Sucessful Slander

The slander that was begun by the blasphemously-named 'Jesus First' during the final years of the life of late synod president A.L. Barry has come to its full fruition. By accusing Barry of trying to centralize power and control the synod, Jesus First and its compatriots at the 'Daystar Network' have now not only enthroned a single pope, but a series of mini-popes, as well, those potentially exercising more disciplinary authority than ever before imagined in Rome, much less in Missouri.

By a campaign of slander JF has firmly installed its presidential candidate, Gerald Kieschnick, all but one of the vice-presidents of the synod, and crucial resolutions that do what? CENTRALIZE POWER in the synodical president and district presidents.

Further, they have openly slandered delegates from the floor, decrying the assumed motivation of those who seek clarification of issues and the adoption of ammendments to bring resolutions in line with Holy Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the previously adopted statements of the LCMS.

And it has all *worked*. The bigger the lie, the more believable; the more repeated the accusation, the more obvious it is that they were accusing others of their own desires.

May God have mercy on those who have voted for their sinful agenda, and may He lead them quickly to repentance.

Yes, today's adoption of the resolution saying that no congregation or individual can bring charges of false doctrine, but only the District Presidents and the Synodical President has officially buried the concept of the primacy of the congregation. CFW Walther is surely spinning in his grave tonight! This will no doubt mean the persecution and harrassment of confessional pastors who have the nerve to buck the hierarchy, with charges being filed against them by the liberal District Presidents. This is the time when laymen will have to stand with those pastors and not roll over and play dead. The cleansing of the LCMS of the confessional pastors began today. Pray for these men.

>>"Nothing Succeesds Like Slander." That seems to be the message of this week's LCMS convention in St. Louis.<<

OUCH! That's an angry headline. Must be serious. What was the slander?

>>the blasphemously-named 'Jesus First'<<

Shouldn't Jesus be first? Why is this blasphemy?

>>The slander that was begun by the blasphemously-named 'Jesus First' during the final years of the life of late synod president A.L. Barry has come to its full fruition.<<

O, so it's a conspiracy... What was the slander again?

>>By accusing Barry of trying to centralize power and control the synod, Jesus First and its compatriots at the 'Daystar Network' have now not only enthroned a single pope, but a series of mini-popes, as well, those potentially exercising more disciplinary authority than ever before imagined in Rome, much less in Missouri.<<

O, OK... and what did these mini-popes do?

>>By a campaign of slander JF has firmly installed its presidential candidate, Gerald Kieschnick, all but one of the vice-presidents of the synod, and crucial resolutions that do what? CENTRALIZE POWER in the synodical president and district presidents.<<

OK. Now what was the slander...

>>Further, they have openly slandered delegates from the floor, decrying the assumed motivation of those who seek clarification of issues and the adoption of ammendments to bring resolutions in line with Holy Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and the previously adopted statements of the LCMS.<<

OK, and what was the slander?

>>And it has all *worked*. The bigger the lie, the more believable; the more repeated the accusation, the more obvious it is that they were accusing others of their own desires.<<

OK, Mr. Reporter, you've called them "blasphemous," accused them acing like Catholics (those bastards!), made subtle references to Mein Kampf, and called for them to repent from their sinful agenda. Um, what was the slander *they* did?

I'm not taking their side. For all I know, they're a bunch of socialist, homosexual, abortion-clinic witch-doctors. But this article isn't above a little ad-hominem either!

Shouldn't Jesus be first? Why is this blasphemy?

It is blasphemous because it puts Jesus in front of the other two members of the Trinity. The members are co-equal.

As to the rest of your post, give me a break. Arguing from ignorance is no excuse. You show your ignorant from this statement:

I'm not taking their side. For all I know, they're a bunch of socialist, homosexual, abortion-clinic witch-doctors.

Since you have no clue as to the whole background of this story and why I posted this piece of commentary, you are in no postition to even judge whether Pastor Stefanski's claim of slander is even true or not. Either educate yourself or go bother someone else.

>>It is blasphemous because it puts Jesus in front of the other two members of the Trinity. The members are co-equal. <<

I wouldn't exactly heat up the ol' burning post: "No-one comes to the Father, but through me." IOW, you want to get to the Father, you have to go through me, first. True, the Holy Spirit gives us prevening grace, but our response to that grace is not to seek out the Holy Spirit, but to seek out Christ, so that he will send the Holy Spirit more abundantly.

>>As to the rest of your post, give me a break. Arguing from ignorance is no excuse. <<

I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm not taking their side precisely because I am declining to take sides precisely because I won't argue from ignorance. My point was not to refute the argument of the article.

>>Since you have no clue as to the whole background of this story and why I posted this piece of commentary, you are in no postition to even judge whether Pastor Stefanski's claim of slander is even true or not. Either educate yourself or go bother someone else.<<

Again, my point was not to refute the argument of the article. In fact, I did get much more information in someone else's post. I was only pointing out how the article failed to land any punches because it did not support its statements. I'm probably on your side; I certainly aim to help conservatives construct their arguments better.

Just because I think the article you post is nothing but a hot-headed rant doesn't mean I think you're wrong. But publishing merely a hot-headed rant is counter-productive. If you accuse someone of slander, but only make unspecified allusions to Hitler, heresy, etc., those who are not already in your choir will decide you are not a good authority.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.