https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5245975699731845112&postID=1204604353045601204
Matthias - Once again I strongly urge you to call and speak with the Synod President. He has read this blog. Yes, he is offended by the name of your blog, but your research and viewpoint needs to be shared with Rev. Schroeder in a more direct manner, especially since you are a WELS Pastor. The CoP has left him out of the loop on much that goes on in their districts, such as this so-called leadership conference. The rank in file of the synod, both pastors and laypeople need to be energized to confront their DPs, and to support the synod president. I believe you can be confident that he will NOT "out" you to your DP.
 |
| Their mutual DP really listened, didn't he? Buchholz kicked Rydecki and then the congregation out, lying the whole time to both. |
***
GJ - Allow me to intervene with some facts.
PW said someone already knows who he is, so that went right to the DP and Mark Schroeder - not to mention Mark-and-Avoid Jeske.
Second, Schroeder has a rubber stamp answer to everything - "Write a letter" but he does not answer letters sent to him. He does not even acknowledge receiving them. That is why I sent mine to him with "signed receipt requested." When he denied getting the letter, I posted the receipt he signed.
Dishonesty trickles down from headquarters - or do I mean "up from headquarters?"
Third - Schroeder has consistently made matter much worse while blaming the previous president and everyone else. He is not a leader but a follower.
If you have finally realized that you live in the Great Cloacha of Lutherdom, it is not the time to spray some Febreeze, as Pastor Steven Spencer suggests.
The light may be brighter outside the WELS sewer, but the air is much fresher.
---
Ben Wink said...Ah, but the synod president should know all about this conference now, correct? So he can investigate on his own concerning this "leadership conference", correct? He could call the DPs in to account for their actions regarding this, correct? What good would coming forth directly now do again? I think this blog has been pretty forthcoming already about the concerns present.
And there is a DP who apparently already knows the identity of the blogger here, so why shouldn't the SP start with his own DPs in asking about who is behind the alias posting this blog?
Even more frightening is the implication that the DPs can get involved with this without any need to go through the SP for it. "The CoP has left him out of the loop on much that goes on in their districts, such as this so-called leadership conference." So if they went that far, then what good could the synod president do because obviously they don't care what he may think about any of this. How can he be so "out of the loop" at this date regarding events such as these with members of the CoP participating in this? Or he has silently approved of it all the while.
I seem to recall this same excuse of being "out of the loop" being repainted and resold every single time there's a scandal concerning the current White House administration. Now the synod is going to copycat that old tired rerun?
Only if he came down on the CoP and said that this conference is not happening and would I believe otherwise. But anyone believing that might buy this bridge that I'm selling too. It would be showdown and I doubt that it would happen because of the Thrivent connections involved.
And there is a DP who apparently already knows the identity of the blogger here, so why shouldn't the SP start with his own DPs in asking about who is behind the alias posting this blog?
Even more frightening is the implication that the DPs can get involved with this without any need to go through the SP for it. "The CoP has left him out of the loop on much that goes on in their districts, such as this so-called leadership conference." So if they went that far, then what good could the synod president do because obviously they don't care what he may think about any of this. How can he be so "out of the loop" at this date regarding events such as these with members of the CoP participating in this? Or he has silently approved of it all the while.
I seem to recall this same excuse of being "out of the loop" being repainted and resold every single time there's a scandal concerning the current White House administration. Now the synod is going to copycat that old tired rerun?
Only if he came down on the CoP and said that this conference is not happening and would I believe otherwise. But anyone believing that might buy this bridge that I'm selling too. It would be showdown and I doubt that it would happen because of the Thrivent connections involved.
Matthias Flach said...Steve, what good would it do to contact President Schroeder directly? As I see it, there are three possibilities when it comes to his position: (1) he is unaware of what's going on in the synod, (2) he is unwilling to stop it, (3) he is unable to stop it.
I'm not sure which of these possibilities is the best (or the worst).
If he's completely unaware of what's going on in the synod, then he's not doing his job.
If he's unwilling to stop it, then he's complicit in the activity and contacting him will get me in trouble.
If he's unable to stop it, then he's a puppet and contacting him won't do any good because he doesn't have any authority.
To be honest, I think the truth is a combination of all three things. In my experience, WELS leadership is concerned, above all else, with maintaining the appearance of unity. They are content with blissful ignorance of aberrant doctrine and practice because then they have plausible deniability. Even when they can no longer deny an issue, they aren't willing to take action, because it might expose the disunity beneath the surface. Even if they are willing to take action, they can't, because their authority is limited by their dependence on outside groups and parasynodical organizations.
I'm not sure which of these possibilities is the best (or the worst).
If he's completely unaware of what's going on in the synod, then he's not doing his job.
If he's unwilling to stop it, then he's complicit in the activity and contacting him will get me in trouble.
If he's unable to stop it, then he's a puppet and contacting him won't do any good because he doesn't have any authority.
To be honest, I think the truth is a combination of all three things. In my experience, WELS leadership is concerned, above all else, with maintaining the appearance of unity. They are content with blissful ignorance of aberrant doctrine and practice because then they have plausible deniability. Even when they can no longer deny an issue, they aren't willing to take action, because it might expose the disunity beneath the surface. Even if they are willing to take action, they can't, because their authority is limited by their dependence on outside groups and parasynodical organizations.
