Power corrupts. By denying the Presidium an exclusive monopoly on the crafting of narratives and the curating of information an independent press is a check on the corrupting influence of power.
Why do you say the Presidium—more specifically, the regional vice presidents who don't have any office or role in the International Center, have no ecclesiastical supervision responsibilities, and are not involved in any of these decisions—has "an exclusive monopoly on the crafting of narratives and the curating of information"? Where are you getting this information from?
I said they don't because of independent news outlets like this one. They are served by being denied a monopoly and the tendency to corruption that would entail. As to Presidoum I may have misused the term because I meant by it all of the Synodical and District power structures. Harrison and the DP s included. They may not appreciate independent voices but they are served by them. They are part of how God answers their prayers to be lead not into temptation.
Thanks Gregory. According to the handbook the Presidium is the Synod president, the 1st vp and the regional vps. They sit on the cop, but the regional vps have no power. Our dp says they are not allowed to serve on committees of the cop or even hearings for bringing pastors back if they were kicked off the roster. Apparently they don't even have regular meetings.
An Ad Crucem News practice I'm skeptical of is depublishing articles because some church or synodical process has apparently gotten back on track. As far as I know, independent journalists never do that. At best, you might get a "correction" that is late and buried.
That may be both a criticism and a compliment to Ad Crucem News.
But regardless of any disagreement I have with them in my comments here, I do appreciate their work and think it is important for our church body. I hope the synod functionaries would see it as a blessing to constructively engage rather than to hide from.
Thanks, Justin. Regarding unpublishing the articles about the Easton, MD church, we are Christians first, retailers second, and journalists third. We brought the situation to attention because it was so terrible, and we hoped to have it reversed. After intense initial resistance, both parties relented and agreed to do what Scripture expects of us as professing Christians. We do not know how the process will turn out, but it is our responsibility to remove any obstacles to Christian reconciliation and peace. It does not exonerate anyone or give them a pass, and the grievously handled and unresolved Arlington, VA case is the counterpoint.
If this were a civil issue, the articles would remain live, but it's a matter of the church and the heart.
I understand, which is why I framed it as skepticism. I think it is good when considering the specific people involved. I think I have separately commented on this, but my skepticism is in regard to thinking the issues are broader than the church and people involved and that there may be historical value in stories of this interesting inflection point in LCMS history. But you are in a better position to make the decision, so I don't mean to be too critical :)
It's all good. I remain on record calling for Rev. Dr. Harmon to resign because of his handling of Arlington, VA, and I criticized CTS for rewarding him with a preaching slot on call day, even as Christian News and at least one mission organization I know of were banned from Symposia.
Our prayer for Easton, MD, is that the pastor, the leadership, the whistleblowers, and the congregation can reach a resolution that addresses the legal issues and restores some measure of peace and concord there.
"What the senior levels of the Synod and some portion of the laity may need to be made explicit is that the principle they will applaud in Chicago does not change when the subject of coverage changes."
Excellent point. We should not be afraid of the truth coming to light. We follow Jesus Christ, who is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. The deeds done in the dark should be exposed to the light.
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
I'll only speak to the facts that have been reported.
The SE District President advised congregations in his district that were contacted by Ad Crudem News (ACN) to ignore/avoid speaking with ACN.
ACN was told that it was "unwelcome" at the Synod Convention. That sort of decision doesn't come from some random office worker at the International Center, but from someone with senior-level authority.
So, at least 1 DP and 1 other member of authority over the Synod Convention. But seeing as how monolithic the Council of Presidents has seemed recently, I can't imagine it's just 1 DP.
If you are asking who has the authority to refuse press credentials and tell someone, "They're not welcome at the Synod Convention", that's a good question that I don't have the answer to myself.
Knowing just a little of how bureaucracy often works, you might be surprised at how low on the totem pole the person was who made the decision. The presidents can’t do everything, as they lack all the divine attributes to do so, so they delegate things to all kinds of people, and some of those also delegate, so this decision may have come from an office secretary or clerk assigned the task of vetting agencies for the booths. That person may have believed they were protecting the interests of their boss, without asking for their input. I’m not saying that’s what happened, just that it’s possible.
To be clear, the senior echelons of the Synod are not a monolith. Within the COP, Praesidium, and Board of Directors there are differences of opinion and emphasis. Press coverage of the Synod should be a passing concern, not an occasion for Sturm und Drang.
Looking back on what I wrote, I realize that I was expecting "seemed" to carry more water than it should. So let me more clearly state what I was thinking.
Our current Council of Presidents, and especially our Synod President, are too worried about the appearance of Synod (walking together) than actually achieving Synod. Which means that difficult conversations are all too often swept under the rug, or under the veil of Matthew 18, or hidden behind "fraternal love", or anything else that might obscure actual faults and cracks in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
That is spot on, but I would go further to say the primary concern is just the outward appearance of unity. Walking together in fellowship is now a quaint bygone issue as the Synod has fractured into loose confederations with soft boundaries of fellowship.
I was looking forward to visiting the at cruson Booth at the convention. I had understood earlier that the retail portion of at crucium had applied and gotten credentials.
Were these credentials revoked? Did your retail side get uninvited from the convention?
The best any congregation can do is be faithful to what the synod was, ignore district or synodical dictates that violate that, and be ready for persecution.
Your explanation is very good; thank you again for the good work of Ad Crucem News. People get so tired of hypocrisy coming from institutional officials, in general, who tend to do a great job of sheltering themselves from devastating consequences of the storms they help create, condone, and ignore, while they offer vain excuses as the little people drown before their eyes.
My late parents--my father was an LCMS pastor--were regular readers of Christian News and were so thankful for Herman Otten's relentless efforts to expose problems in the Synod and especially the seminaries. In my mind, I can still see that little newspaper on their table. A few years back, I saw online a recording of President Harrison and others playing in a band after hours at some synodical conference, and they sang a song making fun of Otten and his associates. I have never gotten over that disgraceful performance.
“A District President’s authority is sacramental, doctrinal, and administratively ecclesiastical, but never editorial.”
Wait! What?!
The office of an LCMS district president is a man-made corporate position and bestows no unique power to the office holder to administer the sacraments or to establish synodical doctrine; nor is the office ecclesiastically and doctrinally congruent with that of the office of a bishop. However, according to LCMS Bylaw 4.4, some of the various responsibilities of a district president to the Synod’s offices and to the district’s congregations do have an editorial aspect.
I thought the district president was supposed to supervise the doctrine and practice of the pastors and congregations in his district. And that would include if they are faithful in administering the sacraments. If that's not what the district president does, what is it for?
Supervising the doctrine and practice of the pastors and congregations in his district is included in the bylaw responsibilities of the person occupying the man-made corporate position of district president. However, as I noted, the office of district president does not, in itself, bestow on the office holder the authority to administer the sacraments himself, or to establish synodical doctrine by himself.
Yet again, I will say that the office of an LCMS district president is a man-made corporate position and bestows no unique power to the office holder to administer the sacraments. Some DPs also have a Divine Call as a pastor of a local congregation, by which they may administer the sacraments.
Even after he became Synod President, Matthew Harrison obtained a Divine Call as a non-compensated, occasionally preaching, limited teaching and visitation, no administrative duties or meetings, assistant pastor of a Ladue congregation. But those pastoral duties (or non-duties) are part of his Divine Call, not as part of his man-made corporate position as synod president.
To the contrary, Walther’s Thesis VI on the Ministry includes mediate [through the congregation] calls as being conferred [übertragen] by God. Walther then goes on to support this thesis in his _Kirche und Amt_.
This is also discussed by J.T. Mueller In his _Christian Dogmatics_ (pp. 570-2):
“The mediate call is no less divine than is the immediate. The difference between the two, as Gerhard explains, is merely this, that the mediate call is effected ‘through ordinary means’ (per vocationem ecclesiae), divinely appointed for this purpose, while the immediate call comes from God directly....
"The divinity of the mediate call is amply proved by the fact that Holy Scripture says of the elders, or bishops, who were called mediately: "The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," Acts 20, 28.
“Since the mediate call is extended through men (the Church), we must consider also the question who the men are by whom God duly calls His ministers. The Romanists claim that only the Pope has authority to create bishops and their assistants. The Episcopalians teach that ordination by the bishop confers the highest orders. Romanizing Lutherans hold that Christian ministers owe their pastoral authority to ‘the estate of the ministry’ (der geistliche Stand), which is self-propagating. In other cases, princes or ruling bodies in the Church have claimed the right to call and ordain ministers.”
“However, Holy Scripture ascribes this power to call to all true believers, since to them Christ has entrusted the Office of the Keys, Matt. 18, 17; 1 Cor. 5, 4. 13; 3, 21….
“But while the communion of all believers constitutes the Church Universal, it is not to the ecclesia universalis as such that Christ has given the power to call and ordain ministers, but rather to the local churches (ecclesiae particulares), as is clear from Matt. 18, 17-20; 1 Cor. 5, 13; etc. The Bmalcald Articles [sic] rightly say (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, § 67-69) : "Wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists." (Cp. also Luther, St. L., XVII, 1074fi.)”
They are all pastors. I don't get why you are so obsessed with this idea of not letting them do sacraments or preach. They are all pastors, so its fine.
Nestingen was a theologian in NALC (a denomination, formed in 2010, that "ordains" women) and in his 2012 Logia article he deals with whether an undefined "gathering of believers, at whatever level they may be organized" are the only ones who could "speak of a right to the ministry" (whatever that means; these terms are never defined in his article!).
And while a congregation may call whom it chooses to call as its pastor, as long as the congregation is voluntarily part of a synod, there may be restrictions on whom may be called as pastor by a congregation that has agreed to follow specific requirements of the synod.
"as long as the congregation is voluntarily part of a synod, there may be restrictions on whom may be called as pastor by a congregation that has agreed to follow specific requirements of the synod."
Such a statement is no more of a “pretzel” than the statements in these Missouri Synod Bylaws:
(Bylaw 1.3.4) “In joining the Synod, congregations and other members obligate themselves to fulfill such requirements and to diligently and earnestly promote the purposes of the Synod by word and deed.”
(Bylaw 2.4.1) “A congregation desiring to retain membership in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod shall continue to have a constitution and bylaws approved by the Synod.”
(Bylaw 2.5.2) “Congregations that are members of the Synod and their association schools shall call and be served only by (1) ordained ministers who have been admitted to their respective ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod; (2) candidates for the pastoral ministry who have satisfied the qualifications and requirements for assignment of first calls by the Council of Presidents acting as the Board of Assignments; or (3) ordained ministers who are members in good standing of church bodies that have been formally recognized to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod when agreements for such calls are in place.”
The Synod cannot force a member congregation to follow the bylaws, but the Synod can decide who is a member congregation and who is not.
Welcome to The Machine! I welcome your coverage of the little tribe of Lutherans I confirmed my way into back in 1976. As an ordained member of this group, I welcome your coverage, which is head and shoulders above the old Christian News of ill-repute. I wish you well and urge you to be steadfast and undaunted by whatever kind of resistance they may try to apply to you!
Please continue doing what you are - reporting the truth as best you can ascertain. Without the reporting that Ad Crucem does, I believe I would probably be forced to read about this well after the dust settled - perhaps when there was no longer an LCMS. Our Lord prescribes what our priority should be - namely preaching his atoning death on the cross and resurrection as the only salvation for us. It has nothing to do with building a political organization that protects those in power that wish to hide their sin.
Well said. And I doubt your absence from Phoenix will prove a serious bar if you want to write about something that happens there. There are livestreams and hundreds of delegates to interview.
I get it, but you are also missing the point. You have a legal and constitutional right to do what you do. You have no right to expect those you are critical of to thank you for it. You have no legal right to have a booth at the convention. If you didn’t want your journalistic endeavors to impact your store front sales, you shouldn’t have used the same name for both. I think it would have been wise to keep the two separate. You probably believed that the storefront name would grant your journalistic work credit and an instant audience. That was probably true. They aren’t “silencing” you, as they have no power to do so. They just don’t want to are your job easy.
That being said, I think they are being foolish. The more they fight you the more popular you will be. People will assume that if the men in high positions don’t like you, you must be doing something right. It sure worked for Hermon Otten all those years. I think if they really were using their heads, they’d give you a front row seat at the convention, announce to everyone how glad they are that you are there, and spend the week including you in every closed door meeting. The old saying applies, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” But they don’t listen to me anymore than they do you. Keep up the work, keep it godly, but don’t quit.
Then what is the point of this article. I thought it sounded like you thought the LCMS Inc. were denying your first amendment rights. But I guess I’m wrong about that. If so, why did you think a primer on the 1st amendment was necessary? I was just pointing out that you are not being silenced, they are just making you work for it.
I assumed #3, but by pointing out that the President himself denied your application for a booth, and then going on about freedom of the press, I thought there was a link there. So did others who are more supportive of your work, and I didn’t notice you correcting them. So, I take it that if I thought you were saying the President was silencing you and that’s an evil thing, I understood you correctly, but if I thought you were saying that, but disagreed with you, I completely missed your point. Got it!
Power corrupts. By denying the Presidium an exclusive monopoly on the crafting of narratives and the curating of information an independent press is a check on the corrupting influence of power.
I think ditching pompous words like Praesidium would be a good little start.
Ok. Lcms officialdom if you prefer.
I wasn't criticizing your use of the word. It's the correct word.
Why do you say the Presidium—more specifically, the regional vice presidents who don't have any office or role in the International Center, have no ecclesiastical supervision responsibilities, and are not involved in any of these decisions—has "an exclusive monopoly on the crafting of narratives and the curating of information"? Where are you getting this information from?
I said they don't because of independent news outlets like this one. They are served by being denied a monopoly and the tendency to corruption that would entail. As to Presidoum I may have misused the term because I meant by it all of the Synodical and District power structures. Harrison and the DP s included. They may not appreciate independent voices but they are served by them. They are part of how God answers their prayers to be lead not into temptation.
Thanks Gregory. According to the handbook the Presidium is the Synod president, the 1st vp and the regional vps. They sit on the cop, but the regional vps have no power. Our dp says they are not allowed to serve on committees of the cop or even hearings for bringing pastors back if they were kicked off the roster. Apparently they don't even have regular meetings.
Keep doing the Lord's work! In season and out of season...
Thank you for all your reporting, us mushrooms out here appreciate it!
An Ad Crucem News practice I'm skeptical of is depublishing articles because some church or synodical process has apparently gotten back on track. As far as I know, independent journalists never do that. At best, you might get a "correction" that is late and buried.
That may be both a criticism and a compliment to Ad Crucem News.
But regardless of any disagreement I have with them in my comments here, I do appreciate their work and think it is important for our church body. I hope the synod functionaries would see it as a blessing to constructively engage rather than to hide from.
Thanks, Justin. Regarding unpublishing the articles about the Easton, MD church, we are Christians first, retailers second, and journalists third. We brought the situation to attention because it was so terrible, and we hoped to have it reversed. After intense initial resistance, both parties relented and agreed to do what Scripture expects of us as professing Christians. We do not know how the process will turn out, but it is our responsibility to remove any obstacles to Christian reconciliation and peace. It does not exonerate anyone or give them a pass, and the grievously handled and unresolved Arlington, VA case is the counterpoint.
If this were a civil issue, the articles would remain live, but it's a matter of the church and the heart.
I understand, which is why I framed it as skepticism. I think it is good when considering the specific people involved. I think I have separately commented on this, but my skepticism is in regard to thinking the issues are broader than the church and people involved and that there may be historical value in stories of this interesting inflection point in LCMS history. But you are in a better position to make the decision, so I don't mean to be too critical :)
It's all good. I remain on record calling for Rev. Dr. Harmon to resign because of his handling of Arlington, VA, and I criticized CTS for rewarding him with a preaching slot on call day, even as Christian News and at least one mission organization I know of were banned from Symposia.
Our prayer for Easton, MD, is that the pastor, the leadership, the whistleblowers, and the congregation can reach a resolution that addresses the legal issues and restores some measure of peace and concord there.
"What the senior levels of the Synod and some portion of the laity may need to be made explicit is that the principle they will applaud in Chicago does not change when the subject of coverage changes."
Excellent point. We should not be afraid of the truth coming to light. We follow Jesus Christ, who is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. The deeds done in the dark should be exposed to the light.
"And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."
(John 3:19-21)
Who are the "senior levels of the Synod"? Who exactly is making these decisions? This doesn't seem at all clear to me.
I'll only speak to the facts that have been reported.
The SE District President advised congregations in his district that were contacted by Ad Crudem News (ACN) to ignore/avoid speaking with ACN.
ACN was told that it was "unwelcome" at the Synod Convention. That sort of decision doesn't come from some random office worker at the International Center, but from someone with senior-level authority.
So, at least 1 DP and 1 other member of authority over the Synod Convention. But seeing as how monolithic the Council of Presidents has seemed recently, I can't imagine it's just 1 DP.
If you are asking who has the authority to refuse press credentials and tell someone, "They're not welcome at the Synod Convention", that's a good question that I don't have the answer to myself.
Thanks, Jon, that is helpful. The comment above (someone else) about the Presidium made me think its the vice presidents that are doing this.
Knowing just a little of how bureaucracy often works, you might be surprised at how low on the totem pole the person was who made the decision. The presidents can’t do everything, as they lack all the divine attributes to do so, so they delegate things to all kinds of people, and some of those also delegate, so this decision may have come from an office secretary or clerk assigned the task of vetting agencies for the booths. That person may have believed they were protecting the interests of their boss, without asking for their input. I’m not saying that’s what happened, just that it’s possible.
It came directly from the DP and we showed his email response in the article.
To be clear, the senior echelons of the Synod are not a monolith. Within the COP, Praesidium, and Board of Directors there are differences of opinion and emphasis. Press coverage of the Synod should be a passing concern, not an occasion for Sturm und Drang.
Looking back on what I wrote, I realize that I was expecting "seemed" to carry more water than it should. So let me more clearly state what I was thinking.
Our current Council of Presidents, and especially our Synod President, are too worried about the appearance of Synod (walking together) than actually achieving Synod. Which means that difficult conversations are all too often swept under the rug, or under the veil of Matthew 18, or hidden behind "fraternal love", or anything else that might obscure actual faults and cracks in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.
That is spot on, but I would go further to say the primary concern is just the outward appearance of unity. Walking together in fellowship is now a quaint bygone issue as the Synod has fractured into loose confederations with soft boundaries of fellowship.
I was looking forward to visiting the at cruson Booth at the convention. I had understood earlier that the retail portion of at crucium had applied and gotten credentials.
Were these credentials revoked? Did your retail side get uninvited from the convention?
No, the retail side was approved, but the President's office warned us that AdC News was not welcome.
We canceled after the check was cashed because we have unavoidable conflicting arrangements.
Apologies, Ad Crucem, for the voice-to-text, un-proofread error. I see no edit button, or I would fix it.
No sweat! We have sent and received many hilarious V2T messages. V2T has considerable difficulty understanding South African English.
The best any congregation can do is be faithful to what the synod was, ignore district or synodical dictates that violate that, and be ready for persecution.
Your explanation is very good; thank you again for the good work of Ad Crucem News. People get so tired of hypocrisy coming from institutional officials, in general, who tend to do a great job of sheltering themselves from devastating consequences of the storms they help create, condone, and ignore, while they offer vain excuses as the little people drown before their eyes.
My late parents--my father was an LCMS pastor--were regular readers of Christian News and were so thankful for Herman Otten's relentless efforts to expose problems in the Synod and especially the seminaries. In my mind, I can still see that little newspaper on their table. A few years back, I saw online a recording of President Harrison and others playing in a band after hours at some synodical conference, and they sang a song making fun of Otten and his associates. I have never gotten over that disgraceful performance.
In fairness, they sang the Ballad of Otten at a private meeting with him, and he took no offense.
Perhaps so, but I saw it in an article by a close associate of Otten's and that was not the impression I got from his commentary on it.
Yeah, I think it crossed a line from a friendly roast to something else once Pr. Otten was rolled under the bus.
I think "the Ballad of Otten" is something different and a little older.
We need to hunt down the versions. They must be on the internuts.
“A District President’s authority is sacramental, doctrinal, and administratively ecclesiastical, but never editorial.”
Wait! What?!
The office of an LCMS district president is a man-made corporate position and bestows no unique power to the office holder to administer the sacraments or to establish synodical doctrine; nor is the office ecclesiastically and doctrinally congruent with that of the office of a bishop. However, according to LCMS Bylaw 4.4, some of the various responsibilities of a district president to the Synod’s offices and to the district’s congregations do have an editorial aspect.
I thought the district president was supposed to supervise the doctrine and practice of the pastors and congregations in his district. And that would include if they are faithful in administering the sacraments. If that's not what the district president does, what is it for?
Supervising the doctrine and practice of the pastors and congregations in his district is included in the bylaw responsibilities of the person occupying the man-made corporate position of district president. However, as I noted, the office of district president does not, in itself, bestow on the office holder the authority to administer the sacraments himself, or to establish synodical doctrine by himself.
Seems strange to have a pastor who is not allowed to administer the sacraments.
Yet again, I will say that the office of an LCMS district president is a man-made corporate position and bestows no unique power to the office holder to administer the sacraments. Some DPs also have a Divine Call as a pastor of a local congregation, by which they may administer the sacraments.
Even after he became Synod President, Matthew Harrison obtained a Divine Call as a non-compensated, occasionally preaching, limited teaching and visitation, no administrative duties or meetings, assistant pastor of a Ladue congregation. But those pastoral duties (or non-duties) are part of his Divine Call, not as part of his man-made corporate position as synod president.
It should never be called a Divine Call if it is mediated by a congregation.
To the contrary, Walther’s Thesis VI on the Ministry includes mediate [through the congregation] calls as being conferred [übertragen] by God. Walther then goes on to support this thesis in his _Kirche und Amt_.
This is also discussed by J.T. Mueller In his _Christian Dogmatics_ (pp. 570-2):
“The mediate call is no less divine than is the immediate. The difference between the two, as Gerhard explains, is merely this, that the mediate call is effected ‘through ordinary means’ (per vocationem ecclesiae), divinely appointed for this purpose, while the immediate call comes from God directly....
"The divinity of the mediate call is amply proved by the fact that Holy Scripture says of the elders, or bishops, who were called mediately: "The Holy Ghost hath made you overseers," Acts 20, 28.
“Since the mediate call is extended through men (the Church), we must consider also the question who the men are by whom God duly calls His ministers. The Romanists claim that only the Pope has authority to create bishops and their assistants. The Episcopalians teach that ordination by the bishop confers the highest orders. Romanizing Lutherans hold that Christian ministers owe their pastoral authority to ‘the estate of the ministry’ (der geistliche Stand), which is self-propagating. In other cases, princes or ruling bodies in the Church have claimed the right to call and ordain ministers.”
“However, Holy Scripture ascribes this power to call to all true believers, since to them Christ has entrusted the Office of the Keys, Matt. 18, 17; 1 Cor. 5, 4. 13; 3, 21….
“But while the communion of all believers constitutes the Church Universal, it is not to the ecclesia universalis as such that Christ has given the power to call and ordain ministers, but rather to the local churches (ecclesiae particulares), as is clear from Matt. 18, 17-20; 1 Cor. 5, 13; etc. The Bmalcald Articles [sic] rightly say (Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope, § 67-69) : "Wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists." (Cp. also Luther, St. L., XVII, 1074fi.)”
They are all pastors. I don't get why you are so obsessed with this idea of not letting them do sacraments or preach. They are all pastors, so its fine.
A man is not a pastor unless he has a Divine Call to be a pastor (AC.XVI).
NLMMV (Non-Lutheran Mileage May Vary)
Nestingen agrees; nobody should stop a congregation from calling a divorced pastor:
"Only the gathering of believers, at whatever level they may
be organized, can speak of a right to the ministry. Holding this
right, they may set whatever theological, educational, moral, or
other standards they consider appropriate to the call. The limit
on their right, whether it is delegated to a bishop or exercised
in a congregational procedure, is the word. No individual can
claim as a right what the community of the saints bestows as a
trust under the power of the Holy Spirit."
https://ep.teologi.dk/Tidsskrifter/Logia/Vol-21-3.pdf
Nestingen was a theologian in NALC (a denomination, formed in 2010, that "ordains" women) and in his 2012 Logia article he deals with whether an undefined "gathering of believers, at whatever level they may be organized" are the only ones who could "speak of a right to the ministry" (whatever that means; these terms are never defined in his article!).
And while a congregation may call whom it chooses to call as its pastor, as long as the congregation is voluntarily part of a synod, there may be restrictions on whom may be called as pastor by a congregation that has agreed to follow specific requirements of the synod.
And you'll agree that this pretzel is also man made corporate fabrication.
What "pretzel" are you referring to?
"as long as the congregation is voluntarily part of a synod, there may be restrictions on whom may be called as pastor by a congregation that has agreed to follow specific requirements of the synod."
Such a statement is no more of a “pretzel” than the statements in these Missouri Synod Bylaws:
(Bylaw 1.3.4) “In joining the Synod, congregations and other members obligate themselves to fulfill such requirements and to diligently and earnestly promote the purposes of the Synod by word and deed.”
(Bylaw 2.4.1) “A congregation desiring to retain membership in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod shall continue to have a constitution and bylaws approved by the Synod.”
(Bylaw 2.5.2) “Congregations that are members of the Synod and their association schools shall call and be served only by (1) ordained ministers who have been admitted to their respective ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod; (2) candidates for the pastoral ministry who have satisfied the qualifications and requirements for assignment of first calls by the Council of Presidents acting as the Board of Assignments; or (3) ordained ministers who are members in good standing of church bodies that have been formally recognized to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod when agreements for such calls are in place.”
The Synod cannot force a member congregation to follow the bylaws, but the Synod can decide who is a member congregation and who is not.
> To the high-ranking officials, Christian truth, grace, and peace.
Wait a minute. How about "Repent."
That is Christian truth.
Welcome to The Machine! I welcome your coverage of the little tribe of Lutherans I confirmed my way into back in 1976. As an ordained member of this group, I welcome your coverage, which is head and shoulders above the old Christian News of ill-repute. I wish you well and urge you to be steadfast and undaunted by whatever kind of resistance they may try to apply to you!
Thank you, Pastor!
Please continue doing what you are - reporting the truth as best you can ascertain. Without the reporting that Ad Crucem does, I believe I would probably be forced to read about this well after the dust settled - perhaps when there was no longer an LCMS. Our Lord prescribes what our priority should be - namely preaching his atoning death on the cross and resurrection as the only salvation for us. It has nothing to do with building a political organization that protects those in power that wish to hide their sin.
Thank you, Jay!
Well said. And I doubt your absence from Phoenix will prove a serious bar if you want to write about something that happens there. There are livestreams and hundreds of delegates to interview.
I get it, but you are also missing the point. You have a legal and constitutional right to do what you do. You have no right to expect those you are critical of to thank you for it. You have no legal right to have a booth at the convention. If you didn’t want your journalistic endeavors to impact your store front sales, you shouldn’t have used the same name for both. I think it would have been wise to keep the two separate. You probably believed that the storefront name would grant your journalistic work credit and an instant audience. That was probably true. They aren’t “silencing” you, as they have no power to do so. They just don’t want to are your job easy.
That being said, I think they are being foolish. The more they fight you the more popular you will be. People will assume that if the men in high positions don’t like you, you must be doing something right. It sure worked for Hermon Otten all those years. I think if they really were using their heads, they’d give you a front row seat at the convention, announce to everyone how glad they are that you are there, and spend the week including you in every closed door meeting. The old saying applies, “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.” But they don’t listen to me anymore than they do you. Keep up the work, keep it godly, but don’t quit.
1. We have never asked for or sought anyone's approval for anything.
2. We never said we had a right to a booth. It's a private event. The Synod is entitled to control access.
3. You are making many assumptions about AdC and AdCN that have no basis in fact. AdC has gained sales through AdCN.
Thank you, we appreciate the support.
Then what is the point of this article. I thought it sounded like you thought the LCMS Inc. were denying your first amendment rights. But I guess I’m wrong about that. If so, why did you think a primer on the 1st amendment was necessary? I was just pointing out that you are not being silenced, they are just making you work for it.
I assumed #3, but by pointing out that the President himself denied your application for a booth, and then going on about freedom of the press, I thought there was a link there. So did others who are more supportive of your work, and I didn’t notice you correcting them. So, I take it that if I thought you were saying the President was silencing you and that’s an evil thing, I understood you correctly, but if I thought you were saying that, but disagreed with you, I completely missed your point. Got it!
Paragraphs 2 & 3 explain it all.