We are witnessing fiduciary problems everywhere. The reason to publish is two-fold: 1) clearly newsworthy 2) to put fiduciaries on notice about the things that can happen when due diligence fails.
Was that the same Lutheran Church of the reformation which is an old Missouri microsynod here i. The U.S.A.? The group founded by Kretzeman of the Popular Commentary?
The answer to your question is no. The Kretzmann LCR is called the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation. If you read their literature, they emphasize the plural Churches in their name, as they stress that synod is not church. And I can't see that they had any churches or fellowship with churches in that area.
This Lutheran Church of the Reformation referenced in Ad Crucem's article looks like it's affiliated with the ELCA. The letter from the DOJ link on the article lists under their name "Caribbean Synod---Evangelical Lutheran Church of America."
'have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them' LCMS is a partner of LSA (Lutheran Services in America). LSSVI (Lutheran Social Services of Virgin Islands) is in network with LSA. ELCA also partners with LSA. For a denomination fixated on associations, the LCMS should turn its attention on itself & its affiliations that are not in harmony with our doctrines & practices.
“Epstein-linked” is not the same as dealing with Epstein. You are casting aspersions on organizations who had no apparent dealings with Epstein himself. Epstein was rich, powerful, and well-connected. I’m sure he had a lot of philanthropic ventures in the works for tax purposes as well as to provide a cover. Unless an organization knew they were receiving Epstein money, they can hardly be called to task. Pastors, churches, and church bodies receive Lilly grants all the time. Are we to assume that this is an endorsement of the pharmaceutical industry in general?
Guilt by association is fabricated guilt. That’s the big problem with the Epstein data dump.
The lesson to take from Epstein is that evil far away and high up rains upon more people than you think. God's good rain falls everywhere. Satan's evil rain falls everywhere.
Walk circumspectly, not complacently.
If the very air you breathe is poisoned, you may not be able to do much of anything about it. But pretending the air isn't poisoned doesn't help anyone.
He's not calling for anyone to be lynched here. It's simply good information for Missouri as an institution to be aware of.
Thank you, Pastor Cwirla. You will note that I have been very careful not to impute guilt or posit a motive. This story simply reports what the documents say.
I will disagree with you that Christian entities could take money from Epstein or his network after 2008. This is a basic fiduciary responsibility: donors must be thoroughly vetted.
I will not comment on the Lilly grants because I am a Regent at CSL, which recently received one.
A useful analogy might be Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family. No entity should ever accept a nickel from them.
If you read my post as carefully as it was written, you will see that I did not say you imputed guilt or posited motive. But the mere mention of association with the Epstein files casts a negative light on anyone who happens to be mentioned. I further did not say that entities should take money from Epstein or his network after 2008. I did say that connections to Epstein may not have been transparent to organizations receiving money from foundations tied to Epstein. These "connections" may be completely innocent on the part of the receiving entities.
To use your example of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, I agree that any organization who knowingly receives money from them would be compromised. However, it is entirely possible that the corporation or family set up a foundation whose ties to the Sacklers or Purdue is invisible. In this case, the recipient is innocent of any alleged ties. However, once the connection is known, I think it is the responsibility of the recipient to cease to receive money from that foundation.
The reality is that most, if not all, money is dirty by no more than 6 degrees of separation. The ethical question is how far does one have to go as a recipient to fulfill one's fiduciary responsibility? I think we can agree that this is tricky business that is not amenable to simplistic binary thinking and decision making. For this reason, I question the propriety and the motive for publishing undigested Epstein data. Do you really want to be engaged in ecclesiastical muck-raking?
If the church has muck, then it needs to be stirred, and that is my vocation. "Undigested?" The DOJ digested it and redacted. I reported only the facts with no commentary beyond mentioning the fiduciary concerns.
There is not 6º of sep. If you read the documents, there is 1º deg and maybe 2.5º in some cases.
I question the propriety and motive of wanting to keep things hidden.
To clarify, the LCMS wasn't involved?
No involvement except through tangential connections to the various Lutheran social service orgs that were cross-pollinated to one degree or another.
So why bother publishing this? There’s no news here.
Wise as serpents. Shrewdness of dealing.
We are witnessing fiduciary problems everywhere. The reason to publish is two-fold: 1) clearly newsworthy 2) to put fiduciaries on notice about the things that can happen when due diligence fails.
Why are you so invested in shutting this down?
I have no interest, nor any power to shut anything down. I am entitled to express my opinion.
Have at it. I have better things to do.
Was that the same Lutheran Church of the reformation which is an old Missouri microsynod here i. The U.S.A.? The group founded by Kretzeman of the Popular Commentary?
No idea. That is deep Lutheran lore that I don't have.
The answer to your question is no. The Kretzmann LCR is called the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation. If you read their literature, they emphasize the plural Churches in their name, as they stress that synod is not church. And I can't see that they had any churches or fellowship with churches in that area.
This Lutheran Church of the Reformation referenced in Ad Crucem's article looks like it's affiliated with the ELCA. The letter from the DOJ link on the article lists under their name "Caribbean Synod---Evangelical Lutheran Church of America."
Thank you!
Yikes on all fronts.
'have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them' LCMS is a partner of LSA (Lutheran Services in America). LSSVI (Lutheran Social Services of Virgin Islands) is in network with LSA. ELCA also partners with LSA. For a denomination fixated on associations, the LCMS should turn its attention on itself & its affiliations that are not in harmony with our doctrines & practices.
“Epstein-linked” is not the same as dealing with Epstein. You are casting aspersions on organizations who had no apparent dealings with Epstein himself. Epstein was rich, powerful, and well-connected. I’m sure he had a lot of philanthropic ventures in the works for tax purposes as well as to provide a cover. Unless an organization knew they were receiving Epstein money, they can hardly be called to task. Pastors, churches, and church bodies receive Lilly grants all the time. Are we to assume that this is an endorsement of the pharmaceutical industry in general?
Guilt by association is fabricated guilt. That’s the big problem with the Epstein data dump.
The lesson to take from Epstein is that evil far away and high up rains upon more people than you think. God's good rain falls everywhere. Satan's evil rain falls everywhere.
Walk circumspectly, not complacently.
If the very air you breathe is poisoned, you may not be able to do much of anything about it. But pretending the air isn't poisoned doesn't help anyone.
He's not calling for anyone to be lynched here. It's simply good information for Missouri as an institution to be aware of.
The more you know.
Thank you, Pastor Cwirla. You will note that I have been very careful not to impute guilt or posit a motive. This story simply reports what the documents say.
I will disagree with you that Christian entities could take money from Epstein or his network after 2008. This is a basic fiduciary responsibility: donors must be thoroughly vetted.
I will not comment on the Lilly grants because I am a Regent at CSL, which recently received one.
A useful analogy might be Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family. No entity should ever accept a nickel from them.
If you read my post as carefully as it was written, you will see that I did not say you imputed guilt or posited motive. But the mere mention of association with the Epstein files casts a negative light on anyone who happens to be mentioned. I further did not say that entities should take money from Epstein or his network after 2008. I did say that connections to Epstein may not have been transparent to organizations receiving money from foundations tied to Epstein. These "connections" may be completely innocent on the part of the receiving entities.
To use your example of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, I agree that any organization who knowingly receives money from them would be compromised. However, it is entirely possible that the corporation or family set up a foundation whose ties to the Sacklers or Purdue is invisible. In this case, the recipient is innocent of any alleged ties. However, once the connection is known, I think it is the responsibility of the recipient to cease to receive money from that foundation.
The reality is that most, if not all, money is dirty by no more than 6 degrees of separation. The ethical question is how far does one have to go as a recipient to fulfill one's fiduciary responsibility? I think we can agree that this is tricky business that is not amenable to simplistic binary thinking and decision making. For this reason, I question the propriety and the motive for publishing undigested Epstein data. Do you really want to be engaged in ecclesiastical muck-raking?
If the church has muck, then it needs to be stirred, and that is my vocation. "Undigested?" The DOJ digested it and redacted. I reported only the facts with no commentary beyond mentioning the fiduciary concerns.
There is not 6º of sep. If you read the documents, there is 1º deg and maybe 2.5º in some cases.
I question the propriety and motive of wanting to keep things hidden.