Another read does reveal “the body of Christ”. There is a lot to unpack and I might delete my comment as I responded in haste. Right now I am pondering the idea that our primary focus at this time is to be flexible to the perceived contemporary needs of the people and to be looking outward.
Having been a pastor for over 30 years and a convert from a Mainline church to the LCMS about three years ago, these are the same issues the Mainline Church struggled through in the 1980’s to a devastating conclusion. Some of what Pr. Kieschnick says is worthy of attention, but the underlying agenda seems clear. It is a remnant utopian progressivism that longs for a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.
As someone who lived through the imploding of a church body that embraced this kind of vision, I pray that the LCMS will fully embrace the future into which Christ is leading His church.
Many converts, like me, have come to the LCMS because of the leadership of President Harrison and the faithful pastors we are receiving from our seminaries. Why can’t folks see the gift of young men committing their lives to Christ’s church instead of complaining about what they wear?
I do not want an anti-catholic church or an anti-evangelical church when Lutheranism has been and is both.
Thank you ad crucem for helping the conversation along with your fine reporting.
I have not watched the interview, this is a reaction only to the summary. Rather than destroying one of the last confessional traditions in the name of bowing to the “contemporary” demands of the world, why doesn’t he just join a church that already does what he wants? It seems as if he is looking for the ELCA.
Agreed! As like most who've converted to LCMS, I'm enjoying my confessional traditional Lutheran Church. I would change nothing of it and I'm not bothered by our low church numbers. As Joshua said in his book verse 24:15b "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Kieschnick is a Christian of some kind but I never considered the man a Lutheran. He is basically an "American Evangelical" revivalist. Whenever I hear someone talk about "relevant sermons" I know that the Baptist clown show is just around the corrner.People forget just how autocratic Kieschnick was too. Jerry said six times in public that Missouri's zeal for pure doctrine was ruining the church.
This man continues to lie via logical fallacies. This interview is filled with vague generalities, ad hominems, red, herrings, straw men and false dichotomies.
Whatever somebody lies, his goal is to take something away from somebody else to which he is not entitled. Or to cover his own tracks when he has hurt someone.
Pastor Ahlman has kindly provided a copy of Pr. Kieschnick's presentation to the Best Practises conference. The Powerpoint file is embedded at the end of the article.
If everything Dr. Kieschnick prescribes is already in practice in many mainstream churches, why are they also in great decline? Style over substance never lasts. We ought not give up the many treasures of the Church for the approval of the world.
Going without arriving is the mission of a fool — all movement, no map. It's the hiker who packs his bag, laces his boots, and marches in circles, convinced he's conquering new ground. The 'GO!' crowd loves the action, the momentum, the thrill of departure. But without a destination — like, say, preaching, teaching, and baptizing — all that going is just glorified wandering. And if you think about it, 'movement for movement's sake' is just a treadmill with better scenery.
As a layman, I find it refreshing that my pastor takes his vocation seriously. I have never seen a lack of lay involvement — unless the only measure of 'involvement' is leading a small group or the Divine Service without a proper call 👎🏻 This mindset reduces the robust vocation of the laity to the role of amateur pastor. True lay engagement happens in daily vocations as parents, neighbors, and workers, not just in church programs.
On the issue of small groups, there’s good reason why the church has historically ensured that theological instruction is led by trained clergy. Without clear oversight, even well-meaning groups can wander into doctrinal ditches — and that’s with 'safe' materials. CPH curriculum is mostly solid, but it’s not a substitute for pastoral guidance. Error creeps in subtly, and once it’s in, it spreads. “GO!”
The real divide here goes back to what Rev. Todd Wilken rightly calls ‘The Not-So Great Commission.’ The 'missional wing' likes to shout “GO!” but conveniently downplays the real work of the Great Commission: PREACH, TEACH, and BAPTIZE. These aren't slogans; they’re actions, and they require men who are called, trained, and ordained to do them. I have seen this done with vigor and faithfulness in every confessional parish I’ve attended. Too often these ‘mission-minded’ types trade catechesis for charisma and mission for marketing.
If the charge is that confessional parishes care too much about doctrinal purity and not enough about mission, perhaps it’s worth remembering that without doctrine, you have no mission. What are we sending people out with? Platitudes? Slogans? A passion for purpose?
No thanks! Give me Christ crucified for sinners, preached clearly and boldly. That is the ONLY worthy mission and we join it through our daily living and vocations.
Just a precursory look. I don’t think I see The Name Of Jesus mentioned even once. I appreciate the non editorial summary.
Another read does reveal “the body of Christ”. There is a lot to unpack and I might delete my comment as I responded in haste. Right now I am pondering the idea that our primary focus at this time is to be flexible to the perceived contemporary needs of the people and to be looking outward.
Having been a pastor for over 30 years and a convert from a Mainline church to the LCMS about three years ago, these are the same issues the Mainline Church struggled through in the 1980’s to a devastating conclusion. Some of what Pr. Kieschnick says is worthy of attention, but the underlying agenda seems clear. It is a remnant utopian progressivism that longs for a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.
As someone who lived through the imploding of a church body that embraced this kind of vision, I pray that the LCMS will fully embrace the future into which Christ is leading His church.
Many converts, like me, have come to the LCMS because of the leadership of President Harrison and the faithful pastors we are receiving from our seminaries. Why can’t folks see the gift of young men committing their lives to Christ’s church instead of complaining about what they wear?
I do not want an anti-catholic church or an anti-evangelical church when Lutheranism has been and is both.
Thank you ad crucem for helping the conversation along with your fine reporting.
I have not watched the interview, this is a reaction only to the summary. Rather than destroying one of the last confessional traditions in the name of bowing to the “contemporary” demands of the world, why doesn’t he just join a church that already does what he wants? It seems as if he is looking for the ELCA.
Or maybe the LCMC. He doesn't seem quite that progressive to want to go ELCA.
Agreed! As like most who've converted to LCMS, I'm enjoying my confessional traditional Lutheran Church. I would change nothing of it and I'm not bothered by our low church numbers. As Joshua said in his book verse 24:15b "But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”
Kieschnick is a Christian of some kind but I never considered the man a Lutheran. He is basically an "American Evangelical" revivalist. Whenever I hear someone talk about "relevant sermons" I know that the Baptist clown show is just around the corrner.People forget just how autocratic Kieschnick was too. Jerry said six times in public that Missouri's zeal for pure doctrine was ruining the church.
This man continues to lie via logical fallacies. This interview is filled with vague generalities, ad hominems, red, herrings, straw men and false dichotomies.
Whatever somebody lies, his goal is to take something away from somebody else to which he is not entitled. Or to cover his own tracks when he has hurt someone.
Pastor Ahlman has kindly provided a copy of Pr. Kieschnick's presentation to the Best Practises conference. The Powerpoint file is embedded at the end of the article.
If everything Dr. Kieschnick prescribes is already in practice in many mainstream churches, why are they also in great decline? Style over substance never lasts. We ought not give up the many treasures of the Church for the approval of the world.
Was this summary AI? Just checking, since you use the images all over the place.
Going without arriving is the mission of a fool — all movement, no map. It's the hiker who packs his bag, laces his boots, and marches in circles, convinced he's conquering new ground. The 'GO!' crowd loves the action, the momentum, the thrill of departure. But without a destination — like, say, preaching, teaching, and baptizing — all that going is just glorified wandering. And if you think about it, 'movement for movement's sake' is just a treadmill with better scenery.
As a layman, I find it refreshing that my pastor takes his vocation seriously. I have never seen a lack of lay involvement — unless the only measure of 'involvement' is leading a small group or the Divine Service without a proper call 👎🏻 This mindset reduces the robust vocation of the laity to the role of amateur pastor. True lay engagement happens in daily vocations as parents, neighbors, and workers, not just in church programs.
On the issue of small groups, there’s good reason why the church has historically ensured that theological instruction is led by trained clergy. Without clear oversight, even well-meaning groups can wander into doctrinal ditches — and that’s with 'safe' materials. CPH curriculum is mostly solid, but it’s not a substitute for pastoral guidance. Error creeps in subtly, and once it’s in, it spreads. “GO!”
The real divide here goes back to what Rev. Todd Wilken rightly calls ‘The Not-So Great Commission.’ The 'missional wing' likes to shout “GO!” but conveniently downplays the real work of the Great Commission: PREACH, TEACH, and BAPTIZE. These aren't slogans; they’re actions, and they require men who are called, trained, and ordained to do them. I have seen this done with vigor and faithfulness in every confessional parish I’ve attended. Too often these ‘mission-minded’ types trade catechesis for charisma and mission for marketing.
If the charge is that confessional parishes care too much about doctrinal purity and not enough about mission, perhaps it’s worth remembering that without doctrine, you have no mission. What are we sending people out with? Platitudes? Slogans? A passion for purpose?
No thanks! Give me Christ crucified for sinners, preached clearly and boldly. That is the ONLY worthy mission and we join it through our daily living and vocations.
I wish my church promoted head coverings 😆