• Herm Otten has the CN war machine in full-on battle mode, spewing venom (along with the odd interesting nugget of info once in a while) in all directions…
• The JF PAC is up to issue #3 in their series of 10, oh-so-helpful “guides” to delegates, wherein spinning & passive-agressivity are brought to unbelievably high sheen… (I do, however, think I’ll avoid being called a schismatic by their leadership this triennium!)
• The Floor Committees have committed their usual atrocities against reason & intent, in their grinding up & forming of overtures into resolutions — most particularly FC8, wherein NONE of the overtures against restructuring ended up making it into resolution form, even those put forth by circuits and/or districts; well played, FC8! That’s just the way to show us how important it is that circuit/district overtures are given preferential consideration, as recommended by the BRTFSSG…
• The Indiana District delegation is once again in the hotel that’s 10 blocks away from the convention hall — BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I had hoped against hope, even as I fatalistically knew that we’d end up there again…
• I’m feeling equal amounts of anticipation, dread, excitement, annoyance, anger, hope, and fear as I consider what’s coming up…
• I hope that I get a chance to meet up with some of the many folks that I know are going to be delegates this go-around, and that my anti-social tendencies don’t get the better of me…

In many ways, it’s really quite amazing that it’s almost/finally here. So similar in many ways to 3 years ago, but yet so very, very different in most ways. Familiar, yet not. Feared/Dreaded, yet I wouldn’t want to entrust it to anyone else, even as I’ve got so many other things going on this summer.

I’ll stop with this observation about a line from JF’s Delegate Letter #3. The line?

“As I spoke with a number of veteran LCMS lay leaders, they told me that they sense a new peace in the LCMS.”

Quite frankly, this stuns me. This semi-veteran LCMS lay leader (8 years cong. Bd of Elders) could describe his sense of things (locally, regionally, and/or nationally) in many ways; “a new sense of peace in the LCMS” would not be one of them.

They belong to a different synod, or want to, than I do. They perceive and sense things differently than I do with regard to “peace” and “unity” in the Church.

That is why this upcoming convention is important and significant.

-ghp

It’s a great little post on the importance of & symbolism of proper orthodox practice, as well as a reminder of why we must also pay attention to what we do & why — i.e., be ever vigilant, lest we fall into poor practice that allows doubt to seep in around the edges.

Even better than the post, though, was the first comment, left by Pr. Charlie Henrickson, wherein he wryly observed,

“How many churches would consider having the offering only on the first and third Sundays of the month, so it won’t become “too common”?”

Love. It.

As one who has been trying (working with a sympathetic Pastor…) to get every Sunday Communion introduced for years now into my old-school “Missourian” congregation, this quip skewers one of the more prevalent arguments against the introduction of Confessional Lutheran Communion practice on its very own petard.

Well played.

-ghp

Take “growth” for example. Everybody wants growth. Everybody agrees that growth is a good thing. We like it when our congregations get more members. We like it when our church bodies get bigger. And why shouldn’t we? Even when we don’t fall into the “effectiveness” trap, wherein numbers = faithfulness/blessings, growth makes us feel good.

What’s interesting, though, is when you get a congregation where there are two groups that “agree” on growth as a goal, but where they really don’t mean the same thing by that word.

For example, in a congregation I’m more than a little familiar with (let the reader understand), there is a general agreement that missions & growth are good. There are, however, two general groups:

Group One is quite happy with the internal status quo of the congregation. Doesn’t want a second service added (that would “splinter the congregation”) on Sundays, has come to terms with the land-locked nature of the current building, etc… This group is more “Old Line” Missourian in its understanding of certain theological concepts (as opposed to gnesio-Lutheran/BoC-1580 Confessional). This group is, thus, more change resistant/averse, even as it recognizes on a certain level that mission is good & necessary. They’re just not sure how to best go about doing it.

Group Two is more aggressive in its understanding of growth. It is willing to push boundaries, add programs/services/etc… It has been more effected by American Evangelicalism. Some have been thoroughly inculcated in foundational Lutheranism, some not so much. Some in this group tip a bit too easily over into the “effectiveness” trap in their zeal to get numerical growth.

Both groups mean well. Both groups love each other. This is, let there be no doubt, a good congregation with a good, faithful, undershepherd who properly divides Law and Gospel. The Divine Service is conducted liturgically with reverence. The Word is proclaimed, and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

But, yet, these two groups still talk past each other re: growth. There has, as of yet, been no move towards a truly open conversation about realistic feelings, opinions, and goals (wouldn’t want to offend anyone, don’tcha know…). Which is too bad, ’cause if you can’t do it at church, where can you do it?

For example, if the current building is land-locked, and there is a defensible desire to have only one Sunday service, then both groups need to come to terms with the results of those realities, re: congregation size, available resources, staff size, etc… Mayhaps, the best course of action, then is a concerted effort at getting a daughter church plant up & running nearby (you know, the way Missouri grew back in the day…).

I certainly don’t have the answers (if I did, I would’ve, you know, fixed it by now…). I do think, however, that identifying the issue is an important first step. Maybe it’ll help someone else out, too. Here’s hoping…

-ghp

Is it that it was about homosexuality? Same-sex unions? Homosexual clergy?

While those are all sinful things, they are actually just symptoms, side issues if you will, of what the real problem is.

The real apostacy is this: ELCA has knowingly broken with Scripture (and secondarily with Confessions & Tradition) as the sole authoritative normative measure. IOW, God’s Word has been knowingly set aside.

Witness this quote from a write-up on the CWA, describing an amendment to the Social Statement on Human Sexuality that was adopted (both the amendment and then the amended Statement were adopted):

“The next amendment came from Bp. Kurt Kusserow, SW PA:

It must be noted that some, though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships. The proposed amendment would change this to Recognizing that this conclusion differs from the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions, some people though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships.

On this there was no speaking other than that of Bp. Kusserow. The amendment was approved 677-276.”

The Assembly knew what it was doing. They wanted to do this, and nothing was going to stop them from doing it, so that sin could be called good. The Revisionist agenda was not to be denied, no matter the cost.

I pray for the faithful remnant that is left in ELCA, that God may comfort them and strengthen them during this time, leading them to a place where they can once again rest in his Word purely preached and his Sacrament rightly administered, where the fellowship is not perverted. I also pray that those who have done this are brought to repentance, so that they might be led to that very same place of rest.

-ghp

The first post, then, is one regarding a lesson that gradually dawned on my as I watched events unfold at the CWA last week. Setting aside the obvious shock and dismay that I felt about the slide into apostacy by the Assembly (wrt blessing same-sex relationships & ordaining clergy in active same-sex relationships), I wondered about just how they could get to a point where their polity allowed this to happen.

As I’ve had it explained to me, the ELCA does not employ the same type of directly representative polity, especially on the national level, as we do in the LCMS. Rather, they purposefully employ a more demographically selective representational polity. Whereas the LCMS has “delegates”, the ELCA has “voters members” — and this is a distinction with a difference, for a “delegate” denotes representing someone “back home”, while the “voting member” represents no one by him/herself.

This is important, especially when taken in light of ELCA’s decision to employ, for lack of a better word, quotas, so as to ensure proper diversity within the Assembly. Thus, the Assembly doesn’t represent the makeup of the larger church body, but more so what they want the church body to be. These voting members are selected at the synodical (or district, in LCMS parlance) level, in more of a top-down way, so as to ensure the diversity goals are met.

This can, as we have seen, result in a deliberative body that is oftentimes substantially of a different mind than what’s out there “in the pews”. This tendency can be exacerbated when there is top-level leadership in place that wants to enact more radical change for the church body.

Now, as to my concern (or, if you prefer, the lesson…).

Many of the structural changes that are being proffered by the LCMS Blue Ribbon Task Force on Synod Structure and Governance (BRTFSSG) deal generally with the composition of conventions, both national and district, and more specifically with how delegates to the national convention are selected.

Currently, the practice is that each congregation belongs to a circuit within a district. For district conventions, each congregation sends a clergy and a lay delegate. For national conventions, each circuit sends a clergy and a lay delegate.

One of the proposals put forth by the BRTFSSG would have national delegates selected & determined at the district convention. Other proposals had different variations. In general, however, it seems to be an accepted article that change in how representation is determined is necessary.

My fear is this: unless we are very careful, we could easily end up with a either a top-down process (wherein the concept of every member having a truly & practically equal voice is lost), or a skewed and less-than-representational national voting body (wherein important changes could be driven by an agenda of the few, rather than by a representative consensus of the many…).

There are many more obvious (and perhaps interesting) lessons that could/should be learned from the events of the past week; however, I would argue that paying close attention to polity parallels is one that will pay us significant dividends.

-ghp

Simply defined, a conventicle is a small, unofficial and unofficiated meeting of laypeople, to discuss religious issues. In Lutheranism and Anglicanism there is a history of conventicles being a source of subversive sectarianism. [sources: Wikipedia & Christian Cyclopedia]

Reading through Hammer, as I am wont to do on a semi-annual basis, my thoughts drifted from the conventicles it describes, to the various machinations that I’ve observed in use over the years by various mega-churches, church-growthers, & proponents thereof. I thought of: Cell Groups; Small Groups; Every Member a Minister; and just about every flavor of targeted/market-segmented “ministry” that you could think of (age, sex, marital status, vocation, etc…).

All of these things struck me as being officially co-opted variants of Jakob Spener’s unsanctioned pots of Pietism — Formalized Conventicles.

Over the past 30 years, the contemporary congregation has embraced the Formalized Conventicle, such that it has become an article of faith and best practice. A main operating principle has been that “Bigger is better!” and that mega-churches are the best churches, thanks to the incessant drumbeat of the Church-Growth glitterati. While those at the forefront of that movement are now seeing its shortcomings after 30 years, many are still traversing the adoption curve, and have some lessons to learn.

That said, one thing that has become clear in hindsight is that bigger is not always better, from a spiritual welfare and oversight standpoint. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen the rise of Formalized Conventicles. All of these programs & initiatives arose out of the implicit recognition that huge numbers yielded an impersonal atmosphere, one that I would posit was especially deadly when paired with the lightweight theology found in so many “seeker-sensitive” environs.

The huge numbers themselves couldn’t be discounted or dismissed (’cause growth was “good”, natch, and a sign that God was “blessing” things), so an alternative had to be found. The formerly subversive idea of “cell groups” had to be co-opted and rebranded into something “good” and officially approved, so that the huge overall numbers could be maintained. And, so it was.

Implicitly, the “mega-growthers” had acknowledged that which was true all along: for proper spiritual care & shepherding, smaller is better. Unfortunately, they went about it in entirely the wrong fashion. Rather than changing the model & going with smaller congregations, where the sheep can be tended to by rightly Called undershepherds, they veered off in Spener’s direction, giving Formalized Conventicles a whirl. Only to be met (as has been seen with recent studies by Willow Creek & the like) with the reality that such efforts are shallow, unfulfilling, and nothing more than turning the sheep loose to fend for themselves in a world full of wolves.

And here’s the part that really grinds me: just as the American Evangelicals at the front edge of the curve are openly acknowledging the pitfalls & flaws, we in the LCMS are having to deal with “leadership” that is firmly entrenched in that very same discredited methodology, touting is as the latest wonder elixir that will help us revitalize the church!

It needn’t be complex, it needn’t be complicated. It’s been given to us to be faithful, to hew to the faith once given unto the saints. I was tempted to say that it needn’t be difficult, but that would be wrong, wouldn’t it? Of course it will be difficult, for we are always under assault. Always being tempted to think that it’s complicated and in need of an extra bit of “sweetening” from us. But it isn’t. Word and Sacrament. Law and Gospel. Christ and the Cross. Preaching and teaching. Vocation and mercy.

May God spare us from the subversive temptations of Formalized Conventicles.

-ghp

This was my third convention (District in 2003 & 2009, and Synod in 2007), and God help me, I loves me some Lutheran conventioneering! Sure, there’s a whole lot of frustration, and it can be physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing; but, when there *is* a flash of theological debate on the convention floor, or when you *do* get the chance to engage some outstanding theological & pastoral minds like Rick Stuckwisch or Matt Harrison (just to drop two of the more “famous” names…), or partake in the Divine Service (LSB Setting 4) at Historic St. Paul’s as part of a full house… well, for me, the good far outweighs the bad.

On to the event run-down…

The Indifferent:
We were presented with the usual amount of fluff that you get at every convention — the “Mom & Apple Pie” resolutions, wherein you commend folks/projects & thank God for them. These are the types of things that only heartless ogres would dare vote against. Even so, none of them passed with a full 100% approval.

And they’re the types of resolutions that fill the front end of conventions, draining the delegates’ energy away from the more substantive (read “difficult/contentious”) business that typically backloads a convention agenda. IMO, 17 of the 22 resolutions before us fell into this “Indifferent” category.

Given the overall tenor of the proceedings, and what we were given to do by/on the agenda (e.g., reports, recognizing various & sundry folks, eating, etc…), the vast majority of what we did reasonably fell into the “Indifferent” category. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.

The Bad:

“Trouble in River City” – Yup, we got the stump speech, both in its recorded and live forms, as SP Kieschnick (SPK hereafter) was in the house. We got the full laundry list of his bona fides, along with the list of four areas in which there is some disagreement within the LCMS today (1. Open/Close(d) Communion Policy, 2. The Service of Women, 3. Worship Styles, & 4. Unionism & Engagement — i.e., the same list that he put forth in his recent Pastoral Letter). The interesting thing to note was his emphasis, shaded but still given, that somehow these four areas are not as significant, doctrinally/theologically speaking, as those “agreements” on the laundry list of bona fides.

Ablaze! Focus in Examples – As expected, all of the examples given throughout the Synodically produced video clips were heavy on Ablaze! participants. While not (necessarily) bad in and of itself, the examples tended towards the Law-driven, in that they emphasized what people/congregations needed to be doing in order to “win souls” and “keep people from going to Hell”. There was much talk of “revitalization”, numbers, growth, effectiveness, and the like, and not so much on Sacramental life, faithfulness, or vocation. Nothing new, I know, but still enough to fall into the “Bad” category.

Our Trip to the Woodshed – Right after the River City extravaganza, SPK made mention of the fact that he knows that there are some things about Ablaze! that many folks don’t like; in fact, he admitted, there are some things about it that even he doesn’t like. That said, he also said that, as an agent of the Synod, he knows he has to carry out that which the Synod has determined & agreed to do. He also said that he knew that three years ago, the IN-D voted to not participate in Ablaze!/Fan The Flame. He wanted to remind us that the IN-D, and we as the voting assembly, were the Synod in that place, and thus also had an obligation to fully carry out that which the Synod had decided/agreed to, even if/when we didn’t fully agree with every part of it. Shortly after that admonition, Floor Committee (FC) 1 brought Resolution 1-05 (TO ENCOURAGE AND ASSIST CONGREGATIONS IN THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH ABLAZE!) to the floor, where it was passed 55%-45%. I count this as bad, although the silver lining is that I’m not sure it would’ve passed without the Presidential scolding, and neither was it a resounding victory; rather, I don’t think it’ll matter all that much, other than providing The Reporter with their main factoid about the IN-D Convention.

The BRTFSSG – this bad boy gets its own set of sub-bullets…

• Everything you’ve heard about the presentation is true…
• It’s too fast
• There’s not enough time for any substantive discussion/debate
• Specificity is kept to a bare minimum
• Both sides of the fence are played, wrt the “proposals” being actual, you know, proposals, or merely being placeholders until someone tells the Task Force what they should put in as actual proposals
• Some attempts at rationales were given, although many of those were lacking the same specificity as the “proposals”
• Other rationales were just plain troubling. Some of my faves:
• Comm. Ministers can be lay delegates because it “utilizes their gifts and gives flexibility to congregations…” — my question: if they’re “ministers”, why aren’t they splitting the clergy/minister vote? Why dilute & disenfranchise the lay vote? While I do think that Comm. “Ministers” are laity (and that they whole “minister” thing is just a tax dodge), it just irks me that the default thought is to disenfranchise the pewsitting layman. You can’t have it both ways…
• Funneling of Overtures through Circuit Forums & District Conventions, “expands leadership & participation of congregations, and fosters more meaningful participation at District conventions…” — The spin of this proposal was laid bare when, after it was stated that the “priority” given to overtures submitted via the Circuit->District channel was not actually a way to disenfranchise congregations & have that official channel serve as a chokepoint to stifle non-sanctioned change, someone rose from the floor to lay out just how it would serve that purpose. There was no response from the presenter, Rev. Greene.
• Most all of the Officer/Election rationales centered on geographic representation, symmetry, equity, and that, somehow even when it was only symbolic, it would all result in things being more “effective.” Trouble is, that “effective” was never defined…
• Cost Savings was another recurring rationale. Oddly enough, though, when pressed for details on just how and when the cost savings would be realized, details were once again sorely lacking. Terms like “immediately” and “several million dollars” were bandied about, but never with specific dates or amounts attached to specific proposals or plans.
• Also of note was the response when the recent Reporter statement by Tom Kuchta was mentioned, in which the Synod’s Treasurer stated that none of the BRTFSSG proposals would result in significant savings at this point. Rev. Greene responded that he was aware of that statement, and that he and the Task Force disagreed, noting that Kuchta has a different understanding of “significant” than the Task Force. Kuchta’s “significant”, it was hinted, falls north of $5 million, and the Task Force doesn’t think that savings of (potentially) $1 – $5 million is anything to sneeze at. (Frankly, in this context, I’ll side with Treasurer Kuchta on this matter…)
• At one point, in order to blunt the force of some criticism (note: I don’t think this is an unfair assessment; rather, it is an objective take on motive — no 8th Commandment bombs, please…), Rev. Greene made the statement that three Districts had fully commended the work of the Task Force.
• I followed up with a question, asking if he could provide us with the number of Districts that had passed resolutions against the work of the Task Force.
• Rev. Greene response was that, to his knowledge, no other District had passed the type of resolution (that we were debating) rejecting all of the work done by the Task Force.
• Let the Reader understand the difference between the question I asked, and the one that Rev. Greene answered…
• Perhaps the most fascinating exchange came when XIV and the proposal for additional pastoral “evaluation” prior to certification (aka, “conditional ordination” or “shacking-up”). When presented with that question, Rev. Greene’s response was, “I’m not a theologian. I’m a bureaucrat.” This was met with a stunned silence, shortly followed by the statement from the original questioner, “Well, maybe that’s the problem; we need more theologians working on this.”

The Good:

The Elections – Dan May got re-elected to his third term as DP, and the entire slate of VPs were also re-elected. I view this as a good thing. We ain’t perfect here in the IN-D, but we’re doing better than most when it comes to our executive branch, from what I can see & hear, and for that I’m thankful. We elected some good folks on the various committees & boards, and my own failure to get elected aside, I’m pleased.

SPK’s Q&A Session – I put this into the good column for one reason: he took questions from the floor! This yielded some interesting info, IMO, including the following…

• LCMS Future – pretty standard stuff, i.e., the same as has been reported from other conventions, wrt changing the “spirit of rancor” in Synod, the “very bright” future of Synod, and the “strong agreement on fundamentals” in Synod, etc…
• Challenges Facing Seminaries – $$$/Funding, Growth of Alternate Routes, & Declining Enrollments, with the greatest challenge being that of “How to still operate two seminaries?”
• Any Discussion of Closing One Seminary? – “No serious conversations of significance.”
• Impact of Hate Crimes Bill – It is being watched closely, but we must not compromise our message.
• Pastoral Promotion of Gay Lifestyle – This was interesting, because after some initial vagueness, Washington State was mentioned. And SPK was forceful in stating that the promotion of the gay lifestyle was/is something that would not be tolerated, and that should fall under church discipline if it continued in an unrepentant fashion. However, to his knowledge, he was unaware of any such promotion in Washington.

Matt Harrison – The high point of the whole event, though, was quite possibly Matt Harrison’s greeting and presentation on behalf of LCMS World Relief. It was the strongest, clearest, sweetest proclamation of the Gospel that we got. Was it also a bit of a stump speech, in stark contrast to that of SPK’s? You betcha! Did that detract at all from the brilliant simplicity of the Gospel, simply but powerfully proclaimed? Nope. We got a clear distinction between the Law of “River City” on one hand, and the Gospel of the Balm of Gilead on the other.

By a vote of 65%-35% we passed resolution 4-04A, which has a key resolution that reads, “RESOLVED, that the Indiana District memorialize Synod to reject the presented proposals of the BRTFSSG.” (note: the amendment had been to substitute “presented proposals” for “recommendation” in the quoted resolved…)

We voted down (56%-44%) a resolution (1-06) encouraging District congregations to utilize the District “revitalization process” – Now, to my knowledge, this process does not have any hooks into the TCN process; however, that still doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing, IMO, and there were a few passionate statements from the floor against the process. Which, when combined with the general lack of up-front specificity about the program, I think helped carry the day.

Devotions/Music/Worship – Everything was, as far as I could tell, solidly liturgical, theological, and orthodox. No happy-clappy, contempo-worship for the IN-D! The in-session devotions were nicely done, and the Divine Service, Friday morning at Historic St. Paul, was LSB Setting IV.

Guidelines for Corporate Worship for Conventions, Meetings, Workshops, and Gatherings of The Indiana District – The previous bullet point was possible thanks to the great work done by the Committee on Worship and Spiritual Care, led by the Rev. Dr. Rick Stuckwisch. Included in the 6/26 “Today’s Business” was document starting this bullet point. In short, it recommends “that conventions, meetings, workshops, and other gatherings of the Indiana District use the hymns, orders of service, and other material from Lutheran Service Book.” (note: there is much good, solid, theological & fraternal rationale given in the document for this endorsed position of encouragement, I just didn’t quote it here; Pr. Stuckwisch did a great job of explaining it during his report.) Thank you for that, Pr. Stuckwisch!

In Conclusion:
I know the “Bad” list is a bit longer than the “Good” list; however, I don’t mean that to be taken as an indictment of the work that was done by this convention. No, my intent is to clearly state that I think that much good was done by the Indiana District this go-around. Was there a lot left on the table? Sure, but that’s true at every convention. Nothing truly bad was enacted or ratified, and some very good things were passed and endorsed. When combined with the massive inertia of indifference that pervades so much of Synodical conventions, I think this can be tallied up on the positive side of the ledger.

Thanks for reading this far, and sorry for running on so long. But a lot of stuff happened, and I wanted to make sure that I presented it in as complete, accurate, and readable a form as possible.

-ghp

Any links to resources that break ALPHA down, and examine it by holding it up against orthodox Lutheranism?

Any ideas on why it’s so appealing to Lutherans?

Any thoughts on why CPH hasn’t developed a Lutheran alternative? (I have a question in to Paul McCain on this, but I have yet to hear anything back from him on this…)

I know that there’s been much discussion on/about ALPHA over at LQ, as well as over at BJS, and while those are/have been useful, they’ve also been somewhat highly charged (LQ more than BJS, to be fair) with more heat than light, and I’m looking in a slightly more objective direction at this point.

ALPHA concerns me greatly, in that I’m perplexed as to why orthodox, Confessional Lutherans would be tempted to use it, thinking that they could somehow follow the “eat the meat & spit out the bones” approach. It strikes me as a dangerous game. And I’m almost equally as perplexed that there hasn’t been an alternative developed, tested, vetted, and promoted so that good, Lutheran theology isn’t viewed as something that isn’t “friendly” to newbies. (by the same token, I should say that I do somewhat dispute the premise that doctrine must somehow be “watered down” in order to not “scare away” those newbies; this is a premise upon which ALPHA seems to be built…)

Any thoughts/ideas/tips that y’all might have will be gratefully received, discussed, etc…

-ghp

http://www.cph.org/cphstore/pages/resources/tlsb/tlsb%20sampler_body.pdf

This comes from Mr. CPH himself, so you know it’s good info!

Seriously, though, if this doesn’t make you go out & pre-order your copy of TLSB, I don’t know what will. The only bad part about this sampler is that it reminds me that I have to wait until Reformation Day for the real thing to be released!

-ghp

I’m not going to go into the whole chapter and verse about how these two LSBs differ; a nice comparison chart can be found here, and it does a better job than I could. That said, I would like to pass along some particularly, well, interesting things that I’ve come across in the notes from the new AF LSB offering.

Before I make any remarks or come to any conclusions, let me set the notes out there for y’all…

Here’s the note on the Great Commission at Matthew 28:19-20:
“Jesus now sends the disciples to make disciples of all nations. That does not mean make everyone disciples. Most people who are helped by Jesus and believe in him never become disciples. Jesus includes in salvation people who do not believe in him or even know about him.” (p. 1658; Augsburg Fortress Lutheran Study Bible).

Yes, they got all universalist on our asses…

Here’s the second note, this time not unexpectedly dealing with St. Paul & homosexuality (1 Cor. 6:9 — albeit after picking, choosing, & ignoring many other passages where homosexuality is mentioned…), where they say that, “all modern Bible versions mistranslate” the Greek words commonly translated “sodomite” and “homosexual.” The AF Bible says that the terms used refer not to homosexuality, but to a lack of self-control and violence. And then it notes, “Neither term applies to homosexuality or the lives of gay and lesbian people.” (p. 1881).

Not surprisingly, the AF LSB wholeheartedly embraces classic higher criticism of the Scriptures, but does so in a tragi-comic manner (emphasis on tragic). The AF LSB explains why it is that Paul did not author the Pastoral epistles, even though they are attributed to him: “Mr. Disney is no longer alive, yet movies continue to feature his name because the Walt Disney Company produces them. People at the company try to continue Disney’s legacy.”

Yes, they got all higher critical and wrong-headedly comparative on our asses…

Ok, I’ll give you a moment to digest all that………………

We’re back.

I’ll just close this with a few quick observations:

1. I think the LCMS got it right at the 2001 Convention, when the ELCA was called to task for being a heterodox body…
2. Comparing St. Paul to Walt Disney isn’t a wise choice in a blog, much less a Bible, especially when you’re making a stupid point…
3. Right about now, I’m feeling pretty good about my pre-order for the CPH LSB…

-ghp