Thread by @TurnipMerchant

On January 21st, I wrote a Twitter thread outlining issues that I and others had with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod's new edition of Luther's Large Catechism. After it was pulled and later re-released and reaffirmed, a lot has changed for me.

So, what has happened?

The original thread is attached. A great number of laymen and pastors wrote their concerns to the President of the LCMS, Matthew Harrison, and the book was pulled. Nine days later, everything was reaffirmed.

On February 21st, Matthew Harrison released a letter through rather unorthodox channels which condemned the "Alt Right" as unchristian and called for their excommunication.

This letter declared that the "Alt Right" started the controversy surrounding the new Large Catechism. I immediately understood this to mean me and a few others.

I was vindicated on March 1st, when my dad, an elder at our church, received this email from our Pastor:

This "radical leftist blogpost" mentioned is an article published by an Antifa front called Machaira Action. It erroneously labels me a Fascist, lies about me in other details, and relies heavily upon guilt by association.

That day, March 1st, was a Wednesday. The church in my college town was holding a Lenten midweek service, so I asked the Pastor there if I could talk with him before the service started.

This pastor is a circuit pastor, or a supervising pastor for the other pastors in this area.

At this discussion, I was informed that the Oklahoma District's President had become greatly worried over my "online involvement" and had talked to some of the District's pastors. I answered questions about what I have written and said, and both of us left in a happy mood.

Later that week, on March 4th, an article that I had written for Gab went out where I summarized the story surrounding the new Large Catechism and the problems that I had with Harrison's letter condemning the Alt Right.

That same evening, I received a message from my pastor sent to me, the aforementioned circuit pastor, and a congregant at my church.

I was asked to meet, and although the topic was not told to me, based on my dad's email, I knew generally what we were supposed to discuss.

At about this time, my father found out that a separate, more precise email was sent to the other elders at our church.

On Tuesday morning, March 7th, I was directly "informed" of the topic of the meeting, although this information was deliberately limited at the time.

Later that evening, I met with the Circuit Pastor to find out more details for this meeting. As I implied in that text, "deeply concerned" is not enough.

This time, I was told that the Oklahoma District's President was involved, but his role had been downgraded to advice.

I was then told that the impetus for this "deep concern" was that I was perceived as being "too cozy" with some people in my online activity.

We then discussed an event that had happened before this meeting. An elder in another congregation was ambushed in a meeting by his church's elder, recorded, and pressured to resign his eldership. He did, and the recording was withheld from him.

The fact that his recording was withheld is why, from here on out, I recorded my interactions with the churches. As I was even reminded in the justification for them recording this now former-elder, Oklahoma is one party consent for recordings.

When I pushed the morality of withholding this ex-elder's recording, I was met with justification after justification.

Going into this meeting, I had hoped I wouldn't encounter that. I wanted any reason to just delete this and go back to normal, but that was not how this went.

I then tried to clarify what we would discuss at the next meeting, the topic of those earlier text messages.

I was just expected to know what the topic would be and was told that I was being given a "warning".

Alright, fine. If it's just some vague fear of internet associations, then so be it. Given what Harrison's letter claimed, that the bigger issue was the supposed Alt Right, I asked if he could define "Alt Right". The answer was a resounding "no".

Further on my quest for clarity, I asked several questions that were variations of "will this be applied to anyone else at all?" I was given an answer that was a mixture of "no" and that it didn't matter.

I then asked, more pointedly, if this would be applied to people actively supporting and voting for organizations who advanced the legality of abortions and transgenderism. I was told that they would not be persecuted.

Being as this was about my online involvement, I asked if I could show up to this meeting as if the pastor was up to speed with what I have said and done online. I was then told that "he won't have all that" and that I was seen as too sympathetic to the "Alt Right".

Those were the main takeaways from the meeting with the Circuit Pastor. I now had two days to prepare for a meeting where I didn't really know what was actually going to be discussed or what was being leveled against me, save that I was too sympathetic and cozy with some people.

On Thursday evening, March 9th, I attended this meeting. Those present included me, my pastor, the Circuit Pastor, and two elders of whom I was not told would be present in any way, shape, or form. This combined with the vagueness that preceded the meeting made me uneasy.

After opening in prayer, I was immediately asked if I knew why we were there and if I trusted the pastor. I did not know the real, precise purpose, and I was upfront about my lack of trust going into this.

Along with this recording, I was also taking handwritten notes.

I was then told that they were concerned about my online involvement with @treblewoe and @CoreyJMahler, among others.

I was then told that I was closely tied to their work, as I had retweeted some of their podcasts and that they had appeared on a couple of my podcasts. This verbal explanation was the only "material" I was given for this meeting as the cause for concern.

Upon me asking what alleged evil I had promoted, I was read off half-sentence summaries of beliefs and statements supposedly held by the two (I don't keep up with them enough to know if this is accurate or inaccurate, though I was skeptical about some of this).

When I asked which one of these views or statements I had shared, I was told that I was "sharing their entire platform". When I responded by saying I hadn't shared these statements, I was told the closest thing I got to a real charge. I was "platforming them and their platform".

I then asked who else I was supposed to deplatform and disassociate with. I was told that @Aelthemplaer (then under the name of Luthemplaer) was another such person. This is a key detail that we will return to later.

I then tried to summarize what is was that I was doing wrong, to which I was told that I understated the issue. I was then told that I supported the "wholeness of their messaging" despite my disagreements with both individuals (and even @Aelthemplaer).

I was then asked to explain where I had directly disagreed with them. Being as I actually disagree with them on a great deal of things, I began with what I found to be the most interesting point of disagreement: my Austrianism vs. their alleged National Socialism.

I then explained my position, that his charge is absurd, because during the height of National Socialism, excommunications and condemnations were not given.

I then asked if other political positions would be given this treatment. I was not given an answer.

I was told that I was too interested in defending them instead of just condemning them wholesale. I was told that I defended them against excommunication in my Gab article, which was a strange way to phrase that on their part since no excommunication had been pronounced yet,

I was then called ridiculous for advocating that the LCMS follow its written procedures for discipline and excommunication. I was then told a rather false statement, that the proper process was being followed regarding Corey's discipline.

I then asked why, if the process was being followed at Corey's church, the church didn't contradict any of Corey's claims or objections and instead justified their actions.

I was informed that they have a churchly duty to keep their mouth shut.

It was then reiterated that, in matters of excommunication, the church is not to comment.

Later, when talking associations and charges and allegations, I brought up the NSDAP. Despite the accusation of "Nazi" being used multiple time, this response was given:

I was then told that @treblewoe was a violent man. When asking for proof, I was told that he had threatened violence. I did not find the proof convincing, and upon pressing, I found nothing more.

I was then accused of being a National Socialist myself, though no proof or substantiation was provided, only that I associate with people labeled as such.

I was then told that I have become significantly more radical. I asked for examples, though nothing could be demonstrated.

I was then told that the proof for my radicalism was my claim that the LCMS is subverted. After explaining why I think that to be the case, I was asked if I wanted to be a member of my church. We spent a good deal of time on the topic, only to establish that the answer was "yes".

I was then told that my disagreements with Corey and Woe and Luthemplaer were not enough. I now had to "disavow their whole person".

I was then told that I should do this so I couldn't be labeled a racist and a white supremacist and an antisemite by association. After I explained that the definitions of these words constantly change, I was told to do it anyways.

I was then told that "conservative pastors" had contacted my pastor concerning these issues. When I asked what they were conserving, the word was dropped thereafter.

I then asked, as a point of clarity, how much my pastor investigated into me and how much was handed to him. I was told that 75% of the work was done by other people, but also I was not to know what they said or who they were.

My only comment is that this is very legitimate.

When told that this meeting was coming purely from my pastor, in spite of a supermajority of the work coming from without the congregation, I was told that those outsiders were not involved, nor was any of the LCMS hierarchy.

It was then reiterated that I must disavow their persons as evil.

When I asked to work through what was presented to me and how it related to me, I was met with refusal and anger. I was then expected to have just reached their conclusions anyway.

Then, before they suddenly walked out in anger, I had a fist slammed on the table at me.

I received an apology from my pastor for how it was conducted. Not for the missing proof or anything of that sort, but because they "broadcast a sense of ambush and attack".

I showed this to a very dear psychologist friend, and the only response was that this was manipulative.

My dad called me the next morning and was horrified at everything that happened.

He did not recuse himself as the email had asked, and instead signed off with the rest of the elders on this meeting, as he was told twice that I would just explain myself.

He then wrote a letter to the Pastor and the elders.

If you remember the Antifa article mentioned earlier, he made the connection that the only reason I was asked to disassociate with Luthemplaer was because he was also in the article. The church was relying on Antifa.

The pastor then wrote his own summary of the meeting a couple of weeks (if I remember correctly) after the fact. If not a couple of weeks, then close to it.

This was the ending of that summary and the circuit pastor's summary.

After my father received this summary, he wrote a response to it, as he found it particularly egregious.

And this was the middle of that response:

And the letter finished:

After this, at my church's next elders meeting, I was brought up as the subject. In this meeting, a "tribunal" (their word, not mine) was agreed upon, where all the elders and the pastor would question me in some orderly fashion.

Also during this meeting, another charge was leveled against me. I was teaching theology and laymen are not allowed to do that. As such, they said they would demand that I stop all social media postings about the LCMS.

I wrote this email, saying what I would need for trust.

If you read the email, you probably noticed another concern: a circuit pastor was talking about this event to people entirely uninvolved. What happened to the "churchly duty to stay quiet"?

As you can see by the response, it didn't even register as an issue to them.

This was my last response.

I had contacted Oklahoma's District president to ask about the circuit pastor talking about this to other people, and I heard nothing back. Same with one of the LCMS's Vice Presidents, and similarly nothing.

And this is at the heart of the reason why I am publishing this.

What did they talk about? What was said about me? Why were other circuit pastors up to date enough to comment on this to unknowns? How would I clear my name?

No one cared, nor did anyone see the problem.