Thank you very much for your interesting words about Australia and the situation in the States. The situation in Germany is even worse, since the SELK in most parts is a more or less liberal church body, many rejecting the verbal inspiration, the creation in six days; most congregations practicing "ecumenical services" with the State Church, Roman Catholics, Baptists and others; women have the right to do all things, with the exception of being ordained and consecrating the Lord's Supper. There might be a split in the next years, but that would only be the separation of those who want women's ordination; the remaining part of the SELK will go forward in the way described above. And in most parts of the FRG, there is no refuge for confessional Lutherans, since the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (in former times a sister church of the LCMS) is mainly in the Eastern parts of the FRG. I think the LCMS should act with the SELK in a lovingly, but very consequent way.
Concerning Australia, Sasse was a main manager of the unification - and he knew, as someone from Australia once mentionend at a closed meeting of the Leipzig Mission, that they had triggered the ELCA ("Wir haben sie über den Tisch gezogen"). There had been a long way to that unification, a very sad way. For more information let me point to the booklet of Gavin L. Winter: How are the mighty fallen? He is a pastor of the ELCR in Australia. The booklet might be on their website. (In the 1960s there was only one pastor, F.G. Kleinig, who refused the unification and then formed the ELCR, which, helas, had become somewhat legalistic (headcovering, women's dressing). Later others separated, like Vernon S. Grieger and his brother and Clarence Priebbenow and formed the AELC, which was splitted over discussion about the administration of the Lord's Supper in problematic situations (when there are small congregations without pastor and without sister congregations with pastors and cannot be served by pastors regularly).)
Thank you, Roland, that is beneficial information, and we would welcome a long-form article if you are ever interested. The SELK situation is terrible, and it is clear that only a small minority holds to Scripture. It is laughable that the LCMS pretends the declared altar and pulpit fellowship is authentic. SELK is not the only one, but that’s for another day. Sasse’s role in Australia was a revelation - theological father of the union and ecclesiological critic of the union.
I do not know exactly. It seems he was a somewhat difficult person. He left the Bavarian Church also for its merger to the unionist EKD, but then accepted a call to the UELCA in Australia, which was in fellowship with the Bavarian Church. Sasse had become a Lutheran in the late 1920s, early 1930s. He was a conservative, confessional Lutheran, but not an orthodox one. He never accepted the verbal inspiration as Old Missouri had it, also not the creation in six days, even though he got more conservative also in the doctrine on Scripture than he had been in earlier years. For him as a conservative, the merger of UELCA und ELCA was ok, since for him both were conservative, even though there was no real agreement in all points of doctrine. He had the position many "conservatives" in the SELK have too, from whom he is very honored.
Good article. It seems to me that too much of the issue, or any of our issues either has poor direction or flat out dereliction of duty at the very top. So many of us have joined in with one of the many growing number of independent Lutheran orgs as a result. The synod has become more a bloated bureaucratic clubhouse than a serious org.
As to the church not having communion because there is no Pastor -- is this a long term situation or a less than every Sunday Communion because the Pastor is not there every Sunday? For a long term situation, I would rather give more weight to the gift of the Sacrament and have an elder consecrate & distribute than give honor to the Augsburg Article V (as it is comprehended). The real issue IS NOT Article V but the thought that a local elder can't be called and ordained because he hasn't gone thru years of seminary training. The basic issue isn't Augsburg V but beliefs as to who can actually be called.
The issue isn't AC V. An issue is a refusel to ordain a competant elder *if* there is a real long term issue with being able to get a seminary trained man.
Let me steel-man your position to see if I'm understanding you correctly.
You are saying that if this congregation is in a long-term situation with no hope of having a seminary-trained man called to the congregation, this congregation should ordain one of its own and have him serve as its pastor. This man is then no longer simply an elder, but he is now the pastor of the congregation, rightly called by this congregation to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. This doesn't negate AC V or XIV, but rather honors them. And it is the congregation's duty to its people to attend to this matter, rather than withholding the Word and Sacrament from its people for a prolonged indefinite time.
If there were no other options, they should consider an alternative solution. But they have a startup seminary, and they are trying to do it in an orderly, God-honoring way. So, they are not at the point where things are so dire. Perth is an amazing city, so they will have no problem attracting someone.
My response is that I'm glad that I understood properly what you were saying. And that if this is the case, they would likely have to leave whatever synod they were a part of. As the LMA is newly formed, they likely joined with the understanding that it will take time to get pastors to the congregations. I would wager that they understood this to be a possibility when they joined the LMA.
For rebuttal, I'm reminded of stories that I heard at Fort Wayne from Dr. Weinrich. That when the Siberian Lutheran Church was persecuted, they went underground, and many congregations went without pastors for decades. It was not out of lack of hunger for the sacraments, but because they honored them and the office that they willingly abstained until men could be called and ordained in an orderly fashion. Dr. Weinrich can tell it much better than I can.
Either way, I think it's a worthy discussion. Thank you for sharpening my iron today, brother.
It's not just that Rev. Fredericksen is disqualified from ministry for attending his lesbian daughter's wedding. He is disqualified from ministry because he has a lesbian daughter at all.
"He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?" (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
We can recognize that a pastor does not have control or responsibility for adult children who become wayward. It is then a matter of conscience and prayer for a man to decide what that daughter's confession does to his ministry. However, if deviancy is apparent in a minor and goes uncorrected, then the pastor is not managing his household.
I can see both sides in this situation. We can not know with certainty whether (or perhaps when) Fredericksen failed to address his daughter rightly on her path toward homosexuality.
However, the pattern of the church & school’s faculty (and his other daughter, who apparently chaperones youth trips per their church FB page) publicly supporting LGBT pride and sentiments like “homosexuality=God's greatest blessing” makes it undeniably clear that he was at minimum unable to manage the ministry to which he was called. Timestamps on (still) publicly accessible social media posts suggest this mentality has been rampant for years. Does this prove he knew what he was doing when he modeled the trans pride stole for a confused child? No, but it was absolutely his responsibility to ask about the symbols and discern appropriately. He either knew and supported it, or was inexcusably negligent.
Of course, the gay/trans issue was only one of several concerns raised, and the guilty seem to love focusing only on this to control the narrative and downplay the multiplicity of sins via self-justification. Appreciate Ad Crucem’s efforts to make the wide-ranging evidence in this case accessible.
"Adult children who become wayward" are by default a witness against a minister responsible for raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Many principles set forth in Scripture, including the qualifications for the pastorate, are somewhat directional, but they are still the fundamental standards against which a man should be measured.
Is there some situation at some point where a wayward child's apostacy does not sufficiently impugn the qualifications of his or her father in the end? Sure. It's not difficult to imagine a minister with 13 children of whom the Lord ordains one is lost, and the other twelve kept. (I recognize that "determining the ratio" is difficult, but in extremis we should be able to agree).
It's also clear that IN THIS situation, the apostacy of the daughter (accompanied by numerous other markers which clearly and obviously seeded it) is entirely sufficient to call for the disqualification of her father.
It's not a matter of conscience and prayer in this case. There's a pattern. See it, and deal with it.
Thank you very much for your interesting words about Australia and the situation in the States. The situation in Germany is even worse, since the SELK in most parts is a more or less liberal church body, many rejecting the verbal inspiration, the creation in six days; most congregations practicing "ecumenical services" with the State Church, Roman Catholics, Baptists and others; women have the right to do all things, with the exception of being ordained and consecrating the Lord's Supper. There might be a split in the next years, but that would only be the separation of those who want women's ordination; the remaining part of the SELK will go forward in the way described above. And in most parts of the FRG, there is no refuge for confessional Lutherans, since the Evangelical Lutheran Free Church (in former times a sister church of the LCMS) is mainly in the Eastern parts of the FRG. I think the LCMS should act with the SELK in a lovingly, but very consequent way.
Concerning Australia, Sasse was a main manager of the unification - and he knew, as someone from Australia once mentionend at a closed meeting of the Leipzig Mission, that they had triggered the ELCA ("Wir haben sie über den Tisch gezogen"). There had been a long way to that unification, a very sad way. For more information let me point to the booklet of Gavin L. Winter: How are the mighty fallen? He is a pastor of the ELCR in Australia. The booklet might be on their website. (In the 1960s there was only one pastor, F.G. Kleinig, who refused the unification and then formed the ELCR, which, helas, had become somewhat legalistic (headcovering, women's dressing). Later others separated, like Vernon S. Grieger and his brother and Clarence Priebbenow and formed the AELC, which was splitted over discussion about the administration of the Lord's Supper in problematic situations (when there are small congregations without pastor and without sister congregations with pastors and cannot be served by pastors regularly).)
Thank you, Roland, that is beneficial information, and we would welcome a long-form article if you are ever interested. The SELK situation is terrible, and it is clear that only a small minority holds to Scripture. It is laughable that the LCMS pretends the declared altar and pulpit fellowship is authentic. SELK is not the only one, but that’s for another day. Sasse’s role in Australia was a revelation - theological father of the union and ecclesiological critic of the union.
Why did Sasse work for the union of the two churches?
I do not know exactly. It seems he was a somewhat difficult person. He left the Bavarian Church also for its merger to the unionist EKD, but then accepted a call to the UELCA in Australia, which was in fellowship with the Bavarian Church. Sasse had become a Lutheran in the late 1920s, early 1930s. He was a conservative, confessional Lutheran, but not an orthodox one. He never accepted the verbal inspiration as Old Missouri had it, also not the creation in six days, even though he got more conservative also in the doctrine on Scripture than he had been in earlier years. For him as a conservative, the merger of UELCA und ELCA was ok, since for him both were conservative, even though there was no real agreement in all points of doctrine. He had the position many "conservatives" in the SELK have too, from whom he is very honored.
Good article. It seems to me that too much of the issue, or any of our issues either has poor direction or flat out dereliction of duty at the very top. So many of us have joined in with one of the many growing number of independent Lutheran orgs as a result. The synod has become more a bloated bureaucratic clubhouse than a serious org.
We have so much work to do.
As to the church not having communion because there is no Pastor -- is this a long term situation or a less than every Sunday Communion because the Pastor is not there every Sunday? For a long term situation, I would rather give more weight to the gift of the Sacrament and have an elder consecrate & distribute than give honor to the Augsburg Article V (as it is comprehended). The real issue IS NOT Article V but the thought that a local elder can't be called and ordained because he hasn't gone thru years of seminary training. The basic issue isn't Augsburg V but beliefs as to who can actually be called.
The church was in the process of calling a man. I believe there was a voters’ meeting the following Sunday to make a decision. AC V is not negotiable.
The issue isn't AC V. An issue is a refusel to ordain a competant elder *if* there is a real long term issue with being able to get a seminary trained man.
Let me steel-man your position to see if I'm understanding you correctly.
You are saying that if this congregation is in a long-term situation with no hope of having a seminary-trained man called to the congregation, this congregation should ordain one of its own and have him serve as its pastor. This man is then no longer simply an elder, but he is now the pastor of the congregation, rightly called by this congregation to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. This doesn't negate AC V or XIV, but rather honors them. And it is the congregation's duty to its people to attend to this matter, rather than withholding the Word and Sacrament from its people for a prolonged indefinite time.
Is this an adequate summary of your position?
yes that works better than I said it. So now that you steal-maned - what is the rebuttal? I will say -- good food for thought here at Ad Crucem.
If there were no other options, they should consider an alternative solution. But they have a startup seminary, and they are trying to do it in an orderly, God-honoring way. So, they are not at the point where things are so dire. Perth is an amazing city, so they will have no problem attracting someone.
My response is that I'm glad that I understood properly what you were saying. And that if this is the case, they would likely have to leave whatever synod they were a part of. As the LMA is newly formed, they likely joined with the understanding that it will take time to get pastors to the congregations. I would wager that they understood this to be a possibility when they joined the LMA.
For rebuttal, I'm reminded of stories that I heard at Fort Wayne from Dr. Weinrich. That when the Siberian Lutheran Church was persecuted, they went underground, and many congregations went without pastors for decades. It was not out of lack of hunger for the sacraments, but because they honored them and the office that they willingly abstained until men could be called and ordained in an orderly fashion. Dr. Weinrich can tell it much better than I can.
Either way, I think it's a worthy discussion. Thank you for sharpening my iron today, brother.
On footnote #2, what was the debate about regarding Sundays?
Christ as God-Man seems like an example of a closed question. Did Sasse go along with considering that an open question?
It's not just that Rev. Fredericksen is disqualified from ministry for attending his lesbian daughter's wedding. He is disqualified from ministry because he has a lesbian daughter at all.
"He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?" (1 Timothy 3:4-5)
We can recognize that a pastor does not have control or responsibility for adult children who become wayward. It is then a matter of conscience and prayer for a man to decide what that daughter's confession does to his ministry. However, if deviancy is apparent in a minor and goes uncorrected, then the pastor is not managing his household.
I can see both sides in this situation. We can not know with certainty whether (or perhaps when) Fredericksen failed to address his daughter rightly on her path toward homosexuality.
However, the pattern of the church & school’s faculty (and his other daughter, who apparently chaperones youth trips per their church FB page) publicly supporting LGBT pride and sentiments like “homosexuality=God's greatest blessing” makes it undeniably clear that he was at minimum unable to manage the ministry to which he was called. Timestamps on (still) publicly accessible social media posts suggest this mentality has been rampant for years. Does this prove he knew what he was doing when he modeled the trans pride stole for a confused child? No, but it was absolutely his responsibility to ask about the symbols and discern appropriately. He either knew and supported it, or was inexcusably negligent.
Of course, the gay/trans issue was only one of several concerns raised, and the guilty seem to love focusing only on this to control the narrative and downplay the multiplicity of sins via self-justification. Appreciate Ad Crucem’s efforts to make the wide-ranging evidence in this case accessible.
This reply inverts the point.
"Adult children who become wayward" are by default a witness against a minister responsible for raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Many principles set forth in Scripture, including the qualifications for the pastorate, are somewhat directional, but they are still the fundamental standards against which a man should be measured.
Is there some situation at some point where a wayward child's apostacy does not sufficiently impugn the qualifications of his or her father in the end? Sure. It's not difficult to imagine a minister with 13 children of whom the Lord ordains one is lost, and the other twelve kept. (I recognize that "determining the ratio" is difficult, but in extremis we should be able to agree).
It's also clear that IN THIS situation, the apostacy of the daughter (accompanied by numerous other markers which clearly and obviously seeded it) is entirely sufficient to call for the disqualification of her father.
It's not a matter of conscience and prayer in this case. There's a pattern. See it, and deal with it.
"""We can recognize that a pastor does not have control or responsibility for adult children who become wayward."""
Sure, but it is non-trivial evidence that he did not manage his household well.