It All Begins With "Conversation."
The desire for “conversation” seems innocent. And sometimes it is.
But sometimes it isn’t.
This calls for discernment and strategic self-awareness. For every error that has gotten a toehold in the church began with “conversation.” Now is a good time to review the trenchant and ever-relevant analysis by the Rev. Charles Porterfield Krauth, from back in 1871.
When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is the truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church's faith, but in consequence of it. Their recommendation is that they repudiate the faith, and position is given to them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.
This is how Krauth’s own church body became what it is today: part of the ELCA. Through this process of toleration, to equal rights, and finally to supremacy, Krauth’s “church” today has female “clergy,” embraces homosexual “marriage” and “gender fluidity,” abortion, socialism, feminism, and even goddess-worship.
It all began with a “conversation.”
Toleration, to equal rights, and finally to supremacy.
A while back, I was invited into a “conversation” with a pastor (who practices re-baptism) on a podcast. His senior pastor, who officiated over a Mass in which a female singer chanted the Words of Institution (more accurately, a paraphrase) in what this congregation posited was a consecration of the body and blood of Christ (the same pastor who had years ago distributed slices of pizza in a seminary chapel during a “sermon”) - also wanted to have “a conversation.” These entreaties were filled with “brother” this and “brother” that.
They were sweet-talking me as part of the “toleration” step. I declined both invitations.
And this is part of the strategy: to get “conversation” going, one that grants legitimacy to those who practice error, that reduces things like re-baptism and praise-band-girl-”consecration” (both of which are monkeyshines with the holy sacraments) simply to a matter of “context,” based on the premise that “we all believe the same things” that there is “koinonia” when there is really discord.
This is right out of Krauth.
I don’t trust these guys. I will go on podcasts where I trust the host. But it is foolhardy (at best) to give the impression that a difference of opinion about re-baptism or the consecration of the Lord’s Supper by a female layman is just a friendly little disagreement akin to a difference of opinion about what sports team to cheer for, or simply a matter of subjective taste combined with “the local context.”
When faithful pastors and laymen engage in these “conversations,” they are falling into the trap of tolerance. There is an early 20th century Russian fable that warns about entering into such “conversations.” It is called The Scorpion and the Frog. Once one has appeared on such a podcast, the podcaster is then free to drop one’s name as an assertion of legitimacy, and even to misrepresent what was said, or at very least, to spin what was discussed, or to pull clips out of context and release them into reels or shorts.
We need to be wise.
We need to understand that these folks who want “conversations” actually want change. But they don’t want to change. We are not going to influence them. They are not open to having their opinions and practices changed. They want to change us. They want synod to change. They want our seminaries to change. They want our governance to change. They openly want to destroy the equality between churches, and give electoral preference to the bigger, richer, and in their eyes, “more successful” pastors and congregations by proportional voting. They want to train pastors in ways that reflect their own image that changes the doctrine and practice that typifies our synod.
They are not looking to have us change them. They are not going to suddenly say, “My goodness, you’re right. We’re going to remodel our stage and put in an altar, font, and pulpit, start using liturgical worship, carry out actual preaching, and begin buying vestments.” Rather, they are looking to change us. And toleration is the short-term goal. “Conversation” is the foot in the door.
A great example is women’s “ordination.” Why is this even allowed to be subjected to “conversation” in the LCMS? The Bible forbids it. To allow a memorial or resolution on this is like allowing discussion to deny the Trinity, or to oppose the doctrine of the Two Natures of Christ. Anyone even discussing this idea should be suspended, if not removed, from synod membership. And ditto for those who advocate for "same-sex “married” couples. There is already too much toleration of those who believe a man can have a “husband” or a woman can have a “wife.” Do we believe the Holy Scriptures, or do we not?
Toleration is the first item on the agenda. It is the toehold.
There was a time when women’s “ordination” was considered preposterous in the [Lutheran] Church of Sweden. It would not have been discussed. Then it was. It all began with “conversation.” It was permitted to be voted on, and it failed. That time. For there was more conversation, more toleration, and then finally, change. Women’s “ordination” was granted equal rights in the “Church” of Sweden. And didn’t stop there. For there was more “conversation.” The next step was supremacy. Men whose consciences forbade working with an “ordained” woman, who were once granted a pass from doing so based on the “conscience clause,” had that right revoked. Male seminarians who desired ordination were required to prove their loyalty to the new paradigm by submitting to receiving “communion” from the hand of a woman “priest” three times. Krauth played Marley to the Church of Sweden’s Scrooge. And now, the Church (sic) of Sweden is the ghost of what was once a faithful Lutheran church of the past.
The Church (sic) of Sweden has long since been in the supremacy stage. And it all began with a “conversation.”
We are being played by skillful players. They are playing chess while we are playing checkers. Our people, biting into the baited hook, seem to fall for it every time. It’s just a “conversation.” The Lutheran (sic) Church (sic) of Australia’s ordination (sic) of women began with a “conversation.” On topics that are doctrinal, there should be no “conversation.” For to hold the “conversation” is to accept the opponent’s premise that something like women’s “ordination” is simply a preference to be discussed - maybe allowed, maybe not allowed - but certainly allowable by Scripture. And this is where the SELK is right now. Allowing the issue to be discussed is to remove the very argument against it. As the agent said to the local police officer in The Matrix: “Your men are already dead.”
Guys, you know what these people are up to. At least you should know now. Don’t be foolish. Don’t be naïve.
Not everyone who says, “Brother” this and “Brother” that is really our brother. And the Lord can raise up members of synod from the stones. We are always one vote away from becoming the ELCA.
It all begins with “conversation.”
It seems to me that the only way to prevent error from getting a toehold through toleration is not to tolerate error in the first place. Perhaps we members of synod need an honor code, that not only will we not confess or practice false doctrine, but that we will also not tolerate those who do.