LCMS Convention News

[TheCosmicGospel]

There are a lot of the "middle of the roaders" in LCMS. If they stay in the middle they can waffle back and forth between the two sides and not commit to anything. If anything goes wrong then they can blame either the liberals or ultra conservatives and keep the heat off themselves. They can also deny hot topics and say "it's not important" and then use arguments from both sides to hide behind and thereby not be nailed down for a concrete opinion.That's a blanket statement and not necessararily true of all of them. Some of them do absolutely nothing and hide their heads in the sand.



.

Kieshnick is the "Neil Diamond" of the Missouri Synod. (refer back to my first post to catch the What About Bob? drift.) It is hard to feel ambivalent about this guy and his less that Lutheran policies such as Ablaze, Oakland legal mess, his need for control over synodical mechanisms. He likes to stack the decks in his favor.

Then there is the high church party who feel the pastor dictates and purifies a historical worship because the dude went to Ft. Wayne and drives out most of the members because he has the Confessions and wears a collar. Get ready for chanting, insensors, private confessions, etc.

The Church is still a political institution and a pastor cannot exist in LCMS without joining one of the two parties above. This is where the middle ground erodes and disappears altogether. And I can certainly entertain the notion that there are members in the LCMS who are less than thrilled with both sides.

 

[RadMan]

I would strongly recommend that you do that. Talk with the pastor and members of the local church you are considering.



No. As I said before, the problems in the LCMS are more political than doctrinal. The official doctrinal stance of the LCMS is on the money. It's how individual congregations practice it that's the concern of many. It is our prayer that a change in synodical leadership (which is badly needed) will begin the work of bringing the entire synod back to proper teaching and practice.

That's only half of the story. Even though the "official theological" stance of the LCMS is right the influences from Jesus First, DAystar, has been pushing the synod,admin and ministers toward a more liberal, contempory position. Even if we elect a confessional SP it will take alot of time to weed out the heterodoxy. So it is not just a political issue by one of a group trying to tear out the heart of our core beliefs.

 

[DaRev]

Then there is the high church party who feel the pastor dictates and purifies a historical worship because the dude went to Ft. Wayne and drives out most of the members because he has the Confessions and wears a collar. Get ready for chanting, insensors, private confessions, etc.

You must be a Keischnick supporter, then. You sound like one here. One of the main things in the BRTFSSG recommendations is to take away the rights of pastors as synodical members. It goes along with what I heard from a DP recently, "In about 20 years there will be no more congregations or full time clergy. They will all be house churches led by lay leaders." He doesn't think the clergy are important, and neither do you by the sound of it.

 

[Lupinus]

You must be a Keischnick supporter, then. You sound like one here. One of the main things in the BRTFSSG recommendations is to take away the rights of pastors as synodical members. It goes along with what I heard from a DP recently, "In about 20 years there will be no more congregations or full time clergy. They will all be house churches led by lay leaders." He doesn't think the clergy are important, and neither do you by the sound of it.

Sadly it's an idea that's growing among more membership. Just this past Sunday my Pastor was out of town and a member felt the need to point, basically, "See, we don't need a Pastor."

The thought process behind that astounds me.

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

You must be a Keischnick supporter, then. You sound like one here. One of the main things in the BRTFSSG recommendations is to take away the rights of pastors as synodical members. It goes along with what I heard from a DP recently, "In about 20 years there will be no more congregations or full time clergy. They will all be house churches led by lay leaders." He doesn't think the clergy are important, and neither do you by the sound of it.

You are not paying attention. I merely identified the two ditches. Don't think I want to be standing in either one of them. You have defended Kieshnick enough times to know that I am not his supporter. You are ridiculous in saying so.

 

[DaRev]

You have defended Kieshnick enough times to know that I am not his supporter. You are ridiculous in saying so.

And I have posted enough comments on this forum to show that I am not a Keischnick defender. You are ridiculous for saying so.

I deal with reality and common sense, and not in la-la land that the extreme fringes dwell in. You come across as one of those who thinks that if someone does not 100% endorse the one extreme, then they must automatically 100% endorse the other extreme. I endorse neither extreme. And I believe I stand with the vast majority of the synod.

 

[BoC]

You must be a Keischnick supporter, then. You sound like one here. One of the main things in the BRTFSSG recommendations is to take away the rights of pastors as synodical members. It goes along with what I heard from a DP recently, "In about 20 years there will be no more congregations or full time clergy. They will all be house churches led by lay leaders." He doesn't think the clergy are important, and neither do you by the sound of it.

Where in the BRTF does it say that the rights of pastors will be violated? K and Behnke are big sacredotalist and episcopy supporters. Right up your ally.

 

[BoC]

And I have posted enough comments on this forum to show that I am not a Keischnick defender. You are ridiculous for saying so.

You support K by not supporting the opposition.

 

[ricker]

You support K by not supporting the opposition.

Rev was right, I will have to ask people and pastors in the congregation(s) I visit about this stuff. I'm lost. I did officially hand in my resignation to my ELCA church. I'm churchless!

 

[TheCosmicGospel]

And I have posted enough comments on this forum to show that I am not a Keischnick defender. You are ridiculous for saying so.

I deal with reality and common sense, and not in la-la land that the extreme fringes dwell in. You come across as one of those who thinks that if someone does not 100% endorse the one extreme, then they must automatically 100% endorse the other extreme. I endorse neither extreme. And I believe I stand with the vast majority of the synod.

Nothing like Rev heating up another cup of coffee by holding it in his hand. LOL Gosh you are a little hothead. You still can't admit your SPK knew about a lawsuit in Ca. You gave him a nice defense, though as you have now pointed out, you are not a defender. Thanks for taking the time. Coffee must be boiling by now.

 

[DaRev]

You support K by not supporting the opposition.

Who, in your opinion, is the opposition? Otten and Cascione? I cannot and will not support them. They have consistently twisted the truth and misrepresented facts.

This is exactly what I was saying before. The viewpoint of the extremes is that if you don't 100% support their position then you must, by default, 100% support the opposite extreme. It's a rather immature position.

 

[DaRev]

You still can't admit your SPK knew about a lawsuit in Ca. You gave him a nice defense, though as you have now pointed out, you are not a defender.

I was simply stating a fact. Could he have known about it ahead of time? Of course, in which case he lied when he said he didn't. But what credible evidence do you have that he did know about it ahead of time? Otten and Cascione's version of events? It's been shown time and again that they are not credible. It's truly sad if that's all you have to go on.

 

[BoC]

I was simply stating a fact. Could he have known about it ahead of time? Of course, in which case he lied when he said he didn't. But what credible evidence do you have that he did know about it ahead of time? Otten and Cascione's version of events? It's been shown time and again that they are not credible. It's truly sad if that's all you have to go on.

No it has not been shown time and again the Otten and Cascione are not credible. That is just your biased opinion which has no basis in fact. These statements are a prime example of "if a lie is told often enough it becomes fact".

 

[DaRev]

No it has not been shown time and again the Otten and Cascione are not credible. That is just your biased opinion which has no basis in fact.

Sure it does. Here's a couple of examples:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7437795/#post54052202

http://www.christianforums.com/t7453886-5/#post55050900

These statements are a prime example of "if a lie is told often enough it becomes fact".

That sounds like the Christian News and Reclaim News credo.

 

[QuiltAngel]

There is no convention news, therefore, there is nothing to discuss in this thread. All this other stuff has been discussed here, that it rings hallow and old.

 

[RadMan]

I agree, DaRev has changed the subject to suit his own agenda and has disrupted many threads to suit his opinions which are not only unsupported by fact or substantiated by any documentation. He has double standards which are self serving. He demands fact and docs but can never produce them himself. Pure opinion and unsupported speculation is what he thrives on.

He started it all with this comment in post 2 of this thread and has contorted the subject ever since.

I'm sure that the far-right will try and make it an issue, even though it isn't a synodical issue but a congregational issue (despite the far-right's insistance that it is).

​

 

[DaRev]

I agree, DaRev has changed the subject to suit his own agenda and has disrupted many threads to suit his opinions which are not only unsupported by fact or substantiated by any documentation. He has double standards which are self serving. He demands fact and docs but can never produce them himself. Pure opinion and unsupported speculation is what he thrives on.

He started it all with this comment in post 2 of this thread and has contorted the subject ever since.

This is laughable. Anyone who can read knows that isn't true.

 

[QuiltAngel]

Actually, the heated discussions about Pres. K started after Ricker honestly asked about him. The discussion devolved from there.

 

[BoC]

Link to some of the resolutions at the LCMS 2010 convention. I'm not sure if this is the whole list.

Steadfast Lutherans » Resolutions for LCMS 2010 Convention in Houston, TX

http://steadfastlutherans.org/?p=10841

 

[twin.spin]

I sure don't want to get in a mess like the ELCA has all over again. Are all Lutheran synods really that messed up? God bless!

No, thankfully WELS and ELS are not.