"LaVonne Pfeil is pursuing a defamation suit against her church in Worthington. The state Supreme Court agreed to hear the argument."
Hand With Pointing FingerWe recently came across yet another heartbreaking story of excommunication, also known as 'church discipline'. Henry and LaVonne Pfeil, an elderly couple in Minnesota who were members of St. Matthew Lutheran Church were given the left boot of fellowship several years ago. This excerpt from a recent Star Tribune article caught our attention:
Since she was excommunicated from her Lutheran church four years ago, LaVonne Pfeil says that her life has been ruined.
“I lost my church, I lost my husband, lost my reputation, lost a lot of money,” said Pfeil, who’s 79 years old. “I can go to a grocery store. If people see me, they turn around with their cart. I used to know everybody. Now I have no friends.”
Here is some background information that will help explain the above commentary:
The conflict between the Pfeils and the pastors escalated. The church accused the Pfeils of slandering and trying to discredit the pastors, court records show. Then, in August 2011, the Pfeils were excommunicated.
The discipline that ultimately was undertaken was done so reluctantly and after many different attempts to discuss the matter with the Pfeils, and after many, many attempts at reconciliation,” the pastors said in their statement to the Star Tribune.
The following month, 89 members of the church gathered to rule on the action. At the meeting, Braun read the charges: the Pfeils slandered him and other church leaders, and gossiped about them. They engaged in sinful behavior and prompted others to do so. They refused to repent, leaving the church no alternative to kicking them out.
Pfeil and her family denied all of those accusations, and asked for details on what was said and who said it. They were told such information was confidential. [Emphasis added]
They had a chance to appeal the excommunication in March 2012 before a panel of the synod. “During this hearing, Pastor Behnke alleged that the Pfeils had recently accused him of stealing money from St. Matthew,” according to court records. The synod panel upheld the discipline.
Her husband was devastated, and never recovered from the blow, Pfeil said. She said Henry made it clear he wanted to seek justice in a secular court. Their suit, filed in Nobles County, alleged the pastors and the church had defamed them, not the other way around. So far, they have lost at the district court and court of appeals, both of which cited a 1993 case in ruling that the courts had no authority to rule on questions of sin, Christian doctrine and other ecclesiastical matters.
As the quotation at the top of the post indicates, Lavonne Pfeil has appealed her case all the way up the the Minnesota Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear her argument. We will follow this story and let you know the final ruling.
The reason we are focusing on this story has to do with the statement above which has been bolded. Here it is once more:
Pfeil and her family denied all of those accusations, and asked for details on what was said and who said it. They were told such information was confidential.
Allow me to share what happened to my dear friend Dee some years ago. She has previously shared her testimony of a tragedy that occurred at a former church which terribly mishandled a pedophile situation. Soon after resigning, Dee and her husband found another fellowship of an entirely different denomination, and they were so excited about it! Dee would discuss with me at length what she liked about the church and the pastor.
During Passion Week, she invited me to the Maundy Thursday service. Although I was a member of a Southern Baptist church, I thought it would be interesting to attend this communion service with my friend. The congregation was warm and friendly, and I enjoyed meeting the pastor.
Dee and her husband had been attending this church for quite a few months, and I knew they were getting serious about joining when they attended the denomination's annual meeting. One afternoon she called me to say she and her husband were going to meet with the pastor, presumably so they could join the church. She asked me to pray that it would go smoothly and that they would soon make their involvement in the congregation 'official'.
An hour or so passed, and the phone rang. Dee was sobbing on the other end of the line. It is a conversation I will never forget. In a nutshell, the pastor (whom I had recently met) informed Dee and her husband that they he could not offer them membership. Why? Because he had contacted their former pastor for a recommendation. Based on the fact that they were not allowed to join the church at that time, some highly unfavorable information must have been shared by their former pastor. What other possibility could there be?
When Dee and her husband inquired as to what had been communicated about them, the prospective pastor explained that 'pastor confidentiality' prevented him from revealing anything that had been discussed. Dee immediately burst into tears. She was so looking forward to joining this new fellowship. Her husband responded by challenged the prospective pastor. How could he possibly make a decision before taking the time to hear their side of the story? At least in a court of law an individual has a right to face his accuser.
Without going into detail, the matter eventually got somewhat resolved and about a week later the pastor's assistant indicated through email that they could now join the church. The reaction of Dee and her husband was — NOT ON YOUR LIFE!
What an eye-opening experience. To this day we believe the entire situation was 'providential', and we are extremely grateful that it occurred, for it opened up our eyes to the misuse of power by some Christian leaders whom God charges to watch over His flock. Pastoral authority is getting terribly out of hand, as I believe this true story demonstrates.
Now let's get back to this elderly couple that was excommunicated from their church and subsequently shunned in their community. Our hearts break over the death of Lavonne's husband, but we are glad she has the courage and conviction to move forward with her appeal. Here is one set of the court papers we were easily able to find on the internet that provides some background information.
What we find particularly interesting is that two pastors in conflict with the Pfeils, namely, Tom Braun and Joe Behnke, are no longer at the church. Hmmm……
Tom Braun joined St. Matthew Lutheran Church in 2009, as this article reveals. This excerpt appears to shed some light on what may have happened:
Braun has jumped headfirst into those opportunities and is determined to bring some new vitality to the St. Matthew ministry.
"We really need to be a church that seeks to share Christ in the community," he explained. "We need to expand those ministry opportunities and be Christ in the community. We need to show by example, show that Christ is in our lives."
One of the first ways the church will begin reaching out to the community is with a new contemporary service, slated to begin on Sept. 13, weekly at 10:30 a.m. Colleen has been busy auditioning musicians to be part of that contemporary ministry team.
"It can also be a ministry to people who aren't churched," Braun noted about the informal service. "It's easier to bring people to a less-formal-style worship.
"I'm also trying to do as much calling on people as I can," Braun continued. "I want to get to know people. … I'm loving people in Christ so we can make changes, slowly but surely."
….
"I'm always looking for new opportunities to share Jesus," Braun said about his personal passion. "I'm weird that way. … It's all about Jesus. All about Him, never about us."
"It's all about Jesus…" Where have we heard that phrase before?
Braun left St. Matthew Lutheran Church some time after the Pfeil's were excommunicated, and he was installed as pastor at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church (LCMS) in Mankato on August 18, 2013. Braun now pastors at River of LIFE Lutheran Church. According to his bio, he does appear to have bounced around some. Perhaps there is more we need to know about what really happened at St. Matthews Lutheran Church.
The Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod puts out a newsletter periodically, and at year end, these were the prayer requests of Tom Braun. (see screen shot below)
It is certainly worth noting that in the Recognized Service Organizations Directory for the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Ambassadors of Reconciliation (AoR) is listed. Let's not ever forget how the AoR (mis)handled the Sovereign Grace Ministries mess.
The other pastor at St. Matthew Lutheran Church, Joe Behnke, joined the staff in July or August 2010. Prior to accepting the position at St. Matthews, he earned a masters degree. According to Zoom Into. he served in the position a couple of years. Now he is Associate Pastor and Director of Mission & Spiritual Care at Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church in Plymouth, Minnesota.
Here at TWW, we are detecting a trend among older congregants. Remember the post about the grandmas who were kicked out of their church?
Are you are probably aware, complaint letters are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems the business world. One complaint letter represents a multitude of people who have been disappointed/hurt in some way. For far too long hyper-authoritarian leaders have commandeered churches while sidelining the flocks God has charged them to protect. We are grateful that Mrs. Pfeil is taking a stand. She is a role model for many of us who are too afraid to challenge the 'authoritah'.
More to come when the ruling is handed down…
primero?
I don’t think John Piper would like The Martian!! Not after what he said about women being police officers! That and a personal reflection on death and reconciliation from the movie The Source Code is what I got up. 🙂
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/10/15/movies-theology-source-code-thoughts-on-death-and-reconciliation-why-john-piper-would-dislike-the-martian/
Friday’s post is about Marquette University’s public rebuke of Bill Cosby and Bill Cosby’s long fall from grace. I want to compare and contrast the situation between Bill Cosby and CJ Mahaney. Can Al Mohler and Mark Dever learn a thing or two from my alma mater? You bet!
With the limited amount of information available people who read this story will follow their prejudices. My pre-judgments have changed dramatically in the last 12 months and my skepticism is now directed at pastors, especially when their treatment of older people is vindictive at best. They can take their inquisitions, discipline, excommunication, shunning, and go to the place of torment they are getting their orders from.
This triggered a memory of my last months in "leadership" how I tried to get them to respect complaints and differences they received as representing many others who feared to come forward. I even brought in marketing research showing a single complaint in one example represented 26 others that remain silent. This was met with a thick headed dismissal that it was just one person, even when it became two people and then three… After it became a flood, and an exodus of people, myself included, their ears were still stopped up. Goodness, listening for these people was a lost art. I would like to get my money back for all those years, at least put it to better use elsewhere. Actually I'd like to get those years back too.
@ Rick:
Sí, tú eres superior en esta materia.
This may sound silly, but I think seminaries / bible schools etc should have customer service conflict resolution training of some kind. It sure seems to work for many companies in the “secular” world. Just a thought.
Bill M wrote:
I wonder just how many thousands will nod in agreement with those sentiments. I remember the wistful look on my parents' faces looking back at the time they seemed to have wasted trying to resuscitate a dead Anglican church, with little to show for it. The years that the locusts have eaten.
If it is any encouragement, I'm sure an attempt at faithful service even in a less than faithful church setting will still one day be rewarded. You may well have been doing more good than you thought you were.
I concur with Bill M above that there is too little information here to reach a final conclusion. But if the information given is correct (the charge of “slandering” the pastors, the pastors not having to give firm evidence to support their claims), it sure looks like a duck, and quacks like one…
I’ve said it before, but I’ll reiterate – I think that as the evangelical church continues to lose its cultural and political influence outside its own walls, that the situation inside the walls will get crazier. More pastoral authoritarianism (gotta hold the flock together and protect them [er, us] from the Evil World), more doubling down on hot-button moral issues, and I’ll likely bet less and less emphasis on community service. I’d like to know if there’s been any research on evangelical charities and charity work of late, and how it stands now as compared to say, 10, 20 or 30 years ago…
@ Eeyore:
How can there be more information when it is kept confidential?
Bill M wrote:
This is so true and exactly what the pastors were counting on.
Now, I tell folks in similar situations to simply direct anyone who asks about the the situation to the pastor ‘because he won’t tell me the horrible things I have done’.
What else can they do? Any explanation or defense make them sound nuts because we are not dealing with rational leaders or ones that make their agenda known. Most people automatically believe the pastor anyway. And who knows, a few might ask and wonder why the pastor won’t tell them what they have done. Our secular courts are more fair than Jesus Christ?
Lets take the worst case scenario… That the Pfeils actually did do the things they are accused of… They deserve to be treated in the same manner that our secular legal system does, let alone how the NT outlines bringing up “issues” with your brother… The most disturbing thing is not the “pastors” in this situation… it is the pewpeons that go along with such behavior.. and subsequently shun them??? Really?? I do not need to know any more than what has been listed here to know that their is a real “procedural” problem here..
I would like to know why Tom Braun and Joe Behnke are no longer employed by St. Matthew Lutheran Church. Looks like the church just hired a new administrative pastor and as still looking for an associate pastor.
An elderly couple gets kicked out of church and the reason is so confidential that the elderly couple can’t be told why they were kicked out??? Only the powers that be have the right to know why???
Some things really stood out to me in the “prayer requests of Tom Braun”…………. “bless the new families……….blessings on fund-raising calls……….deepen the commitment levels of attendees……..blessings on new contacts”.
I hope I’m wrong, but it really does sound like a back-door take-over for the personal gain of Tom Braun. Has he been taking lessons from the YRRs?
lydia wrote:
In most democratic countries the law represents the basic standard of conduct required of people. That does not mean that compliance will produce moral behaviour – what is legal may still be immoral. Elders/pastors are required to be “blameless” and “above reproach” – an even higher standard of morality than the average. However what we see time and again is behaviour that does not comply with society’s norms of morality, and in many instances also does not comply with the law. In “elder led” churches frequently those responsible for this are in positions of authority in business and broader society where it is their duty to ensure compliance with the law. Somehow they remove themselves from that morality and descend into doing what is fit in their own eyes, all the while proclaiming it to be “for the good of the kingdom” or a similar justification. They seem not to see the absurdity of their position.
“Our secular courts are more fair than Jesus?” Yes they are if these men are true representations of Jesus. Thankfully they are not. They should be exposed as the fakes that they are.
Eeyore wrote:
This is what really bothers me. What specifically was said by this couple to 'slander' the pastors?
Eeyore wrote:
Haven’t you heard the old saying, “Charity begins at home”? Apparently, in some cases charity begins and ends at home!
@ Nancy2:
Your reaction to those prayer requests is why I included that screen shot. They are very revealing IMHO.
“… trying to discredit the pastors …”
In a patriarchal system where church leadership has supreme authority, any challenge to the pulpit from the pew will be viewed as justification for excommunication and shunning … even if the pew is right! “Touch not mine anointed” is not applicable if the pulpit is not anointed and the flock discerns that. There may be more to this story, but enough has been written on abuse of church discipline to cause me to wonder just where the “sinful behavior” lies in this case.
Nancy2 wrote:
Very troubling to me as well.
@ Max:
Hoping the truth will be revealed soon.
@ Max:
Agreed. One of the reasons Dee and I wanted to publicize this church dispute is to alert others who may be facing similar situations in their churches. Believe it or not, pastors are NOT always right. The are just as fallible as the rest of us.
@ Rick:
You have the reflexes of Petunia, my pug, when discovering I am about to give her dinner.
lydia wrote:
As TWW so clearly reveals, a person holding a Bible and saying, "Thus says the Lord" wields a lot of power, even in this post-Christian age. I am currently witnessing doctors, lawyers, successful business professionals, both men and women, being duped by one of these power hungry "men of god". It is like they have never read and studied the Bible or; perhaps, they have had their brains sucked out.
Q wrote:
The following is my favorite scene of Q in Star Trek-The Next Generation. Perhaps I should plan to post this in honor of our primeros!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke_AkJC92IA&app=desktop
Bill M wrote:
You paid for an experience that opened up your eyes. So did I. Now, look at where we are in our thinking!
Ken wrote:
I agree.
Eeyore wrote:
When I first read this, I felt the same way. However, the incident involving secrecy changed my mind. In a decent church, she would have been able to face her accusers. In fact, I must wonder if there were any accusers whatsoever.
The moment secrecy rears its ugly head and someone is punished for *secret* comments, then something is deeply wrong at the church.
lydia wrote:
Remember, this is what Matt Chandler said to me on Twitter right before i informed him that we had all the emails and texts.
@ Jeffrey Chalmers:
Due to the secrecy situation, I am inclined to believe that the whole thing is made up.
@ Deb:
They are no longer there, IMO, because their *uplines* realize that the whole secrecy thing is a sham.
@ Deb:
It is a sham just like the "pastor confidentiality" discussion between my SBC pastor and the Anglican pastor was a sham. I bet SBC pastor did not inform Anglican pastor that he, along with a few others, were told to apologize by their investigative team, and they never did so.
@ Deb:
Just to be clear, they never apologized to us or the young man whom they treated like dirt.
Nancy2 wrote:
You see the same red flags that I see. This whole thing hinged on someone swearing when coffee grounds got in the coffee. Who the &*%^$#@( cares?
I found this pastor profile from December 2010 very interesting…
http://www.dglobe.com/content/pastor-profile-joe-behnke
So Joe Behnke had NO ministry experience before arriving at St. Matthew Lutheran Church.
Deb wrote:
Yes, anointed or annoying? That is the question. We need more pastors who will agonize over the condition of the church, rather than organize it to death. We need more shepherds who will spend more time praying for their flocks, rather than playing them.
JohnD wrote:
If you are ever in Raleigh, my husband will treat you to dinner. This is what he says over and over to me. He claims the church has a lower standard than secular law and that is why he supports this blog.
Deb wrote:
They probably didn't "slander" them. Most of these dolts do not realize that slander means a deliberate lie in order to harm another person.
My guess is that they spoke what they believed to be true. And the thin skinned scalawags masquerading as pastors got their feeling hurt.
Max wrote:
And this is why I blog. Some churches have tried to sue bloggers. They have learned a hard lesson. Secular law demands proof of deliberate lying and will not punish someone for *hurting your feelings.* Secular law has higher standards than many churches.
danlinrm wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if people follow scoundrels so that they continue to be scoundrels themselves. I do believe that the property gospel was born and supported by people who want to believe they should focus on getting rich and have found a pastor to tell them it is OK to do so.
@ Deb:
4 months! This guy had 4 months of experience and is now a pastor. Can you imagine what went on at that church. Think about the comments we have received from some seminary students at Calvinistaville. Good night!
@ dee:
I have only spent a few hours researching and analyzing this church situation, and already something smells rotten in Denmark.
Max wrote:
They don’t have time-there are books to write, conferences to attend and pew sitters who must be prompted to give lots of money so the pastor can take Sabbaticals and travel around the world to *visit missionaries.*
I know of one pastor who appeared on the scene promising get togethers at coffee shops to discuss though, books, etc. Then there would be interactive blogging to discuss relevant issues. However, he decided to write book, travel to all the *right* conferences, holes up in his office and brags about meeting John Piper. He turned out to be just another mediocre Calvinista- no coffee shop discussions, no interactive blogging, nothing….Waaaaaay tooooooo busy.
@ Deb:
Totally agree.
danlinrm wrote:
Church history is littered with catastrophes when the people of God so easily accepted a word from a man as a Word from God. Trouble is brewing in the pot anywhere a man will stand before his church and proclaim “Because God has spoken, the discussion is over.” In such cases, some serious discussion by the pew needs to begin! Folks in the post-Christian church need to pray for discernment … false prophets are out and about. We need to be like the Berean Christians, who searched the Scriptures daily to discern if even what Paul was saying was true!
“To this day we believe the entire situation was ‘providential'”
*snort. Nice one, Deb. Divine ‘Providence’ indeed.
Pingback: Another shunning | Civil Commotion
dee wrote:
But those two pastors, the SBC and the Anglican, would often exchange pulpits. Though I’m sure that never was a factor in the situation.
It might be me, but LCMS pretty much says it all to me….
For me, so far there isn’t enough information to discern who did what or who all was at fault in this situation. I will say, I don’t believe for a second that this was just about grounds in the coffee and someone letting off a few four letter words as a result. There has to be more to the story.
Max wrote:
Have you ever noticed the absence of the name of Jesus in all these episodes. In 2000 the SBC removed as the interpretive key to scripture when they removed the following sentence from the Baptist Faith and Message: “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” With the removal of Jesus as the interpretive key proof texting rules the day. So SBC pastors, with no biblical boundaries or accountability to anyone, can do anything they want. All it takes is to say, “God has spoken.”
Isn’t the whole idea behind “don’t take your brother to court” not that you quash dissent, make rulings based on authority and hiding information, or set up the elders as judge and jury, but that we in the Body should be working to be more mature and capable of fairly and honestly handling these disputes ourselves?
I get the sense here that more often than not, we fall back on the very much un-Christ-like notion of “just make this go away” so we can get back to church as we know it.
On the one hand you got churches that desperately need oversight and professional insight (CREC??) making internal investigations in matters far out of their expertise, and on the other hand, you got a church with an issue they should be mature enough to handle internally, but couldn’t. Crazy.
Dee and Deb, this is an odd suggestion: On the developing church discipline resource page, would you consider a subheading that looks like this: TWW commenters who have been victims of formal church discipline list their names and contact info (optional?), the name and location of their former church, the charges brought against them, the results of the discipline process, and was any vital information withheld from them (ie, was the “there’s more to this story but we are not free to share it” defense used?). Each entry could be limited to 500 words. The point would be to illustrate the vastness of the problem, and to expose the method which is commonly employed. The churches could be advised that they are being listed, and in fairness, are being given the opportunity to offer a defense which must include (1) any written accountability structure in place for church leaders that bypasses friendships, and (2) any written procedure that addresses 1 Tim 5:19-20. They might also be advised in a public forum that the disciplined person has waived their right to confidentiality. The silence could be deafening.
dee wrote:
This is a good point. At worst someone gossiped to the pastor and that was the supposed testimony. Oh wait, it isn’t gossip if it is told to the “authorities”.
Dee,
Tell you husband, it is not just “lower legal standards”.. In many, but not all cases, the church has significantly lower logic, scientific, and just plan common sense standards as well.. So much of what I see from evangelicals would be laughed out/off in my academic world…. And I am not talking about my colleagues being “anti-christian”… in fact, presented well, many are sympathetic to various theistic approach to life… just not the weak/poor thinking/behavior of christians…
dee wrote:
Deb wrote:
This is another issue where I’ve changed my thinking, or changed back to what I believed in my youth. I recall a quote from Bill Buckley that he would rather be governed by the first fifty names in the phone book than the faculty at Harvard. In this case a more experienced “minister” may only be more systematic in his abuse.
I am now back to questioning authority, especially if it is of only one man. I would rather muddle though with a group of average blokes than leave it up to one “gifted” man.
Bill M wrote:
“Authorities(TM)” need a network of informers extending into every pew or cubicle to find out Who’s Plotting Against Them. Ask any corporate security consultant — the ones who “protect” against “workplace rage”.
Q wrote:
Él es en realidad. ¿Quieres ser el primero?
danlinrm wrote:
My writing partner (the burned-out preacher) once told me that the absolutely most frightening Christian Reconstructionist website he ever came across was named “GOD HATH SAID”.
Two things I noticed.
1) It’s the Missouri Synod. Nuff said.
2) The church’s full name is: “St. Matthew’s Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession of Worthington, Nobles County, Minnesota.” That’s according to an unpublished legal opinion from last year.
Excellent article, Deb. Thank you.
I hope that other Christians, from other denominations, will reach out to this widow and help her in her distress.
“It’s all about Jesus…” Where have we heard that phrase before?
Whenever I hear that phrase Mark Driscoll pops into mind.
Fire the Petrys and Meyers…but “it’s all about Jesus…”
Change the Mars Hill bylaws…but “it’s all about Jesus…”
Chain a woman to a bed, expect her to crank out 5 kids a year…but “it’s all about Jesus”
Drive a bus over people and leave them mauled in the street…but “it’s all about Jesus…”
Nuff said…
@ Bill M:
Totally agree Bill. When I hear the title “pastor” I am thinking control freak. This happens too much…
@ Eagle: Bingo!
@ Eeyore:
I’d like to know if there’s been any research on evangelical charities and charity work of late, and how it stands now as compared to say, 10, 20 or 30 years ago…
It looks like most of the Denomination Hospitals have been sold to for profit companies
mirele wrote:
While it being LCMS is enough to tell me that I wouldn’t be welcome there, it could be worse… It could be WELS.
@ Eagle:
Besides “all about Jesus” being used to abuse, somebody just posted on Julie Anne’s Spiritual Sounding Board that “Biblical” is used to silence people and not get them to think.
dee wrote:
Let the mariachi band play.
BTW, Q is a nickname I got years ago, nothing to do with the Continuum. Or is it 🙂
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Nah, that is reserved for others.
danlinrm wrote:
Precisely. I am so glad you brought that up. The missionary couple here in my town who resigned did so when the FMB insisted that they sign the revised ‘Jesus-less’ edition of the BFM 2000. However, I never heard what the arguments had been pro and con as to why the SBC made that change. What were they thinking? It just makes no sense to me at all. If you know why they made that change I would love to hear what that was.
@ okrapod:
Old ignorant me did not even know about a BFM until the BFM2000 caused some extended family members to leave the mission field. (They could not sign it in good conscious because she led the home church while husband was out in the bush working with new church plants)
We were taught the perils of “creeds” or signing onto man made confessions in the SBC I grew up in. I realize others had different experiences which is what made the SBC a big tent back then.
Josh wrote:
Wonder what the feeder seminaries are for this synod?
Since one aspect of excommunication is banning the *miscreant* from literal communion, part of the following is on topic:
Still warm off the 9Marx press! http://9marks.org/article/mailbag-17-renting-out-church-facilities-too-busy-to-elder-transitioning-to-closed-communion-problems-with-secret-societies/
A pastor asks Leeman for advice on transitioning to “closed communion”. Part of Leeman’s answer:
“Finally, we practice church discipline, which I think you can exercise while still practicing open communion (even though it’s a slight self-contradiction to excommunicate someone from the Table even while opening the Table to everyone!).”
So really, shouldn’t 9marxists restrict communion to official “members” only? What if Mrs Pfeil visits Capitol Hill? Or for that matter, Ligon Duncan?
“In a nutshell, the pastor (whom I had recently met) informed Dee and her husband that they he could not offer them membership. Why? Because he had contacted their former pastor for a recommendation.”
A recommendation? For a Baptist church?
This seems very strange for a BAPTIST pastor to do. I could see a Presbyterian or other mainline pastor doing something like that. It just strikes me as VERY ODD and out of place for a pastor in a Baptist polity to do so, though.
Also, is it seeking a recommendation if they were never included? Or is it gossip? Just a thought.
@ Lydia:
Me too. When I was a kid ‘creed’ was a four letter word for baptists. They used to say that no Baptist could tell another Baptist what to believe, and the SBC could not tell a church what to believe.
Dave A A wrote:
Those people at 9Marx/Capitol Hill Baptist really lack love, don’t they? I liked what a former US president said, he took communion at any church that he went to, at any denomination, because he was a professing Christian.
@ mirele:
Yep on both counts, mirele. This isn’t something that happens in your average Lutheran church, hardcore LCMS and the WELS excepted.
@ Josh:
Yeah.
Fwiw, the LCMS has a grand total of 2 seminaries, both named Concordia. One is in St. Louis, while the othermis in Ft. Wayne, IN.
Josh wrote:
Even though I live in Arizona, I live only a mile from a WELS congregation and drive by them frequently. I tell people, “my polling place is at the fundie Lutheran church.”
Oh, and by the way, per the LCMS roster, Joe Behnke had just gotten his M.Div. on 5/21/2010. Tom Braun got his M.Div in 1982. By the way, the LCMS roster doesn’t show Braun’s latest move. Hmmm.
…just remebering back 40 years to a tangle I had as a young teenager with a LCMS pastor who really wanted me to learn hymn lyrics as part of catechism. Oh, and he didn’t like me saying “hey,” either. Let’s just say it was a untenable situation and I finally refused to return to catechism.
@ Divorce Minister:
It was an Anglican church. Dee and her husband had resigned from a Southern Baptist church.
@ Deb:
Oh, gotcha–Deb. I can see Anglicans doing that polity-wise. It still strikes me as “old school.” And it is strange not to first approach the potential members before having the well-poisoned, so to speak.
Deb wrote:
Let me suggest that people may not understand the use of the word ‘Anglican’ because it can get really complicated. I totally had no clue until the past couple of years. Some folks might find it interesting to check that out with google just for the sake of the information.
mirele wrote:
1. My husband was part of a Missouri Synod church at one time. His mother still attends that church and we have visited there. I remember a Sunday School class that my husband and I went to at her church where the Sunday School teacher spend the first ten minutes of the class explaining who they were and were not in fellowship with. I remember nothing of what I learned about God, Jesus, or the Bible in that class, but I definitely remember them talking about who they were/were not in fellowship with.
2. Is the proper response to the name of that church, “Gezunheit?” 🙂
mirele wrote:
My husband has mentioned, several times, an incident that happened during his catechism class. The boys and girls of the class were pitted against each other in a Bible quiz contest. The girls won. Afterwards, the boys were chastised by the teacher for letting the girls win.
@ okrapod:
It is extremely complicated, and I’ll admit to getting lost in the process of trying to understand . But “Lutheran” is also much more complicated than it might serm, to people who are unfamiliar, and to a lot of us who come from Luthersn backgrounds, too. It’s also a good idea to fo some searches on the term.
As for the LCMS, here on the East Coast, it’s not at all like the kind of church that mirele went to. The closer you are to the epicenter (Midwest), the stricter it gets.
@ Tina:
Jerky teacher! How idiotic is thst attitude?!
okrapod wrote:
Jesus as the interpretive key just gets in the way. It is much easier to say “Thus says the Lord”, when you don’t have to let Jesus have his say and way.
Lol…I knew it was only a matter of time before you people would go after Lutherans. Too bad you can’t round up all those evil conservatives and tell’em what the truth really is……
@ jonathan:
Oh c’mon, some ofwho read/comment are Lutheran.
@ numo:
Some of us…
Dave A A wrote:
Back when I attended CHBC ## years ago, they did practice open communion, but Dever was open and up-front about both his distaste for it and his dream/goal of implementing closed communion at some point.
We were camping at Lake Cypress Springs in Northeast Texas and for some reason, one of the group decided we need to go to church Sunday morning at the nearest church, which was Wisconsin Lutheran….as we walked into the church, we were met by ushers who asked us to leave because we were ” neither members, nor invited by members”
We still do not know how in this Wisconsin Synod Church, and it was a big church wound up in rural East Texas…the heart of Baptist and Methodist country….
dee wrote:
This was exactly my thought. A big red flag went up when the ‘ministers’ claimed confidentiality as the reason for not saying what the couple did to deserve excommunication. If you can’t tell a congregation why someone should be subjected to the severe step of excommunication, it virtually always means the ‘minister’ wont tolerate any uncomfortable questions. In their mind, the steeple are to only listen and obey, no questions asked.
numo wrote:
When we first moved over here from over there some while ago we were surprised at how different the baptists were over here. Over, of course, meaning this side of the the appalachian mountains. It is a lot more ‘relaxed’ here than there is a number of ways.
jonathan wrote:
Well, the Deebs have been criticized for a lack of diversity in their topics, so they were forced to broaden their horizons. (sarcasm) In reality, spiritual abuse is no respector of denominations.
@ Dave A A:
I found that 9 Marks mailbag do interesting that I plan to write a post about it.
@ Dave A A:
Here is what I don’t understand. Wouldn’t closed communion or excluding someone from communion who is a member follow along with communion as a sacrament? A means of grace? How in the world can a Baptist church buy into that thinking? I don’t get it. What am I missing?
@ jonathan:
We are equal opportunity offenders, including the denominations of the churches we attend.
Bill M wrote:
A friend of mine said the same thing recently. Only he used many “unorthodox” average guys and gals to one orthodox man with correct doctrine. :o)
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Fine go after abuse but leave the bigoted comments out.
stuff like…..
While it being LCMS is enough to tell me that I wouldn’t be welcome there, it could be worse… It could be WELS.
It’s the Missouri Synod. Nuff said.
Yep on both counts, mirele. This isn’t something that happens in your average Lutheran church, hardcore LCMS and the WELS excepted.
“my polling place is at the fundie Lutheran church
make your position seem really petty.
In fact if you would research the topic in the LCMS you’ll find that the ones being chased out of the denomination are liturgical and hold to the Book of Concord. IT’s the liberals chasing out the conservatives, it’s not the evil fundies oppressing women.
@ jonathan:
numo wrote:
Some of us are even members of SBC Baptist churches ….. Well, one of us, anyway.
BTW, all of the Baptist churches that I have been to in Southern Kentucky and Northwestern Tennessee are closed communion (We call communion the “Lord’s Supper”) everyone and anyone is welcome to attend church services and join us at fellowship meals, but only members are allowed to participate in the “Lord’s Suppers”.
JohnD wrote:
I saw this all the time in the mega world from elder boards. So, they have to believe that when they do such things in the Name of Jesus it is not evil but good. Scary stuff.
Tina wrote:
That speaks volumes, doesn’t it. One of the boys should have asked the teacher, “What would Jesus say?”
@ jonathan:
“Bigoted comments”: no, they’re not. They come from people who have been burned in and by these specific synods, and/or know other folks who have been.
No synod is perfect; no denomination is perfect. As long as human beings exist, the institutions we run will *not* be perfect. Abuse can happen anywhere, ditto for lack of love, mercy and for the preference for rigidity and authoritarian “leadership” over the call Christ gave to leaders (being last of all, servant of all).
I’m Lutheran (ELCA, though in reality, I think I’m still an old-school LCA type).
@ Nancy2:
Nancy that is so strange. I don’t think I have ever attended a closed communion SBC church in my life.
@ Nancy2:
I was speaking to someone (jonathan) who was being critical of the criticisms of specific Lutheran synods here in the comments, and of the post itself. I figured that since I’m Lutheran, I might be in a better position to be able to call him on a couple of things. I bet other current and ex-Lutherans who comment here could do the same.
@ jonathan:
Look, the WELS is fundamentalist. What other synod opposes the Boy Scouts on the grounds that participating in non-sectarian prayers (in WELS parlance, being in “prayer fellowship” at BSA meetings) is sinful??!!!
@ numo:
Oops – opposes the BSA on the grounds that non-sectarian prayers are sinful, due to their concept of “prayer fellowship.” They used to be in communion with the LCMS, but split over the fact that the LCMS began allowing Boy Scout troops to meet in their buildings, decades ago. Though that is only on supposed “sin” among many re. the LCMS, in their eyes.
jonathan, I don’t think many people here are in tune with the kind of thing that goes down at the Brothers of John the Steadfast site (an LCMS site, for those who might be interested in Googling it).
jonathan wrote:
You have it backwards, I believe.
Lydia wrote:
You can’t make sense out of nonsense. That’s why they call it nonsense. This is nonsense. If communion is not a sacrament, who cares if they get excluded. This is social pressure disguised as religion.
We just went through some attempted social pressure disguised as orthodontia. There is a sea of such stuff out there.
@ jonathan:
I am not Lutheran, and I know next to nothing about the Lutheran denomination. However, I agree with numo that the comments you mention are not bigoted. Not everyone has had a positive experience with a Lutheran church, and their experiences are important and worth mentioning.
Lydia wrote:
I sure have.
Lydia wrote:
There’s a spectrum of opinion within the Reformed camp on the level of “sacrament”-ness of the Lord’s Supper. What most intrigues me, some many odd years after the fact, is that at CHBC the power of Communion was cast in alomos
okrapod wrote:
That is what I was thinking. It sounds more like a peer pressure tactic to me.
@ Eeyore:
Blasted phone!
To finish what I started, Communion was cast in almost exclusively negative terms – “if you take communion in an unworthy manner, or we allow you to do so, you/we sin and place ourselves under God’s judgment.” The grace of Communion was an alien concept.
okrapod wrote:
I don’t get it, either. They, “we?”, even exclude members of the same faith who are not members of our local church. A visiting pastor and his family may not partake. They can’t do communion with fellow Baptist at an SBC convention because they are not all members of the same local church. If that is what they call a body of believers, it is a very fractured, even dissected, body. (Sorry ~~ way off subject!)
jonathan wrote:
I am a conservative – politically and theologically.
What is it you’re trying to say? What is your point?
I’m not a Lutheran, but I am conservative.
numo wrote:
numo wrote:
okay gotcha….calling someone a fundie cause they don’t believe like I do isn’t a bigoted comment.
jonathan wrote:
I don’t know about Lutherans specifically, but there’s behavior or teaching on both sides of Christianity (liberal vs conservative) I disagree with (regardless of the denomination).
I’m a conservative, but I’m no longer blind to the follies, judgmentalism, hypocrisy, or arrogance of “my side” any longer.
I do think that some on the “other side” (liberals) can be just as bad, judgmental, wrong, hypocritical, arrogant, or mean too, but it’s usually on other topics from where my fellow conservatives are wrong, hypocritical, arrogant, etc.
Hopefully you’re not living in this echo chamber where you never critically examine the views or attitudes on your side, and you sometimes mosey over to the sites of your ideological opponents and honestly evaluate what their views are, or their criticisms of your side.
I’ve been doing that myself the last few years, and it’s educational and eye opening, and it causes you to really face what you believe and why.
ohyeah…wels is not a fundamentalist church. You saying it is indicates that you have no idea what your talking about. WELS justification for abstaining from the BSA was on ground of pietism. But hey I could be wrong can you site you primary document saying that WELS thinks it sinful to pray with the BSA?
Eeyore wrote:
At our church we all join in a prayer of repentance and confession. After that the priest says that if we have honestly repented then we have been forgiven. The ‘rule’ of who takes communion is any baptized christian who is ‘prepared.’ The prepared thing means confession and repentance. Of course, there are no repentance police checking it out, so all we repeat offenders continue to take communion and continue to carry on. Best we can.
jonathan wrote:
If your intention is to solidify mirele’s opinion of this synod, you’re doing a bang up job.
NJ wrote:
Yes. Discovery, if the case is allowed to go forward. I agree that we do not know all the facts. But we should ask ourselves, IMO, why an elderly woman wants to pursue this? The only thing she has to gain by this is her reputation which was taken from her, in her view. The guys have a lot to lose if they have been blowing smoke about “confidentiality.” If she has something to hide, it would not make a lot of sense for her to expend her resources to have the opportunity for those things to come out in court.
Nancy2 wrote:
A lady once won a debate with Jesus, in Matthew 15:26-28. You can read it here:
http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-27.htm
Jesus conceded defeat to the woman – like a man. He didn’t cry and whine that his manhood had been ruined, that she didn’t submit, or that his authority usurped because a lady won a debate with him.(Which actually makes him more of a man, IMHO – that he wasn’t hung up on gender.)
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Sorry it should read…”was wels responsible for any abuse. Did that church deserve to called fundie?
@ jonathan:
I was brought up Southern Baptist and have attended SBCs since I was a kid (not lately though, been awhile since I’ve been to a church), and I’ve been a guest at a few Pentecostal / non demon churches from time to time.
Would you be this upset if I criticized Southern Baptist churches, or Pentecostals or non-denominational megas? I’ve been hurt by Southern Baptists in particular (and one or two Pentecostals / members of non-demons).
There is a very conservative Lutheran radio show host guy who I sometimes vehemently disagree with on some topics but agree with on a few other (been awhile since I’ve listened to his show, but I used to listen to him quite a bit). Is it okay for a quasi-former SBC like me to criticize this (who happens to be a conservative Lutheran) guy for views that I disagree with him on?
@ Lydia:
Closed communion is one of the things that bothers me about Catholicism. Its one of the few issues I have with the Catholic church. My issues are small, and not as noted as with the fundagelical. Still closed communion can be harsh and controlling. I am baffled that evangelicals would want closed communion.
@ numo:
What does the WELS believe in? Why the ties to Wisconsin? Can you give me the rundown on that point?
@ jonathan:
You can easily find detailed documentation on this issue on the internet; Google it, OK?
I feel that it is counterproductive to continue trying to talk with you, as you have a POV and (I believe) an agenda that isn’t conducive to conversation or dialogue. As I said above, no denomination – or synod, to use the term specific to Lutheran churches in the US – is perfect, because all are full of human beings, and human beings mess up, hurt and abuse others, etc. Just because one holds a specific position does *not* negate their responsibility regarding compassion toward others.
As for your response to mirele’s comment, you’ve just pretty much proved her right.
jonathan wrote:
I’m not comprehending your apparent strong dislike of the word “fundamentalist.” Or, as it is being used in this thread.
I understand that sometimes some who use the word “fundie” (fundamentalist) use it in a pejorative sense, but I don’t always take it that way, nor do I think the people using it necessarily mean for it to be some kind of put-down.
“Fundie” can be used to just mean a group or church / denomination that is very conservative – as opposed to groups/ churches that are liberal.
Would you describe these WELS guys as being very conservative?
numo wrote:
that’s what I thought.
@ Eagle:
No, I really can’t, because it is pretty complicated and not anything I have ever come into contact with, being from the geographic region and Lutheran synod (ELCA) that I belong to. Not sure if it was a good idea to respond to the person who complained regarding comments on the WELS (Wisc. Evangelical Lutheran Synod) or the LCMS (Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod).
If you need or want further info., there is all kinds of documentation available on the web, including a detailed analysis of the split between the LCMS and WELS over the issue of “prayer fellowship” (a term I had never encountered prior to looking up the dispute re. the BSA) and more.
BTW, the LCMS is officially closed (or, as they say, “close”) communion, although I have been in LCMS churches where the pastor (official title for Lutheran minister who is the actual pastor of a church) and others knew I wasn’t a member of the LCMS and had no problem with it. This is also true of Hester’s church, and some others on the East Coast that I know about. I think the further away you are from St. Louis, the freer you are to not engage in some of their intense practices. The WELS is certainly closed communion.
Nancy2 wrote:
The SBC Churches in Texas are now almost all open communion….however, in 1978, I was an interim church staff member ( Music) at a small SBC Church, as was the pastor. ( They cleaned house before we got there.)
The day of the quarterly Lord’s Supper, the interim pastor came to me and said, ” we were asked not to take communion.” So, the pastor lead the steps up both the blood and body, and took neither…nor did I…
jonathan wrote:
The Usual Suspects are doing their level best to chase out all the real conservatives who have a high regard for Biblical authority and the example of Christ. It gets in the way of their Authority over the flock. The “problem” that we real conservatives have is that we do not worship the Dear Leaders and refuse to be their puppets or their parrots.
@ jonathan:
Please go and look it up. I spent many hours reading documents written by representatives of both the WELS and the LCMS over these issues, plus detailed analysis of what went on, several years ago, but I do not have the links handy. One was to what appeared to be either an M.A. sor doctoral dissertation on the topic that had been put online by its author.
Fwiw, I used to do research professionally, so I’m not passing the buck here. I don’t have the time to look it up all over again, but you can.
@ Eagle:
Not all Catholics actually practice closed communion. That was an open “secret” during the late 60s-late 70s, when Vatican II changes were fresh and new. I often took communion in RC churches, or maybe I should say, masses celebrated by priests involved in the charismatic movement. None of them had any qualms about non-Catholics receiving communion.
Obviously, other people would rather die than allow such a practice, still. So, like the use of birth control by most Catholic laypeople, it is something that occurs but people don’t talk about it much. I think “freedom of conscience” is the operative principle.
@ Gram3:
Let’s just say that Lutheran “conservatives” are, in many ways, very different to the kinds of “conservatives” you’re accustomed to, but they do heartily agree on NO ordination of women, and similar. But the culture of these churches is markedly different, as well as many of the beliefs.
So yes, the “usual suspects” in the sense that there are always hidebound, difficult people who don’t want any change, but in the LCMS and the WELS, these folks are fighting a battle that wouldn’t be all that recognizable to you, or to most from a strictly evangelical background. It isn’t to me, for the most part, since I am from a different synod (which is sort of code for “different denom that calls itself Lutheran”), and these disputes haven’t been part of our churches or church culture for a good long while. (Women lectors, girls as acolytes, and women’s ordination were all biggies when I was younger, though!! Girls as acolytes was a *huge* thing in the church where I grew up – not that it caused open arguments, but a lot of raised eyebrows and disagreement on the part of some. It seemed stupid to me that girls shouldn’t be able to light the altar candles and then put them out at the end of the service, but I was a girl, so…)
@ numo:
They also defend absolute adherence to the documents contained in the Book of Concord, so much so that they refer to themselves as “confessional” Lutherans (as if the rest of us aren’t!), name their seminaries Concordia after the Book of Concord, and so on.
It really is arcane for people who aren’t Lutheran – and it’s equally so for me, since it isn’t the kind of Lutheranism I grew up with and practice now. The people who are in the LCMS and WELS are (mostly) descendants of immigrants who came from Germany and some Scandinavian countries at particular times in the 19th c. In the case of the LCMS, it had everything to do with political changes that were affecting the church (since the Lutheran church was the state church in Germany). It is so complicated…. and a different world to that of the people who 1st settled in the Mid-Atlantic states in the late 1600s-through the 1700s. Most of them came from Sweden and various parts of Germany, due to wars (Germany, some parts), the desire to strikeout for new ground (the Swedes), expand the range of Swedish territory and more. The political and religious questions that roiled 19th c. Germany didn’t touch this region.
@ Eeyore:
“I’d like to know if there’s been any research on evangelical charities and charity work of late, and how it stands now as compared to say, 10, 20 or 30 years ago…”
++++++++++++
in the last church I attended (the best of all the churches I’ve experienced over the years), the ‘charity work’ seemed to be merely something to do for the purpose of crossing it off the list. Everyone had very good hearts about it, but there just wasn’t time or energy for it. What time and energy people have seem to be devoted to Sunday morning…. (where group identity is formed, thoughts can be shaped, and the tithing baskets are passed around).
I can’t help but feel that the purpose of church is really to perpetuate itself. To keep salaries paid and gainfully growing by nurturing a group of people to enjoin themselves with conviction. For a demonstration of professional success.
@ numo:
M.A. thesis
jonathan wrote:
Not in the LCMS it’s not. IN 1969 the LCMS conservatives engineered a takeover of the LCMS that foreshadowed the conservative takeover of the SBC ten years later. The New conservative leadership then went on to purge the LCMS of it’s evil liberals. For just one example, in the early 1970’s it targeted liberal faculty members of LCMS’ Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. A witch hunt was conducted, a new seminary board elected, who then ousted the Seminary’s president. As a result, a significant number of faculty and students left to form the Seminary in Exile (Seminex) so Concordia was purged of its non conforming professors.
The conservatives have remained firmly in control of the LCMS ever since. In 2010 they elected to replace a fairly conservative president with an even more conservative one (who later asked an LCMS minister to apologize for participating in an interfaith vigil conducted in the wake of the Sandy Hook killings). In July of this year they excommunicated a professor at Valparaiso for questioning creationism and the prohibition on ordaining women.
So no, there are no liberals even left in the LCMS. The only debate in the LCMS is among conservatives, most recently over more modern and evangelical worship vs. the traditional liturgy and hymns- there are no liberal voices to even have a position in this debate.
jonathan wrote:
You owe me a new keyboard because of the soda I spit out on it after reading this.
creation + no women in the pulpit or leadership + anti-gay + biblical literalism = fundamentalist.
@ Nancy2:
That sounds very much like 9 Marx. They are “local church” propaganda all the way. Seems that thinking puts the Apostle Paul in a bad position. What was his local church for communion? Could he take it with others on his travels? :o)
This stuff gets so silly.
numo wrote:
And this pastor was well-known for being the strictest pastor in (name of state omitted to protect the guilty). I just checked and he’s still on the LCMS roster even though he’s now an octogenarian.
@ Eagle:
Eagle, if baptists view it as rememberance, I just don’t get closed communion at all. If it is viewed as a sacrament/ means of grace, then I get it even though I don’t agree.
That is like deciding who is saved and who isn’t based on immersion or a sprinkling. You are in, you are out based upon a wafer and bad wine (juice for baptists)?
@ numo:
I believe you about the Lutheran denominations which I know nothing about. My main point was that the label “conservative” is often used to mean something that it does not really mean, as in the SBC “conservatives” who are radicals dressed up like conservatives. Making stuff up isn’t conservative, and these guys love to make stuff up.
jonathan wrote:
I have no knowledge of any abuse stories regarding WELS. (Or my memory is failing me.) As to whether or not is is fundamentalist, I would say yes. According to Wikipedia (yes it has it’s limitations, but it’s readily available. I’m not familiar with Lutheranism, so I took the time to look it up) it is. See the headings “Differences from Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod” and “Differences from Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Evangelical_Lutheran_Synod
They also believe the Pope is the anti-Christ. They do not fellowship with other Christians who do not believe and practice exactly as they do. While that’s certainly their prerogative, it’s definitely fundamentalist.
jonathan wrote:
I was EMPLOYED as a non-member by an LCMS division for two years. I kind of have some experience with this.
Yeah, that is my reference to the WELS church down the street. You know, they’re so off the wall that Michele Bachmann changed churches during her presidential campaign after it became clear her WELS church believed “the papacy is the anti-Christ.” That’s pretty hardcore and deserves the “fundie” appelation. (Although, I will note there are even smaller, more obscure and even more hardcore churches that label themselves “Lutheran” in my area, since we have so many snowbirds who come down for the winter.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/michele-bachmanns-former-church-explains-popeanti-christ-claims/2011/07/15/gIQAzMG7FI_story.html
I will note that the local WELS church has a black assistant pastor, so that is very much in their favor in my book. That said, I thought the harlot of Babylon stuff had gone the way of horses and buggies.
JeffT wrote:
Here is one example of how and why people talk past each other. Making up new definitions to words.
Christian fundamentalism has more or less always been –
Biblical inspiration and inerrancy + The virgin birth of Jesus Christ + Jesus death is atonement for sin + Jesus bodily resurrection + The authenticity of Jesus’ miracles = Fundamentalism
Hopefully all Christians share some fundamentals of the faith.
Fundy is used to often as a pejorative .
Wow. There is a lot going on here.
Church membership
Church discipline
legal action
Star Trek
Communion open/closed
Fundamentalism
Is LaVonne aware of the support she has through The Wartburg Watch? It must be emotionally, spiritually and physically challenging for her
Q wrote:
As is “liberal”
You’re right in that the Five Fundamentals is the classic definition. Today, however, the focus seems to be on biblical inerrancy as the defining characteristic of the term, which leads to the other four as well as the characteristics I listed.
Dave A A wrote:
Seems like the goal of the question about “closed communion” is how to have more control.
I think a case could be made that closed communion would fall under judgement in that some are eating and drinking without the rest “not discerning the Lord’s body”, his church.
@ jonathan:
Also, Jonathan, the fact that you claim were are “going after the Lutherans” (which, if you knew a few things about me, might be rather amusing) as opposed to not mentioning one word of empathy for an elderly lady who lost her husband and church in one fell swoop, shows your lack of concern for those who are deeply hurt. That tells me quite a bit you.
dee wrote:
Sometimes people don’t get it until it happens to them.
@ Leslie:
I agree. What a thing to take on considering how often it was thrown out!~ She is one brave woman and I admire her for it. I was also wondering about the fact that both pastors are gone from the church and how that will affect the legal efforts.
So far, we have two elderly women willing to stand up to the charlatans. That is an interesting message to us. As my elderly dad would say: Women have always been THE spine of the church and it would not exist without them.
Velour wrote:
Of course, they do, although in this instance they take the more “open” position in their actual practice. It’s what they preach which, to me, would logically necessitate a “closed” position. They allow Christian would-be communicants to partake after self-examination, just as my church does. But this takes away a major incentive for everyone to sign the ol’ membership covenant. Why should someone get to wear the jersey, who hasn’t signed the contract to be on the team?
Eeyore wrote:
And as of yesterday he’s still not made it to that point. Any idea why not? I have a somewhat cynical theory.
Deb wrote:
Eagle wrote:
My rule is that I will take communion in whatever denomination I may be in on that day of worship. Yes, I have taken communion at Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
^Sorry. On my phone. I was only responding to Eagle, Deb’s quote is in there too.
@ JeffT:
Yep. Plus no Boy Scouts, since they din by praying.
@ mirele:
Oh frackin’ h*ll. Of course he would be. He’s probably a card-carrying mrmber of the Brothers of John the Steadfast, too.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
The LCMS still officially takes that podition re. the pope, afaik.
Someone who used to comment here was being given a VERY hard timeby a WELS church. It’s bedn a few years, though, and I’m blanking on their username. Hoping they’re out of that situation now.
@ mirele:
Horses and buggies are very much a current thing, wherever there are Amish, y’know. Which is a bigger chunk of the US than most would credit.
Sin police take it too far, bad doctrine can kill you:
http://news.yahoo.com/police-unsure-sins-provoked-attack-brothers-054706362.html#
@ Gram3:
Well, maybe, but in this case, it’s a bunch of people who are clinging onto their copies of the Book of Concord for dear life – in other words, claiming that Luther said so, and so mote it be. (As in, no women, no modern methods of studying Scripture, Jonah was swallowed by a giant fish made expressly forthat purpose, never mind the science – the world was created in one calendar week, men are the head of the household – long predates modetn compism). And Pope Francis is the Antichrist, while the RCC is the Great (fill in blanks).
I wonder if most of these churches even allow girls to be acolytes.
Dave A A wrote:
Scratch that statement– although they leave it to the attender to self-fence, Leeman says, “Rather, we fence the table by saying you should be a member in good standing of some church where the gospel is preached.” Since my church has no “membership”, and our gospel is not “gospel-centered” enough, I’m sure I’d not qualify at CBHC.
@ mirele:
The Seventh Day Adventists also believe same about the pope and the RCC. Partly comes from Ellen White’s “prophecies” and “visions” – just like the current form of YEC.
@ numo:
Just in case you were wondering, “so mote it be” is a phrase beloved by many Wiccans and other contemporary pagans. No comparison intended [mischievous smiley here], except for the fact that i think many of those folks are far better-intentioned toward other people than fundies of any type tend to be…
@ numo:
Sin by praying, though i think Cub Scouts can create quite a din, generally speaking.
@ dee:
Yeah, the irony wasn’t lost on me…
@ Q:
I would suggest that you look up the tetm “Fundamentals of the Faith” – it comes from a series of publications that were part of a HUGE split in US Presbyterianism in the early-mid 20th c. It’s where our current definition of “fundamentalism” comes from.
Years ago my brother, a preacher, performed a funeral service for a deacon who had passed away. The deacon had committed suicide and wasn’t a member of my brother’s church. The church where this deacon was a member was a very holy confessional Lutheran church in Minnesota. The church felt the act of suicide had tainted the deacon and contaminated his family. The deacon’s family was shunned and black balled by these very holy Christians. My brother, one of those other Evangelicals, they would never associate with, conducted the deacon’s funeral service and showed that grieving family love when they had nowhere else to turn in that small Minnesota town. These holy Christians must feel suicide is an unforgivable sin I have thought. I can’t place myself in this deacon’s shoes, but I have to think that God in His infinite wisdom knows far more than I do and that in His eyes there is little that isn’t forgiveable. This is a sad a story I think about many times.
Fwiw, here is the current official statement from the WELS on scouting (they now include the Girl Scouts in their warnings):
wels.net/faq/boy-scouts/
Of course, this lesves out all the antichrist talk re. the ebilsof non-denominational prayer, and also carefully omits the mention of any unpleasantness with the LCMS over the latter’s choice regarding scouting. I also came across more than a few refs to some kind of alternative scouts setup that has bern proposed by people in the WELS, but didn’t check thst out.
@ numo:
Evils of.
Also not sure why my hyperlink failed, but hey, there’s still cut/paste…
@ Mark:
I am so sorry, Mark.
Is someone taking care of LaVonnne?@ Lydia:
numo wrote:
Yes?
@ Q:
I disagree with the capital-F fundamentalist position on inerrancy and related matters. So, not a fan of J. Gresham Machen, but not a fan of Harry Emerson Fosdick, either.
I’ll stick to the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, thanks. No “solas” there, for one.
I know, I’m probably a renegade in the eyes of fundy Lutherans, but so be it.
I would really like regular updates about how these heroic women are faring. Julie McMahon, LaVonne, and many more. I would like us on this blog site to be able to offer them a soft place to land. Maybe Anna Duggar also. ” I know I am a dreamer, but I’m not the only one”. ( John Lennon)
JeffT wrote:
Fundamentalism is as I stated –
Q wrote:
On the contrary, I always thought “liberal” was mostly against inerrancy.
@ Mark:
So sorry Mark. Have you seen the movie Luther? I appreciated how Martin Luther dealt with suicide.
@ Leslie:
We’ll see what we can do. So much to keep up with…
@ numo:
FYI, I’m not a Lutheran…
numo wrote:
I hope so, too, numo.
Thanks for all the info. This is all new to me.
@ dee:
Why do people fight for their institutions? or creeds?
Mark wrote:
How awful. I’m so glad your brother extended love to that grieving family.
Deb wrote:
Let me know if I can do anything to help with that. Following through with people is one of my gifts and strengths. I would be happy to get involved in your ministry this way.
Dave A A wrote:
as of yesterday he’s still not made it to that point. Any idea why not? I have a somewhat cynical theory.
Not having been there in over a decade, I can only speculate. But having “closed communion” would definitely have put a damper on the enthusiasm of the many would be emulators of CHBC/9M who visited there in my short term of service…
numo wrote:
Yeah, but I live in Phoenix, where we get around in CARS. Cars, I tell you! None of those old-fashioned horse and buggy contraptions. (Seriously, though, I was blanking on what to put there.)
Lydia wrote:
At least we don’t have to sign church contracts …. uh, I mean covenants …. , …….. yet.
mirele wrote:
If you ever visit Southern Kentucky, watch out for the horses and buggies ….. and the bicycles. On my way home from Ft. Campbell this afternoon, I was dodging Mennonite school kids on bicycles half of the way in 55 and 65 mph speed zones!
Nancy2 wrote:
Sheep. I’ve gotten caught up in sheep being herded from summer to winter pasture in Utah. That’s an experience. I wish I’d paid attention more, though. Back then, I thought of sheep as a nuisance. Now, it’s like, “Ooooh all that fleeeeeeeeeeeece on the hooooooof.”
Gram3 wrote:
On the other hand it will be very interesting if the “pastor” can produce these witnesses and then have the judge put them under oath, for that reason I hope this proceeds.
I was raised an Anglican and never heard of someone being denied membership based on hearsay. And based on this post and what a commenter mentioned being asked to leave a Lutheran church because they weren’t members or associates, have the mainline churches now fallen to the “discipline” crowd? In his book “American Fascists” Chris Hedges (who is a declared Lutheran) issued a call to moderate Christians to take back their religion. One of his observations is that even mainline Christians are loathe to criticize their more outspoken (and bullying) compatriots. Compatriots who ironically don’t see the mainline churches as even “Christian”.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men (and women – Jack’s addition) to do nothing.”
-Edmund Burk
elastigirl wrote:
I think 70% of the typical budget is geared to the Sunday morning service. Ask your local church to honestly break it down. Then ask them why so many are leaving the institutional church.
@ Jack:
Baptism makes one a church member, period. And yes, some of the hsrdline LCMS churches are acting like they know nothing at all of the mercy of Christ, nor their common humanity and basic human decency.
“Do unto others…” must be one of the single most disregarded statements ever made.
@ Deb:
Deb, i don’t recall the movie very well, but i do know that there are a LOT of historical innacuracies in it, some of them very wrong. As in the scene where Luther weeps and grieves over the common,people who were killed during the Peasants’ War. While i would like to believe he had such a moment, surviving correspondence shows that he absolutely supported the quelling of that revolt by whatever means necessary.
He sadly did not see that social reforms would be inevitable in the wake of religious reforms, and felt that the demands made by the leaders of the revolt were wrong. History is not on his side in this, any more than it is re. his murderous tirades against the Jewish population of Europe.
@ BeenThereDoneThat:
De nada. It’s kind of fun to get to talk about it, since i rarely get the chance on blogs like this one.
@ Q:
I had guess3d as much, Q. 😉
@ mirele:
We have tons of dairy cow. Some sheep, but nothing like Utah, and no cows crossing the road.
Otoh, i have bern caught in a sort of “cow parade” near Swiss L’Abri. The cows were being herded from the high padtures down to lower ground, and there’s only one main drag, so there they were. They were all on the small side, a deep reddish color, and kinda cute.
@ jonathan:
I put a link to the sevtion in the WELS FAQ about svouting a bit upthread. It is not about pietism, and never has been.
@ okrapod:
Exactly!
Deb wrote:
Four MONTHS??!!??? Good grief!!
@ numo:
And they had horns.
@ zooey111:
I am hornswoggled by that, too, if only because LCMS seminarians are 1st ordained as deacons, and spend a year (kind of a tryout of pastoral ministry) assigned to a church before being ordained as ministers.
Btw, the whole notion of the diaconate is very different in liturgical churches, compared to evangelical, Reformed, etc. The women in the synod i was born in (prior to the creation of the LCA) had the option of being made deaconesses and going into full-time work – much like nunsnin the RCC. They even wore veils thst were derived from same in the RCC and in the Church of Englad (much like the short veils worn by the nuns in the show “Call the Midwife,” actually).
@ numo:
ELCA, that is. I was born/baptized into the LCA as an infant. I think I’m still an LCA type at heart, really.
JeffT wrote:
You’re right & Jonathan is wrong (again). WELS is fundamentalist. (I have family in WELS. Let’s just say, I don’t hang out with them…..)
Velour wrote:
Me too.
Not saying…..for reasons related to the 5th amendament…..
Foot wrote:
This happened in my area. The “church’ was widely viewed as “the local cult” by neighbors.
It was a horrible, horrible thing. The other son was still fighting for his life at the time I watched the news last night. Ghastly thing. Prayers for the surviving young man who is said to be in a very bad way at a local hospital.
@ Mark:
Mark,
Every sin is covered in Christ, if in Christ. Every family, or at least most are dysfunctional, even so and truly, God the father and Christ Jesus loves us, even though we are sinners and maybe ‘tainted’, he loves us dearly, and it seems your brother showed the love of Christ.
I’m so tired of those who pretend to know God and pretend to speak for him but don’t know him at all.
Eagle wrote:
There’s no such thing as control-freak pastors: only insubordinate sheep …
Man (sorry for the ‘man’ thing,I grew up in So Cal…) If you are in Christ you’re golden, no matter what, not the Christ of your denomination or the Christ of our imagination.
If you are in the Christ “Jesus” of the bible, You are GOLDEN.
okrapod wrote:
If memory serves me right, the formula in the Baptist church at home was communion was for all the members or those who love the lord, and for ‘communicant members of other churches in good standing’. It is up to the individual believer in the end as to whether they eat and drink in an unworthy manner unless the leadership of the church is aware of serious problems. The Anglican prayer book has some common sense stuff on all this.
I’ve only ever heard one sermon I think in my life devoted to the communion service, and the only time apart from having the chapter in 1 Corinthians read out of being warned not to take it lightly and the possible consequences of doing so. I wonder how much sickness in churches is a result of taking communion in a state of sinful rebellion.
I didn’t start taking communion in the Baptist church until I had been baptised as a believer, although there was nothing to stop had a wanted to. An interesting piece of residual Anglican influence!
dee wrote:
It would be an honour. Having the strong support of your husband must be a source of great encouragement for you, which is of benefit to all of us. Since Raleigh is about a twenty hour flight from here I am unlikely to be passing by anytime soon but maybe one day.
This coming Monday evening I have a meeting with the eldership when I will once again confront it on the very issues on which your husband and I are of one mind.
Foot wrote:
This is a horrible story. Think of what that child (young adult, actually) went through as his parents and those he loved most in this world physically killed him. Aweful.
Yet, I have seen shunning and emotional abuse perpetrated against adults, peoples’ own Christian relatives, as a means to get the person to conform to someone’s own version of Christianity. This kills the soul as much as these poor boys were physically killed and beaten.
The sad thing is that the emotional abuse is often unrecognized by those who perpetrate it. It is even suggested in many Christian counseling offices under the title of “helping someone to see their sin.” It is happening in the most upscale, hip churches around by everyday folks. Aweful.
danlinrm wrote:
Yes, to longtime Southern Baptists like myself (a 60+ year SBC member), the removal of Christocentric language in the BFM2000 revision was very disturbing. At that time, there was much debate among SBC leaders on where ultimate authority resided: in Jesus or the Word. Last time I looked, Jesus was the Word! Calvinists put way too much emphasis in cherry-picked Bible passages to defend their theological presuppositions … at the expense of cutting Jesus out of the equation as the guiding key to Biblical interpretation. Good Lord, Jesus is all over the Book from front to back if you have enough Holy Spirit discernment to see Him!
As a side-note, if you listen to New Calvinist sermons on podcast (I do to keep track of what these folks are teaching in my area), you will hear a lot about God, only occasional mention of Jesus, and hardly a note about the Holy Spirit. At the same time, they claim to be “Christ Followers” (rather than calling themselves believers) and everything is “Gospel Centered” without centering their preaching on the Gospel that can save ALL men everywhere … whosoever will may come.
JohnD wrote:
Please do not go alone. Another witness is essential.
Max wrote:
This is one of my pet peeves. The idea “Word” is referring to scripture and not Christ himself. It causes all sorts of misunderstanding. The irony is that when scriptures are being referred to that word is used. And it is OT! Or as Jesus said, “As it is written”. AFAIK, Jesus does not quote Paul. :o)
“Pfeil and her family denied all of those accusations, and asked for details on what was said and who said it. They were told such information was confidential.”
This story is so sad. I hope Mrs. Pfeil finds justice. Most of all I would pray that this congregation of Lutheran’s opens their eyes to how they may have contributed to Mrs. Pfeil’s pain. Congregations need to stop following men and start asking questions.
The quote above makes the pastor the supreme King who does not need to answer to anyone.
Max wrote:
Comment would be superfluous!
Max wrote:
I have heard it said, though I don’t know the originator, that to the Neo-Calvinists/YRR types, the Holy Trinity consists of: Father, Son and Holy Scriptures.
Max wrote:
Like the Boston Marathon bomber, according to his uncle: “AL’LAH! AL’LAH! AL’LAH!”
P.S. Just checking in to see if The Jonathan Show has ended and we’re back to Wartburg Watch.
Burwell Stark wrote:
That can be true for other theological groups, too. A lot of Christians shove the Holy Spirit out of the picture.
They seem to deny that God can or does act in the lives of people today. Everything has to be sola scriptura. I like the concept of sola scriptura and pretty much agree with it, but it can be carried too far by some, IMO.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Scriptures?
https://bible.org/seriespage/father-son-and-holy-scriptures
Daisy wrote:
I agree. I hold to the five solae but not to the level that many of the N-C/YRRs. For exmaple, I know of an SEBTS prof that had them tattooed on himself.
The issue I have with them is that they are attempts by man to comprehend the actions of the divine (as is the Trinity). As such, they are destined to break down at some point. Many of the New Wave of Neo-Calvinists, especially their leaders (Piper, Mohler, Dever, et al) is that they try to eliminate any sense of mystery and wonder. Not everything can or should be explained.
Burwell Stark wrote:
This was meant to be deleted.
I watched an author, William Paul Young, interviewed last night on Christian TV about a new book he has about Eve.
The author raised a few of the same ideas I have here a time or two, such as, that Genesis saying that Eve “desired” her husband (which, he said, should more accurately be translated as “turn toward”) is an outcome of the fall, not God’s intent.
Further, that passage foretells that women will tend to look to a man (usually a husband, if married) to get their identity and meaning in life (and I’d also argue, their needs met), rather than look to God himself for those things.
(I personally also go on to say a lot of men exploit that tendency so many women have – and this includes some Christian men.)
Women behaving in that manner is codependency, and the Bible advises Christians not to be codependent.
Christian gender complementarians, however, actually encourage women to keep behaving in this codependent manner by arguing it’s “biblical womanhood,” that men need for women to behave in this way, and that it’s God’s design for women, and that Christian women behaving as codependents can somehow save culture from those horrible secular feminists.
IIRC, Young also mentioned what I have before: one big, gaping flaw in gender complementarianism is that it does not apply to unmarried women (or, I’d also add, to the divorced or widowed or the childless).
Young said it occured to him to wonder, how does a single (unmarried) Christian woman find her identity?
A single woman has to find her purpose and meaning in God (because she has no husband to find it in).
Then Young figures, if a single (unmarried) woman finds her meaning, purpose, and identity in God (and which is what God intended all along), the passages from Genesis and elsewhere must not be arguing that God wanted or meant for women to “turn to” men (be under male authority or male hierarchy) – but that was an outcome of the fall.
I have been saying these same things over and over the last few years.
This guy has recently released a book with some of these same themes in it, and the host said the guy’s book is selling quite well. Maybe I should have written a book about it. 🙂
Burwell Stark wrote:
Another problem I have with the sola scriptura view that denies the working of God in the life of believers today is similar to that of the author behind the page I linked you to above.
His son became very sick and almost died (he tells that story on another page of that site, I believe). He said at his lowest point, he needed to hear from God personally, or to feel God’s presence.
Simply reading text from a book (the Bible) did not bring him much comfort or hope, he said. He needed more than the text.
I’ve experienced that sensation, too. Sometimes you need or want a personal experience with God when you are at a real low point in your life, but some Christians pitch a fit over that. They think the word “experience” is a dirty word, and you should only go by the written text.
I do think experience should be weighed against the written word, because I have seen self professing Christians claiming some far-out stuff that doesn’t sound like God was behind it.
So, I do think there are Christians who go far in the other direction from the sola scriptura crowd, where they place experience and feelings above the Bible, which I’m not comfortable with.
I don’t like either extreme in this, I guess is what I am driving at. You have Christians who rely way too much on the ‘Bible alone,’ and others who rely way too much on feelings or experience.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
True. Attorney Jeff Anderson, who has famously held the Catholic Church accountable, equally addresses situations in, for example, protestant churches. However, his law firm’s work outside the Catholic Church does not gain equal press.
Max wrote:
The Neo-Cals have essentially dismantled the Trinity by taking Jesus and the Holy Spirit out of the Trinity and replacing them with Paul.
Max wrote:
It’s a symptom of the disease of their doctrine of inerrancy – they changed the BFM because, in their world, everything written in the Bible is the literal word of God, so, whether it’s Jesus, Paul, Jude or whoever, it’s all equal and Jesus’ words aren’t any more important than anyone else’s in the Bible.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Whew! That’s some serious theology going on there! I bet the good professor also has a “Calvin Is My Homeboy” T-shirt. Too much focus on the Doctrines of Grace, rather than Christ, and these folks can miss Grace altogether. Jesus himself told us not to forsake the commandments of God for the teachings and traditions of men. Calvinism is based on the teachings of Calvin and reformed tradition. Jesus advised us not to do that!
JeffT wrote:
Your observation in the previous post is very close to the truth. So actually, Jesus’s words are less important than Paul’s. Romans is the most important writing in the Bible. We must interpret everything through a reformed reading of Romans.
Burwell Stark wrote:
My experience of Neo-Cal/YRR statements of faith/doctrine is that they refer first to the Bible and then only after that to God. It is as if God “is” only because the Bible refers to him. I looked into the reason for this a while back. I can’t remember the details now but I think it follows some reasoning of Calvin’s which they, of course, must adopt.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Good call, and not just for this group. Excellent observation.
Max wrote:
I was joking around with HUG on a very old thread months and months ago that I do sometimes wonder if some of the Neo-Calvinists who are obsessed with Calvin are like teen girls who pin up posters of boy rock bands like One Direction on their walls, only the Neo Cals would tack up posters of John Calvin on their bedroom walls.
I can understand valuing or studying the writings of people to learn more about a subject, including the Bible, but not the hardcore devotion to the stage we see some of these people equating Calvinism to the Gospel itself, which some of them have in fact done. They have actually said that Calvinism is the Gospel.
My view is fine, study Calvin’s writings to broaden your mind or understanding, but he’s just a guy who put his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us, and he’s just a person who made mistakes like the rest of us.
@ Josh:
This sounds like something that should be on a mug…
RE: excommunicating/shunning because of speaking something ‘negative’ about pastor or church….
you may have seen in the news yesterday a teen ager died as a result of being beaten in a church by parents & other members.
a former member of said church said they were “shunned” as a result of speaking negatively about the church. something also called gossip, slander. (as reported in The Daily Beast.)
this kind of group intolerance of & prohibition against free speech is what crazy & dangerous religious extremists do.
@ Lydia:
St. Louis, MO and Ft. Wayne, IN, as far as I know.
I attend an LCMS church on the east coast. As numo has stated, they’re not nearly as conservative out here as they are in the Midwest. But the LCMS’ recent excommunication of that Valparaiso professor for disagreeing with creationism is absolutely shameful. This is too, if it turns out to be what it looks like, and so was that Sandy Hook prayer service thing. The “Unaltered Augsburg Confession” bit in this church’s name pretty much says it all. I think we’re dealing with an arm of the mothership here.
Also, my mom is from this area and knows some different Pfeils. It’s not that common of a last name so they’re probably related somehow.
zooey111 wrote:
I am SO GLAD for the congregations that have voting powers, like the one that just fired the pastor who banned the 103-year old woman church member because she had criticized me. That grandma has seen a lot more of life than that young whippersnapper!
http://patch.com/georgia/brookhaven/georgia-church-fires-pastor-who-banned-103-year-old-woman-0
^sorry autocorrect. Banned “her”
JohnD wrote:
Excellent way to put it.
I thought the comments from this poster in the comments section of the Strib article are a bit telling:
“Excommunication is not entered into lightly — you rarely see this happening in churches today. I’m a pastor in the Missouri Synod — I know the requirements — one — excommunication does not take place for just any sin — we are all sinners — everyone of us. The only sin that one is excommunicated for is Impenitence — refusal to repent when confronted with sin. 2.) this does not happen over night — it takes time to try to bring about reconciliation. The goal is to get someone to repent of their sin and to be forgiven. 3.) if there is not sign that repentance will take place — several individuals try to bring them to repentance, not just the pastor(s). it is finally brought to a meeting of the voters and it is required to have a unanimous vote, not a majority, not a super majority — but a 100% vote to excommunicate by all the eligible voters who attend the meeting and the meeting has to meet requirements as laid out in their constitution.”
All of the people at the congregation meeting had to affirm the vote for excommunication. I would imagine there’s something more here than meets the eye.
@ Daisy:
“Many of the New Wave of Neo-Calvinists, especially their leaders (Piper, Mohler, Dever, et al) is that they try to eliminate any sense of mystery and wonder. Not everything can or should be explained.”
++++++++++++++++
as if God can be contained in a box / book / system of thought.
@ Andy:
“…The only sin that one is excommunicated for is Impenitence — refusal to repent when confronted with sin…
…I would imagine there’s something more here than meets the eye.”
++++++++++++++++++
sin invention, for starters.
Andy wrote:
The reason there is more there than meets the eye is that the pastors refused to tell anyone what was said about the victim in this situation. Also, neither pastor is at the church anymore. I agree, there is more to the story. But it might be about the pastors mishandling of the situation.
elastigirl wrote:
Deb will posting on that story this evening.
Will M wrote:
I agreed with you.
@ Will M:
It is my understanding that everything Calvinista hinges on Romans 9.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Oh Good Night! Talk about obsessive.
JYJames wrote:
I believe this is true in many evangelical circles, especially those more conservatively oriented, not just N-C/YRR. When I took Systematic Theology we used a text by Millard Erickson who is moderately Calvinistic at best. In his book, the fist chapter/lesson was on the Bible, the second on God. The reason for that ordering is because the Bible is seen as objective truth and therefore it is the foundation for our understanding and knowledge of God.
From a philosophical standpoint, I appreciate the appeal to objective truth. Unfortunately, in this instance it is circular because what makes the Bible true is that God is the Author and He is True. To put is simply, the Bible is the true because it was authored (breathed) by God, Who is the Truth. How do we know this? The Bible tells us so.
To apply this to your statement: God “is” but we only know that He “is” because the Bible tells us He “is”. (Therefore the Bible is the source of our knowledge of God.)
What needs to be emphasized, but usually isn’t (that I can tell), is the level of faith it takes to accept this view of the Bible. Teachers can point to proofs all they want (so many manuscripts, so many predictions, etc.) but when it gets boiled down to the basics, we have to have faith to believe in the veracity of the Bible. After all, the author of Hebrews (who I do not believe to be Paul, btw) said: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (11:1).
Leslie wrote:
So far, she still had custody of her younger children but there is continuing conflict.
@ dee:
NOT the same one we were speaking of a couple of posts ago, btw.
Burwell Stark wrote:
Ditto, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.
@ Andy:
Andy, If you think 100% of the congregants won’t vote for the excommunication caused by a “confidential” (as in ‘we have to keep it secret’) sin, then you need to get out more.
elastigirl wrote:
New Calvinists hold to an extreme position on the sovereignty of God and toss man’s free will aside. Scripture says much about the sovereignty of God. Scripture says much about human responsibility. It all works together in a way that is beyond human comprehension. To put the mind of God into a neat systematic theological box is to stand before Him in arrogance and error.
Burwell Stark wrote:
And the Father and Son are eternally subordinate to the Holy Scripture
@ Burwell Stark:
“Teachers can point to proofs all they want (so many manuscripts, so many predictions, etc.) but when it gets boiled down to the basics, we have to have faith to believe in the veracity of the Bible. After all, the author of Hebrews (who I do not believe to be Paul, btw) said: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (11:1).”
++++++++++++++++++
So, what is your view of the bible at this point in time? (you may have already commented on this elsewhere)
@ elastigirl:
I still believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in the original. It is the foundation of our faith and is the lens by which we come to know God through Jesus Christ.
I do not believe, however, that it was written to be medical manual, science textbook, counseling guide, etc.
@ Q:
“Man (sorry for the ‘man’ thing,I grew up in So Cal…) If you are in Christ you’re golden, no matter what, not the Christ of your denomination or the Christ of our imagination.
If you are in the Christ “Jesus” of the bible, You are GOLDEN.”
++++++++++++++
are there a variety of ways one can become “in Christ Jesus”? What does it mean to be “in Christ Jesus”?
@ Burwell Stark:
“we have to have faith to believe in the veracity of the Bible”
“I still believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, inerrant in the original”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
There are many thousands of Christian denominations/traditions, each with their own slant on veracity.
Which one is right?
Do you think it is possible that veracity (in divine proportions) can be multi-sided, many-angled, that it can be apples and oranges at the same time? square circle?
That’s how I tend to see it. My systematic theology comes down to treating people the way I want to be treated.
elastigirl wrote:
Or is it just another Christianese Buzzword?
JeffT wrote:
At which point, you are into Socratic Atheism country.
Because if God is eternally subordinate to anything, he isn’t God; the thing he’s subordinate to is.
(In this case, King Jimmy.)
dee wrote:
She has custody only until her ex tries to hurt her by taking the next one away.
And the next one.
And the next one.
And the next one — spacing them out to maximize her suffering.
lydia wrote:
Again, Socratic Atheism.
Deb wrote:
But he was apparently somebody’s Good Little Court Favorite…
JeffT wrote:
Like the Koran?
I see your Jesus, Paul, Jude, and Calvin and raise you one Mohammed.
Because these More-Calvinist-than-Calvin Fanboys are going down the same road as Mohammed’s More-Islamic-than-Mohammed Fanboys that are all over the news from the Levant.
elastigirl wrote:
And political extremists, such as those who shaped world history of the past century starting around WW1.
@ Hester:
Yes, well, the LCMS is out there proving that it won’t allow anyone to mess with it.
Unfortunately.
@ Hester:
Maybe it is already. T-shirt, too.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
There are many ways to censor speech/ideas. Shame, factionalism, accusations of biogtry, etc. They all work in certain settings. Most want to be accepted so they censor themselves on the free exchange of ideas they fear are controversial to the group. To me, it really comes down to encouraging people to be independent thinkers not caring about acceptance to some group. Only then will we start to see real change.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I heard he was sharing a stage with Pete Rollins and Rob Bell.
Hester wrote:
To any hardcore LCMSers here, I’ll repeat the same thing I’ve said to the fundie Baptists, etc.: If you tell me creationism is the truth, but I can look in the scienceS (note the plural) and see that creationism is a pack of lies, then why on earth should I believe you when you say you know the way to salvation? That’s right, I really shouldn’t.
@ mirele:
Despite my struggles with the faith, I still lean towards YEC. I wouldn’t say that YEC/ Creationism is a pack of lies but a different way of looking at things. 🙁
I don’t automatically write off those who oppose YEC/Creationism as being liars or their views as being lies.
YEC (and/or macro evolution, old age of the earth and related topics) is not a hot button topic for me, though, which is why I don’t get into prolonged debates about it with people. I am mystified why it is so passionately debated by so many other people.
those two old people in their seventies . . . what on Earth could they possibly have done to get ‘excommunicated’ at THAT age?
and then shunned by the larger community?
a sad tale that begins with coffee grounds spilled into the coffee and ends with two old people and two pastors gone from a Christian community of faith . . . whatever the truth is behind this we may never know, but cases like this where people’s lives are so injured do show that there is something unwholesome about a disciplinary program that has the power to injure, but not the spiritual power to reconcile and heal the breaches between members of the faith community
an old couple in their seventies ? . . . the Church should have been able to work this out, for goodness sake
dee wrote:
Here’s a good post by Roger Olson on why the Calvinista interpretation of Romans 9 is wrong
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/10/why-high-calvinism-is-impossible-with-special-reference-to-romans-9/
As a veteran of a small church I know how easily rumors and accusations can spiral out of control if the accused isn’t given the information to confront them.
Here is an accusation made about me. I was asked to help the youth group with their garage sale. No one else showed up early to price the items so I did it myself. I didn’t buy anything because I had done all the pricing.
Six months later, a fellow church member and I saw a promising looking garage sale and stopped on our way to another activity. The next day in church, a busybody overheard me remark to the other woman that we certainly had gotten some great bargains at the garage sale. She jumped to the conclusion that we were speaking of the youth group’s sale months earlier and told people that I had underpriced items that my friend and I wanted to buy. If I hadn’t been able to ask the busybody why in the world she would say such a thing, I would not have been able to get to the bottom of it.
What if the busybody had gone to the pastor and the pastor asked me to repent for cheating the church without telling me how I was supposed to have done that and who had accused me? I would have been bewildered.
My sympathies are with the elderly couple.
@ Christiane:
Honestly, i have never heard of people in my synod or diocese getting a reprimand, let alone being excommunicated. This kind of thing is alien to the non-fundy Lutheran churches and synods, but with hardline LCMSers, i have to say that it’s less shocking than it ought to be. The age of this couple however… no.words.
Burwell Stark wrote:
I have written a comment on this subject on the open discussion page. I personally started out in a religious tradition that thinks what you think but my ‘faith journey’ (to use some christianese) has landed me in a different place. This is a subject which has been hugely important to me over the years.
dee wrote:
I don’t necessarily disagree but only one side of this has been presented. While I’m inclined to side with the pastors and don’t see any issue with them not being there anymore; let’s face it: Small town churches are like revolving doors for pastors getting their first call that they’ve moved on doesn’t seem out of the ordinary to me. But there’s a lot of might be’s about this. That a congregational meeting was held and it would have only took one person to stand up on this gals behalf? It seems telling to me at least. But again it’s hard to judge a matter without hearing both sides. I can’t imagine they’ll win the court case. They’re not hearing the discipline issue; they’re hearing the alleged result of it.
I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would be inclined to side with the pastor. It is almost incomprehensible to me. Look at the outcome: the pastor has moved on and this woman’s life is ruined.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that the woman was very troublesome and falsely accused the pastor of stealing. Can a church not deal with difficult people? Heaven knows my church did! We never excommunicated anyone. I would sit down with her and show her the books!
And if she really was troublesome, perhaps dementia has set in. I have two friends who were accused by elderly relatives of stealing from them (a mother and an aunt). One had forgotten that she had given household items to a grand daughter for her first apartment and the other forgot that a CD had had to be cashed in to pay for her late husband’s nursing home care. My friends were very sad but they understood. These things happen; they are part of life.
Do you think Jesus is happy about an old lady being shunned? That people are so mean they can’t even say hello and inquire about her health in the supermarket but turn away from her.
Siding with the pastor? There is noting he could tell me that would make this right.
I want to clarify something about funerals for people who commit suicide. I am uncertain not performing them is biblical, or allowing them to be buried in a churches cementary because of the holiness of the ground is also biblical or Christian. It is a tradition I found shocking within certain Christian denominations. It stems out of the Roman Catholic Church. Any church closely connected to the Catholic tradition such as Lutheran and Anglican may have churches who refuse Christian burials for persons who committed suicide and subsequently may shun their families. They may not know how to deal with it. I was discussing this tradition of non burial and shunning with a friend who used to be a devout RCC and also read that it still happens in Anglicanism and was officially part of Anglican cannon law until 1877. I always thought that confessional Lutherans we are discussing (i.e. LCMS and WELS) are similar to conservative Catholics in practice and discipline, but I am non liturgical Protestant in tradition. I would still like to know this practice’s Biblical basis not from the Book of Concord or some other source I may view as non or extra Biblical. If it is in the Book of Concord where is it in the 2006 LCMS edition?
Andy wrote:
The indication there was no dissension is a good indicator of an abusive system. If this were an open system where people had the ability to present their own views there would have been contrary votes. I’ll go further, a 100% vote is not a vote, it is a forced outcome, those present will have know what was the correct way to vote and casting a contrary vote may well be setting yourself up to be next in line.
Finally, it would have taken more than one person.
@ Andy:
“While I’m inclined to side with the pastors and don’t see any issue with them not being there anymore; let’s face it: Small town churches are like revolving doors for pastors getting their first call that they’ve moved on doesn’t seem out of the ordinary to me.”
++++++++++++++++++
perhaps not out of the ordinary (disappointingly so), but a young inexperienced recent adult swoops in, causes damage to human lives because of ideology and then swoops out and you’re on his side??
tell me, what ideology is so important that it is worth destroying people over?
elastigirl wrote:
None. We can disagree on issues without destroying lives. Besides, how long was the couple in this church before the young leaders arrived? The couple seemed to get along with everyone for ___ years before the problems appeared.
@ Bridget:
elastigirl wrote: “tell me, what ideology is so important that it is worth destroying people over?”
Bridget wrote: “None. We can disagree on issues without destroying lives.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
It seems Tom Braun, Joe Behnke, and other ideologues have hills for other people to die on. While Tom & Joe in particular enjoy the financial foundation laid by the likes of the Pfeils.
Until they get tired of it and move on to enjoy yet another financial foundation laid by those who came long before. Wielding their ideology all the way. Casualties this time, too?
Despite what you people seem to think WELS is not a fundamentalist church. Saying it is only alienates people that otherwise might be sympathetic to your cause. They have spoken against it several times and have come out official against it as well. Though probably not for the reasons you think. I suggest putting your bias aside and actually look into it. Deriding a group of people by calling them fundamentalist is typical loaded language, a thought stopper.
The unaltered Augsburg confession refers to the confession that Melanchthon wrote back in 1530. At the time of the writing of the Book of Concord there were two confessions in use, one by the Philipist and one by the gnesio-lutherans. The one used by the Philpist was written to accommodate the Calvinists that denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Please do some research into it before you lambast the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, it makes you look really silly. Better yet, if it is wrong, prove it.
As far as the Boys Scouts is concerned well, here’s a direct quote from the WELS website.
“Our basic objection to Scouting was that the required promise and law contain religious elements which imply that the Scout can do his duty to God regardless of what religion he belongs to. This contradicts the clear statements of Scripture that no one can perform works pleasing to God without faith in Christ.”
I didn’t read anything in their official statement that said it was a sin to pray with boy Scouts. Like I said before, it has more to do with pietism than anything else.
Now if you choose to worship at a church that ordains homosexuals, hands out communion to abortionist, doesn’t believe in six day creation, or even preaches ways to heaven other than Christ, well that, according to the first amendment is your right.
But you don’t have the right to slander those that don’t believe as you do. Doing so makes you just as bad as the people the you say oppress you.
Have a nice day.
@ Jonathan:
Your 3d-to-last paragraph is nothing if not highly judgmental – betraying a fundamentalist outlook.
Btw, while you might not realize it, a lot of us in the ELCA are all about the unalteted Augsburg confession. The typical WELS & LCMS definition of “confserional Lutheran” does not acknowledge others who also hold to the creeds and the original Augsburg Confesdion. Granted, we do not hold to the enyire Book of Convord in the same way that you do, but neither do we blithely disrdgard it. You say we are caricaturing your synod, but then you do the same thing that you condemn us for.
Do you think it might be possible that there is a very wide range of belief and practice in the ELCA, just as there is in the LCMX? (I cannot put the WELS in that category.)
Please understand that the German and Swedish Lutherans who came to the colonies from the lste 17th-entire 18th c. were NOT dealing with being forced to merge with the Reformed chuches due to thr Prussian union. It was not on the radar here, and it is not to this day. Please also do a search for the extensive documentation i mentioned above; i would never fabricate such claims, though you might choose to believe that i did. I do not have the links handy (lost them in a hard drive crash) and a few cursory searches should turn thrm up. It is not my job to try and refute you, you know?
Also, it sounds to me like you’ve spent very little, if any, time eith members of other synods, and i think you might benefit from doing so.
Just my .02…
@ numo:
Apologies for typos. Darned phone…
@ Jonathan:
Please note that i linked to the same page on the WELS site upthread…
I am not here as a member of a dehate team.
Wow! I heard years ago from a friend that conservative confessional Lutherans despise the designation of “fundamentalist.” I don’t know the whole story about the Pfiel’s and their former LCMS church, but I hope if they were wronged, they are vindicated. Reading elsewhere it all started over a coffee grounds in coffee in church kitchen incident and escalated with the excommunication taking place a year later. Apparently the couple appealed to higher authority in the LCMS and the excommunication was affirmed with the additional claim by one of the church pastors that the Pfiels were accusing pastor of pilfering church funds. Some of the issues the Minnesota Supreme Court may not be able to rule on, but other issues may be civil issues. What is unfortunate is that lies can be covered up under the excuse of confidentiality and how far this conflict escalated.
@ Jonathan:
I think any group or individual that views Scouting as some sort of alternative religious system might not understand either the history of the Scouting organization or the purpose of either the BSA or the GSA.
@ Jonathan:
Please tell me how the non-sectarian oath and prayers are related to actusl pietism? This is a sincere question, as i hsve encountered a lot of anti-pietism sentiment among conservstive members of the LCMS.
Are you certain you mean “pietism,” as opposed to somethi g dlse? Again, a sincere question from me.
Jonathan wrote:
Designating a religious group as fudamentalist is not slander. Many religious groups are fine with the designation. It is not a ‘dirty’ word.
@ Bridget:
I think some folks’ dander is up ever since the Michele Bachmann and the whole “the pope is the antichrist” bit (never repudiated by either the WELS – her former church – or the LCMS) thing got out, during the last presidential election campaign.
It’s a bit like the more-or-less fundy, not-in-communion with Rome because it is far too “liberal” Catholics referring to themselves as “traditionalists,” when really, they fit the definition of “fundamentalist” better.
Our LCMS church had a Vicar who had been raised Catholic and and had been married 5 times and just as he was about to be ordained he admitted to having an affair with the church president, a woman married to a Jewish Veterinarian, and was surprised that the congregation no longer wanted him for their pastor. The congregation was given assurances that he would not be able to pastor any other LCMS churches as she and he divorced their spouses and married each other. However he has the wholehearted support of a A$#. of God minister up in Tacoma and who knows… maybe coming to a church near you.
K.D. wrote:
K.D. wrote:
Well, the good news is that I don’t have to worry about accidentally starting to attend a WELS church, because they’d kick me out before I could even get to a pew, and I doubt I have to worry about getting invited… (maybe I should order a rainbow wrist band just to be doubly certain)
numo wrote:
My phone won’t let me make typos; it insists on inserting words that I didn’t intend. Spawn of Satin, it is!
@ Josh:
Join the club of heathens, Let’s see :Pentecostals, baptists, liberals, people who wear rainbow wrist bands, children whose parents are of same gender, families in grief due to a suicide, visitors who haven’t been granted permission to visit , prostitutes, and people who disagree with pastor need not attend. They are definitely not in fellowship with these kind of people. This is worse in some ways than secondary separation. When I visited IFB churches they were super nice to me and tried to get to know me, and if I were in grief, they would minister to me. But then again I am a baptist, and maybe a little bit of that awful word: “fundamentalist.” If someone were to call me that word, I would just smile at them and say, “whatever.”
I swear I used to see this placard in front of some churches: “sinners welcome.” I always hope this is so for everyone who visits or attends that church.
Mark wrote:
For fun we could start a list of words that could/might/may indicate that a person or group falls within the category of fundamentalist, broadly defined. I can think of a few.
traditional
original
apostolic
true (as part of church name)
holy (as part of church name)
holiness
conservative
bible (as part of church name)
anglican (a word with many meanings/implications-this is one)
separated
confessing
Maybe I can think of a few more but right now I have to throw my clothes on and get to my church which is all at the same time traditional, liberal, catholic but not Catholic, episcopal but avoids the word anglican, and who knows what all else. We adhere to the words of the creed that the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic–but the only thing we are anywhere near fundamentalist about would be perhaps the music. And the music thing is more cultural than religious-music is big in our town. Go figure.
So what I am saying is that maybe we don’t need to get too committed to categories when in practice we allow ourselves such diversity.
Christiane wrote:
That was my reaction, too: They’re in their 70’s, for heaven’s sake!!
And the whole community–Christian or no–scandalized by the story.
The devil walking up & down, seeking whom he may destroy…
Marsha wrote:
Exactly!!
@ Mark:
It’s not the traditional fundamentals that make me uncomfortable (even if I’m not sure about the version of inerrancy usually held on this end of the spectrum)… it’s just that for most of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists I’ve encountered in the past, the old fundamentals have played second string to KJV-onlyism, six day creationism, and believing that you’re not a true Christian if you don’t agree with every line of the extremist right side of the Republican party’s agenda. But I think I could get along with any Christian who holds to the original fundamentals and lets the minor issues be … minor issues. 🙂
Josh wrote:
Minus their militancy and hatred of science and secondary separation , I get along fine with them . I never discuss these issues with them, though one church member proudly showed me a letter he wrote Clinton. The secret service wrote him a letter back. My independent baptist friends do care and mean well. One of the churches I visited used the new King James Bible and the other church had a pastor who was a science fiction geek. Luis Pilau was having a crusade in the community and both churches didn’t participate because of secondary separation. Some independent baptists ( i.e. GARBC and Richard Clearwaters) have rejected King James only.
Here is an interesting bit of history forgotten by most baptists. We were once a persecuted minority:
http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/persecutionoutline.htm
We have freedom of religion and church/state separation due to advocacy of baptists.
I realize the LCMS is using separation of church/state argument in the Pfeil case, but defaming and destroying and hurting people has nothing to do with separation of church and state because if claimed actions were done in the civil realm it would be a civil case. People shouldn’t use religion as a cover for behaving badly. In examples from Bruce Gourley a preachers hand was broken by another Christian. Today this would be a civil case and wouldn’t have anything to do with religion.
There are two things that bother me about this. The first is the presumption of innocence. It may be true that the old couple were indeed wrongly blamed for something, but without knowing exactly what the discipline entails, surely it is only fair to reserve judgement on whether or not the church has done something wrong. The first to state his case seems right, until his opponent begins to cross-examine him. For argument’s sake, if the couple were gossips (and I know just how distorted most gossip is), then it is hardly surprising the church refused to disclose who had said what. It would soon end up all over the neighbourhood in the most garbled manner imaginable.
And at the risk of being a cracked record, the ‘discipline’ chapter in 1 Cor 6 says When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? … brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you, so should this be taken before a secular court at all? Is it not shameful when this happens? It may be that wrong has been done, but is it not possible for the church to deal with this, for example, leaders from other churches in the locality to adjudicate over what was done? I know if I were so wronged it might be a temptation to seek redress in the local law court, but is there not a Higher Court that will one day sit in judgement on all these matters, a Court with perfect knowledge of the facts?
Paul may not outright forbid this in so many words, but it is no coincidence that he goes on to deal with the matter of the unrighteous not inheriting the kingdom of God, and that is when the sheep will be separated from the goats, even religious, MDiv or ‘charismatically anointed’ etc. etc. goats. If he were here today, would he not say ‘disassociate yourself’ from such people and churches rather than go to court?
The irony of Baptists/Evangelicals/(insert denomination here) criticising Lutherans on a blog called Wartburg Watch is almost too much. As regards Lutheran beliefs, my question is why do you care? It is not your church, so what difference does it make to you?
As regards the Pfeil situation, it took a congregational vote to excommunicate them. For some reason they did not appeal. Why?
Finally, if RCC is so loving and Lutherans are so hate-filled, why does RCC maintain the belief that Lutherans are accursed? (Anathema. See Council of Trent) This applies to all who believe that salvation is by God’s grace, if I remember correctly.
BC wrote:
And that the congregation didn’t need to watch soap operas.
Jonathan wrote:
Don’t forget Whore of Babylon(TM), Popery(TM), Secular Humanism(TM), and Satanic Black Masses/Witches’ Sabbats(TM)…
mirele wrote:
St Augustine said much the same thing some 1600 years ago.
Auggie had his personal baggage, but in this he was dead on.
@ Jonathan:
They are using “fundamentalist” in a very loose way, ignoring its historical development. You are quite right in pointing out that WELS/ELS and LCMS were never a part of fundamentalism.
@ Keith:
But you are, essentially, fundamentalist (not the meaning you’re giving to it, but a broader one) in many of yourbeliefs and practices.
Also, your assumptions about who is doing the critiquing here – and why – might just be, err, fundamentally flawed. (Though it is true that none of the Lutherans who 1st vommented on this post have a WELS background -discounting jonsthan.)
@ numo:
Can you prove that LCMS and WELS/ELS were part of the Fundamentalist movement? What is a “Fundamentalist” to you?
So why are people critiquing Lutheran theological views here? Why do you care? Are you Lutheran? Are there lots of Lutherans here?
With regards to the Pfeil case, would it make a difference to you if Mrs. Pfeil was a traditionalist who did not like contemporary worship? ( I am not saying this is the case)
So explain to me how my assumptions are “fundamentally flawed” regarding who is commenting here?
Keith wrote:
I don’t believe you have to be a member of a movement to be a fundamentalist. I am astounded Christians of Synodical conference background are even expressing themselves on this forum. Most people here don’t hold to the documents of the Book of Concord and me a baptist disagree with your almost Catholic views of the Lord’s supper and baptismal regeneration. These are issues of fellowship that wouldn’t have allowed your participation in the fundamentalist movement, much less fellowship with the Calvinists or the Arminian strains that made up the early fundamentalist movement. This would be tantamount to that dreaded word, “unionism.” You divide further on the fellowship issue on the schism of the Church of the Lutheran Confession with the WELS over fellowship with LCMS because of LCMS relations with the old ALS, and now the controversy is over Thrivent insurance. “Liberal” Lutherans are involved in this venture and It smacks of secondary separation, something fundamentalists are very familiar with.
The issue at the Supreme Court of Minnesota as I understand it, is not the excommunication of the Pfiels, but other issues. I don’t know if the Pfiels are bitter gossips, but I do know that on these secondary issues, such as alleged defamation of character, they deserve a day in court.
@ Keith:
Thank God yours isn’t the only version of Christianity and hurt people abused by your variety of Churches don’t only have to fellowship in your churches.
@ Mark:
I don’t know what to write about your surprise at my commenting. I know you probably don’t think we are Christians, and I don’t really care. God judges us, not Baptists.
Fundamentalism has an entirely different history. The Synodical Conference had nothing to do with it. How do you define fundamentalist?
The Worthington Daily Globe has a more detailed article about the issues raised.
Old “ALS”? I do know of the ALC, but never heard of ALS.
@ Mark:
Plenty of people have been abused in a variety of denominations. Even really fashionable ones.
Keith wrote:
I have no opinions on the merits of this particular case, for the reasons Flag Ken has noted (I don’t know enough about it). Nor have I any strong views on “Lutheran beliefs”. This is, indeed, my only comment on this thread. But as regards it not being “our” church, and not something about which any of us (“Lutheran” or otherwise) should be concerned, you could hardly be more wrong.
No matter how much men and women may try to splinter it into denominations, sects, factions, communions, synods or anything else, there has only ever been and can only ever be one Church. That church isn’t mine in the sense that I own it, but it is mine in the sense that I belong to it, and every part of it at that. Where any group of men and/or women the world over profess to follow Jesus, then I have an interest in their wellbeing.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
So you think LCMS people can be Christians?
Mr. Bulbeck: If you care about LCMS/WELS/ELS people, you won’t deride them for being sacramental, YEC, and ‘fundamentalists” as some posters seem intent on doing.
In addition, Lutheran doctrines are for Lutherans to decide, not Presbyterians, “evangelicals”, RCC or even Anglicans.
@ Keith:
If you start at the beginning of the comments thread, you will clearly see who was raised Lutheran, who is currently Lutheran, etc. I am not going to repeat what I have already said, in attempting to reply to a commenter named jonathan, who is in WELS.
@ Keith:
I think you are Christians. I don’t believe strict adherence to your version of secondary separation permits fellowship with those who don’t hold your interpretation of the Lutheran confessions, if you are true to your doctrinal platform. I perceive this as an inconsistency. This blog is a fellowship of sorts because we are gathering together to make sense of issues. One other time a confessional Lutheran made comment that we should prove the teachings of the Book of Concord are not what the Bible teaches. The Book of Concord were written by faulty human beings. Yes I can consider what they wrote, but there is a higher authority I must turn to and I must base this on the Reformation ideal of priesthood of the believer. There are abusive churches in every sector of Christianity. It was a little knee jerk that I singled out confessional Lutherans in this, and for this I am sorry. I do, however view you as fundamentalists because you care enough to take the founding documents of your denomination seriously and you take the Bible literally and its teachings seriously.
@ numo Yes, i saw your “LCMX” insult. Kind of cheap, that one.
It bolded,I do not know why.
@ Keith:
I doubt you would view my synod as even being Lutheran, so what you really might say (in preference to the wording you used) is something like this:
“It is for my synod to decide how we are going to interpret the Augsburg Confessions [etc.].”
By saying “Lutherans,” you appear to be saying your synod any any others that are in communion with it. Not all actual Lutherans.
One of the traditional strengths of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion is its ability to accomodate many differing perspectives. Unfortunately, things are very strained there at present, but the fact that most members *share a common language* is key. This was not true for the many Lutherans who emigrated to the New World, beginning with the earliest Swedish settlers in what are now DE and PA.
I did comment above at some length about the folks (like you, I think) whose ancestors came here after the Prussian Union and merging with the Reformed churches, as opposed to those of us whose ancestors did not deal with that specific crisis (though my German ancestors were likely fleeing the depredations of wars in what is now Germany, in the late 1600s-early 1700s).
I think one reason that we do not cling so tightly to the Book of Concord (even though we have the confessions, too) is that our ancestors were simply not facing the kinds of political and social opposition that yours faced. Nobody tried to force them to allow some degree of Reformed theology into their churches and lives. Equally, nobody told my recent ancestors that they had to discard the findings of many of the sciences in order to adhere to the belief in a literal 6-day creation, etc. Or inerrantism.
@ Keith:
I will not respond to that kind of comment, Keith. Except to say (obviously) that I won’t respond.
@ numo:
and any others…
“LCMS is proving no one is allowed to mess with it won’t allow anyone to mess with it. Unfortunately.” Exactly. You find it unfortunate, but i think it is great. Other denominations have no business telling LCMS what their doctrine should be.
Why did the Pfeils not appeal?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This.
@ numo:
What kind of comment? Have i insulted you?
@ numo:
Would ELCA folks like it if I wrote E?CA? i do not write this because I have many good friends in ELCA.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes. And especially where people end up dead because of what the men and women believers think the bible says.
@ Keith:
Sorry — the successor body of the Ohio synod, the American Lutheran Church. You got me going on the synods.
@ Keith:
It’s a typo (the cap X), not anything intentional at all.
I was using one of my tablets, and its virtual keyboard leaves a lot to be desired. I missed many other errors (like lowercase s for lowercase a) in the same comment, too.
Please do not assume that I am out to deliberately insult anyone.
@ Keith:
Like I said, it was a typo. I would give you the benefit of the doubt.
This isn’t, unfortunately, a conversation, so I am bowing out.
@ Keith:
No, but you were deliberately attempting to bait me.
I’m best off staying out of this, since it is totally unproductive.
@ Keith:
Fundamentals are inerrancy of Scripture, literal interpretation of Biblical events, including the Creation story, the virgin birth of Christ,, the bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ, the substitutionary atonement if Christ on the cross. Now many sects that adhere to these also add different views of eschatology, and in the grand scheme of things, they may all be right.
I do view you as a Christian, not lesser nor more. Where I have a question is with regards to the fellowship issue. I view this blog as a fellowship of people who may not necessarily hold the same views on practice of faith, or theology, but we are by and large Christians. A common issue in successor bodies of the Synodical conference is fellowship only with those of the same doctrine. And according to rules there is a separation from denominations that are not of like doctrine. What you view as essential to fellowship is very strict. We all don’t hold to Francis Pieper’s 1931 Missouri Synod doctrinal statement nor the Book of Concord. Some of us are Calvinists, Pentacostals, and baptists.
If a WELS pastor was at my house he couldn’t pray with me according to this fellowship doctrine. I don’t believe in some issues the WELS considers essential.
Now the Pfiels did appeal to a higher LCMS court. The excommunication was affirmed. As I understand it, it is now a secular matter, aside from excommunication, for the Minnesota Supreme Court to rule on. You are correct that there is abuse in all denominations. I would submit that all activities by religious people may not be covered under the umbrella of separation of church and state. Sexual abuse and killing people are inexcusable, and other issues may also be inexcusable.
Keith wrote:
Keith, you seem very angry on someone’s behalf, to the extent that – for instance – you saw Numo’s “LCMX insult” as you put it, but not her immediate apology for the typo (TBH, since “x” is next to “s” and Numo has previously referred to the trials of commenting via a phone, it wasn’t likely to be anything else…) Even I saw both of them, and I’ve only been skimming the thread for the last few minutes to get some idea of where you’re coming from. (I’ve also been reading the UK Climbing website, so this comment is late in coming.)
I would be happy to answer your question: assuming it is indeed a question and not just a challenge.
I know very little about LCMS people, but why – if they call Jesus their Lord – would I not think they can be Christians? What’s wrong with them – are they too keen on making their own doctrine? I.e., are they some kind of crackpot bunch like the Watchtower, claiming biblical basis for themselves alone and inventing their own doctrines mainly to subvert historical christianity?
Do you think I might be a Christian?
Be any of which as it may, it is now past midnight in Scotland, and I’m off to bed. Should you choose to reply, and of course you’re free not to, I hope you’ll excuse the fact that I won’t see it until tomorrow.
Bridget wrote:
I actually consider some atheists to be fundamentalists. Some of them object to that when others refer to them as fundamentalist atheists.
I don’t recall telling an atheist personally, “Hey, you’re a fundie atheist!,” but I’ve seen others online make the comparison, and some atheists argue with that label.
The militant atheists I see on forums and blogs often remind me of fundamentalist Christians, though (and I don’t mean the old school use of the term, the Neo-Fundamentalists). The attitude, narrow mindedness, and judgmentalism is the same, regardless if it’s an atheist, Christian, or in some cases, Muslims.
Some of the guys in ISIS make fundie Christians and fundie atheists look like big, lovable teddy bears.
Mark wrote:
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that… but… I hope you’re not equating a belief in YEC or Creationism with “a hatred of science.”
Many folks who embrace a literal six day creation don’t “hate science.”
Keith wrote:
How long have you been visiting this blog, lurking?
The regular commentators here run the gamut from conservative Christian to atheist and everything in between.
Daisy wrote:
To each their own. Others do share my concerns. Whether creation is a literal six day creation or an age gap that took place over eons is not an essential issue to me. I do love my country and it does concern me if we deny science, not over a literal six day creation, but what could impact our descendants. Then we will prove to our descedents , we were anti science. I hope it doesn’t come to pass.
Missouri Lutherans believed that the sun rotated around the earth a century ago because it was literally in the Bible. It is in the Bible in Joshua 10:12 and Psalms 93:1. In Joshua 10:12 the sun and the moon stop in the sky and in Psalm 93:1 the world is described as fixed. Sorry, I don’t believe the Bible is a science book, but to school their own.
http://www.businessinsider.com/anti-science-movement-hurts-america-2015-3
Mark wrote:
Has anyone ever seen that Cheribum with the flaming sword that God placed at the east of the garden of Eden?
Sorry for many typos. To school their own : should be to each their own.
Given the format, it is hard to separate comments and responses, but I will attempt to do so.
Numo: I was never attempting to “bait” you. Your apology regarding the LCMX typo is accepted, and I thank you for it.
Nr. Bulbeck: Yes, you might be Christian. If you say you are, I accept that. There are many different definitions of “Christian”. I have heard from Baptists in the past that Lutherans are not Christians. As to whether I am “very angry”, this is not the case.
Mark: I stand corrected on whether the Pfeils appealed. Thank you. I also appreciate the charity you show in your comment that LCMS are Christians. It has been my experience that some reach the opposite conclusion. LCMS in your country is Evangelical Lutheran Church of England.
Dasy: Citation please for the allegation that the LCMS believed the sun revolved around the earth as recently as a century ago.
As regards the Pfeil case, I do feel sadness for her. Even if she was in the wrong, she is now in a difficult position. There must be a background to all of this which may shed some light on things.
I meant to write Mr. Bulbeck. Apologies.
@ Keith:
If a person believes in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and has repented of their sins and accepted Jesus Christ as his/her personal savior, that person is a Christian. That includes Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Nazarenes, Non-Denoms, etc., and all of the factions within each religion. All “religions” are created by man, so no “religion” is perfect. We have disagreements, oftentimes even within our own churches.
Paul did say that we see through a glass darkly.
We have disagreements on TWW, sometimes heated ones, but as long as we are civil, the DEEBS leave the door open to all of us ~~ unlike a lot of churches!
@ Keith:
Geocentrism was discussed in Francis Pieper’s book 4 of his magnum opus, Christian Dogmatics. (1917) Pieper was a great theologian. I just disagree with him on certain points. Lutherans outside Missouri Synod teased Missouri Lutherans for many years for this entry in main theological textbook.
Really if we take the Bible literally at certain points, the RCC was right and Galilleo was wrong. Geocentrism is more common view in the space age than anyone would think possible.
http://abc3miscellany.blogspot.com/2011/08/copernicus-and-church-lutherans-and.html
@ Mark:
Mark: I see that the citation is to a work by Pieper rather than to the Lutheran Confessions, so it does not have the status of a statement of doctrine. Pieper is pretty good, but I have not read him exhaustively.
I do believe in a certain geocentricity, but not of a physical nature. God does focus on this particular planet, and especially the people on the earth. Sometimes I jokingly tell people that I believe the earth is flat or hollow, just to see the reactions.
@ Keith:
Keith, an explanation is exactly that. I did not “apologize” to you, but I *-did* explain the typo.
There is a differrnce. Honestly, I think you were out in left field with that, and overreacted.
Case closed.
@ Keith:
Keith, that comment you just directed at Nick B. is uncalled-for. I think you owe him an apology for it.
@ Nancy2:
The geography mentioned in that sevtion of Genedis (about rivers, etc.) is distinctly odf, too, though it’s more than posdible that they mistook tributaries of the Tigris and Euphrates for separate rivers, among other things.
@ Keith:
I do not think *anybody* here has made remarks about members of the LCMS not being xtians, though certainly, the OP is about incredibly uncharitable actions by *some* in the LCMS.
Regrettably, there are people like that in every crowd. But whst hsppened should *not* ever have gotten anywhere close to what it turned into, and I’m appalled that the LCMS backed this no-experience in the padtorate “padtor” and his excommunication of Mrs. Pfeil. He should be ashamed of himself, and so should all the Good Old Boys who circled the wagons.
This is yhe 1st time in my life thst i have ever heard of a Lutheran church excommunicating anyone, and I’m not exactly a kid anymore. I hope and pray that it doesn’t hsppen to anyone else.
Keith wrote:
What? Was that comment meant for me?
My screen name is “DAISY” as in the flower, not DASY, so I’m not sure if you meant me or someone else.
I have posted nothing about LCMS and the sun. Why on earth are you asking me that?
Mark wrote:
Ain’t no big hot deal topic for me either, but with a lot of others, it sure is.
I don’t care what people think the age of the earth is.
My beef is with the anti-YEC types and anti Creationist types who depict all YECs and/or Creationists as being “anti science” yokels.
@ numo:
OK, then i will revoke my acceptance of your apology.
@ numo:
Which comment?
Daisy: It was meant for Mark. Please disregard. Sorry for the typo on your name.
@ numo:
Numo: I am not an xtian, whatever that is.
Mark: Thanks for the link to that article. It was quite interesting.
Keith wrote:
“xtian” is shorthand for the word “Christian.”
Before reading the sniping on this thread, I used to think Lutherans sure must be warm and fuzzy types, from that Davey and Goliath stop motion kid’s show.
In light of this tread, though, I’ve had to re-assess that perspective. 🙂
@ Daisy:
Sorry, Daisy.
So does anyone on here have any more info on the Pfeil case? In addition to the Globe article, and the other one which I think was from Star Tribune?
@ Daisy:
Meaning what?
Keith wrote:
You asked what does “xtian” mean in a prior post, and I just told you that “xtian” is often used as shorthand for the word “Christian.” That’s all. Nothing was implied.
I don’t have a dog in your intramural Lutheran dog fighting show, but you seem to have a huge chip on your shoulder, you seem unnecessarily confrontational, angry, looking for offense when none is intended… or it’s your writing style, I cannot tell.
Mark wrote:
Well, there’s always “Veggie Tales.”
Unless that was a Lutheran produced show too??
Daisy: I am not angry at all. No chips on shoulders here.
Does anyone know any other source for information on this case?
Keith wrote:
I found a possible video of the case. Hearing was on 9 September 2015. I am going to try it later on my desktop. My iPad would play video.
http://www.tpt.org/courts/detail.php?number=A140605
Don’t know when ruling will be made. Read appeals court decision. Case is a defamation of character case.
@ Mark:
Thanks! i read part of the appellate opinion. There seems to be almost no conversation about this case on Lutheran sites. I will see if i can get the video to play. BTW, a new obsession with me now is geocentricity. Physical geocentricity has some modern-day adherents.
Interestingly, one of the pastors who was sued had apparently begun a contemporary worship service. Don’t know if that would have anything to do with the excommunication, etc.
numo wrote:
Though I understand the geography DOES match a set of four “fossil rivers” on the floor of the Persian Gulf south of Basra. Those riverbeds have not been above sea level since the sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age, some 12000 years ago. Could this geography have been an oral tradition survival from that time?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It’s possible, i guess. Not sure, though if there’s any Sumerian corollaries. It would be an interesting topic, provided you’re one of the hanful of cuneiform experts.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
There’s some talk about the “Persian Gulf oasis” (proposed in a paper by Jeffrey I. Rose), but he hasn’t got any undersea archaeological find to prove any of this supposition.
My hunch is that it’s an interesting theory, but unless/until someone gives huge amounts of money to a university (or more than one) to fund an expedition, well… and even then, it’s a crapshoot. I wouldn’t want to gamble on it, not without detailed studies of possible sites – that alone would cost $$$$$, plus how could said sites even be found?
@ Keith:
I am watching the argument before the Minnesota Supreme Court. This is a difficult case. If the Supreme Court rules in the Pfiel’s favor, this will be a very significant ruling. This is a pretty important case.
We need to consider a possible consequence of this case. Some churches are going to membership covenants or membership contracts to prevent excommunicants suing in defamation cases. I don’t like these covenants.
The Pfeil family has a good lawyer.
@ Mark:
The LCMS amicus brief is on their website. If Mrs. Pfeil prevails, I can see this one going up.
Keith wrote:
I am reading the LCMS amicus brief. I come from a religious tradition that practices church discipline. I agree with the amicus brief it can be an act of love.
Depending on how this Minnesota Supreme Court ruling is crafted I can see this going up the courts. This being said: there has to be a bar where what happens Iwithin a church shouldnt fall into the legal doctrine of abstention.
For example, my sect has been wracked by child sex abuse scandals. In most cases I wish there had been church discipline. They church didn’t press charges and the clerics were fired and went to the next autonomous church and did the same terrible things.
There is also the example in an IFB church where an under aged female rape victim was asked by the pastor’s wife if she liked the rape, and this same teenage rape victim was humiliated in front of church for something she had no responsibility for other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There has to be a bar of proof where that abstention doctrine is no longer considered binding. I will read further into the brief. I would be interested if they address these kinds of issues.
@ Mark:
Mark: Sorry to hear about the abusive situations you describe. Sexual abuse should always be reported to the authorities.
I am only through about minute 13 of the oral arguments in Pfeil. It sounds like the focus is on “secular defamation” as distinguished from defamation which derives its definition form the beliefs of the church. Pretty interesting stuff!
“The reaction of Dee and her husband was — NOT ON YOUR LIFE! ”
I should mention that my wife and I (and our sons) immediately upon hearing about this, also stopped attending the church. The poor judgement and point of view of the pastor were not things we could take.