I appreciate you soliciting reader feedback. In discussing important issues facing our Synod, we should all look to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions as our guide. As saints and sinners, we should strive to adhere to them, and if we fall short, we should repent, as we do with all other sins.
I have a few layman reflections that hopefully are helpful. As we have these conversations, it's important to follow Matthew 18's process regarding addressing private sin - - if the sin is private - - as well as the Confessions' admonition to address public sins publicly. It's critical to recognize where a sin is private and where it's public, because that informs the nature of our response. If it's private, go to your brother/sister (not the Internet) and seek reconciliation, per Scripture. Unrepentance becomes a matter for the larger church, but the process begins in private. If the sin is already public (false doctrine, non-Confessional practices, etc.), we should prayerfully consider weighing in through public methods, including sites such as Ad Crucem or by contacting our circuit visitors and district presidents.
In addressing both types of sin, we must always be mindful of our responsibilities under the Eighth Commandment. It's critical to understand those duties, particularly when discussing public sin. Remember that stating the truth isn't lying or slandering, and that publicly addressing public sin (as contemplated in the Confessions) isn't gossip. To paraphrase Luther, if it's a public sin, it's public, and it requires public remediation. If you're speaking about a public sin, it's best to avoid speculating about unknown details/personal motives/etc., as it's a slippery slope to slander and/or worst construction. It's often clearer as a Christian to say, based on the public record, that X thing happened and it had Y effect. The cause and effect are usually the most significant anyway. Conversely, repeating what someone said in support of something they subsequently did isn't making assumptions. Again, understanding the difference and responding accordingly, as a Christian, is the key for all of us.
If you state the truth, you can stand by those words. Christians are called to be humble, so we should be ready to say "I'm sorry I offended you, that wasn't my intention, please forgive me", if offense arises (and it likely will, if you're addressing public sin). But, if our words are correct on their face per the above (e.g., no lying, slandering, etc.), we should stand by the content of what we said. If our words are incorrect, then we should either avoid saying them, or repent if we do.
Finally, there may be issues that aren't public sin but raise important questions for our Synod and the larger Church. We should also discuss these issues, within the boundaries discussed above. Respectful, meaningful discussion, including asking in-depth questions, doesn't hurt our church or our faith. Gossiping, lying, slandering, applying the worst construction - - hurts us all and our faith.
Ad Crucem is doing important work in facilitating informed, timely discussions of significant matters. Regardless of the results of this survey, I encourage you to continue your work, with Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions as your guide. Thank you and God's blessings to you.
This survey is a good idea but some of the questions, in my view, seem rather unhelpful.
The best example of this is the second question: “When senior church leaders urge journalists to ‘lay off the gas’ in reporting on misconduct, what should take priority?” This question assumes that because one of these may “take priority,” the others are unimportant and that it is impossible to attend to as many of these as possible, as many criticizing the reporting would likely argue.
The third question is also unclear: “When is the ‘right time’ to examine weakness or failures of supervision and governance?” For one thing, the question is very situational—it needs to be examined differently in different circumstances. In this case, “After criminal proceedings” is a reasonable response in this circumstance, but it’s not a reasonable policy in all cases.
Yes, those are valid crits, but I want to establish a baseline of the raw emotional responses while everyone is hot one way or another. Your point about good policy is the point - let’s contrast what we feel in the moment vs what is actually necessary. Secondly, what do our people really understand about the free press, free speech, and transparent disclosure when it touches a sensitive corner of their world? There are tremendous lessons emerging about the failure of many people to understand the Two Kingdoms issues here. We will follow up with a longer survey with more considered questions. Thank you. Excellent feedback. God bless.
I struggled with answering some of the questions as well.
But when to discuss an issue. I remember learning at the sem that finding the right time to teach is important. For example, you don't correct someone in line at a funeral visitation when they say, "heaven gained another angel." Do that in Bible class when emotions are not flying.
I hesitate to say it, but I would be interested in a comparison of the response to Herman Otten and Lutheran News with the current response to Ad Crucem News. I see parallels that indicate similar mistakes are being made.
The LCMS Synod Inc. needs to take responsibility for their errors and the consequences of that, which include a lack of trust. Any thought that others, including Ad Crucem News, are responsible for that lack of trust is inaccurate and misguided. It simply stems from a view that "if no one found out about it, everything would be great". No, it wouldn't.
If there wasn't this confusion about "the church", most reasonable people would acknowledge the value of transparency, accurate information, and accountability. Synod officials have unwisely put appearances as the primary goal in handling scandal and unwisely have acted like any other NGO/corporation (while simultaneously wanting to pretend they aren't one when it is beneficial to support appearances as the priority). It gives the sense that preservation of a man-made organization is taking precedent over victims and the truth.
People will be far more forgiving of mistakes and scandal if they are handled transparently and in good faith with responsible parties being held accountable. We should not fear the LCMS brand reputation will be negatively impacted if we act openly with honor rather than think we must keep things quiet. Let us be bold in our willingness to recognize our failures and determination to correct them.
In the 1950s, when the LCMS had plans to turn synod into an ELCA-style body, Herman Otten chose to become a whistleblower. If not for Otten, the confessionals would not have "won" the Seminex war. It was out of spite that LCMS leaders refused to certify CSL seminary graduate Otten for ministry. However, because Otten was not on the LCMS clergy roster, the LCMS could not silence nor punish him.
Ad Crucem is in a similar situation today. The people running Ad Crucem are whistleblowers. However, Mr. Wood is not an ordained LCMS pastor. Since he is not a synod nor a district employee, the LCMS cannot silence nor punish him.
Too many Lutheran ministries are independent of the LCMS - which is a good thing. Therefore, synod and districts cannot threaten nor control them. Issues, Etc. is one example. 1517 is another. How about Chris Roseborough and his discernment ministry? LCMS leaders during the Gerald Kieschnick years were not amused with him. He sidestepped LCMS supervision by joining the AALC.
How did things within the LCMS get to be this bad? Choosing to deny, deflect, and delay in order to maintain "a good public image" does not solve anything. In fact, it just makes existing problems worse and does nothing to prevent new problems from occurring. Just ask any WELS dissident. Unlike WELS pastors in the WELS, LCMS pastors are willing to admit their church body has problems and are willing to discuss them.
What prompted Ad Crucem to release such a survey? Is it safe to assume that Ad Crucem is receiving intense pressure from synod and district officials to lock down all comments? Matt Harrison had a nice run, but he is as symbolic to the LCMS as Ronald McDonald is to McDonald's - a likeable public figure who has no impact on product quality.
I appreciate you soliciting reader feedback. In discussing important issues facing our Synod, we should all look to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions as our guide. As saints and sinners, we should strive to adhere to them, and if we fall short, we should repent, as we do with all other sins.
I have a few layman reflections that hopefully are helpful. As we have these conversations, it's important to follow Matthew 18's process regarding addressing private sin - - if the sin is private - - as well as the Confessions' admonition to address public sins publicly. It's critical to recognize where a sin is private and where it's public, because that informs the nature of our response. If it's private, go to your brother/sister (not the Internet) and seek reconciliation, per Scripture. Unrepentance becomes a matter for the larger church, but the process begins in private. If the sin is already public (false doctrine, non-Confessional practices, etc.), we should prayerfully consider weighing in through public methods, including sites such as Ad Crucem or by contacting our circuit visitors and district presidents.
In addressing both types of sin, we must always be mindful of our responsibilities under the Eighth Commandment. It's critical to understand those duties, particularly when discussing public sin. Remember that stating the truth isn't lying or slandering, and that publicly addressing public sin (as contemplated in the Confessions) isn't gossip. To paraphrase Luther, if it's a public sin, it's public, and it requires public remediation. If you're speaking about a public sin, it's best to avoid speculating about unknown details/personal motives/etc., as it's a slippery slope to slander and/or worst construction. It's often clearer as a Christian to say, based on the public record, that X thing happened and it had Y effect. The cause and effect are usually the most significant anyway. Conversely, repeating what someone said in support of something they subsequently did isn't making assumptions. Again, understanding the difference and responding accordingly, as a Christian, is the key for all of us.
If you state the truth, you can stand by those words. Christians are called to be humble, so we should be ready to say "I'm sorry I offended you, that wasn't my intention, please forgive me", if offense arises (and it likely will, if you're addressing public sin). But, if our words are correct on their face per the above (e.g., no lying, slandering, etc.), we should stand by the content of what we said. If our words are incorrect, then we should either avoid saying them, or repent if we do.
Finally, there may be issues that aren't public sin but raise important questions for our Synod and the larger Church. We should also discuss these issues, within the boundaries discussed above. Respectful, meaningful discussion, including asking in-depth questions, doesn't hurt our church or our faith. Gossiping, lying, slandering, applying the worst construction - - hurts us all and our faith.
Ad Crucem is doing important work in facilitating informed, timely discussions of significant matters. Regardless of the results of this survey, I encourage you to continue your work, with Holy Scripture and our Lutheran Confessions as your guide. Thank you and God's blessings to you.
In Christ,
Joe Ehrich
Thank you, Joe, we appreciate your careful words and support.
Yes, we need you. Thank you for your efforts
This survey is a good idea but some of the questions, in my view, seem rather unhelpful.
The best example of this is the second question: “When senior church leaders urge journalists to ‘lay off the gas’ in reporting on misconduct, what should take priority?” This question assumes that because one of these may “take priority,” the others are unimportant and that it is impossible to attend to as many of these as possible, as many criticizing the reporting would likely argue.
The third question is also unclear: “When is the ‘right time’ to examine weakness or failures of supervision and governance?” For one thing, the question is very situational—it needs to be examined differently in different circumstances. In this case, “After criminal proceedings” is a reasonable response in this circumstance, but it’s not a reasonable policy in all cases.
Yes, those are valid crits, but I want to establish a baseline of the raw emotional responses while everyone is hot one way or another. Your point about good policy is the point - let’s contrast what we feel in the moment vs what is actually necessary. Secondly, what do our people really understand about the free press, free speech, and transparent disclosure when it touches a sensitive corner of their world? There are tremendous lessons emerging about the failure of many people to understand the Two Kingdoms issues here. We will follow up with a longer survey with more considered questions. Thank you. Excellent feedback. God bless.
I struggled with answering some of the questions as well.
But when to discuss an issue. I remember learning at the sem that finding the right time to teach is important. For example, you don't correct someone in line at a funeral visitation when they say, "heaven gained another angel." Do that in Bible class when emotions are not flying.
I hesitate to say it, but I would be interested in a comparison of the response to Herman Otten and Lutheran News with the current response to Ad Crucem News. I see parallels that indicate similar mistakes are being made.
The LCMS Synod Inc. needs to take responsibility for their errors and the consequences of that, which include a lack of trust. Any thought that others, including Ad Crucem News, are responsible for that lack of trust is inaccurate and misguided. It simply stems from a view that "if no one found out about it, everything would be great". No, it wouldn't.
If there wasn't this confusion about "the church", most reasonable people would acknowledge the value of transparency, accurate information, and accountability. Synod officials have unwisely put appearances as the primary goal in handling scandal and unwisely have acted like any other NGO/corporation (while simultaneously wanting to pretend they aren't one when it is beneficial to support appearances as the priority). It gives the sense that preservation of a man-made organization is taking precedent over victims and the truth.
People will be far more forgiving of mistakes and scandal if they are handled transparently and in good faith with responsible parties being held accountable. We should not fear the LCMS brand reputation will be negatively impacted if we act openly with honor rather than think we must keep things quiet. Let us be bold in our willingness to recognize our failures and determination to correct them.
Thank you, many great points and well argued.
^^^THIS.
In the 1950s, when the LCMS had plans to turn synod into an ELCA-style body, Herman Otten chose to become a whistleblower. If not for Otten, the confessionals would not have "won" the Seminex war. It was out of spite that LCMS leaders refused to certify CSL seminary graduate Otten for ministry. However, because Otten was not on the LCMS clergy roster, the LCMS could not silence nor punish him.
Ad Crucem is in a similar situation today. The people running Ad Crucem are whistleblowers. However, Mr. Wood is not an ordained LCMS pastor. Since he is not a synod nor a district employee, the LCMS cannot silence nor punish him.
Too many Lutheran ministries are independent of the LCMS - which is a good thing. Therefore, synod and districts cannot threaten nor control them. Issues, Etc. is one example. 1517 is another. How about Chris Roseborough and his discernment ministry? LCMS leaders during the Gerald Kieschnick years were not amused with him. He sidestepped LCMS supervision by joining the AALC.
How did things within the LCMS get to be this bad? Choosing to deny, deflect, and delay in order to maintain "a good public image" does not solve anything. In fact, it just makes existing problems worse and does nothing to prevent new problems from occurring. Just ask any WELS dissident. Unlike WELS pastors in the WELS, LCMS pastors are willing to admit their church body has problems and are willing to discuss them.
What prompted Ad Crucem to release such a survey? Is it safe to assume that Ad Crucem is receiving intense pressure from synod and district officials to lock down all comments? Matt Harrison had a nice run, but he is as symbolic to the LCMS as Ronald McDonald is to McDonald's - a likeable public figure who has no impact on product quality.