News:


Main Menu
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Rob Morris

#1
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 15, 2024, 03:03:56 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 15, 2024, 02:55:18 PMI read all of the exchange that offended you so much. I am sorry you were offended. I was a little surprised that you, having been raised and trained LCMS, found the statements so offensive. Though I wouldn't necessarily state them the way they were stated, I do believe that all humans, yourself included, have an inherent knowledge of God. I believe that some humans, yourself seemingly included, have fought against that inherent knowledge significantly enough to have essentially silenced it. The Scriptures speak in many places of those who, thinking themselves wise, made themselves fools. These words should not surprise you even if it stings having them applied to you.

This is why it's important to understand if one's interpretation is errant.  They were asserting that I know something I simply don't.  What world would you believe me if I told you that you believed something you didn't.  Let me know after you tried that, cause I've had great exchanges with you and I'm genuinely curious. 

Tried what? Trying to understand the question and failing... can you restate?

Quote
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 15, 2024, 02:55:18 PMTo the other matter, I can understand why you might wish to squeeze out of Pastor Preus an admission that he could possibly err, but why is that a prerequisite to answering his question? And the way you worded it, it is unclear whether you are asking whether he believes that he, as a sentient agent, can err or whether he believes it is possible that the content of his belief could be error. Based on my reading, he would readily admit to the first but would not yield on the second.

Nor would I.

Nor, I believe, would you. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that you can err, but you do not believe that your beliefs are in error.

But part of the problem, as page after page has demonstrated, lies in the topic itself. I do not believe it possible that God's word can err. If you ask me to admit that my belief could be wrong, you are asking me to say that I believe it possible that God's word could err, which is the opposite of my belief.
I would like to know, and he can tell me, if he is asserting that it is not possible for him to be errant on his understanding of the text.  I can genuinely ask the same question of you and I'd love to hear if you think your understanding of Genesis could be errant. 

As for me, I know I'm fallible - but I know that there are things that I don't know.  to claim otherwise, well, apply it, and then ask yourself if you're understanding that text correctly too. 


Here I think I followed you until the final phrase, then I lost you again. If the following doesn't address it, then I will have to ask you to re-state.

I don't actually get all that worked up about the debates regarding Genesis 1-3 (except to marvel at the beauty of the text). I just really get salty when people try to make an ideological argument out of the grammar. That dog won't hunt. I think the simplest understanding is that it means six 24-hour days. I won't take wild swings at those who argue against it, but I shall hold that until proven otherwise, which I don't think can happen until we arrive in heaven. When I won't care. Unless it adds to the joy of marveling at the God who has created and redeemed me. I will leave that up to him.

As I have expounded before, there is absolutely no reason that an all-powerful and all-creative God cannot create a universe with all the backstory that hardcore atheists point to as proof he doesn't exist (or at least that Genesis 1-3 can't be history). God can create geographic layers and fossils in those layers. God can create genetic histories and fascinating connections within those histories. And on and on. He can create more than we can discover and more than we can imagine and more than we could fathom if we could discover it or imagine it. It doesn't have to be trickery. Think of it as easter eggs ("creation eggs"?) for his little explorers to discover and delight in. And not one of these lines of evidence can prove God didn't create that evidence within the last 10,000 years.

I have used the author analogy before: an author can create a character who is already 45 years old and then expound on that character's entire family tree. And thus, a character that didn't exist a day ago is now the product of thousands of years of history. God, the author and perfector of our faith, can most certainly accomplish this. Nor would doing so for an entire universe (or an infinity of universes) present any challenge to him whatsoever.

I think at one point you believed this, too... or at least something resembling it. I can only pray you will return to this. Hebrews makes me doubt this could even be possible, but it is my prayer, nonetheless.

PS - At one point I asked you to PM me. If you sent it, I apologize for not responding. I no longer see an "Inbox" anywhere on the page, nor do I get any email notifications as I used to. If you are willing to share here any inciting events that led you out of the ministry, or any details about your current vocation, I would love to know these, as it might be most helpful in knowing how best to dialogue.
#2
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 15, 2024, 02:19:57 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 15, 2024, 02:10:51 PM
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 15, 2024, 01:40:10 PMyou've said that.  I'm asking if it's POSSIBLE your understanding of the text is errant. 

That is a trap question, and you should be above such things. Is it to be understood as asking if Pastor Preus can err in his interpretation? Or is it to be understood as asking if Pastor Preus's interpretation itself is in error?

That is to say nothing of refusing to answer his question unless he answers yours first.

Your interactions on this board used to be marked by a great deal of politeness. Over the last week, it has taken quite a turn towards browbeating and scolding. Not sure what has caused the difference, but thought you would want to know the way it looks to a third-party.

If there's a trap version of this question, I'm not asking it. 

My only scolding is for when people tell me what I believe or don't know.  You can see a post in the other thread outlining the experience.  And you're welcome to tell me if you're on board with asserting that I believe something I don't or if you find that inappropriate or abusive. I hope that explains what's been going on. 

When I read Pr. Preus, I think it's possible that there are somethings he believes with an absolute certainty.  So I want to know if this is one of those things it is possible for him to be wrong about.  I genuinely mean that.



I read all of the exchange that offended you so much. I am sorry you were offended. I was a little surprised that you, having been raised and trained LCMS, found the statements so offensive. Though I wouldn't necessarily state them the way they were stated, I do believe that all humans, yourself included, have an inherent knowledge of God. I believe that some humans, yourself seemingly included, have fought against that inherent knowledge significantly enough to have essentially silenced it. The Scriptures speak in many places of those who, thinking themselves wise, made themselves fools. These words should not surprise you even if it stings having them applied to you.

To the other matter, I can understand why you might wish to squeeze out of Pastor Preus an admission that he could possibly err, but why is that a prerequisite to answering his question? And the way you worded it, it is unclear whether you are asking whether he believes that he, as a sentient agent, can err or whether he believes it is possible that the content of his belief could be error. Based on my reading, he would readily admit to the first but would not yield on the second.

Nor would I.

Nor, I believe, would you. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you believe that you can err, but you do not believe that your beliefs are in error.

But part of the problem, as page after page has demonstrated, lies in the topic itself. I do not believe it possible that God's word can err. If you ask me to admit that my belief could be wrong, you are asking me to say that I believe it possible that God's word could err, which is the opposite of my belief.
#3
Quote from: SomeoneWrites on June 15, 2024, 01:40:10 PMyou've said that.  I'm asking if it's POSSIBLE your understanding of the text is errant. 

That is a trap question, and you should be above such things. Is it to be understood as asking if Pastor Preus can err in his interpretation? Or is it to be understood as asking if Pastor Preus's interpretation itself is in error?

That is to say nothing of refusing to answer his question unless he answers yours first.

Your interactions on this board used to be marked by a great deal of politeness. Over the last week, it has taken quite a turn towards browbeating and scolding. Not sure what has caused the difference, but thought you would want to know the way it looks to a third-party.
#4
I told you what we do. We learn. We admit our limits and then try to expand them.

In this specific instance, we recall that comparatives sometimes function as simple ("positive") adjectives. Thus, it is perfectly acceptable Greek grammar to use "microteros" to mean "small among" or "among the smaller". Which is both semantically and, in this situation, agriculturally correct.

But we also recognize that patterns of speech aren't always intended as woodenly as later readers might think. I could say: "that was the hardest test." I might simply mean, "that test was very hard." If you know me and my patterns of speech, or the patterns of those with whom I most often converse, you become more capable of recognizing when an empirically demanding usage is potentially in play or a more colloquial one.

Earlier, Dr. Becker made reference to the use of the word "thousand" in the Old Testament. In my studies, I have found that this term is similar to the way that the word "ton" is used in English. As in, "I have a ton of work." Rarely do we mean that we have 2000 pounds of work. However, if you purchase a ton of aluminum from a supplier, and they only give you a large amount, you will be rightly upset.

I engaged in this lengthy explanation to point out the vast difference between trying to understand what the text says and means, and simply hitting the eject button  of saying, "look, I found an error!"
#5
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on June 11, 2024, 03:24:15 PMMark 4:31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, ...

What do inerrists do with the bolded section? The mustard seed is not the smallest of all the seeds on earth. It wasn't even the smallest seed in 1st century Palestine.

They do what your unserious scholarship prevents you from doing. They learn more about how the superlative is and is not used in ancient near eastern thought and text.
#6
Chorus number 4857 of "Not a precious jewel, just a rock."

Don't you get tired of this refrain? Why is it such a life mission for you to make sure people don't trust their Bibles too much? Why do you delight so greatly in finding alternate readings that could undermine ancient understandings ("parthenos" sometimes meant "widows" so Isaiah [which was written in Hebrew, but whatever] could have meant "unmarried but not virgin")?

I have guesses as to the cause, but what are your self-reflections?
#7
Quote from: Mbecker on June 07, 2024, 09:20:11 PMThis issue of "inerrancy" is an important one to address. I also address it in the latest edition of my book on fundamental theology: Chap. 8 ("Sources and Norms of Christian Theology") and Chap. 9 ("Interpreting the Scriptures").

The Scriptures never claim to be "perfect" or "without error" in every respect.

The Scriptures themselves do not define the boundaries of what constitutes "Scripture." Disagreements exist among the churches regarding the extent of the Old Testament canon, and in the early church questions were raised about the legitimacy/authority of seven of the twenty-seven books that would eventually be generally recognized as "sacred Scripture" in the NT. It was not only Dr. Luther and subsequent evangelical-Lutherans who made critical judgments and assertions about the biblical "antilegomena." (Luther: "One day I'm going to throw 'Jimmy' into the fire...").

Any attempt to summarize Luther's view toward biblical authority must give careful attention to his frank acknowlegment that "errors" are present in the Scriptures. Such an attempt must also account for Luther's venerable "Sachkritik" with respect to some of the biblical writings, e.g., Jimmy, Hebrews, Revelation.

All notions of "biblical inerrancy" downplay the genuinely human aspect of the biblical writings, which were written by culturally conditioned, weak, poor, fallible human beings. If we deny this human character of the Scriptures, then whatever appears to be "humanly conditioned" in the Scriptures is just that, a mere "appearance." For example, the letters of Paul and the other epistles in the NT, complete with their personal remarks (including the frank acknowledgment of a lapse in memory [1 Cor. 1.14-16!]), would lose their character as actual letters, written by particular human beings for other particular human beings.

Luther acknowledged the presence of some "errors" in the Scriptures, e.g., Matt. 27.9.

My New Testament professor and academic advisor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Dr. Robert G. Hoerber, who also served as the general editor for the Concordia Self-Study Bible (CPH, 1986), frankly acknowledged the presence of "errors" and contradictions in the Scriptures. 

According to 1 Kings 4.26, Solomon had 40,000 stalls, but only 4,000 in 2 Chron. 9.25. According to 1 Chron. 19.18, David killed 7,000 Syrian charioteers, while 1 Sam. 10.18 states he killed only 700. According to 1 Chron. 18.4, David captured 7,000 horsemen, while 2 Sam. 8.4 states that he captured only 700. (Perhaps those responsible for copying these scriptural texts, as they were passed down over centuries, committed these errors.) The writings of the OT prophets contain some errors of historical fact, since the contents of those writings were first spoken in various places and times by individual prophets who were separated by time and space from other prophets. The spoken messages were written down only at a later time (and then often subsequently edited still further by the prophet's disciples or more literary scribes). Frequently the high numbers of those involved in biblical events are literal errors and must be understood as hyperbole, e.g., the number of Israelites who left Egypt at the time of the Exodus (Exod. 12.37), which, if literally accurate, would have totaled more than 2,000,000 men, women, and children—a completely improbable number, given the circumstances. A similar exaggeration occurs at 2 Chron. 13.17, where 500,000 soldiers of Israel are said to have been killed in a single battle.

There are, of course, many other discrepancies and minor errors in the Scriptures. The sequence of temptations in Mt. 4.1ff. differs from the sequence in Lk. 4.1ff. Was Jesus tempted after fasting for 40 days (so Mt. 4.2-3), or during the 40 days (so Lk. 4.2-3)? Did those who lowered the paralytic have to dig through the roof above Jesus in order to lower the mat (so Mk. 2.4), or did those people merely lower the paralytic "through the tiles" (Lk. 5.19)? When Jesus sent out the disciples, did he forbid them from taking either sandals or a staff (so Mt. 10.9-10)? Why, then, in Mark's account, does Jesus tell the disciples to take nothing except a staff and to wear sandals (Mk. 6.8-9)? And in Luke's account, the disciples are told to take no staff (Lk. 9.3)! Clearly, these three accounts are not in complete agreement, even if the basic overall message is roughly the same. Many other reports about the same event in the canonical Gospels conflict with each other with respect to the details and cannot be harmonized, though some contort themselves trying to do so. For example, where did Peter deny Christ? John's account (Jn. 18.13-34), where Peter denied Jesus in the courtyard of Annas, cannot be squared with the accounts of the same event in the Synoptic Gospels, where Peter denied Jesus in the courtyard of Caiaphas (Mt. 25.57-68; Mk. 14.53-65; Lk. 22.54-71). How many individuals did the women encounter when they came to the empty tomb of Jesus? One "angel" who is sitting on the stone, as in Mt. 28.2ff.? One "young man" who is not on the stone but inside the tomb, as in Mk. 16.5? "Two men" who suddenly stood beside the women inside the tomb, as in Lk. 24.4? In John's account (20.1ff.), only Mary Magdalene initially went to the tomb, and there is no mention of her encountering an angel or a young man or two young men. There is no way to harmonize these four individual accounts of the same basic event.
When did Jesus die in relation to the Passover celebration that year? Clearly John's account is not easily squared with those contained in the Synoptics.

There are other little errors in the Scriptures as well. For example, the Gospel of Matthew (27.9) wrongly attributes a quotation to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. The journey of Jesus described in Mk. 7.31, if taken at its straightforward meaning, is geographically improbable (suggesting that the author of the Gospel of Mark never lived in Palestine, let alone actually knew firsthand about Jesus' words and deeds). James 2.24 seemingly contradicts the clear teaching of Paul, who stressed that a person is justified by faith "apart from works" (Gal. 2.16; cf. Rom. 3.28). If taken literally, Heb. 6.1-3 contradicts the teaching of 1 Jn. 1.9, which indicates that there is always an opportunity to repent of one's sins and to seek Christ's forgiveness.

Dr. Elert: "The authority of Scripture can always and only be discovered in the validity of its substantive content. To cite one example, we do not believe in Christ because of the formal binding force of Scripture, but rather Scripture first becomes authority for us by and in the fact that it certifies Christ to us."

And also Dr. Bayer: "The authority of Scripture is not formal but highly material and content driven. It is the voice of its author, who gives; who allows for astonishment, lament, and praise; who demands and fulfills. Scripture can in no wise be confirmed as having formal authority in advance, so that the content becomes important only at a secondary stage of the process. The text in its many forms—particularly in the law's demand and the gospel's promise—uses this material way of doing business to validate its authority."

Matt Becker


Your list of "errors" is an impressive compilation of the lack of curiosity or creativity in those who are willing to pull the eject handle and claim the Bible has errors. Every single old testament discrepancy hinges on our understanding of the word "eleph", which is better translated akin to "regiment" and is thus a movable number, rather than just saying "1000" and expecting mathematical precision.

Every one of your synoptic "errors" is likewise easily explained from an inerrant view as well. Take the resurrection appearance of the angels. Are angels bound to only appear in the ways that we expect humans to do so? Could there have been an angel seated on the rock and then that same angel be inside the tomb? Notice that either way, the reference is to two angels? Could an angel be visible to one witness at one time and a different witness at a different time? We simply don't know. 

Have you ever removed tiles from a roof? Might it not be described as digging through the roof?

And so forth and so on.

To present these differences as errors with no attempt at deepening our cultural understanding of how these things were approached by the original writers and listeners is a pretty thin and rigid approach, in my opinion.

Take as your a priori that Scripture is inerrant and every single one is easily addressed.
#8
Your Turn / Re: Sound familiar?
June 06, 2024, 11:00:04 AM
https://babylonbee.com/news/counter-cultural-rebel-believes-everything-athletes-reporters-actors-ceos-believe

The satirical article itself doesn't do it for me as much, but the headline is priceless.
#9
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 05, 2024, 02:14:57 PMI know that there is much more to it than this, but it is striking that every leading voice that was raised noisily in criticism regarding the annotated large catechism has now been excommunicated.

I am not conspiratorially-minded, but for those who are, that fact shouts loudly.

I suspect that this, more than anything else, explains the high level of interest within the Gottesdienst circle.

I almost hate to resurrect this thread, but something I said was false.  My apologies for that. I too often forget the exhortation of the Proverb: "Where words are many, sin is not absent." Prov. 10:19

Corey Mahler was excommunicated. Ryan Turnipseed was excommunicated (but is evidently seeking reconciliation). The third leading party of whom I was aware resigned his affiliation with the LCMS when confronted with his divisive behavior. No excommunication took place or was even begun.

I believe that each of these three men behaved in ways which were not God-pleasing and did not maintain our mutual commitments, either according to Scripture or according to Synodical agreements. I don't think that there was a conspiracy against them. What I am aware of (because I have heard it and read it) is the sentiment that "false teaching" was promoted in the Annotated LC and while the "false teachers" received no rebuke, their critics have faced severe retribution. I do not think this is a fully healthy or fully accurate way to frame the issue, but it's in existence. That's all I was seeking to point out.

What remains an unasked question - there was a website whose sole purpose seems to have been the doxxing of Corey Mahler and his co-host. That website publicly acknowledges its partnership with an Italian antifa group. The language of those posts is extremely conversant with Synodical structure and terminology, so much so that it is a reasonable guess that the content was written by someone who is or was very involved in the LCMS. Ironically, while doxxing others, it remains unsigned and anonymous itself. This, too, is also not a God-pleasing way to go about functioning as a church. But, that I can leave in the hands of those whose vocation requires their involvement. Mine does not. I pray for those it does.

My apologies again for the incorrect information.
#10
I know that there is much more to it than this, but it is striking that every leading voice that was raised noisily in criticism regarding the annotated large catechism has now been excommunicated.

I am not conspiratorially-minded, but for those who are, that fact shouts loudly.

I suspect that this, more than anything else, explains the high level of interest within the Gottesdienst circle.
#11
Quote from: Jim Butler on June 05, 2024, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 05, 2024, 07:53:28 AM
Quote from: Jim Butler on June 04, 2024, 10:33:32 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 04, 2024, 07:49:24 PMThe only thing that surprises me is that in between two pastors, two CVs, and two DPs, no one had managed to kick Dispute Resolution into action. Until, evidently, the Gottesdienst letter. So, from that standpoint, I don't see it as an end run. At least in practical effect, it simply turned up the heat for someone to finally engage the process.

I don't know why anybody would think that their letter 'turned up the heat for someone to finally engage the process' or that it 'helped move the parties into dialogue.' I doubt that it had any effect at all.

The congregation excommunicated Mr. Turpinseed on May 5. This was announced at worship on May 12. Mr. T posted the excommunication on his X feed shortly thereafter.

In order for the Reconciliation process to start, Mr. T would then need to write a formal appeal including a statement giving his side of the story. That would then need to be sent to the District Secretary. He would then need to contact the congregation and let them know that Mr. T is appealing the excommunication to the Synod. The congregation would then need to write a response and send it to the District Secretary.

Once he has received a response, the Secretary then chooses the reconciler (by blind draw) and then sees if s/he is willing and able to serve. He also needs to see if either party to the dispute has any objection to this person serving.

All of this can easily take two-three weeks. And what do you know? It's been two-three weeks from the X post to the announcement that the reconciliation process is in gear.

I would love to believe that that is the explanation. Simply the time consumed by engaging the process. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound anything like what is described in the interview with the pastor on the Gottesdienst  podcast. But perhaps these are the steps that were being pursued behind the scenes of what he was observing?

Regardless, my prayers now for a God-pleasing outcome.

Well, Pr. Lovett might be correct. I'm sure he has a lot more experience in dealing with the Dispute Resolution Process than I do. I only served as a District Secretary for 18 years and presided over several DRPs, including a couple of excommunications. I'm sure he would have a better idea of the length of time it takes to get this process going than I would.

Whoa. Sorry that I made it sound like I was questioning your timeline. I was not. I was simply pointing out that if you listen to Pastor Lovett's recounting of events, at no point did his DP or anyone else that I can tell raise the possibility of starting the dispute resolution process pursuant to synod bylaws.

I am hoping that the cone of silence that has now lowered is indication that those processes have begun. (And I hope it's more effective than Maxwell Smart's.)

I probably wouldn't have even listened to it, but a pastor in my circuit asked me, as his circuit visitor, to explain whether this sounded like proper procedure.

As I said multiple times already, I hope that this means that the process has been started, and I pray that the process is successful in bringing a God-pleasing solution.
#12
Quote from: Jim Butler on June 04, 2024, 10:33:32 PM
Quote from: Rob Morris on June 04, 2024, 07:49:24 PMThe only thing that surprises me is that in between two pastors, two CVs, and two DPs, no one had managed to kick Dispute Resolution into action. Until, evidently, the Gottesdienst letter. So, from that standpoint, I don't see it as an end run. At least in practical effect, it simply turned up the heat for someone to finally engage the process.

I don't know why anybody would think that their letter 'turned up the heat for someone to finally engage the process' or that it 'helped move the parties into dialogue.' I doubt that it had any effect at all.

The congregation excommunicated Mr. Turpinseed on May 5. This was announced at worship on May 12. Mr. T posted the excommunication on his X feed shortly thereafter.

In order for the Reconciliation process to start, Mr. T would then need to write a formal appeal including a statement giving his side of the story. That would then need to be sent to the District Secretary. He would then need to contact the congregation and let them know that Mr. T is appealing the excommunication to the Synod. The congregation would then need to write a response and send it to the District Secretary.

Once he has received a response, the Secretary then chooses the reconciler (by blind draw) and then sees if s/he is willing and able to serve. He also needs to see if either party to the dispute has any objection to this person serving.

All of this can easily take two-three weeks. And what do you know? It's been two-three weeks from the X post to the announcement that the reconciliation process is in gear.

I would love to believe that that is the explanation. Simply the time consumed by engaging the process. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound anything like what is described in the interview with the pastor on the Gottesdienst  podcast. But perhaps these are the steps that were being pursued behind the scenes of what he was observing?

Regardless, my prayers now for a God-pleasing outcome.
#13
The only thing that surprises me is that in between two pastors, two CVs, and two DPs, no one had managed to kick Dispute Resolution into action. Until, evidently, the Gottesdienst letter. So, from that standpoint, I don't see it as an end run. At least in practical effect, it simply turned up the heat for someone to finally engage the process.

My prayers now that the process shall be fruitful for all parties. If the process is faithfully followed, I expect to hear very little about it from this point forward, as adjudicating it in the press or social media is strictly verboten.

Edit - I see that Pastor Bohler has expressed some of the same sentiment. Our comments crossed in cyberspace.
#14
Have you listened to the podcast? The pastor explains all the efforts he made to try to encourage and engage that process. Efforts which he claims were rebuffed. He is very honest in saying, you only have my word for this, but I am glad to hear that more formal reconciliation has begun.

I have had to handle, as a pastor, one situation where a previous parish refused to grant peaceful release. It was being wielded as a weapon by the previous pastor, rather than a legitimate means for church discipline. The members in question were not under any discipline, and were free to attend and join wherever they wish. Their previous pastor took offense to that, and refused to grant peaceful release.

Obviously, quite different from the scenario here. I am only pointing out that when a pastor is expected to abide by another pastor's decision as regards church discipline, sometimes there aren't a whole lot of great options available.
#15
Quote from: John Mundinger on June 03, 2024, 11:30:31 AM
Quote from: RDPreus on June 03, 2024, 11:18:41 AMThis is good news!  Reconciliation is good.  Seeking it is always good to do.  Fighting for self-vindication is the fight of carnal pride.  It cannot be won, because we are all guilty sinners.  But to contend for Christian reconciliation is to mirror the love of God in Christ who reconciled the world unto himself. 

I agree that seeking reconciliation is good.  But, I still do not understand why a pastor would accept and individual into membership without checking with the individual's previous congregation to ensure that 1) the individual was, indeed, an LCMS Lutheran and 2) that the individual was a member in good standing when he left the previous congregation.

You can listen to the entire blow-by-blow of why Pr. Lovett chose to do so if you listen to the interview with him on the Gottesdienst podcast. Agree with the conclusion to do so or not, you cannot argue that it was not carefully thought through with much work and effort on his part.
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk