He came to my attention by bloviating on our X feed this week. So I went to winsome guy’s feed, and lo and behold, he has strong opinions about the issue. Given those opinions and his rank, he is a perfect candidate to represent what he finds so heinous, as are you.
This is the third false accusation you have launched regarding this story.
I am going to make it simple: I will publish any defense of OSLCS and Harmon. I will publish any criticism of Ad Crucem News in this matter. You may frame it any way you like. The authors may even use pseudonyms.
Aren't you the Yankee stadium guy? I'm not sure if you're aware, but it's pretty much common knowledge outside of the Atlantic District that you should be defrocked.
Perhaps this would be an excellent time for David Behnke to offer some insight, particularly using the "Lutheran resolution template" he mentioned when responding to my post the other day at AC. If any who know the former president see this, let him know.
Are these the same old liberals from the Seminex days? If so they quite elderly now. Or is there a new generation of young progressives eager to corrupt the faith once handed down to the saints.
"It’s my understanding that Pastor Fredericksen did not feel he had any other choice without putting the whole ministry of Our Savior further at risk."
Why would the whole ministry be at further risk if nothing was wrong 🤔
We do not "believe" in or agree with the separation of church and state in its modern formulation. It is only there to bully Christians to withdraw from the public square.
The labels are appropriate for how the Synod is split.
💯Christians initiated the process that became the separation of church and state. When Thomas Jefferson started the use of the term "wall of separation," he deployed it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, in which the congregation complained that the government of Connecticut characterized freedom of religion as a "favor granted" by the legislature and not an immutable right. Jefferson wrote to assure the congregation that the federal government, over which he was then presiding, would not interfere in their rights. He left open whether the state government could do so.
In his draft of the letter, Jefferson elaborated on the point that what he was saying applied to Congress and the president only. (He later crossed it out.)
The letter makes Jefferson's point quite clear: that the Constitution prevented him from intervening in the dispute between the Danbury Baptists and the state of Connecticut.
Conserving the historical Lutheran church (or any other) and liberalizing the church are two clear positions with obvious implications for action. The two words used to describe those positions do an excellent job of indicating the distinctions and their ultimate incompatibility.
The fact that some people do not like how those terms characterize them is a problem for those individuals to contemplate, not a reasonable rule prohibiting others' use of direct and accurate language.
FYI: The guy who created this gofundme, Josh Salzberg, is a jewish p*rnographer from LA, who also started the marxist organization "Lutherans for Racial Justice".
What manner of Christian love are you proclaiming with the use of the phrase "Jewish pornographer?" Please clarify the intent of the statement. Is this the sort of racist drivel the author permits? The statement is intended to be complimentary or simply neutral? It appears quite derogatory; clarification is appreciated. Mr. Salzberg grew up in the LCMS. His rationale for the Go Fund Me in his own words is spot on. At least Mr. Salzberg has the compassion to understand this pastor was forced to lose his livelihood and beloved vocation. Certainly a modest modicum of mercy is applicable no matter your stance on the issue?
The head of OSL’s ministry has resigned, but the children at the school remain at risk of continued exposure to unbiblical doctrine that is not in concordia with synod. Synod needs to address these matters with staff and the congregation, or things will remain as they have been and will be done with the name "LCMS".
How exactly would an LCMS lay "liberal" be treated by all of you? All this lay "liberal" sees here is disdain for anyone not in agreement with the "conservative" take. How is this Christian love? How is this the manner in which Jesus would approach this issue? I really want to know. I grew up LCMS, and my heart is utterly broken by the hard hearts I see on sites like this one and in the current LCMS in general. All the "anti woke" hatred is alarming, especially when what I consider woke is Jesus eating with sinners, Jesus saying it is the sick who need a doctor's care, Jesus turning away those who could not throw the first stone, Jesus looking for the one, lost sheep and leaving the rest, Jesus rebuking the spiritual leaders of His time who were absolute, hard-hearted hypocrites, Jesus righteously angered by those making a mockery of His house of worship by taking advantage of the poor and defiling His Gospel of sins forgiven and promises kept, Jesus saying blessed are the poor in spirit, Jesus saying where were you when I was in prison, sick, hungry, and naked; Jesus rebuking even His disciples when they wanted an earthly, political kingdom to rule, Jesus saying to pay taxes to the government of His time (Who was that, I wonder?), Jesus being brutally beaten and horribly crucified for the entire world - including trans people and other LBQ - for all of us, and His brilliant resurrection from the dead because even all of our sins that He wore on His body, could not keep Him in the grave; His redemption of those who do not deserve it was so incredibly complete. It seems the "conservative" faction of the LCMS needs so desperately to keep a record of sins, especially those flavors of sins which validate their need to be culture warriors for God's Law. God's law without His Gospel is spiritual abuse. It creates despair and pride. Hmmm, so maybe the Pride movement is the fault of the church, a result of hammering relentlessly without the proper use of the Gospel along with the Law? It seems the "conservative" faction wants to misinterpret grace from Jesus and the faith and comfort supplied by the Holy Spirit as antinomian, as lawlessness. What the "conservative" faction seems to misunderstand is that we "woke liberals" in the LCMS understand the distinction of Law and Gospel and how they are vital to salvation, working the contrition and then faith, the parts of true repentance, according to our confessions. It seems to me the "conservative" faction has their focus completely on Law at the expense of grace and mercy. There is the Gospel in conservative circles but only with law strings attached, turning Moses into a warped gospel. So Pastor Frederiksen made a bold statement that even trans people are forgiven and part of God's kingdom, they absolutely can be part of the church. This is a truth the LGBTQ community needs to hear from fellow believers. This issue is much more nuanced and in need of careful discussion and study for the sake of souls. All of nature has fallen with us, even our DNA, so YES, there is a complex biology and physiology of even our fallen genes, which just might inform some compassion. Would you make a cancer patient, whose DNA/oncogenes have gone berserk, repent of their cancer as a work before joining the church? I am not saying LGBTQ are a cancer; I am saying they have legitimate biological determinates which may not be congruent with what God intended before the fall. What if the church is missing these tremendous sets of circumstances calling for mercy? I am also not saying that cancer is a sin, it is certainly something we have this side of heaven that was not what God intended before the fall. So Pastor Frederiksen attended the wedding of his daughter. The horror - he sat and ate with fellow sinners. He provided a voice of law and gospel by his presence at an event he couldn't miss because he loves his child. He chose mercy rather than sacrifice - go and learn what that means. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you, Cindy. I appreciate that you alone have had the courage to attempt a reasoned response.
Your compassion is understandable, and Christians should always examine whether their speech reflects Christ’s patience and mercy. But sorrow over tone cannot excuse confusion over doctrine, and appeals to compassion should never be allowed to rewrite what Christ and His apostles actually taught. This is the broad and comfy road the mainline churches travelled to having pride flags, BLM, and climate change propaganda on their altars.
First, there is a serious universalist drift in your argument. You rightly confess that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, which is the LCMS position. But you repeatedly move from objective justification (Christ died for all) to an unstated conclusion that all are therefore already within God’s kingdom apart from repentance and faith. Scripture explicitly disallows that.
Jesus ate with sinners, but never left them where he met them. His words were not merely “you are forgiven,” but “Go, and sin no more.” The lost sheep is not affirmed in its lostness; it is rescued from it. The tax collectors and prostitutes were not praised for their identities but called out of them. Christ’s mercy is never detached from repentance, nor does it redefine sin as a neutral or immutable condition, which is why Jesus healed - he was pulling people out of the consequences of their Adamic and personal sin.
The Church does not decide who is in the kingdom based on sympathy or sincerity, but on Christ’s own means: repentance and faith worked by Word and Sacrament. To say, without qualification, that people persisting unrepentantly in sins Scripture explicitly condemns - some as sins that are so vile they are hated by God - are nonetheless already part of the kingdom is not mercy. That is doctrinal and pastoral malpractice. That is not Law and Gospel rightly divided; it is the Gospel stripped of repentance, which is a massive problem in the LCMS which has trended to antinomianism. There is a general rejection of the idea that justification necessitates sanctification.
Second, the appeal to “corrupted DNA” as an explanatory or mitigating framework for transgender or homosexual behavior is both a theological and biological category error.
Sickness, death, and disorder exist because of original and personal sin. But Scripture never treats sinful desires as morally neutral pathologies comparable to cancer. The analogy fails precisely where it is supposed to persuade. Cancer is something that happens to a person. Sexual immorality and gender confusion, however powerful the temptation, are desires and behaviors Scripture consistently treats as contrary to God’s revealed will, not as involuntary diseases requiring no repentance.
Original sin corrupts everyone, but it does not roam around targeting specific groups whose sins modern culture wishes to exempt. If corrupted DNA removes moral responsibility, then all sin becomes excusable, and the whole notion of repentance becomes incoherent. That is not compassion, but the abolition of co-operation in sanctification. The Sixth & Seventh Commandments are unique in how they are sliced and diced to allow modern cultural deviancy to flourish.
Moreover, Scripture never grounds sexual identity in mere biology, but in God's creation, which he declared good for all time. The Fall distorted our desires, not God’s design. Compassion does not require us to deny that distinction; it requires us to help sinners bear the cross of resisting desires that war against God’s Word, just as all Christians are called to do, heterosexual and homosexual alike.
Third, the repeated claim that “conservatives” preach Law without Gospel is simply false as a generalization, although the reverse is generally true. Our pastors are supposed to preach grace that actually saves, which means grace that creates repentance and faith, not grace that warps into affirmation. The Gospel does not exist to sanctify our self-understanding and current state, but it does exist to kill the old Adam and raise a new man in Christ.
Calling the Church to speak clearly about sin is not “culture war.” It is love. Silence in the face of error is never mercy. To refuse to name sin for fear of offending is far from being Christlike.
Fourth, regarding pastoral presence at a family event: attending is not necessarily the same as endorsing, but public actions by pastors are never private. St. Paul explicitly teaches that pastoral conduct must consider public confession and scandal. They are called to a higher standard and if a pastor is not willing to rise to that standard, even if his family will hate him, then he should quit. The burden is hard, but no man is forced to be ordained. He accepts it with all the weight and drama it will bring.
Finally, this is not about conservative meanies calling out a pastor who is doing nice things. There is a pattern of queer affirmation and adjacency at the congregation and school. Contrast that: no grace was offered to the complainants; only harsh condemnation and rejection.
The Church is required to tell every sinnner: Christ died for you. Repent. Believe. Therefore, you are welcome here, but not as you define yourself, but as Christ is recreating you. Anything less is false, worldly compassionate. It only offers comfort without truth, and that is neither loving nor Lutheran.
I have absolutely not concluded all are within God's Kingdom apart from repentance; faith is the second part of repentance. Law and Gospel are necessary for repentance, right? According to our confessions repentance is 2 parts - contrition and faith. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion/assumption. I have read about objective grace and passive and active faith. I adore the books Handling the Word of Truth by John T. Pless, The Hammer of God by Bo Giertz, and The Fire and the Staff by Klemet I. Preus. Other than the Bible and Small Catechism, this is where my understanding of LCMS, including how we treat each other and fellow sinners, originates. Worth repeating, repentance is contrition (created through the Holy Spirit working in law) and faith (created through the Holy Spirit working through gospel). Faith is not created by leaving the sinner to despair or pride without the good news of sins forgiven and promises kept - for everyone. You have no sins which you can't stop committing? I certainly don't have that blissful state. I am pretty much a miserable sinner, as I have confessed in LCMS all my life. Beyond thankful for His mercy and grace.
Sorrow over tone is certainly legitimate. What about the "conservative" repentance over harming the little ones with their hateful tone? This is actually a huge deal. There is so much assumption and disdain over what "woke" is and isn't. How we treat each other, how we treat others in need, how we discern law and gospel for suffering souls and even prideful ones, is so important, and my husband and I can't even be in an LCMS congregation currently because of this knee-jerk disdain and hatred for anything deemed remotely "woke." I don't agree with all ELCA confesses, so you so-called spiritual leaders' lack of repentance over "tone" and hard hearts have contributed to my family's current state - belonging nowhere, and I am angry and sad about it, more than I can express.
Yes, Jesus met the sinners where they were and did not leave them. Affirming the sin is not what I am advocating. True repentance (contrition and faith) is what I am advocating - through proper distinction of law AND gospel. There is too much hammer of God and not enough cowbell - the remedy/prescription/comfort for our feverish, sinful states. (Yes, I am making a hopefully humorous reference to the SNL skit.) Not comforting us for maintaining our sins, comforting us because He has mercy on our inability to stop sinning ourselves. We cannot by our own reason or strength...
This side of heaven, tension between saint and sinner will always be a clear and present struggle. Judging a a fellow forgiven sinner by state of perceived sanctification is wrong.
The genetics is important. It shows concretely just how fallen we are. The fall distorted all creation. There is absolutely a genetic related component - there is scientific evidence. This side of heaven science can show us how deeply fallen our created DNA is, again, like all of creation. It is much more involuntary than many realize, and that does not give automatic absolution, but it can and should certainly provide a context for compassion and empathy when speaking of the sin to the sinners. The current tone from the church certainly hasn't worked. You can see the evidence everywhere. Despair and pride! Suicide, falling away from faith, and an actual pride movement! The church has already committed malpractice with over use of the hammer of God. That's what happens with misuse of the law - despair and pride without faith. The law does not create faith. Over use of law does not create the ability to keep it.
It is horribly sinful of "conservative" LCMS factions to outright demonize BLM and climate change - since you brought it up. There are ripples of subtle racism as well as outright racism everywhere. Ignoring this fact is tremendously hurtful to God's people. We have also not been the best stewards of God's creation. Science is showing us this, too. Having concerns about these issues is godly, and assuming falsely that concerns over these issues is automatically idolatry or wrong is not okay.
The only paragraph of yours above I agree with completely is the last one. There isn't much of Christ died for you in the scoffing and hateful tone of the "conservative" faction. Not much "chief of sinners though I be." You have made many jumps/assumptions based on exactly what I am trying to show that you are doing. I would add to the final paragraph, though, that Jesus did it all for you and your sanctification will happen in faith not of yourselves. It's all a gift so no one may boast. If only LCMS policed the sanctification status of their gossips, adulterers, and hateful as much as they love policing the LGBTQ.
The pastor loves his child. He chose mercy. His presence as a called and ordained servant of the Word does not have to be an outright affirmation - as you also stated. He wore the stole - perhaps to confess a shared sinfulness needing God's mercy for all people in Christ. He has been forced to resign. How much must he "do" to be justified to you?
Thank you for the clarification. I accept that you are not denying repentance or the proper distinction of Law and Gospel, and you are right that repentance consists of contrition and faith created by the Holy Spirit through Law and Gospel.
Where the disagreement remains is about praxis. Your argument consistently treats certain sins, especially sexual sins tied to identity, as uniquely involuntary in a way Scripture and the Confessions do not allow. While all sin is deeply rooted and impossible to overcome by our own reason or strength, Scripture never exempts particular sins from being named as sin because they are persistent, powerful, or biologically influenced. For example, Romans 7 does not soften sin. It names it even more sharply, even as it drives the sinner to Christ.
The appeal to genetics, intended to foster compassion, is being harnessed to do theological work it cannot do and was never intended for. Scripture already fully accounts for the nature and types of our sin. Introducing biology as a mitigating moral framework subtly shifts repentance from “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” toward “Lord, understand why this is inevitable.” Compassion never requires redefining sin. To be compassionate requires confidence that Christ is sufficient to overcome sins that feel impossible to overcome.
Tone absolutely matters, but tone cannot become the policeman of doctrine. Harsh speech does not make true teaching false, and gentle speech does not make false teaching true. The Law will always sound unloving to the old Adam, and Scripture nowhere teaches that cultural backlash proves the Law has been overused. Pride movements do not arise from excessive Law but from the rejection of repentance itself. The answer to despair and pride is not a softer definition of sin, but clearer preaching of both Law and Gospel.
Christians may discuss things like racism, stewardship of creation, or civil policy, but the Church as Church cannot bind consciences where Scripture does not. Let's not confuse contemporary moral urgency as Gospel necessity.
Again, this is not about demanding works to be justified. A pastor has a public office with public responsibility. Actions that may be understandable on a personal level are not, therefore, confessionally neutral in the pastoral office. Mercy and clarity are not opposites, and Christ’s mercy never required ambiguity.
Lastly, if Fredericksen did "wear the stole to confess a shared sinfulness needing God's mercy for all people in Christ", that is an indictment, not an excuse. Fredericksen is not sorry for wearing the stole and did not resign for it. He resigned, in his own words, because he disqualified himself through his actions at the 'wedding'.
Your pain and anger are real, and feeling displaced in the Church is grievous, but personal suffering cannot be allowed to redefine doctrine. The Church heals sinners, including gossipers, adulterers, the self-righteous, the despairing, and the sexually immoral, not by reclassifying sin, but by naming it honestly and forgiving it fully in Christ when repentance is the motive. Christ is sufficient, even here.
I'm trying to respond, yet it seems this third response is automatically tied to my first one.
You still don't see. I am not saying genetics justify/absolve - not at all. In fact I've stated repeatedly they do not. I am absolutely not redefining sin or scripture. There absolutely can be a mercy in approach informed by this genetic component, and perhaps folks who truly hate LGBTQ can't or won't have that capacity based on their own deeply sinful feelings of superiority. Right? Like, thank God I don't have THAT sin.
Biology doesn't mitigate what sin is or its consequences, and I am basically agreeing with the deeply rooted nature of sin through "praxis" of scripture and biology. Science can provide wonderous evidence of the magnificence of creation as well as of its fallen nature. Please do not make false allegations or interpretations of what I am actually saying based on assumptions. It seems an attempted deflection from the valid points I am making about the "conservative" LCMS. As in your first response, last paragraph - our identity is only in Christ, He covers all sin, and all are welcome.
What needs mitigating is our response to fellow sinners. When one realizes how deeply sin goes - for each of us, apart from Christ, sin IS inevitable. Which sins do you have that you never repeat? Do you deserve policing over them?
My framework for saying that what needs mitigating is our response to fellow sinners is that great love stems from awareness of significant forgiveness. (Luke 7. ) Being aware how deeply rooted, genetically influenced, and even involuntary sin is for each of us can and should inform how we approach others. It seems many "conservative" LCMS, including some leadership and theologians, haven't given concrete consideration to their own deeply rooted sin, and then tragically approach others in a flippant, unmerciful and demeaning way. Perhaps... Brushing off climate concerns as "woke" without consideration of the person concerned or the truth in that concern. Brushing off the problem of racial injustice or sinfulness involved in wealth inequality as "Marxist." Likewise, brushing off the fellow humanity of the "other" sinner is all to easy when one does not recognize how seriously, even genetically driven, one's own sin is. Not to excuse sin but to have awareness of how much of it we all have - how much forgiveness one has received needs to inform how we approach others.
Only the Savior can fulfill the law for us and cover us with His robes of righteousness. We have a Lord and Savior who already understands that our sin is inevitable and how deeply inevitable it is, so He provided the sacrifice the law demands. The second part of repentance is faith and needs the gospel to survive. Even in faith it is the Holy Spirit helping us through our sanctification. I'm not exempting the sin or redefining. Please stop the demeaning and false assumptions. Our confession that we are miserable sinners does not change, and I have said that in many ways already.
Refusing to provide gospel after naming the sin, overuse of the hammer, absolutely does lead to despair or pride, even on a cultural/societal level. Evidence of that is everywhere. "The only change the Law can work is death. The Law does not merely scold; it kills. It closes off every path that the sinner would use in a vain attempt to escape God. Where the Law does not find its end in Christ (see Romans 10:4), it will lead either to pride or despair." From Handling the Word of Truth Preus p. 8. Christ must be offered; He is everything. The second part of repentance, faith, must have Christ in His mercy.
Anyway. I am tired and I need to feed my family. Theological arguing is not my pond for swimming. Something is deeply wrong in the LCMS right now. Possibly much antinomianism in the conservative as well as liberal factions. Pressing the gospel into service of the law with focus on morality rather than forgiveness can be problematic for God's people. The hatred of anything deemed "woke" is horribly misguided and causing unspeakable harm, as well.
This pastor loves his child. You have admitted he has the right to attend the union on a personal level. Then leave him alone for goodness sake. He has already been forced to resign, lost his livelihood, lost respect of many, is void of mercy and forgiveness from many, so just stop. From my understanding he was not there within his pastoral office performing the ceremony. He resigned because he was coerced into it, yes, by the meanies, as you put it. If he was wearing the stole from motive of confessing we are all sinners in need of forgiveness, then I don't see how that is an indictment, and he should not need to repent of that motive anyway.
Reply (1)
How exactly would an LCMS lay "liberal" be treated by all of you? All this lay "liberal" sees here is disdain for anyone not in agreement with the "conservative" take. How is this Christian love? How is this the manner in which Jesus would approach this issue? I really want to know. I grew up LCMS, and my heart is utterly broken by the hard hearts I see on sites like this one and in the current LCMS in general. All the "anti woke" hatred is alarming, especially when what I consider woke is Jesus eating with sinners, Jesus saying it is the sick who need a doctor's care, Jesus turning away those who could not throw the first stone, Jesus looking for the one, lost sheep and leaving the rest, Jesus rebuking the spiritual leaders of His time who were absolute, hard-hearted hypocrites, Jesus righteously angered by those making a mockery of His house of worship by taking advantage of the poor and defiling His Gospel of sins forgiven and promises kept, Jesus saying blessed are the poor in spirit, Jesus saying where were you when I was in prison, sick, hungry, and naked; Jesus rebuking even His disciples when they wanted an earthly, political kingdom to rule, Jesus saying to pay taxes to the government of His time (Who was that, I wonder?), Jesus being brutally beaten and horribly crucified for the entire world - including trans people and other LBQ - for all of us, and His brilliant resurrection from the dead because even all of our sins that He wore on His body, could not keep Him in the grave; His redemption of those who do not deserve it was so incredibly complete. It seems the "conservative" faction of the LCMS needs so desperately to keep a record of sins, especially those flavors of sins which validate their need to be culture warriors for God's Law. God's law without His Gospel is spiritual abuse. It creates despair and pride. Hmmm, so maybe the Pride movement is the fault of the church, a result of hammering relentlessly without the proper use of the Gospel along with the Law? It seems the "conservative" faction wants to misinterpret grace from Jesus and the faith and comfort supplied by the Holy Spirit as antinomian, as lawlessness. What the "conservative" faction seems to misunderstand is that we "woke liberals" in the LCMS understand the distinction of Law and Gospel and how they are vital to salvation, working the contrition and then faith, the parts of true repentance, according to our confessions. It seems to me the "conservative" faction has their focus completely on Law at the expense of grace and mercy. There is the Gospel in conservative circles but only with law strings attached, turning Moses into a warped gospel. So Pastor Frederiksen made a bold statement that even trans people are forgiven and part of God's kingdom, they absolutely can be part of the church. This is a truth the LGBTQ community needs to hear from fellow believers. This issue is much more nuanced and in need of careful discussion and study for the sake of souls. All of nature has fallen with us, even our DNA, so YES, there is a complex biology and physiology of even our fallen genes, which just might inform some compassion. Would you make a cancer patient, whose DNA/oncogenes have gone berserk, repent of their cancer as a work before joining the church? I am not saying LGBTQ are a cancer; I am saying they have legitimate biological determinates which may not be congruent with what God intended before the fall. What if the church is missing these tremendous sets of circumstances calling for mercy? I am also not saying that cancer is a sin, it is certainly something we have this side of heaven that was not what God intended before the fall. So Pastor Frederiksen attended the wedding of his daughter. The horror - he sat and ate with fellow sinners. He provided a voice of law and gospel by his presence at an event he couldn't miss because he loves his child. He chose mercy rather than sacrifice - go and learn what that means. Thank you for the opportunity.
Maybe Staneck will take up the cause? He has firm opinions on the “kerfuffle”.
1. What is the set up?
2. You are bearing false witness. Only Tim wrote this.
He came to my attention by bloviating on our X feed this week. So I went to winsome guy’s feed, and lo and behold, he has strong opinions about the issue. Given those opinions and his rank, he is a perfect candidate to represent what he finds so heinous, as are you.
This is the third false accusation you have launched regarding this story.
I am going to make it simple: I will publish any defense of OSLCS and Harmon. I will publish any criticism of Ad Crucem News in this matter. You may frame it any way you like. The authors may even use pseudonyms.
Aren't you the Yankee stadium guy? I'm not sure if you're aware, but it's pretty much common knowledge outside of the Atlantic District that you should be defrocked.
Excellent questions! I hope at least one liberal Lutheran answers these. I’m very interested to see how they view these sort of things.
Also, how did Kloha and the others handle the following church service?
I’m interested to know how they handled that service, as well!
Hi Pastor Rojas, here's the link to the streamed service from the First Sunday of Advent: https://www.facebook.com/OurSaviorChurchVA/videos
Also a nice audible fractio panis during Kloha's verba. A man who served as a seminary professor for years should know better.
Hope to see a response to this although I doubt it will occur.
Perhaps this would be an excellent time for David Behnke to offer some insight, particularly using the "Lutheran resolution template" he mentioned when responding to my post the other day at AC. If any who know the former president see this, let him know.
Ah!! Kloha. Say no more…😔
It will be instructive to see if some "Conservative" gatekeepers chime in to tell us how this request causes hurt feelings.
Indeed. I’m sure we are going to hear about squeaky wheels being horribly disruptive to a glacial pace of resolution.
This is what happens when antinomian preaching and teaching is tolerated by a congregation.
Are these the same old liberals from the Seminex days? If so they quite elderly now. Or is there a new generation of young progressives eager to corrupt the faith once handed down to the saints.
It’s a combination of men who stayed on after receiving higher critical training, and youngsters soaked in a Barthian / Progressive fusion.
We have the first indirect Liberal response: https://www.gofundme.com/f/in-thanks-for-the-service-of-pastor-wayne-frederickson?attribution_id=sl%3A37f31632-7b4e-4194-97af-47848f2a4bbc&lang=en_US
"It’s my understanding that Pastor Fredericksen did not feel he had any other choice without putting the whole ministry of Our Savior further at risk."
Why would the whole ministry be at further risk if nothing was wrong 🤔
We do not "believe" in or agree with the separation of church and state in its modern formulation. It is only there to bully Christians to withdraw from the public square.
The labels are appropriate for how the Synod is split.
💯Christians initiated the process that became the separation of church and state. When Thomas Jefferson started the use of the term "wall of separation," he deployed it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, in which the congregation complained that the government of Connecticut characterized freedom of religion as a "favor granted" by the legislature and not an immutable right. Jefferson wrote to assure the congregation that the federal government, over which he was then presiding, would not interfere in their rights. He left open whether the state government could do so.
In his draft of the letter, Jefferson elaborated on the point that what he was saying applied to Congress and the president only. (He later crossed it out.)
The letter makes Jefferson's point quite clear: that the Constitution prevented him from intervening in the dispute between the Danbury Baptists and the state of Connecticut.
Conserving the historical Lutheran church (or any other) and liberalizing the church are two clear positions with obvious implications for action. The two words used to describe those positions do an excellent job of indicating the distinctions and their ultimate incompatibility.
The fact that some people do not like how those terms characterize them is a problem for those individuals to contemplate, not a reasonable rule prohibiting others' use of direct and accurate language.
Awesome, thank you, ST.
FYI: The guy who created this gofundme, Josh Salzberg, is a jewish p*rnographer from LA, who also started the marxist organization "Lutherans for Racial Justice".
here are the receipts: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2927541/
https://lutheransforracialjustice.com/about-us-1
https://forebears.io/surnames/salzberg
What manner of Christian love are you proclaiming with the use of the phrase "Jewish pornographer?" Please clarify the intent of the statement. Is this the sort of racist drivel the author permits? The statement is intended to be complimentary or simply neutral? It appears quite derogatory; clarification is appreciated. Mr. Salzberg grew up in the LCMS. His rationale for the Go Fund Me in his own words is spot on. At least Mr. Salzberg has the compassion to understand this pastor was forced to lose his livelihood and beloved vocation. Certainly a modest modicum of mercy is applicable no matter your stance on the issue?
A single resignation is not appropriate. Matt Harrison and all of the VP's needed to resign yesterday.
Disagree that Harrison and VPs need to resign.
The head of OSL’s ministry has resigned, but the children at the school remain at risk of continued exposure to unbiblical doctrine that is not in concordia with synod. Synod needs to address these matters with staff and the congregation, or things will remain as they have been and will be done with the name "LCMS".
How exactly would an LCMS lay "liberal" be treated by all of you? All this lay "liberal" sees here is disdain for anyone not in agreement with the "conservative" take. How is this Christian love? How is this the manner in which Jesus would approach this issue? I really want to know. I grew up LCMS, and my heart is utterly broken by the hard hearts I see on sites like this one and in the current LCMS in general. All the "anti woke" hatred is alarming, especially when what I consider woke is Jesus eating with sinners, Jesus saying it is the sick who need a doctor's care, Jesus turning away those who could not throw the first stone, Jesus looking for the one, lost sheep and leaving the rest, Jesus rebuking the spiritual leaders of His time who were absolute, hard-hearted hypocrites, Jesus righteously angered by those making a mockery of His house of worship by taking advantage of the poor and defiling His Gospel of sins forgiven and promises kept, Jesus saying blessed are the poor in spirit, Jesus saying where were you when I was in prison, sick, hungry, and naked; Jesus rebuking even His disciples when they wanted an earthly, political kingdom to rule, Jesus saying to pay taxes to the government of His time (Who was that, I wonder?), Jesus being brutally beaten and horribly crucified for the entire world - including trans people and other LBQ - for all of us, and His brilliant resurrection from the dead because even all of our sins that He wore on His body, could not keep Him in the grave; His redemption of those who do not deserve it was so incredibly complete. It seems the "conservative" faction of the LCMS needs so desperately to keep a record of sins, especially those flavors of sins which validate their need to be culture warriors for God's Law. God's law without His Gospel is spiritual abuse. It creates despair and pride. Hmmm, so maybe the Pride movement is the fault of the church, a result of hammering relentlessly without the proper use of the Gospel along with the Law? It seems the "conservative" faction wants to misinterpret grace from Jesus and the faith and comfort supplied by the Holy Spirit as antinomian, as lawlessness. What the "conservative" faction seems to misunderstand is that we "woke liberals" in the LCMS understand the distinction of Law and Gospel and how they are vital to salvation, working the contrition and then faith, the parts of true repentance, according to our confessions. It seems to me the "conservative" faction has their focus completely on Law at the expense of grace and mercy. There is the Gospel in conservative circles but only with law strings attached, turning Moses into a warped gospel. So Pastor Frederiksen made a bold statement that even trans people are forgiven and part of God's kingdom, they absolutely can be part of the church. This is a truth the LGBTQ community needs to hear from fellow believers. This issue is much more nuanced and in need of careful discussion and study for the sake of souls. All of nature has fallen with us, even our DNA, so YES, there is a complex biology and physiology of even our fallen genes, which just might inform some compassion. Would you make a cancer patient, whose DNA/oncogenes have gone berserk, repent of their cancer as a work before joining the church? I am not saying LGBTQ are a cancer; I am saying they have legitimate biological determinates which may not be congruent with what God intended before the fall. What if the church is missing these tremendous sets of circumstances calling for mercy? I am also not saying that cancer is a sin, it is certainly something we have this side of heaven that was not what God intended before the fall. So Pastor Frederiksen attended the wedding of his daughter. The horror - he sat and ate with fellow sinners. He provided a voice of law and gospel by his presence at an event he couldn't miss because he loves his child. He chose mercy rather than sacrifice - go and learn what that means. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you, Cindy. I appreciate that you alone have had the courage to attempt a reasoned response.
Your compassion is understandable, and Christians should always examine whether their speech reflects Christ’s patience and mercy. But sorrow over tone cannot excuse confusion over doctrine, and appeals to compassion should never be allowed to rewrite what Christ and His apostles actually taught. This is the broad and comfy road the mainline churches travelled to having pride flags, BLM, and climate change propaganda on their altars.
First, there is a serious universalist drift in your argument. You rightly confess that Christ died for the sins of the whole world, which is the LCMS position. But you repeatedly move from objective justification (Christ died for all) to an unstated conclusion that all are therefore already within God’s kingdom apart from repentance and faith. Scripture explicitly disallows that.
Jesus ate with sinners, but never left them where he met them. His words were not merely “you are forgiven,” but “Go, and sin no more.” The lost sheep is not affirmed in its lostness; it is rescued from it. The tax collectors and prostitutes were not praised for their identities but called out of them. Christ’s mercy is never detached from repentance, nor does it redefine sin as a neutral or immutable condition, which is why Jesus healed - he was pulling people out of the consequences of their Adamic and personal sin.
The Church does not decide who is in the kingdom based on sympathy or sincerity, but on Christ’s own means: repentance and faith worked by Word and Sacrament. To say, without qualification, that people persisting unrepentantly in sins Scripture explicitly condemns - some as sins that are so vile they are hated by God - are nonetheless already part of the kingdom is not mercy. That is doctrinal and pastoral malpractice. That is not Law and Gospel rightly divided; it is the Gospel stripped of repentance, which is a massive problem in the LCMS which has trended to antinomianism. There is a general rejection of the idea that justification necessitates sanctification.
Second, the appeal to “corrupted DNA” as an explanatory or mitigating framework for transgender or homosexual behavior is both a theological and biological category error.
Sickness, death, and disorder exist because of original and personal sin. But Scripture never treats sinful desires as morally neutral pathologies comparable to cancer. The analogy fails precisely where it is supposed to persuade. Cancer is something that happens to a person. Sexual immorality and gender confusion, however powerful the temptation, are desires and behaviors Scripture consistently treats as contrary to God’s revealed will, not as involuntary diseases requiring no repentance.
Original sin corrupts everyone, but it does not roam around targeting specific groups whose sins modern culture wishes to exempt. If corrupted DNA removes moral responsibility, then all sin becomes excusable, and the whole notion of repentance becomes incoherent. That is not compassion, but the abolition of co-operation in sanctification. The Sixth & Seventh Commandments are unique in how they are sliced and diced to allow modern cultural deviancy to flourish.
Moreover, Scripture never grounds sexual identity in mere biology, but in God's creation, which he declared good for all time. The Fall distorted our desires, not God’s design. Compassion does not require us to deny that distinction; it requires us to help sinners bear the cross of resisting desires that war against God’s Word, just as all Christians are called to do, heterosexual and homosexual alike.
Third, the repeated claim that “conservatives” preach Law without Gospel is simply false as a generalization, although the reverse is generally true. Our pastors are supposed to preach grace that actually saves, which means grace that creates repentance and faith, not grace that warps into affirmation. The Gospel does not exist to sanctify our self-understanding and current state, but it does exist to kill the old Adam and raise a new man in Christ.
Calling the Church to speak clearly about sin is not “culture war.” It is love. Silence in the face of error is never mercy. To refuse to name sin for fear of offending is far from being Christlike.
Fourth, regarding pastoral presence at a family event: attending is not necessarily the same as endorsing, but public actions by pastors are never private. St. Paul explicitly teaches that pastoral conduct must consider public confession and scandal. They are called to a higher standard and if a pastor is not willing to rise to that standard, even if his family will hate him, then he should quit. The burden is hard, but no man is forced to be ordained. He accepts it with all the weight and drama it will bring.
Finally, this is not about conservative meanies calling out a pastor who is doing nice things. There is a pattern of queer affirmation and adjacency at the congregation and school. Contrast that: no grace was offered to the complainants; only harsh condemnation and rejection.
The Church is required to tell every sinnner: Christ died for you. Repent. Believe. Therefore, you are welcome here, but not as you define yourself, but as Christ is recreating you. Anything less is false, worldly compassionate. It only offers comfort without truth, and that is neither loving nor Lutheran.
I have absolutely not concluded all are within God's Kingdom apart from repentance; faith is the second part of repentance. Law and Gospel are necessary for repentance, right? According to our confessions repentance is 2 parts - contrition and faith. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion/assumption. I have read about objective grace and passive and active faith. I adore the books Handling the Word of Truth by John T. Pless, The Hammer of God by Bo Giertz, and The Fire and the Staff by Klemet I. Preus. Other than the Bible and Small Catechism, this is where my understanding of LCMS, including how we treat each other and fellow sinners, originates. Worth repeating, repentance is contrition (created through the Holy Spirit working in law) and faith (created through the Holy Spirit working through gospel). Faith is not created by leaving the sinner to despair or pride without the good news of sins forgiven and promises kept - for everyone. You have no sins which you can't stop committing? I certainly don't have that blissful state. I am pretty much a miserable sinner, as I have confessed in LCMS all my life. Beyond thankful for His mercy and grace.
Sorrow over tone is certainly legitimate. What about the "conservative" repentance over harming the little ones with their hateful tone? This is actually a huge deal. There is so much assumption and disdain over what "woke" is and isn't. How we treat each other, how we treat others in need, how we discern law and gospel for suffering souls and even prideful ones, is so important, and my husband and I can't even be in an LCMS congregation currently because of this knee-jerk disdain and hatred for anything deemed remotely "woke." I don't agree with all ELCA confesses, so you so-called spiritual leaders' lack of repentance over "tone" and hard hearts have contributed to my family's current state - belonging nowhere, and I am angry and sad about it, more than I can express.
Yes, Jesus met the sinners where they were and did not leave them. Affirming the sin is not what I am advocating. True repentance (contrition and faith) is what I am advocating - through proper distinction of law AND gospel. There is too much hammer of God and not enough cowbell - the remedy/prescription/comfort for our feverish, sinful states. (Yes, I am making a hopefully humorous reference to the SNL skit.) Not comforting us for maintaining our sins, comforting us because He has mercy on our inability to stop sinning ourselves. We cannot by our own reason or strength...
This side of heaven, tension between saint and sinner will always be a clear and present struggle. Judging a a fellow forgiven sinner by state of perceived sanctification is wrong.
The genetics is important. It shows concretely just how fallen we are. The fall distorted all creation. There is absolutely a genetic related component - there is scientific evidence. This side of heaven science can show us how deeply fallen our created DNA is, again, like all of creation. It is much more involuntary than many realize, and that does not give automatic absolution, but it can and should certainly provide a context for compassion and empathy when speaking of the sin to the sinners. The current tone from the church certainly hasn't worked. You can see the evidence everywhere. Despair and pride! Suicide, falling away from faith, and an actual pride movement! The church has already committed malpractice with over use of the hammer of God. That's what happens with misuse of the law - despair and pride without faith. The law does not create faith. Over use of law does not create the ability to keep it.
It is horribly sinful of "conservative" LCMS factions to outright demonize BLM and climate change - since you brought it up. There are ripples of subtle racism as well as outright racism everywhere. Ignoring this fact is tremendously hurtful to God's people. We have also not been the best stewards of God's creation. Science is showing us this, too. Having concerns about these issues is godly, and assuming falsely that concerns over these issues is automatically idolatry or wrong is not okay.
The only paragraph of yours above I agree with completely is the last one. There isn't much of Christ died for you in the scoffing and hateful tone of the "conservative" faction. Not much "chief of sinners though I be." You have made many jumps/assumptions based on exactly what I am trying to show that you are doing. I would add to the final paragraph, though, that Jesus did it all for you and your sanctification will happen in faith not of yourselves. It's all a gift so no one may boast. If only LCMS policed the sanctification status of their gossips, adulterers, and hateful as much as they love policing the LGBTQ.
The pastor loves his child. He chose mercy. His presence as a called and ordained servant of the Word does not have to be an outright affirmation - as you also stated. He wore the stole - perhaps to confess a shared sinfulness needing God's mercy for all people in Christ. He has been forced to resign. How much must he "do" to be justified to you?
Thank you for the clarification. I accept that you are not denying repentance or the proper distinction of Law and Gospel, and you are right that repentance consists of contrition and faith created by the Holy Spirit through Law and Gospel.
Where the disagreement remains is about praxis. Your argument consistently treats certain sins, especially sexual sins tied to identity, as uniquely involuntary in a way Scripture and the Confessions do not allow. While all sin is deeply rooted and impossible to overcome by our own reason or strength, Scripture never exempts particular sins from being named as sin because they are persistent, powerful, or biologically influenced. For example, Romans 7 does not soften sin. It names it even more sharply, even as it drives the sinner to Christ.
The appeal to genetics, intended to foster compassion, is being harnessed to do theological work it cannot do and was never intended for. Scripture already fully accounts for the nature and types of our sin. Introducing biology as a mitigating moral framework subtly shifts repentance from “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” toward “Lord, understand why this is inevitable.” Compassion never requires redefining sin. To be compassionate requires confidence that Christ is sufficient to overcome sins that feel impossible to overcome.
Tone absolutely matters, but tone cannot become the policeman of doctrine. Harsh speech does not make true teaching false, and gentle speech does not make false teaching true. The Law will always sound unloving to the old Adam, and Scripture nowhere teaches that cultural backlash proves the Law has been overused. Pride movements do not arise from excessive Law but from the rejection of repentance itself. The answer to despair and pride is not a softer definition of sin, but clearer preaching of both Law and Gospel.
Christians may discuss things like racism, stewardship of creation, or civil policy, but the Church as Church cannot bind consciences where Scripture does not. Let's not confuse contemporary moral urgency as Gospel necessity.
Again, this is not about demanding works to be justified. A pastor has a public office with public responsibility. Actions that may be understandable on a personal level are not, therefore, confessionally neutral in the pastoral office. Mercy and clarity are not opposites, and Christ’s mercy never required ambiguity.
Lastly, if Fredericksen did "wear the stole to confess a shared sinfulness needing God's mercy for all people in Christ", that is an indictment, not an excuse. Fredericksen is not sorry for wearing the stole and did not resign for it. He resigned, in his own words, because he disqualified himself through his actions at the 'wedding'.
Your pain and anger are real, and feeling displaced in the Church is grievous, but personal suffering cannot be allowed to redefine doctrine. The Church heals sinners, including gossipers, adulterers, the self-righteous, the despairing, and the sexually immoral, not by reclassifying sin, but by naming it honestly and forgiving it fully in Christ when repentance is the motive. Christ is sufficient, even here.
I'm trying to respond, yet it seems this third response is automatically tied to my first one.
You still don't see. I am not saying genetics justify/absolve - not at all. In fact I've stated repeatedly they do not. I am absolutely not redefining sin or scripture. There absolutely can be a mercy in approach informed by this genetic component, and perhaps folks who truly hate LGBTQ can't or won't have that capacity based on their own deeply sinful feelings of superiority. Right? Like, thank God I don't have THAT sin.
Biology doesn't mitigate what sin is or its consequences, and I am basically agreeing with the deeply rooted nature of sin through "praxis" of scripture and biology. Science can provide wonderous evidence of the magnificence of creation as well as of its fallen nature. Please do not make false allegations or interpretations of what I am actually saying based on assumptions. It seems an attempted deflection from the valid points I am making about the "conservative" LCMS. As in your first response, last paragraph - our identity is only in Christ, He covers all sin, and all are welcome.
What needs mitigating is our response to fellow sinners. When one realizes how deeply sin goes - for each of us, apart from Christ, sin IS inevitable. Which sins do you have that you never repeat? Do you deserve policing over them?
My framework for saying that what needs mitigating is our response to fellow sinners is that great love stems from awareness of significant forgiveness. (Luke 7. ) Being aware how deeply rooted, genetically influenced, and even involuntary sin is for each of us can and should inform how we approach others. It seems many "conservative" LCMS, including some leadership and theologians, haven't given concrete consideration to their own deeply rooted sin, and then tragically approach others in a flippant, unmerciful and demeaning way. Perhaps... Brushing off climate concerns as "woke" without consideration of the person concerned or the truth in that concern. Brushing off the problem of racial injustice or sinfulness involved in wealth inequality as "Marxist." Likewise, brushing off the fellow humanity of the "other" sinner is all to easy when one does not recognize how seriously, even genetically driven, one's own sin is. Not to excuse sin but to have awareness of how much of it we all have - how much forgiveness one has received needs to inform how we approach others.
Only the Savior can fulfill the law for us and cover us with His robes of righteousness. We have a Lord and Savior who already understands that our sin is inevitable and how deeply inevitable it is, so He provided the sacrifice the law demands. The second part of repentance is faith and needs the gospel to survive. Even in faith it is the Holy Spirit helping us through our sanctification. I'm not exempting the sin or redefining. Please stop the demeaning and false assumptions. Our confession that we are miserable sinners does not change, and I have said that in many ways already.
Refusing to provide gospel after naming the sin, overuse of the hammer, absolutely does lead to despair or pride, even on a cultural/societal level. Evidence of that is everywhere. "The only change the Law can work is death. The Law does not merely scold; it kills. It closes off every path that the sinner would use in a vain attempt to escape God. Where the Law does not find its end in Christ (see Romans 10:4), it will lead either to pride or despair." From Handling the Word of Truth Preus p. 8. Christ must be offered; He is everything. The second part of repentance, faith, must have Christ in His mercy.
Anyway. I am tired and I need to feed my family. Theological arguing is not my pond for swimming. Something is deeply wrong in the LCMS right now. Possibly much antinomianism in the conservative as well as liberal factions. Pressing the gospel into service of the law with focus on morality rather than forgiveness can be problematic for God's people. The hatred of anything deemed "woke" is horribly misguided and causing unspeakable harm, as well.
This pastor loves his child. You have admitted he has the right to attend the union on a personal level. Then leave him alone for goodness sake. He has already been forced to resign, lost his livelihood, lost respect of many, is void of mercy and forgiveness from many, so just stop. From my understanding he was not there within his pastoral office performing the ceremony. He resigned because he was coerced into it, yes, by the meanies, as you put it. If he was wearing the stole from motive of confessing we are all sinners in need of forgiveness, then I don't see how that is an indictment, and he should not need to repent of that motive anyway.
Reply (1)
How exactly would an LCMS lay "liberal" be treated by all of you? All this lay "liberal" sees here is disdain for anyone not in agreement with the "conservative" take. How is this Christian love? How is this the manner in which Jesus would approach this issue? I really want to know. I grew up LCMS, and my heart is utterly broken by the hard hearts I see on sites like this one and in the current LCMS in general. All the "anti woke" hatred is alarming, especially when what I consider woke is Jesus eating with sinners, Jesus saying it is the sick who need a doctor's care, Jesus turning away those who could not throw the first stone, Jesus looking for the one, lost sheep and leaving the rest, Jesus rebuking the spiritual leaders of His time who were absolute, hard-hearted hypocrites, Jesus righteously angered by those making a mockery of His house of worship by taking advantage of the poor and defiling His Gospel of sins forgiven and promises kept, Jesus saying blessed are the poor in spirit, Jesus saying where were you when I was in prison, sick, hungry, and naked; Jesus rebuking even His disciples when they wanted an earthly, political kingdom to rule, Jesus saying to pay taxes to the government of His time (Who was that, I wonder?), Jesus being brutally beaten and horribly crucified for the entire world - including trans people and other LBQ - for all of us, and His brilliant resurrection from the dead because even all of our sins that He wore on His body, could not keep Him in the grave; His redemption of those who do not deserve it was so incredibly complete. It seems the "conservative" faction of the LCMS needs so desperately to keep a record of sins, especially those flavors of sins which validate their need to be culture warriors for God's Law. God's law without His Gospel is spiritual abuse. It creates despair and pride. Hmmm, so maybe the Pride movement is the fault of the church, a result of hammering relentlessly without the proper use of the Gospel along with the Law? It seems the "conservative" faction wants to misinterpret grace from Jesus and the faith and comfort supplied by the Holy Spirit as antinomian, as lawlessness. What the "conservative" faction seems to misunderstand is that we "woke liberals" in the LCMS understand the distinction of Law and Gospel and how they are vital to salvation, working the contrition and then faith, the parts of true repentance, according to our confessions. It seems to me the "conservative" faction has their focus completely on Law at the expense of grace and mercy. There is the Gospel in conservative circles but only with law strings attached, turning Moses into a warped gospel. So Pastor Frederiksen made a bold statement that even trans people are forgiven and part of God's kingdom, they absolutely can be part of the church. This is a truth the LGBTQ community needs to hear from fellow believers. This issue is much more nuanced and in need of careful discussion and study for the sake of souls. All of nature has fallen with us, even our DNA, so YES, there is a complex biology and physiology of even our fallen genes, which just might inform some compassion. Would you make a cancer patient, whose DNA/oncogenes have gone berserk, repent of their cancer as a work before joining the church? I am not saying LGBTQ are a cancer; I am saying they have legitimate biological determinates which may not be congruent with what God intended before the fall. What if the church is missing these tremendous sets of circumstances calling for mercy? I am also not saying that cancer is a sin, it is certainly something we have this side of heaven that was not what God intended before the fall. So Pastor Frederiksen attended the wedding of his daughter. The horror - he sat and ate with fellow sinners. He provided a voice of law and gospel by his presence at an event he couldn't miss because he loves his child. He chose mercy rather than sacrifice - go and learn what that means. Thank you for the opportunity.