Shober - Review of a Pamphlet

Ken McGuire

After David Henkel released https://community.logos.com/forums/t/203057.aspx , Shober produced the following. In my opinion, Shober's comments about Henkel criticizing the out of date versions of the plan for the General Synod is valid. Henkel criticized a plan that was not adopted, and what was indeed adopted was different - and did not have some of the features that Henkel found objectionable.

And his arguments about what was the valid meeting in 1819 are also valid, in my opinion, especially when there appeared to be some variety in wordings in the various printings of the Tennessee Synod Constitution as well.  And speaking about how Henkel seemed to go over the top in his attacks also has a good point.

But as to theology? The Henkel based report spoke of him being ordained "Bishops (commonly called pastors) of the Christian Church", which I read as following some passages in the Lutheran Confessions, based upon Jerome basically, that the distinction between Bishop and Priest is a human one that developed in history, and not as claiming to be ranked above other pastors. But Shober did not read it this way - and attacked him for claiming an office that Lutherans did not have - which would be quite odd, based on how Henkel was claiming that Lutheran unity did not need a structure like that of the General Synod.

And Shober is right in pointing out that we confessional Lutherans should remember that saying that the Human Nature of Jesus is not present in the eucharist is not the same as saying that Jesus is not present. It does seem to be an odd Christology though...

My eyes glaze over at the discussions of financial impropriety, and the exact consequences of being found to have violated an oath before a Justice of the Peace.

All in all, it was not the most fun document to convert into a PB, but it wasn't that hard either. At the least, it does provide a first hand account of the break that happened.

Rodney Phillips

Thanks