The On The Line podcast interview with Doug Wilson ultimately illustrates the futility and pointlessness of the LCMS's interminable dialogue with the WELS and ELS.
Agree. He may be bold and brash and engaging in the public square, but there is unnecessary (and unwanted) baggage that he brings as well. That said, the lament for a Lutheran voice in the public square is well-taken.
That's a hard no. You and Pete Hegseth can have Doug Wilson who has more baggage than the international terminal at LAX. In these sorts of public square discussions, always remember the Barmen Declaration. When Lutheran play with the Reformed (of any stripe), they become Reformed. We don't need a muscular Lutheranism. We need a bold, confessionally Christ-centered Lutheranism that doesn't try to outshout the cultural chatter.
The LCMS has more baggage than LAX, ATL, and JFK combined, so I am happy to avoid making the starting line an investigation and examination of our spotless temporal robes. And, lest we forget, the Lutherans have a banner to fly on justification; truth and grace, etc.
It does sound great to be "bold and Confessionally Christ-centered Lutherans", but all that means is what we saw with COVID-19 - the Synod became the cultural chatter, closed up shop, and shrugged when (with reference to Kylie's comment above), many of our not self-ordained men readily complied with tyrannical orders, and indulged remote consecration and virtual communion. The senior institutions were eager to comply with the vax mandate without any pushback. The culprits are still on the Concordia Plan, and some of them are so bold as to continue to defend it. There has been zero accountability for the spiritual and temporal failures during COVID-19.
We can also look at the collapse in membership and attendance as another reasonable signal that the Synod's approach to the public square and the altar is not bearing fruit. Filing amici and patting ourselves on the back for a job well done won't suffice.
If we can be in full A&P fellowship with SELK, then we can "co-operate in externals" with allies on the critical issues listed, be they Reformed, Roman Catholic, or Baptist. We've invested untold time and treasure in the Pentecostals of Mekane Yesus, so I'm confident we can handle a Doug Wilson or two.
"Overturn Obergefell; return marriage law to the states, seeking one-man/one-woman in all 50."
Why is the stated goal to return this question to the states? Why is it not an aim for the direct opposite of Obergefell? (as stated with abortion and porn) Would it not be more consistent with the other two to desire homosexuality to be outlawed as well? Or is Homosexuality simply a matter of indifference, and the real pressing issue is in fact the current scope of the federal government?
I doubt you can call Wilson soft on homosexuality and desiring to leave a loophole at the state level. Part of the strategy is to end the persistent federalizing of everything. Marriage used to be governed by the states, and to them it must return.
This is a helpful comment to illustrate the fatalist confusion that has overtaken Lutherans. We have come to believe that Matthew 16 (the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church) means the church militant needs no defending. Jesus, take the wheel! This attitude is why the LCMS believes it is God's will and intention for the LCMS to, optimistically, be reduced to 400,000 worshippers in church on any given Sunday. The obvious destructive vectors are shrugged off as one parish after another closes and the Synod leaks thousands of souls each year. I do not, for one second, believe that Jesus wants fewer people to hear about the atonement and how we are justified.
Excuse me for being skeptical that Jesus has raised up Doug Wilson for such a time as this. If this makes me guilty of "fatalistic confusion" then so be it.
Pastor, how have you developed your opinion about Doug Wilson? Have you engaged with him? Do you know Kirkers? Have you spent time in Moscow, ID to see what they have accomplished? Curious to know how you are certain he is of Satan rather than God?
Pastor, you take offense where there is none, but have yourself made such a twist of words by suggesting I have set Doug Wilson up as anointed of God. No such thing is implied or claimed in this article.
Indeed, it merely parallels, with more direct language, what you recently wrote, "While the visible Church may face persecution and even the threat of extinction (symbolized by the trampling of the outer court), God will always preserve His people. This promise doesn’t excuse apathy or inaction. We are called to faithfulness in our generation."
While I agree with the general gist of this opinion piece and many of -- though not all of -- the expressed objectives, the idolization of Doug Wilson is a huge error in judgment. Wilson is someone who devalues women (a Wilson quote: "Women are the kind of people that people come out of. It doesn't take any talent to simply reproduce biologically.") and whose theology is questionable at best.
Let's find others with whom to partner whose character can be respected rather than suspected.
That's the worst cop-out. You are prepared to say who you won't work with, but not who you will work with. Just tell us. If ChatGPT has the magic beans, then spill them.
Perhaps a defense of a misogynist held up by the author as a spiritual leader is the better starting point.
I have already violated my rule of two responses which alerts me to people of ill intent. This is my final response, though I suspect that you will feel compelled to have the final word.
This is written in a hard and direct way, and has gotten the attention of some of the confessional folks in the LCMS, which is good. The primary distinctive remains between God's realm of the left and God's realm of the right. Wilson (not taking the theocratic portion of his words too seriously) is speaking about - and you are speaking about - items in God's realm of the left. Who cares if Wilson is Reformed or any other brand of Christian? This is a specific case of what you have in other posts abhorred, which is "cooperation in externals." This isn't church fellowship with sclerotic participants in the LCMS, ELS and WELS, who would have the proverbial heart attack if they prayed together. This is collaboration bring civil righteousness back in the USA.
I disagree with much of Wilson's analysis. My analysis of those who have responded can't be that they don't know Left/Right Kingdom distinctions. They're too bright for that. What they fear is the division of the house that's left in the LCMS over moving in Wilson's direction in a fervent Convention Resolution way. Because although the right edged in the Realm of the Left have a supermajority at any national LCMS convention, the Synod design is to move to the religious right incrementally. Ergo the going nowhere ELS/WELS/LCMS prayer-free dialogs. Putting it in perspective, we're coming up on the millennial anniversary of the Great Schism, and its healing is going nearly nowhere.
Let me add a note to my earlier comment. The other reason I think folks on the conservative church-politically active front are going to push back on adding Wilson as an ally is basic. The LCMS has made its choice for the promotion of Classic Christian Education, patriarchy and the like. It's Luther Classical College in Casper. Wilson muddies the waters. The flow from Luther Classical to the seminaries is an 8-10 year play to bring pastors into the field carrying in their education the formation to change the way congregations see the Lutheran faith with a full set of additional elements as taught in the classical education way. The seminaries and particularly their boards of regents are absolutely on board with Luther Classical, so it's just a matter of time. Other options just beginning are not so fortunate - they're not going to get a hearing at all - CMPL, the Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership under the ILT will get nowhere, even though many of their professors have already taught in LCMS seminaries. Because - it's a different model, and not cut from the Classical Christian Education bolt of cloth (even though CMPL folks are classically trained at the highest level). So to the original post, Wilson would be a distraction. Luther Classical is the chosen vessel.
It has been written that the enemy prowls like a lion, looking for whom he may devour. What kind of prey do lions prefer? Lions prefer the slow, the weak, but above all else, *the solitary.* Even a weak sickly water buffalo is a dangerous target for a lion if it is surrounded by its herd.
We cannot be solitary. We cannot be in isolation. While we must never compromise our theology, which is objectively true and correct in its entirety, we cannot afford to die in a darkness brought on by our own purity spiraling. It is my firm conviction that the Reformed, the Anglican, even the Baptist and Roman all have their part to play in God's divine plan, erroneous though they undoubtedly are. There must be a middle ground somewhere, a blessed place where we maintain God's pure truth and gospel while marching alongside our brothers in Christ towards a more good and godly world.
Wilson is a accused of having "baggage." Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I say we let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Do not mistake the message for the messenger. If we do not use the people and groups around us to make a godly impact on the world, than the world will be all the more empowered to impact us.
There are concerns that working too closely with the Reformed will work to our detriment. There is historical precedent for this, certainly. Yet I would argue that this issue boils down to the quality of our pastors and the spiritual fitness of our laymen. The fact of the matter is that this is not the old world, and Lutherans will be exposed to Reformed ideas just as much as Roman, Baptist, and even entirely heathen ideas. Lutheranism must be able to stand on the convictions of its doctrines, the wisdom of its clergy, and the faithfulness of its laypeople, not on being the only game in town. Hiding and segregating our congregations may have kept doctrinal purity in the past but you can't outrun the internet. The time for such fears is over, now is the time we must stand boldly with our brothers in Christ and make our case to them and to the world.
I really don’t think the LCMS needs a self-ordained reformed guy
Agreed. We take two steps forward and turn around, taking five steps back. God have mercy!
Agree. He may be bold and brash and engaging in the public square, but there is unnecessary (and unwanted) baggage that he brings as well. That said, the lament for a Lutheran voice in the public square is well-taken.
That's a hard no. You and Pete Hegseth can have Doug Wilson who has more baggage than the international terminal at LAX. In these sorts of public square discussions, always remember the Barmen Declaration. When Lutheran play with the Reformed (of any stripe), they become Reformed. We don't need a muscular Lutheranism. We need a bold, confessionally Christ-centered Lutheranism that doesn't try to outshout the cultural chatter.
The LCMS has more baggage than LAX, ATL, and JFK combined, so I am happy to avoid making the starting line an investigation and examination of our spotless temporal robes. And, lest we forget, the Lutherans have a banner to fly on justification; truth and grace, etc.
It does sound great to be "bold and Confessionally Christ-centered Lutherans", but all that means is what we saw with COVID-19 - the Synod became the cultural chatter, closed up shop, and shrugged when (with reference to Kylie's comment above), many of our not self-ordained men readily complied with tyrannical orders, and indulged remote consecration and virtual communion. The senior institutions were eager to comply with the vax mandate without any pushback. The culprits are still on the Concordia Plan, and some of them are so bold as to continue to defend it. There has been zero accountability for the spiritual and temporal failures during COVID-19.
We can also look at the collapse in membership and attendance as another reasonable signal that the Synod's approach to the public square and the altar is not bearing fruit. Filing amici and patting ourselves on the back for a job well done won't suffice.
If we can be in full A&P fellowship with SELK, then we can "co-operate in externals" with allies on the critical issues listed, be they Reformed, Roman Catholic, or Baptist. We've invested untold time and treasure in the Pentecostals of Mekane Yesus, so I'm confident we can handle a Doug Wilson or two.
"Overturn Obergefell; return marriage law to the states, seeking one-man/one-woman in all 50."
Why is the stated goal to return this question to the states? Why is it not an aim for the direct opposite of Obergefell? (as stated with abortion and porn) Would it not be more consistent with the other two to desire homosexuality to be outlawed as well? Or is Homosexuality simply a matter of indifference, and the real pressing issue is in fact the current scope of the federal government?
I doubt you can call Wilson soft on homosexuality and desiring to leave a loophole at the state level. Part of the strategy is to end the persistent federalizing of everything. Marriage used to be governed by the states, and to them it must return.
Christ preserves and nourishes his bride in the desert while she is being pursued by the dragon. We don’t need Doug Wilson.
This is a helpful comment to illustrate the fatalist confusion that has overtaken Lutherans. We have come to believe that Matthew 16 (the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church) means the church militant needs no defending. Jesus, take the wheel! This attitude is why the LCMS believes it is God's will and intention for the LCMS to, optimistically, be reduced to 400,000 worshippers in church on any given Sunday. The obvious destructive vectors are shrugged off as one parish after another closes and the Synod leaks thousands of souls each year. I do not, for one second, believe that Jesus wants fewer people to hear about the atonement and how we are justified.
Excuse me for being skeptical that Jesus has raised up Doug Wilson for such a time as this. If this makes me guilty of "fatalistic confusion" then so be it.
Pastor, how have you developed your opinion about Doug Wilson? Have you engaged with him? Do you know Kirkers? Have you spent time in Moscow, ID to see what they have accomplished? Curious to know how you are certain he is of Satan rather than God?
You twist my words. Good day, sir.
Pastor, you take offense where there is none, but have yourself made such a twist of words by suggesting I have set Doug Wilson up as anointed of God. No such thing is implied or claimed in this article.
Indeed, it merely parallels, with more direct language, what you recently wrote, "While the visible Church may face persecution and even the threat of extinction (symbolized by the trampling of the outer court), God will always preserve His people. This promise doesn’t excuse apathy or inaction. We are called to faithfulness in our generation."
While I agree with the general gist of this opinion piece and many of -- though not all of -- the expressed objectives, the idolization of Doug Wilson is a huge error in judgment. Wilson is someone who devalues women (a Wilson quote: "Women are the kind of people that people come out of. It doesn't take any talent to simply reproduce biologically.") and whose theology is questionable at best.
Let's find others with whom to partner whose character can be respected rather than suspected.
I am excited to hear who these other partners are!
The homework really isn't that difficult. To assist you, I suggest using Google and ChatGPT.
Alrighty, let's have the names you endorse then.
I would hope that you can do you own homework if you desire a quality product. Me doing it for you would be cheating. :-)
Peace.
That's the worst cop-out. You are prepared to say who you won't work with, but not who you will work with. Just tell us. If ChatGPT has the magic beans, then spill them.
Perhaps a defense of a misogynist held up by the author as a spiritual leader is the better starting point.
I have already violated my rule of two responses which alerts me to people of ill intent. This is my final response, though I suspect that you will feel compelled to have the final word.
Peace. +++
This is written in a hard and direct way, and has gotten the attention of some of the confessional folks in the LCMS, which is good. The primary distinctive remains between God's realm of the left and God's realm of the right. Wilson (not taking the theocratic portion of his words too seriously) is speaking about - and you are speaking about - items in God's realm of the left. Who cares if Wilson is Reformed or any other brand of Christian? This is a specific case of what you have in other posts abhorred, which is "cooperation in externals." This isn't church fellowship with sclerotic participants in the LCMS, ELS and WELS, who would have the proverbial heart attack if they prayed together. This is collaboration bring civil righteousness back in the USA.
I disagree with much of Wilson's analysis. My analysis of those who have responded can't be that they don't know Left/Right Kingdom distinctions. They're too bright for that. What they fear is the division of the house that's left in the LCMS over moving in Wilson's direction in a fervent Convention Resolution way. Because although the right edged in the Realm of the Left have a supermajority at any national LCMS convention, the Synod design is to move to the religious right incrementally. Ergo the going nowhere ELS/WELS/LCMS prayer-free dialogs. Putting it in perspective, we're coming up on the millennial anniversary of the Great Schism, and its healing is going nearly nowhere.
Good on you for putting it out there, though
Dave Benke
Let me add a note to my earlier comment. The other reason I think folks on the conservative church-politically active front are going to push back on adding Wilson as an ally is basic. The LCMS has made its choice for the promotion of Classic Christian Education, patriarchy and the like. It's Luther Classical College in Casper. Wilson muddies the waters. The flow from Luther Classical to the seminaries is an 8-10 year play to bring pastors into the field carrying in their education the formation to change the way congregations see the Lutheran faith with a full set of additional elements as taught in the classical education way. The seminaries and particularly their boards of regents are absolutely on board with Luther Classical, so it's just a matter of time. Other options just beginning are not so fortunate - they're not going to get a hearing at all - CMPL, the Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership under the ILT will get nowhere, even though many of their professors have already taught in LCMS seminaries. Because - it's a different model, and not cut from the Classical Christian Education bolt of cloth (even though CMPL folks are classically trained at the highest level). So to the original post, Wilson would be a distraction. Luther Classical is the chosen vessel.
It has been written that the enemy prowls like a lion, looking for whom he may devour. What kind of prey do lions prefer? Lions prefer the slow, the weak, but above all else, *the solitary.* Even a weak sickly water buffalo is a dangerous target for a lion if it is surrounded by its herd.
We cannot be solitary. We cannot be in isolation. While we must never compromise our theology, which is objectively true and correct in its entirety, we cannot afford to die in a darkness brought on by our own purity spiraling. It is my firm conviction that the Reformed, the Anglican, even the Baptist and Roman all have their part to play in God's divine plan, erroneous though they undoubtedly are. There must be a middle ground somewhere, a blessed place where we maintain God's pure truth and gospel while marching alongside our brothers in Christ towards a more good and godly world.
Wilson is a accused of having "baggage." Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. I say we let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Do not mistake the message for the messenger. If we do not use the people and groups around us to make a godly impact on the world, than the world will be all the more empowered to impact us.
There are concerns that working too closely with the Reformed will work to our detriment. There is historical precedent for this, certainly. Yet I would argue that this issue boils down to the quality of our pastors and the spiritual fitness of our laymen. The fact of the matter is that this is not the old world, and Lutherans will be exposed to Reformed ideas just as much as Roman, Baptist, and even entirely heathen ideas. Lutheranism must be able to stand on the convictions of its doctrines, the wisdom of its clergy, and the faithfulness of its laypeople, not on being the only game in town. Hiding and segregating our congregations may have kept doctrinal purity in the past but you can't outrun the internet. The time for such fears is over, now is the time we must stand boldly with our brothers in Christ and make our case to them and to the world.