. "That doesn't mean any fool could do it, as Colin stated;" Actually, I stated the complete opposite... I'm really not interested in trying to argue the toss or the minutae with people that don't care to understand what I have written, or seem to deliberately misconstrue what I've written. I felt tremendously dispirited that this board had reached a consensus so quickly that there was really nothing wrong with subbed out pipes without any dissention or any real discussion of the subject because I saw it reached deep into the core of the craft and I was alarmed that nobody seemed to mind. As a result, I am really beginning to wonder if this board is really the right place for me and I find myself considering whether I really want to remain a member. It feels so much like an uphill struggle with nothing to show at the end of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sitesI am selling a like new set of SVS 20-39CS+ subs with a Samson S1000 and ART-351. The only blemish that I could find was a small scratch on top of the S1000 due to the ART-351 sitting on top of it. I have all the original packaging. Asking $1050.00 plus shipping. Thanks for looking.
I have also sent you an e-mail! Thanks!
Back at you Glenn...
Are these still available, and if so how old are they?The people of God of Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church and School have experienced extraordinary pressures. For the most part, the pressures have been exerted due to a divisive issue that took place within the congregation resulting in a two-fold effect. The first has been that various members of the teaching staff actively sought or received calls to serve in other locations, in some ways binding the hands of leadership and causing “last-minute” difficulty and unstable fluidity to the Day School staffing models being managed by the congregation. The second is that multiple families have abruptly chosen to be self-dismissed from the fellowship.
The purpose of this document is to examine both of these effects, to apply the Word of God in order to properly identify the theological tensions, and to offer direction in order that the pastor and congregation leadership will be better equipped to serve faithfully, to discern, and if possible, to avoid similar situations in the future.
The lacking of a clear definition and understanding of the term “call” appears to be a significant point of contention as the congregation attempts, during critical times, to choose, manage, and care for her servants. In addition, the special committees which have been given the responsibility for navigating these waters have lacked objective parameters based on a right understanding of the “call”.
The universal church’s historical practice to accomplish the carrying out of the Lord’s mandates with regard to the call has varied as it has existed with one foot in the adiaphorous and the other in the Word. In other words, there is somewhat of a freedom in Christ’s church to establish offices and accomplish “calls”. But the sinful nature still dwells within man, and because of this, the adiaphorous facets of the process can become cumbersome. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that all answers to the questions emanate from God Himself as revealed by His Word. The church must always seek to be faithful in her carrying out of the mandate to call servants by aligning with the Word. Here the people can know what a “call” actually is, who may receive one, what are the parameters of the call, and from whom is the call issued.
To begin, our first task is to define what is meant by “call”, which even in the present day may or may not presumptively be accompanied by the term “divine” no matter who is being called. In other words, whether you are a pastor, teacher, or DCE, it is assumed that all stem from a divine mandate for that particular office to be established. This is incorrect thinking. To make matters worse, while a proper distinction may be made between “Divine Call” and “Call”, both terms currently exist in our Synod side by side with other terms such as “contracted”, “interim”, “solemn”, “commissioned”, and the like. How did it get this way?
Briefly, it may be that the term “call” was first convoluted when the term “minister” was clouded. In the early 20th century, the LC-MS most likely had a firmer grasp on the difference between “Divine Call” and “Call”, and yet when the Synod chose to make parish teachers “Commissioned Ministers” in order to provide them with certain tax and transportation benefits only offered to Ordained Ministers, the clarity was lessened. With this, we begin to see parish teachers and other professional church workers receiving what are assumed to be “divine calls” as opposed to “calls” understood as contracts or appointments. Of course this is a sizeable topic and could easily consume several pages of discussion. Suffice it to say that with regard to the scriptural mandate, the Lutheran Church fully acknowledges in her confessional subscription that the only “divine call” is that to the Office of the Holy Ministry, or the pastor. All other offices in the church (contracted, interim, or volunteer) stem from and serve as auxiliary to the Office of the Holy Ministry, which is the office of the divinely called and ordained servant of the Word.
Understanding this exposition, Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church is to rightly distinguish the only divinely instituted office in the church, that is, the only office receiving the “divine call” as the Office of the Holy Ministry, or the pastor.
At this point, even with this clarification, it would probably be imprudent for any Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation to no longer use the term “call” with regard to her auxiliary staff as it may still cause confusion in our dealings with the synod. The usage of the term remains the current practice of our Synod. Perhaps it would simply suffice for the congregation to have a firmer grasp on the difference between “divine call” (which is to be understood as the pastoral call) and “call” (which may simply be accounted as a synonym for or working in tandem with more common words like “contracted”, “commissioned”, and “interim”.) This alone will provide better delineation and direction when employing staff (determining processes, writing contracts, and establishing periods of service, that is, interim/non-tenured/tenured).
The issuing of the call, divine or appointed/commissioned/contracted, has differing sources. Nevertheless, they both have a sole source for process given in the scriptures: The church. It is a “right” given by God to His church. As we have already seen by Walther, the issuance source for the divine call is God, achieved in ordination and moved through the congregation in the actual calling process. In the case of the call, the congregation is both the source of the issuance (based on the determined auxiliary needs) and the calling process’ voice. Even with Confessional clarity, certain discussions remain, gravitating illegally to particular authoritative degrees. For example, some argue that because the congregation holds the sole authority and power over the process, by extension, this somehow extends to the man in the office; that he must preach and teach in substance and practice as ordered by the assembly even if it is in opposition to the Word. Instead, it is the congregation’s duty to call a man to preach and administer rightly and only to remove him if he unrepentantly succumbs to false doctrine and ungodly practice. For some, this line of authority with regard to the pastor is blurry. Even further, it may be a common misunderstanding that once an auxiliary office holder is “called” as opposed to “contracted”, it is impossible to remove them from office as needs arise or change because the person has been placed there divinely by God. As has been said, a called auxiliary worker and a contracted auxiliary worker are the same. And although as a church we do hold to particular spiritual guidelines for the removal of any worker (doctrine, practice, Christian charity, love, and honor), it would be fundamentally untrue that a congregation cannot maneuver or remove an auxiliary worker because of changing needs, financial strain, and the like. Of course it should be assumed that any changes in need and actions taken to meet the need would be fully supported by appropriate documentation and enacted through the appropriate leadership who have been given such authority by the congregation.
For additional clarity, an understanding should be provided with regard to “tenured” and “non-tenured” calls not only because our Synod employs these terms, but because we ourselves employ them in our Day School staff handbook (2008).
First, in his Pastoral Theology (Pastoraltheologie) Walther cites approvingly a statement from Joachim Mörlin. Mörlin rejects the argument of those who insist that since they pay the pastor’s salary, they can hire and fire him at will, thus treating “the call of the preacher as nothing other than a contract of the kind made with a cow or sow-herder.” Second, Walther rejects the practice of licensing candidates for a set period of time as had been customary among Lutherans in eastern America. In 1846 he wrote, “Unfortunately it has become customary in our country to hire ministers for one year, even as we hire our servants and cattle herders.... Even in emergencies these calls with a time limit cannot be justified.” On the basis of the divine nature of the call itself Walther argued against the idea of a temporary call. The very idea that a divine call could be