crowd says the opposite, you should prove it. But you have shown already you can't do that.

Kiki

Anonymous said...

IssuesEtc comments on Pres. Schroeder's convention report, esp. on section dealing with maintaining our confessional identity.

http://vdma.wordpress.com/

Anonymous said...

Do you know what I find to be simply hilarious?

All these people getting their ire up over Communion. What are these styrofoamesque disks? (which everyone refers to as "Bread", which it isn't; IT'S NOT BREAD. Manna, i.e. "What is it?", but in a post-modern sense, is more accurate.)Are they corn protein?
Their also hot 'n bothered about "wine". If Jesus were to come back today he'd sip that and say "What is this? Gasoline?"


I'm not saying that Communion, as done by all churches today is meaningless because of the Styrofoam and gasoline that they serve in place of bread and wine. I'm just noting that it's mockable and silly to hear people get bent out of shape over "every Sunday or Twice a month."

Go back to the Bible, people! What did Maunday Thursday really look like? What did they do???

They ate a nourishing meal--At some point Jesus took some bread and wine, consecrating it by his words "This is my body..."

If you really want to be serious about Communion then divorce your practice from the ritual that the Roman Catholics turned it into. Rituals are fairly empty, if the essence of the material form are forgotten, A meal should nourish us AND taste good! Celebrate the Lord's Supper every week (or once a month, whatever) and make it a meal with a separate course (bread and wine) consecrated by Christ's Words on Maunday Thursday.

This will more closely follow what we see in the Gospels and the Epistles--a Communion of the Saints with Christ and each other.

And think: If we could have a nice meal with our fellow Christians every week for the purpose of The Sacrament, the forgiveness of sins through Jesus, how much better would we know those who we worship with!

I'm just saying, if you're going to be nasty and regimented towards your fellow Christians (regarding specific ways of administering the Lord's Supper) you may as well just apply historical and artistic sensibilities and gain the added benefits.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 459 on 8-9-09...

I think you need to brush up on your Old Testament history. When Christ instituted the Lord's Supper, it was at the traditional Passover. You will find what this consisted of in the OT. The bread would have been unleavened and as far as we know it was real wine. As Lutherans we keep the traditions of the Lord's Supper as it was instituted by Christ 2000 years ago.

I don't know who the blog author is, but really, why wouldn't you make a rebuttal to this post instead of just letting it hang out there? Not very responsible in IMHO.

JK

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 459,

Sheer blasphemy.

And "go back to the Bible"? Maybe your ought to, it wasn't Thursday.

John said...

JK -

Thanks for the thought-filled confessional admonition. I can imagine that you fully support offering communion during the divine service also.

Anonymous said...

Looks like JK must have written the long comments about having a dinner and then communion, since the "Sheer Blasphemy" admonition was directed at the anonymous at 4:59 not at "JK's" comments atNotice how JK took it as if it were directed at him. So JK must have written those comments.

JK, come on now, you sneeky guy you.

Anonymous said...

John whatever your last name is...

Actually I do support Communion as being part of the service. But remember it is not mandated anywhere.

Anon @ 650. You figured that all out by your own little self? I'm impressed!

JK

Anonymous said...

JK writes, "But remember it is not mandated anywhere."

Oh? How about "Do this"?

Anonymous said...

JK,

Are we mandated to preach the Gospel at our services?

Anonymous said...

anon 1033...Are you kidding me? Let me speak simply. Where is it mandated that Communion has to be in the service? I have family members who were going away for an extended period of time. The particular Sunday that we worshipped for the last time there was no Communion. So we asked our Pastor to give us Communion which he did in the privacy of his office after church. Now you tell me; Are we in error?

anon1120...we are talking about Communion...

JK

Anonymous said...

JK,

I'll speak slowly, you wrote, "But remember it is not mandated anywhere."

And I said, "Oh? How about 'Do this?"

Now answer that before we go on and I explain the other.

Anonymous said...

JK,

Yes, I know you were talking about Communion, but I asked "Are we mandated to preach the Gospel at our services?"

That's not too hard of a question to answer, is it?

Anon1120

Anonymous said...

El JK,

"Private Communion"? That's an oxymoron. Why wasn't the Communion offered to the whole congregation? Sumpin' ain't right there.

Kiki

Anonymous said...

Blasphemy?

Haw Haw Haw. That's funny. People who have turned communion into a Ritual don't understand the nature of God--Look at every command God gave the Jews. There's hardly any Law that didn't also serve a practical purpose.

The passover was a MEAL; From the sound of it a pretty big and thorough meal.

Jesus brought the passover into the context of the new covenant.
Here's the funny thing all ye ritualists: They too (believe it or not) were have a meal. And they were probably talking, telling jokes and generally having a good time with their fellow Christians.

I know Christians who honestly believe that Maunday Thursday was 13 guys sitting quietly and solemnly in a minimally lit room, each thinking only the holiest of thoughts and facial expressions to match.

So pure blasphemy Anon says? Serving tasteless (not)bread and foul wine and then trying to convince me that that is the best we can do? That doesn't fly. In fact it's idiotic. Styrofoam is a hard sell--I don't even think that stuff is food. I'd rather have people baking bread that tastes really good and serving fine wine--even if it does have to take place in the front of church in a ritualistic fashion--maybe we can get to more closely imitating the original Lord's Supper at a later date.

Anonymous said...

Why not Big Macs, beer, a cover band and a Wii contest and call that church?

Rob

Michael Schottey said...

And maybe we should all head to the Jordan River because the water there is soooo much better for baptizing.

*end sarcasm*

YES the Passover was a meal. (Do you really think no one else here has been to Sunday School?)

However, It was a meal consisting of UNLEAVENED BREAD. The "Styrofoam" you talk of is bread without yeast.

You couldn't even have yeast in your house and had to sweep out your entire home to get rid of it.

I've been to a professionally done seder meal. Their unleavened bread was not much better. So if you want to forgo the bought styrofoam to make your own styrofoam, have at it.

As for the wine? To each his own. I would prefer a nice merlot up there but my wife enjoys a white zin. You don't like your church's? Bring it up in a counsel meeting.

Or....It's 2 oz. Stop complaining.

Anonymous said...

Blasphemer,

What you call "stryofoam" the Word of God calls the "Body of Christ", what you call "gasoline" and "foul wine" the Word of God calls "the Blood of Christ." These were offered on the cross for our redemption, these are given us for life. And that is why the Word of God calls you a blasphemer.

Anonymous said...

wow...

Touched a nerve, eh?

Well, I understand that it really is communion. I believe it and I thank God for it.

But YOU GUYS REALLY MISS THE POINT. I'm not mocking the Lord's Supper as it's done in most churches. I'm not claiming that it's not valid and Real. From now on I'm going to call you the "Missin' the forest for the trees" gang.

What you all (haha WELS educated folks [sucks to be you]) apparently do not understand is that IF you want to provide Communion every week it is because you have a deep respect for the Sacrament but IF you can not recognize that nasty Bread and Wine do not offer any kind of respect toward the Sacrament then it is clear that you are all conflicted individuals and could not possibly have the respect that you claim you have.

1 out of 10 actually understood that...

I'm just saying, the responders to my comments do not actually understand that communion was initially done during a Jewish feast where every one put forward the best that they had. And the modern communion (not)bread and wine don't reflect that. Have some respect!

"professionally done seder meal" What kind of crap is that? Um... how American.(or did I mean roman?)

Americans in general do not understand eating. They think that as long as they don't have hunger pangs that they've fulfilled the needs of the body. If you call styrofoam and gasoline a "meal" I think you should visit Chez Panisse in San Fran for some reeducation.

Jesus wanted Communion to be real, yes. But he endowed meaning to it by the form of nourishment.
Some of you need to revisit freshman high school English class to gain an understanding of metaphor.
That is all I will say.

Anonymous said...

Blasphemer,

Now you add "potty mouth" to your title, (My 11 year has a higher level of speech).

What you call "nasty Bread and Wine" the Lord Jesus calls his Body and Blood. You blaspheme the Lord. You finish by saying "that is all I will say." Here, I hope so, but I pray you enter a confessional and confess your sins of blashemy and mockery of the Blessed and Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

Anonymous said...

JK,

Either you have been out of town or otherwise unable to respond or you are unable to respond to my simple question which I posed after your assertion and I have silenced you.

Recall that you wrote, "But remember [having Communion as a part of the service] is not mandated anywhere."

And recall I asked, "Oh? How about 'Do this?"

I also asked "Are we mandated to preach the Gospel at our services?"

You ignored the second and ducked the first. Care to answer?

Derwood

Phil said...

"I have silenced you."

Really? It's good to see that speaking the truth has now be reduced to a Dungeons and Dragons flavored high school forensics tournament.

Well done.

Anonymous said...

Phil,

Silencing the rants of those who make baseless charges is a good thing, is it not? Or would you prefer that such inanities continue unchallenged? I suppose not since it seems you agree with "JK's" foolishness - "speaking the truth." Perhaps then you would like to answer the questions I posed to "JK."


Derwood

Phil said...

Der,

No, I agree with the points you made. I was keying in on the "I" of "I have silenced you." Considering the efficacy of the Word prevailing, your attitude is wrong.

Posts on Bailing Water are usually sarcastic or derogatory or "satirical", and come across as an attempt at a battle of wits rather than an exposition of Truth.

Anonymous said...

Phil,

You seem new to this blog, so. Here is what happens here. Someone makes a charge, an assertion, an sweeping generalization. Someone else challenges said assertion. Original poster refuses to provide proof of their allegation. Challenger challenges again. Original poster, or valiant defender (such as yourself) says, stop being so mean. Thus original falsehood is never supported, never proved, never backed up, but just hangs there.

I suggest you read the American Edition of Luther's Works on the Marburg Colloquy and see how Luther and his opponents spiritedly dueled. And at least Zwingli, unlike JK above (unless, of course, JK is in some manner incapacitated) was willing to debate. Are you willing to take up the mantle?

Anonymous said...

Phil,

You quibble with the pronoun? Surely you jest! The preacher says, "in the name and in the stead...I forgive you...."

Presumption? No, just a manner of speaking (and in this case, dominically ordered).

To be fair (as you probably suspected) I was trying to draw young JK out by the "silenced" comment. He has a bad habit on this blog of spouting off and not backing up.

Der (I like that)

Anonymous said...

Against my better judgment...this blog is in some other dimension...anonymous, whoever art thou..."young JK'? I am amused. What is it that I haven't answered? Please show my error where I have 'spouted off' w/o 'backing up'.

JK

Anonymous said...

JK,

You're alive! That's good.

It wasn't that long ago, recall that you wrote, "But remember [having Communion as a part of the service] is not mandated anywhere."

And recall I asked, "Oh? How about 'Do this?"

I also was the one who asked "Are we mandated to preach the Gospel at our services?"

And as I said you ignored the second and ducked the first. Now care to answer?

By the way I was anon 1033 but am now using the erstwhile "Derwood" to avoid the anonymous confusion. You ducked that simple question by writing:

"anon 1033...Are you kidding me? Let me speak simply. Where is it mandated that Communion has to be in the service? I have family members who were going away for an extended period of time. The particular Sunday that we worshipped for the last time there was no Communion. So we asked our Pastor to give us Communion which he did in the privacy of his office after church. Now you tell me; Are we in error?"

Your pastor is probably in error, but that for a later time. You ask in this response the same thing you asserted earlier, and to both I ask, again, "How about 'Do this'"?

Derwood

Anonymous said...

I too am amused. The unfunny thing is that they're unaware that their pretentiousness is so obvious.

Here are some examples:

dominically ordered
Surely you jest
I have silenced you
...is it not?

"Derwood" and his buddies undoubtedly like to pose in front of the mirror trying to imitate the "holy" look that they see on the faces of Saints in classical art--you know, relaxed face pursed lips, with a far away look at though they're tripping on Lysergic Acid. Remember Sceleratissimus Luther anus's blog picture of himself in his "Holy Clothes"?

That's how they all look. The Elizabethan English just natural comes out when they're that stuck on themselves.

Anonymous said...

Anon 333 Ha ha ha ha...you crack me up.

Wormwood, really...you are taking 'do this' out of context. That's what get's you confessional crusaders in trouble all of the time besides answering a question with a question. And what does the Gospel have to do with your mandate of communion having to be in the service? Furthermore...where do the exact words appear that Communion has to be in the service? Who is to say that we didn't have a small service/ceremony when we took Communion in our Pastor's office? Probably wrong? You seemed so B/W before...what happened?

BTW...You have to be at least 70 or 80 to call me young. I can't believe I just fed the gremlins again...it's just too much fun I guess.

JK

Anonymous said...

Anon at 333,

Happy that you have the ability to read hearts, must come in handy.

Sorry my mildly elevated speech, if it seems that way to you, should seem to you to be a feint, but then again with that Divine git of yours...

The Der

Anonymous said...

JK,

70 or 80? Only feels that way. (You manner seems quite, er, uh, young.)

Answering a question with a question?! My goodness. That is precisely what you have done. This is not that hard, you said there was no mandate, I asked what about "Do this" which you have yet to answer. And you responded with this question,

"Where is it mandated that Communion has to be in the service?"

And now you simply say "you are taking 'do this' out of context."

Wha...?! The context is Christ's institution of the Supper and he says "Do this." How is that taking it out of context? That is the very matter at hand. Before you make any more "observations" about where I am coming from, simply respond to that simple question, is that or is that not a mandate? And how is that not the context of the very issue at hand? (Please leave the ad hominems to Anon 333.)

I also ask again, "Is there a mandate to preach the Gospel?" Simple question that for some reason you won't or can't answer.

I don't know you mean by "B/W."

"Probably wrong" I said in regards to the pastor, because in that Sacrament-less service there were souls in need of the Supper but were not given the Supper but a service was held in the "privacy" you said of his office. Why was the Supper not offered to the whole congregation, it is a "Communion" after all. As someone noted above, "private communion" is an oxymoron. Now before you say "But they could have asked for it if they wanted it" let me say, some probably have asked for an every service celebration and answer this (I vainly say) if the Supper were held, would there be communicants?

But let's not get derailed from the original and simple question I asked in response to your assertion that there is no mandate, how about "Do this"?

(But I guess not answering it, louder and louder, with more invective is an answer of sorts.)

The Der

John said...

Mr. Administrator,

If you would be so kind as to indulge me one more time and allow me to interrupt the current discussion for a moment to note that the latest installment of the regurgitated Motley Magpie (Vol 3:2) is now available for preview and comment (which comments can be sent to me at jwhberg@juno.com). I think several of the articles could bring some light to this current discussion.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rev. Fr. John W. Berg, editor
The Motley Magpie

Anonymous said...

Worm,

I am WELS. At my church we do not celebrate Lord's Supper every Sunday. As I stated earlier, there was none that week. So indulge me. What does 'Do this' mean to you? I mean really, the way you are arguing this, I should feel guilty for not taking it everyday. Where do you draw the line?

JK

Anonymous said...

To Whom....

As I said in my last post "But I guess not answering it, louder and louder, with more invective is an answer of sorts."

I guess I have my answer from JK. (And in the interest of full disclosure, I knew he couldn't answer it all along.)

And the lad who chides me for answering a question with a question does it yet again, ducks answering the question and incredibly asks this question, "what does 'do this' mean?" Uh, let me see... not do this, omit this?


The Der

Anonymous said...

JK,

You obviously are approaching the subject from a legalistic standpoint. Being WELS I can understand why. Answer Derwood's questions.

Kiki

Anonymous said...

"At my church we do not celebrate Lord's Supper every Sunday."

My goodness, why not?

Anonymous said...

anon 956...I hear it is budget cutbacks.

JK

Anonymous said...

Kiki, Ha Ha Ha. Legalistic. Ha Ha Ha.

OOOOOOYYYHHHHHeeeeeeeee.....

The more I hang out here the more I feel like I'm in the movie The Changeling.

Worm,

From the source:

1 Corinthians 11:23-25 (King James Version)

23For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:

24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

Do this in remembrance of me. There it is in context. I don't know what answer you are looking for. We take Lord's Supper for the forgiveness of our sins and we remember the innocent sufferings and death of our beloved Savior. There is nothing called out as to when or where; only 'as oft as ye drink it' which means as often as we receive it; or in other words whenever we receive it. If you were going to be literal about, we would only receive it once a year as this is how they celebrated Passover.

As for the Gospel, we were commanded by Jesus at His ascension to preach and teach the Gospel to the world. Since the visible church is in the world it kind of goes without saying doesn't it?

Thus concludes our confirmation class today. This is most certainly true.

JK

Anonymous said...

Young JK,

To quote Barney Frank (of all people) "Trying to have a conversation with you would be like arguing with a dining room table."

The Der

Anonymous said...

"JK" wrote "At my church we do not celebrate Lord's Supper every Sunday."

I asked, "My goodness, why not?"

"JK" responds with what I assume is a joke "I hear it is budget cutbacks."

I ask again "Why not?"

Sincerely,
Anon956

Anonymous said...

Anon 956...I guess you will have to take that one up with the WELS SP.

Der...I guess our conversation or argument whichever it was is over then...thankfully. It was real and it was fun, but it wasn't real fun.

JK

Anonymous said...

JK,

Still joking, huh? Can you not answer the question, "Why not?"

Anon956

Anonymous said...

Anon956,

Good luck getting an answer to your question.

The Der

Anonymous said...

JK does not know. He does not know what know means>

Anonymous said...

It is somewhat sad, but predictable, that a guy/gal like JK cannot answer these simple questions, but the fault doesn't necessarily lie with him/her but his/her teachers who perhaps never taught him/her correctly. His/her bombasity, though, can be laid entirely at his/her feet.

Anonymous said...

JK, I'm curious, are you a WELS pastor or teacher?

Anonymous said...

No, JK isn't a WELS pastor or teacher (thank goodness). JK is Joe Krohn, a typical baby boomer who thinks his secular musical preferences are more important than 2000 years of church music. He used to be a member of a rock and roll church in Arizona and is now a member of a rock and roll church in Texas. He used to have a blog defending rock and roll church, but he shut it down. I guess it was hard to come up with defenses for rock and roll church.

LutherRocks said...

Anon 1146, I thank you for your anonymity. You are one of the bravest people I know.

I shut down my blog because people like you just weren't getting it and all it was doing was making things worse.

"...a typical baby boomer who thinks his secular musical preferences are more important than 2000 years of church music."

That is a typical ignorant comment from the crusader camp who is just as guilty as anyone who put methods above the Word. I suppose in 2000 years of music it never progressed in any way, shape or form. There was a time when the organ was considered a pagan instrument. Isn't that interesting? How do you reconcile the change in style from the time of the middle ages when music lacked harmonies, was mostly cold, modal and linear and was chanted to the time of Bach? Why was the infusion of different forms of music into the church OK back then and up until the early 1900's or so and now it has to stop? I don't get that.

My blog's title was tongue in cheek and you obviously didn't get that humor. If you call the music at CrossWalk and Christ the Rock rock and roll, I wonder what you consider what easy listening is or real rock and roll for that matter.

JK

Anonymous said...

"...a rock and roll church in Texas."

You mean with that creepy "I'm in my 40's and I mess around with the guitar/bass/drums and I always wanted to be a rocker and now I play this crappy 'church rock' music" kind of rock band that couldn't get a gig at the local coffee house but supposedly people like them but only because it is not the regular organist playing, albeit not always expertly, Lutheran hymns and the church leaders are afraid of losing the youth who are supposedly attracted by the 5th rate crappy "rock" music?

Kiki

P.S. And I like rock, indie rock, Aarkels, New Pornographers, Thermal, MGMT (my new tattoo!) etc.

Anonymous said...

JK,

Back, huh? Well, back to my question;

Why not?

Anon956

Anonymous said...

JK,

Too bad people weren't as smart as you ("....people like you just weren't getting it...") so that you could keep your blog going.

Anonymous said...

NEW TOPIC:


Christian Art in the 21st century

Anonymous said...

>>>Too bad people weren't as smart as you ("....people like you just weren't getting it...") so that you could keep your blog going.<<<

Yeah, the contempo people always claim to be so much more sophisticated and enlightened than everyone else, but almost without exception they are completely ignorant about things like history, music, and fine art.

Anonymous said...

JK,

Since it seems you are unable to answer my question, perhaps you can ask your pastor on Sunday and get back to me. Again, it is "why not?"

Anon956

Anonymous said...

JK's pastor will be much too busy dealing with the praise band, the concessions and the sunday school (removed from the actual service of course)

So, Pastor Ben, won't do any teaching.

Instead, he'll have stories about a hero of faith and tell anecdotes in order to retell the stories which he just told...never mentioning Jesus.

Anonymous said...

Anon956,

I'm not JK's pastor but I'll give it a shot. The answer to the question "Why not?" is, "it was the 2nd Sunday of the month."

Anonymous said...

Heads up! Real Ichabod is up and running again.

Anonymous said...

"Real Ichabod" and "Ichabod" - two sides to one coin.

Anonymous said...

"Two sides to one coin." Or two heads to one beast.

Anonymous said...

Heads up. Ichabod is departed is departed.