Conferance

[TCat]

I've been reading about the lCMS conferance on this thread and heard it mentioned at church, I know one of my pastors is on some kind of board there right now.

I keep hearing about the liberals and conservatives and how all these changes need to be made. Can someone enlighten me to what changes might be made if the conservatives got control of the synod presidency? What have the liberals been doing with it that make it so unattractive. And how does any of this potenially affect my church?

Thanks

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

I've been reading about the lCMS conferance on this thread and heard it mentioned at church, I know one of my pastors is on some kind of board there right now.

I keep hearing about the liberals and conservatives and how all these changes need to be made. Can someone enlighten me to what changes might be made if the conservatives got control of the synod presidency? What have the liberals been doing with it that make it so unattractive. And how does any of this potenially affect my church?

Thanks

The only thing I know is that we have had a liberal president since like 2001 and since then the LCMS has been losing about twenty thousand people a year. The liberal re elected president is big on his ablaze movement, which should be bringing people to the church, but on average it turns away 20k a year I think . In my opinion he wants us to be an evangelical church. No lutheran identity involved.

 

[filosofer]

The only thing I know is that we have had a liberal president since like 2001 and since then the LCMS has been losing about twenty thousand people a year. The liberal re elected president is big on his ablaze movement, which should be bringing people to the church, but on average it turns away 20k a year I think . In my opinion he wants us to be an evangelical church. No lutheran identity involved.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Well, to be accurate, that number of losses/ rater of losses was going on for years long before the current SP was elected.

It is easy to blame everything on the SP, but the reality is that there are some (many?) problems that he has no control over, good or bad.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[Studeclunker]

This is quite true, Filo. However, the office of the President in the LCMS is there to preserve the organization, not destroy what it stands for. Ablaze is a Baptist/Reformed movement and has no place in the LCMS. This is the crux of the complaints against the current administration. The man is more politician than cleric and is clueless. Sadly, the delegates to the convention seem to be just as clueless as he.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

When the current administration of a country or church make it impoosible for votes to move them out, people are ususally concerned that this is not for the good. Monarchs and popedoms are created by this.

Concerned yet?

Peace,
Cos

 

[pastorjimg]

This is quite true, Filo. However, the office of the President in the LCMS is there to preserve the organization, not destroy what it stands for. Ablaze is a Baptist/Reformed movement and has no place in the LCMS. This is the crux of the complaints against the current administration. The man is more politician than cleric and is clueless. Sadly, the delegates to the convention seem to be just as clueless as he.

Why do people say that the delegates were clueless? I don't think this is a fair statement. Smart people can view things differently it doesn't make them clueless.

I am a "moderate" and when it comes to these issues we need to come to grips with fact that there will be unity in the LCMS like there is unity in our US senate and congress. Both sides are so dug in there will be no way out. Every issue is an all or everything issue. Case in point- Ablaze.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't share our faith with others. But, when one side continually bashes every aspect of the program (and I am not saying some of these issues shouldn't be addressed) people will assume they are against missions. I know this isn't the case but that is the unintended message that is being sent. This makes people have to choose between one group that appears to be against missions and another group that is in favor of missions.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Why do people say that the delegates were clueless? I don't think this is a fair statement. Smart people can view things differently it doesn't make them clueless.

I am a "moderate" and when it comes to these issues we need to come to grips with fact that there will be unity in the LCMS like there is unity in our US senate and congress. Both sides are so dug in there will be no way out. Every issue is an all or everything issue. Case in point- Ablaze.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't share our faith with others. But, when one side continually bashes every aspect of the program (and I am not saying some of these issues shouldn't be addressed) people will assume they are against missions. I know this isn't the case but that is the unintended message that is being sent. This makes people have to choose between one group that appears to be against missions and another group that is in favor of missions.

Well said about what the people and or the delegates perceive. Unfortunately that just supports what Stude said. They are clueless and it ploarizes them. THe clueles on the Ablaze side and the informed on the other.

 

[DaRev]

THe clueles on the Ablaze side and the informed on the other.

 

[DaSeminarian]

Why do people say that the delegates were clueless? I don't think this is a fair statement. Smart people can view things differently it doesn't make them clueless.

I am a "moderate" and when it comes to these issues we need to come to grips with fact that there will be unity in the LCMS like there is unity in our US senate and congress. Both sides are so dug in there will be no way out. Every issue is an all or everything issue. Case in point- Ablaze.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't share our faith with others. But, when one side continually bashes every aspect of the program (and I am not saying some of these issues shouldn't be addressed) people will assume they are against missions. I know this isn't the case but that is the unintended message that is being sent. This makes people have to choose between one group that appears to be against missions and another group that is in favor of missions.

You are right. You (the moderates) will take whatever program you have been given and will try to find the positive aspects of said program (despite it's flaws) and promote it as the next best thing to Apple Pie.

The others want a missions program that is Lutheran and not from an outside consulting group that doesn't espouse Lutheran doctrines or theology. We want a truly Lutheran program. ABLAZE is not a Lutheran Program. I don't what the proponents say, it puts too much emphasis on numbers and growth. It also doesn't define "The critical event" very well. For Lutherans, the critical event is "Baptism" ABLAZE seeks to define "Critical event" as just sharing the good news with someone.

The Great Commission didn't just stop at "Go and tell all nations. . ." It also included "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This is why many of us don't like the Ablaze program. It stops short of the Great Commission's true goal.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

You are right. You (the moderates) will take whatever program you have been given and will try to find the positive aspects of said program (despite it's flaws) and promote it as the next best thing to Apple Pie.

The others want a missions program that is Lutheran and not from an outside consulting group that doesn't espouse Lutheran doctrines or theology. We want a truly Lutheran program. ABLAZE is not a Lutheran Program. I don't what the proponents say, it puts too much emphasis on numbers and growth. It also doesn't define "The critical event" very well. For Lutherans, the critical event is "Baptism" ABLAZE seeks to define "Critical event" as just sharing the good news with someone.

The Great Commission didn't just stop at "Go and tell all nations. . ." It also included "Baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

This is why many of us don't like the Ablaze program. It stops short of the Great Commission's true goal.

 

[pastorjimg]

You are right. You (the moderates) will take whatever program you have been given and will try to find the positive aspects of said program (despite it's flaws) and promote it as the next best thing to Apple Pie.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of just listening to what I was saying you projected an attitude that is not right. I do not think Ablaze is the next best thing to anything. Those are your words. It's that attitude of attack and slander that pushes people to polar opposites. If the "Conservatives" want change they HAVE to rid themselves of this. Others have said it in these forums. The sky is not falling and as long as one side tries this tactic people will not listen and in fact go the other way.

I have no problem with any program that encourages people to share their faith with others. Are there problems with Ablaze- yes. Do we promote Ablaze in my congregation- No. But, when you guys attack the program full guns drawn it gives the impression you are against people sharing their faith. I know this isn't true but it is a by product of your attitudes.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of just listening to what I was saying you projected an attitude that is not right. I do not think Ablaze is the next best thing to anything. Those are your words. It's that attitude of attack and slander that pushes people to polar opposites. If the "Conservatives" want change they HAVE to rid themselves of this. Others have said it in these forums. The sky is not falling and as long as one side tries this tactic people will not listen and in fact go the other way.

I have no problem with any program that encourages people to share their faith with others. Are there problems with Ablaze- yes. Do we promote Ablaze in my congregation- No. But, when you guys attack the program full guns drawn it gives the impression you are against people sharing their faith. I know this isn't true but it is a by product of your attitudes.

Are you LCMS? You don't have it listed in your bio. Is there some concern for you that you don't want to admit to being LCMS?

 

[pastorjimg]

I am LCMS.

I didn't realize I wasn't listed as LCMS

Will be happy to do so if someone would be so kind as to tell me how:o

 

[DaSeminarian]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of just listening to what I was saying you projected an attitude that is not right. I do not think Ablaze is the next best thing to anything. Those are your words. It's that attitude of attack and slander that pushes people to polar opposites. If the "Conservatives" want change they HAVE to rid themselves of this. Others have said it in these forums. The sky is not falling and as long as one side tries this tactic people will not listen and in fact go the other way.

I have no problem with any program that encourages people to share their faith with others. Are there problems with Ablaze- yes. Do we promote Ablaze in my congregation- No. But, when you guys attack the program full guns drawn it gives the impression you are against people sharing their faith. I know this isn't true but it is a by product of your attitudes.

Pastor JimG,

It's not necessarily you who said it, but I have come across several who do take that attitude about ABLAZE. I find it most among those who are out to promote the program. We had one come into Fort Wayne and give the presentation for our weekly convocation. He defended it left and right as one of the greatest mission initiatives in the Synod or Christendom.

My apologies to you for having made some wrong assumptions about you. But what I see is that two different sides want two different things. One thing they have in common is that both sides want to be mission minded. One side wants to share the word and will use any means necessary to do it regardless of the possibility of putting out a bad theological message.

The other side wants to be careful in how the mission initiative is carried out. They want to make sure that they are putting out the best possible message they can with a good theological basis. I see groups like Jesus First and Daystar being in the first group.

I see the confessionals being in the second group.
We all want to see the Great Commission carried forward, but there are limitations to how it should be done. I think the "Critical Event" needs to be re-defined and given a more concrete definition and more strict. If that means that ABLAZE is unable to meet their quota so be it. I would rather see 100,000,000 people baptized then just given the word. Though the Holy Spirit is the only one able to work when the word is given, there is at this time no need to follow up with those who have received God's word from us.

The flaws need to be discussed and should have been hashed out quite a bit more before the 2004 Synod in Convention voted on it as the official Missions outlook for our synod.

If that makes me less interested in missions then I guess my going to Seminary to become a Pastor doesn't count either.

 

[filosofer]

Pastor JimG,

If that means that ABLAZE is unable to meet their quota so be it. I would rather see 100,000,000 people baptized then just given the word. Though the Holy Spirit is the only one able to work when the word is given, there is at this time no need to follow up with those who have received God's word from us.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
And so, what makes baptism more important than the Word? That is a problem because it isn't either/or, as the Great Commissions (intentionally plural) so clearly articulate.


[/font]

The flaws need to be discussed and should have been hashed out quite a bit more before the 2004 Synod in Convention voted on it as the official Missions outlook for our synod.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
That is very true. So there is a balance - investigate thoroughly. But in my experience the group that demands that the message is straight never really get around to getting it out (to use A. Berry's theme). Both aspects are important.


[/font]

If that makes me less interested in missions then I guess my going to Seminary to become a Pastor doesn't count either.

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
So why is it an either/or situation?

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[DaSeminarian]

And so, what makes baptism more important than the Word? That is a problem because it isn't either/or, as the Great Commissions (intentionally plural) so clearly articulate.

The problem as I see it is this. We could have developed a missions program that was at least based upon Lutheran Theology. But we went to an outside consulting firm that doesn't know Lutheran doctrine or theology to develop this plan.

The emphasis as I see it is on the numbers on the tote board. We are supposedly counting critical events, but even the definition for critical event is ambiguous. Baptism is not ambiguous. It is a concrete number that churches use all the time to show their membership. I would like to see the numbers (if they are all that important) to at least reflect a more tangible event.

That is very true. So there is a balance - investigate thoroughly. But in my experience the group that demands that the message is straight never really get around to getting it out (to use A. Berry's theme). Both aspects are important.

But filo, we could at least have done a better job of developing the program to Lutheran standards before having it put up for a adoption vote. I am sure there are even more flaws that are in the program but I just don't have the time to investigate all of those.





So why is it an either/or situation?

In Christ's love,
filo
[/quote]

 

[TCat]

Can anyone tell me prior to 2001 and the liberal presidency was there a conservative president with mission programs? Were the programs working? Where are all the Lutherans going?
Is this why Billy Graham called the Lutheran Church a sleeping giant?

 

[filosofer]

[FONT= "Book Antiqua"]
Missions has always been a priority in LCMS. Sadly, the history of the past 60 years is one of "programs". Some were quite good, but you can name the "program" and find contradictory results.

I liked A. Barry (1992-2000) in his theme: "get the message straight, get the message out". As for themes, that was perhaps the best. There was "each one reach one," "Key73", etc.

In Christ's love,
filo
[/font]

 

[TCat]

So is it safe to suggest that nothing really has changed in the past 60+ years, no matter who has led the synod.
The loss of membership is just the attrition of the social age?
Are your individual churches growing or losing members?
Are your confirmation classes growing? Are new members coming into the church each quarter?
I looked at the lcms website, the tally board shows growing numbers in outreach, I am not sure how I would vote, pro or con for the current administration.

 

[BigNorsk]

I would point out that even really bad outreach works if people do it. I would point to the fastest growing groups, the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. Both of them do a lot of outreach. It is so poorly done it is a cultural joke. Their theology is horrible too. Yet by continuously reaching they find people who are looking for something and instead of it being a Christian at their door at that moment it is the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses.

What I can tell of Ablaze is shall we say, it's not the best. Yet it's actually much better than the Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. Even as bad as it is, it's better than a lot of people's outreach. It would be better if the people who knew how to do it better continued to do it better, but it's better than nothing.

And that's what most of the Lutherans do, nothing. And so membership is lost, and people blame the President.

But there's nothing stopping anyone from setting up a real good program and doing it.

Marv