Concerning blood transfusions, I am not a doctor and I don't know the verses you cite to oppose blood transfusions, but I do know that the same selection from Augsburg Confession 28 mentions how in Acts 15 the Apostles recommended not eating meat with blood in it yet Melanchthon says that no one does it in their day.
Concerning blood transfusions, I am not a doctor and I don't know the verses you cite to oppose blood transfusions, but I do know that the same selection from Augsburg Confession 28 mentions how in Acts 15 the Apostles recommended not eating meat with blood in it yet Melanchthon says that no one does it in their day.
Galatians 5:1 and Colossians 2:16-17 are the gold standard when it comes to freedom of practice in Christ. Every other practice needs to be read in the light of these verses (and also Augsburg Confession 7, AC 15, and Solid Declaration 10 in the Confessions).
As you can probably guess, I am very much in support of our Concordias and it is out of line for a group to publically come out and recommend to "Take control of the Concordias and restore them to their original missions. If resistance arises, be ready to sell them off and use the proceeds to fortify the remaining entities or start over."
"If resistance arises?" Seriously? Is this a hostile takeover or are we to be about the mission of God preaching Word and sacrament and letting the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills?
What about the thousands of families of students and staff members who were displaced and forced to alter their lives? What about the prospective students whose dreams were shattered over some group's crusade for "Lutheran purity?"
These actions (and recommendations) have real consequences.
The Concordias exist because of the generosity of donors and the considerable risk the Synod took in underwriting mountains of debt. The least the CUS can do is be grateful and submissive to the parent. It is certainly sad for the personal impacts, but the writing has been on the wall for decades. If we wallow in sentimentalism, we will lose the whole lot, allowing each to become just another version of Concordia University, Montréal. Did the Holy Spirit will pride clubs, harassing professors for opposing wokeness, and illegally declaring unilateral independence from the Synod, etc., etc.?
It's not a purity crusade to demand the LCMS put an end to the Godless nonsense bubbling and frothing at so many of the Concordias. Is it too much to ask that the basic standards being set by CUNE and CUC become the norm instead of the exception?
Your assumption is that the Concordias (apparently except CUNE and CUC) are flaming beds of liberalism ("bubbling and frothing"?) and there are no redeeming qualities. This is simply not true and based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine of Adiaphora. In addition, the "financial emergency" argument has been shown to be untrue.
It is "godless" because you apparently don't support any path other than a narrow understanding of "Lutheranism" as reflected in high-church practices and a "us" vs. "them" mentality.
The reference in the article mentioned about "errant churches" is staggeringly bold and judgmental. You (or whoever from your group) stated in recommendation #8: "Bring errant churches and districts into fellowship or bid them farewell."
Why are they erring? Please show me by the Scriptures and the Confessions how these churches, and districts (I would assume by your remark about the districts that give the most money you are talking about the Michigan District) are erring.
Please back up your assertions with proof from those things which make Lutheranism Lutheran, namely the Scriptures and Confessions.
Sorry, Kevin, but you are throwing out absolutes. I made no absolute claims and never declared the Concordias irredeemable.
It is indisputable that the Concordias have suffered a terrible infusion of capital L Liberalism, which was most apparent at flamed out Portland. Yes, I only support a path that excludes Pride Clubs, DEI, Wokeism, Syncretism, Unionism, and Fourth Commandment Rebellions, to name just a few issues.
Errant churches. I will not name them here, although I have gently raised a terrible problem at a nearby church with my district leadership after seeing if the congregation could right their ship after year. Here's one simple litmus test - lay lectors. If you have them, your church is errant. Scripture and the confessions are clear that our pastors alone are to handle the Word of God during the Divine Service.
Whenever I cite the Confessions as claiming something, I always give the exact reference so that people can debate and challenge me as to whether I have interpreted the words of the Confessions accurately.
Could you please tell me your proof texts for the claim that only an ordained minister can "handle the Word of God during the Divine Service." I am very familiar with the Confessions and I have never read anything that even closely resembles such a claim.
In fact, it goes against one of the core teachings of Lutheranism, namely that the Word of God is for every person, not just the clergy. Why should the Divine Service be any different?
Your claim makes the pastor elevated in a Roman Catholic way so that the man is somehow special because of his ordination. "Ordination" has to do with "order." It doesn't make him somehow closer to God or make it so that now he has special access to God.
This discounting of the laity is insulting to the people of God and is not taught in the Confessions.
If you have proof, please show me. Otherwise, what you claim is heretical.
Good response. I ask for Confessional proof and you check out and leave the discussion.
I should be surprised, but it happens every time that I encounter someone from your camp that preaches these restrictive and burdensome practices. You can make claims all day but you can't back any of them up and you refuse to do so.
I guess as long as you don't put yourself out there, you get to keep teaching whatever you want to teach.
We are not "a group". We are simply a husband and wife who have spent all our extra funds creating something for the church. We have taken a whole lot of time and resources away from our family to do so. In the almost 11 years we have had Ad Crucem, we have never taken a cent out of it but have ploughed a whole lot into it.
It’s always best to engage directly, and for that I commend you. Open dialog and discussion are great, and so very necessary for the church.
Thank you, Wanita. I really don't know anything about you and TJ, and I hope that you are successful in serving the church, but when you put forward a "Winning Election Platform" and suggest some of the things that you suggested, this is not okay. Especially if, as your article suggests that you represent a good portion of the conservative section of our synod. This suggests that your platform is also the platform of those conservative and liturgical voices (but they won't come out and say it publically).
I agree that we need more dialogue in our synod, especially among those who disagree. We need to sit down together with the Scriptures and Confessions and in love see what God's will is and not our human interpretations of it.
Kevin, it is perfectly "okay" for us to project the synthesized views of 15,000 customers, 100,000 unique users on the site (per year), and 40,000 uniques on this channel. Nobody dictates to us or tells us what to say and do. We voice opinions at considerable risk to the business, but our interest is in having a functional confessing Synod for our grandchildren. We do not represent or receive money from entities like LCA, Balance-Concord, ACELC, Gottesdienst, Bugenhagen Conference, Issues Etc., etc. Nobody from Synod calls us or asks for anything unless it's a purchase. Those entities - and the corresponding "Missional" ones have far more actual influence over the Synod than we ever will.
However, we are not ashamed of having the ears of the grassroots confessionals, and they are not ashamed of expressing themselves to and through us. Ad Crucem is almost alone in being the voice of the ordinary brothers and sisters with whom the power players are not in touch.
Your use of the word "confessional" is insulting since it gives the impression that those who do not agree with you are not confessional.
I know the Confessions exceptionally well and I can tell you that the "missional" view is far more in line with the Reformers and the actual text of the Confessions. Pick a topic and I will cite "chapter and verse" from the Confessions for you on that topic supporting the view that the church should be Christ-centered, mission-oriented, and free in the Gospel to practice the devotion that suits the individual and the congregation "of every time and place" (Solid Declaration X).
As I stated in my other post, I welcome the debate. Please show me the Confessional proof that backs up your views. God's peace.
"it is out of line for a group to publically come out and recommend to 'Take control of the Concordias and restore them to their original missions. If resistance arises, be ready to sell them off and use the proceeds to fortify the remaining entities or start over.'"
This dismissive attitude toward criticism ("out of line") is how organizations and churches collapse and die. It will be interesting and sad to see it play out in the Concordias.
Hi, Wanita.
Concerning blood transfusions, I am not a doctor and I don't know the verses you cite to oppose blood transfusions, but I do know that the same selection from Augsburg Confession 28 mentions how in Acts 15 the Apostles recommended not eating meat with blood in it yet Melanchthon says that no one does it in their day.
Galatians 5:1 and Colossians 2:16-17 are the gold standard when it comes to freedom of practice in Christ. Every other practice needs to be read in the light of these verses (and also Augsburg Confession 7, AC 15, and Solid Declaration 10 in the Confessions).
I made the "opposed" comment in the light of your post concerning how to win synodical elections. https://www.adcrucem.news/p/the-winning-election-platform-for
As you can probably guess, I am very much in support of our Concordias and it is out of line for a group to publically come out and recommend to "Take control of the Concordias and restore them to their original missions. If resistance arises, be ready to sell them off and use the proceeds to fortify the remaining entities or start over."
"If resistance arises?" Seriously? Is this a hostile takeover or are we to be about the mission of God preaching Word and sacrament and letting the Holy Spirit work when and where He wills?
What about the thousands of families of students and staff members who were displaced and forced to alter their lives? What about the prospective students whose dreams were shattered over some group's crusade for "Lutheran purity?"
These actions (and recommendations) have real consequences.
Hi Kevin,
The Concordias exist because of the generosity of donors and the considerable risk the Synod took in underwriting mountains of debt. The least the CUS can do is be grateful and submissive to the parent. It is certainly sad for the personal impacts, but the writing has been on the wall for decades. If we wallow in sentimentalism, we will lose the whole lot, allowing each to become just another version of Concordia University, Montréal. Did the Holy Spirit will pride clubs, harassing professors for opposing wokeness, and illegally declaring unilateral independence from the Synod, etc., etc.?
It's not a purity crusade to demand the LCMS put an end to the Godless nonsense bubbling and frothing at so many of the Concordias. Is it too much to ask that the basic standards being set by CUNE and CUC become the norm instead of the exception?
Best,
Tim
Hi, Tim.
Your assumption is that the Concordias (apparently except CUNE and CUC) are flaming beds of liberalism ("bubbling and frothing"?) and there are no redeeming qualities. This is simply not true and based on a faulty understanding of the doctrine of Adiaphora. In addition, the "financial emergency" argument has been shown to be untrue.
It is "godless" because you apparently don't support any path other than a narrow understanding of "Lutheranism" as reflected in high-church practices and a "us" vs. "them" mentality.
The reference in the article mentioned about "errant churches" is staggeringly bold and judgmental. You (or whoever from your group) stated in recommendation #8: "Bring errant churches and districts into fellowship or bid them farewell."
Why are they erring? Please show me by the Scriptures and the Confessions how these churches, and districts (I would assume by your remark about the districts that give the most money you are talking about the Michigan District) are erring.
Please back up your assertions with proof from those things which make Lutheranism Lutheran, namely the Scriptures and Confessions.
Thank you. God bless.
Sorry, Kevin, but you are throwing out absolutes. I made no absolute claims and never declared the Concordias irredeemable.
It is indisputable that the Concordias have suffered a terrible infusion of capital L Liberalism, which was most apparent at flamed out Portland. Yes, I only support a path that excludes Pride Clubs, DEI, Wokeism, Syncretism, Unionism, and Fourth Commandment Rebellions, to name just a few issues.
Errant churches. I will not name them here, although I have gently raised a terrible problem at a nearby church with my district leadership after seeing if the congregation could right their ship after year. Here's one simple litmus test - lay lectors. If you have them, your church is errant. Scripture and the confessions are clear that our pastors alone are to handle the Word of God during the Divine Service.
Best,
TJ
Hi, TJ.
Whenever I cite the Confessions as claiming something, I always give the exact reference so that people can debate and challenge me as to whether I have interpreted the words of the Confessions accurately.
Could you please tell me your proof texts for the claim that only an ordained minister can "handle the Word of God during the Divine Service." I am very familiar with the Confessions and I have never read anything that even closely resembles such a claim.
In fact, it goes against one of the core teachings of Lutheranism, namely that the Word of God is for every person, not just the clergy. Why should the Divine Service be any different?
Your claim makes the pastor elevated in a Roman Catholic way so that the man is somehow special because of his ordination. "Ordination" has to do with "order." It doesn't make him somehow closer to God or make it so that now he has special access to God.
This discounting of the laity is insulting to the people of God and is not taught in the Confessions.
If you have proof, please show me. Otherwise, what you claim is heretical.
Okay, Kevin, you played the heretic and Catholic card, lol. I see where this is going. Best wishes. Over and out.
Good response. I ask for Confessional proof and you check out and leave the discussion.
I should be surprised, but it happens every time that I encounter someone from your camp that preaches these restrictive and burdensome practices. You can make claims all day but you can't back any of them up and you refuse to do so.
I guess as long as you don't put yourself out there, you get to keep teaching whatever you want to teach.
We are not "a group". We are simply a husband and wife who have spent all our extra funds creating something for the church. We have taken a whole lot of time and resources away from our family to do so. In the almost 11 years we have had Ad Crucem, we have never taken a cent out of it but have ploughed a whole lot into it.
It’s always best to engage directly, and for that I commend you. Open dialog and discussion are great, and so very necessary for the church.
Thank you, Wanita. I really don't know anything about you and TJ, and I hope that you are successful in serving the church, but when you put forward a "Winning Election Platform" and suggest some of the things that you suggested, this is not okay. Especially if, as your article suggests that you represent a good portion of the conservative section of our synod. This suggests that your platform is also the platform of those conservative and liturgical voices (but they won't come out and say it publically).
I agree that we need more dialogue in our synod, especially among those who disagree. We need to sit down together with the Scriptures and Confessions and in love see what God's will is and not our human interpretations of it.
God bless.
Kevin, it is perfectly "okay" for us to project the synthesized views of 15,000 customers, 100,000 unique users on the site (per year), and 40,000 uniques on this channel. Nobody dictates to us or tells us what to say and do. We voice opinions at considerable risk to the business, but our interest is in having a functional confessing Synod for our grandchildren. We do not represent or receive money from entities like LCA, Balance-Concord, ACELC, Gottesdienst, Bugenhagen Conference, Issues Etc., etc. Nobody from Synod calls us or asks for anything unless it's a purchase. Those entities - and the corresponding "Missional" ones have far more actual influence over the Synod than we ever will.
However, we are not ashamed of having the ears of the grassroots confessionals, and they are not ashamed of expressing themselves to and through us. Ad Crucem is almost alone in being the voice of the ordinary brothers and sisters with whom the power players are not in touch.
Your use of the word "confessional" is insulting since it gives the impression that those who do not agree with you are not confessional.
I know the Confessions exceptionally well and I can tell you that the "missional" view is far more in line with the Reformers and the actual text of the Confessions. Pick a topic and I will cite "chapter and verse" from the Confessions for you on that topic supporting the view that the church should be Christ-centered, mission-oriented, and free in the Gospel to practice the devotion that suits the individual and the congregation "of every time and place" (Solid Declaration X).
As I stated in my other post, I welcome the debate. Please show me the Confessional proof that backs up your views. God's peace.
"it is out of line for a group to publically come out and recommend to 'Take control of the Concordias and restore them to their original missions. If resistance arises, be ready to sell them off and use the proceeds to fortify the remaining entities or start over.'"
This dismissive attitude toward criticism ("out of line") is how organizations and churches collapse and die. It will be interesting and sad to see it play out in the Concordias.