Phillip Phifer

I sincerely apologize if you believe I libeled you. Not my intention. I believe that the Formula sees adoration as receiving the bread and wine, that is is his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. I am suspect and wary of going beyond what the scripture suggests. If adoration looks like the worship at the conference, I am uncomfortable with that expression. I do not understand it at all. My issue of adoration is is reception for forgiveness. I struggle beyond those words. If others desire to bow and kneel beyond that then help me understand it. I will not do other than take and eat take and drink this is the body and blood of Christ. We believe the same words of Christ. It is this practice that is in question and in my experience of 20 plus year is new to the LCMS. Forgive my overly harsh words

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken You libeled me. You can't just "you do you" after accusing me of what you did. And again. What is the bridge too far? Where is the Formula wrong? We both vowed we agreed with it but what it teaches is a bridge too far?

This is a ridiculous, flimsy straw man. Literally no one is saying (or even thinking) that if a church is growing it must be compromising. Plus, the author plays the Pharisee Card. derrickhurst.org/the-assumption…

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken Was this happening 15-20 years ago? I don't think so. You do you. I will do me and still teach real presence. But I am not going anywhere that direction it is a bridge too far

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken I did not say we must "adore rather than eat and drink for forgiveness?" You are now bearing false witness in addition to condemning men for practicing and believing according to their confessions which they swore to uphold.

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken Look, this practice is supposedly "recovered" fine. If you can teach it that way then do it. It is an adiaphora. But the confusion remains.

We are to be scripture alone guys and we are pulling in all sorts of tradition and giving it equal importance. I really do not like this at all. I confess the scriptures and confessions but we are making them of equal weight. We csnnot divorce the confessions from the men and context. How do they speak and guide today.

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken So it comes down to your preference. That's a poor reason to condemn men. You can not like it, that's fine. But you are condemning people for doing something which flows from this truth of what is happening. No one is compelling you to do this.

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken I appreciate the conversation. I am going to retire for the evening and next few days

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken You have actually not answered my question but deflected.

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken Eat and drink for forgiveness of sins. Where is anything else? I really do not like this practice. It is confusing to me. It is foreign to me. I am thankful for what is given.

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken I really want to know where you are coming from.

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken You are correct in adoring Christ and not the elements. How does scripture say we adore him in relation to the supper? Eating and drinking not bowing a nd genuflecting.

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken No one is adoring the elements of bread and wine. That is rejected. Please explain why the Formula of Concord is wrong where I quoted it.

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken I believe in real presence but kneeling and adoring the elements is going to create huge, huge, huge issues for me and it is for you as well. You just cannot see it. Jesus is bodily present in bread and wine to be eaten and drank not worshipped in this fashion.

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken You are a pastor, you should know this, believe it, confess it, teach it. You vowed as such.

We keep claiming Luther did this or that with adoration and elevation of the host. Who cares what Luther did? He was in process of figuring all this out just as we are doing. The worship or adoration of the sacrament creates all sorts of problems. Stick with the words - take eat, take and drink this is my body and blood. Why is this so hard for you?

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken What is wrong with this? "no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same." Why are you denying this?

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken Not denying real presence. Denying adoration and the confusion it brings. Why are you bringing this in?

@JoshuaKurtenbax @toddwilken It is to be eaten and drank not adored

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken No one is adoring bread. They are adoring Christ's body which is present in the bread. Who is claiming that the Eucharist is a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins of the living and dead? Who is claiming the bread and wine are annihilated? Christ is present to be received but

@JRTownsend1517 @toddwilken I see these as new innovations over the last 20 years. The Chausibles, incense, and bells are just the High Church version of skinny jeans, smoke machines, and raising hands

@phifer_phillip @toddwilken I guess it depends where you spend your Lord’s Days and Feast Days. Looked like general practice to me. Looked like general practice at CUC, which was the host chapel (get to see my son as an acolyte there when I visit).

@pleas_evans @MicahDrengler I can verify that it is his real name!

On Twitter and I consider both men my Pastor. So if I act indecently on here or share a heresy you can call me out to them for accountability. @phifer_phillip and @MicahDrengler.

It recently came to my attention that my name can come off as an "annon" account. So for clarity it is my real name and is pronounced "Plez". I am a communing member of Grace Lutheran(LCMS) in Orange, TX. While we are currently without a pastor both of my visiting pastors are...

@AliciaJN The numbers and their source is problematic

@b_tsee96922 @TheLuthInn What is the Peterson effect?

@TheLuthInn I know people won’t agree with me and that is OK. But the “Peterson Effect” MUST be taken into account. It exists and is a real thing.

The LCMS under President Harrison has maintained one of the highest convert to cradle ratios in American Christianity, with 1 in 3 LCMS members being converts. This number is substantially higher than that of both Baptists and Roman Catholics.

@nolibertarians @TheLuthInn How is that even said without bursting out laughing. Harrison and Biermann are the same theologically. No daylight on the confessions. The issue is some things on adiaphora which some have elevated to the level of doctrine.

@TheLuthInn President Harrison has to win. Biermann would be a disaster and the beginning of a slide towards liberalism.

1. Sampling & selection bias: Stone’s LRLS recruits through LCMS social media, broadcasts, mailing lists, and congregational networks. This captures active or semi-engaged members well but systematically under-samples nominal, disengaged, or lapsed LCMS identifiers that broader surveys (Pew, CCES) pick up. Result: Convert rates (and positivity toward traditional settings) may appear higher than in a true cross-section of all self-ID’d LCMS people. Stone has acknowledged this limitation himself. 2. Self-reported “convert” status vs. verifiable data: The ~32% figure (for traditional/confessional subgroups) comes from respondents saying they weren’t raised LCMS. This is useful but subjective and can include transfers from other Lutherans, re-activations, or people with loose prior ties. It doesn’t equal net growth or “new to Christianity” converts (Stone’s own breakdowns show only 2-4% from non-Christian backgrounds overall). Official LCMS Rosters & Statistics track adult baptisms/confirmations in raw numbers but don’t give this % of total membership view. 3. Framing and subgroup emphasis: The post highlights the higher rate in “confessional/traditional” churches as a strength under Harrison. Stone’s analysis does show this pattern, but it can read as confirming a preferred narrative (liturgical/confessional vitality) while broader data shows overall LCMS challenges (declining churches/pastors, the well-documented ~1-in-3 retention from confirmation to adulthood in the 2017 LCMS Congregational Survey). Critics argue this risks selection bias in emphasis—focusing on the growing pockets rather than synod-wide trends. 4. Comparisons to Baptists/Catholics may over-reach without apples-to-apples data: The claim of “one of the highest” ratios vs. Baptists and Roman Catholics likely blends LRLS with Pew switching tables. Pew has limitations for small groups like LCMS (small samples, broad “Lutheran” or “Evangelical Protestant” buckets). Stone’s LCMS-specific survey doesn’t have a parallel random sample for SBC or Catholic converts in the same way, so direct “higher than” claims need careful caveats on methodology and definitions of “convert.” 5. Distinction between proportion of converts and actual vitality/growth: Even if 1 in 3 current members in certain segments are converts, this must be weighed against retention losses and overall membership trends. High convert inflow can mask or offset cradle attrition. Stone’s own writing notes surveys often overstate active membership due to nominals. Using the figure in isolation for “we’re doing great on outreach” risks missing the fuller demographic picture (fertility, retention pipelines, etc.).

It’s fun seeing the Lutheran Church grow as more people are exposed to Church history, the Church Fathers, and our confessions.

These are from Lyman Stone . Quick deep analysis by GROK 1. Sampling & selection bias: Stone’s LRLS recruits through LCMS social media, broadcasts, mailing lists, and congregational networks. This captures active or semi-engaged members well but systematically under-samples nominal, disengaged, or lapsed LCMS identifiers that broader surveys (Pew, CCES) pick up. Result: Convert rates (and positivity toward traditional settings) may appear higher than in a true cross-section of all self-ID’d LCMS people. Stone has acknowledged this limitation himself. 2. Self-reported “convert” status vs. verifiable data: The ~32% figure (for traditional/confessional subgroups) comes from respondents saying they weren’t raised LCMS. This is useful but subjective and can include transfers from other Lutherans, re-activations, or people with loose prior ties. It doesn’t equal net growth or “new to Christianity” converts (Stone’s own breakdowns show only 2-4% from non-Christian backgrounds overall). Official LCMS Rosters & Statistics track adult baptisms/confirmations in raw numbers but don’t give this % of total membership view. 3. Framing and subgroup emphasis: The post highlights the higher rate in “confessional/traditional” churches as a strength under Harrison. Stone’s analysis does show this pattern, but it can read as confirming a preferred narrative (liturgical/confessional vitality) while broader data shows overall LCMS challenges (declining churches/pastors, the well-documented ~1-in-3 retention from confirmation to adulthood in the 2017 LCMS Congregational Survey). Critics argue this risks selection bias in emphasis—focusing on the growing pockets rather than synod-wide trends. 4. Comparisons to Baptists/Catholics may over-reach without apples-to-apples data: The claim of “one of the highest” ratios vs. Baptists and Roman Catholics likely blends LRLS with Pew switching tables. Pew has limitations for small groups like LCMS (small samples, broad “Lutheran” or “Evangelical Protestant” buckets). Stone’s LCMS-specific survey doesn’t have a parallel random sample for SBC or Catholic converts in the same way, so direct “higher than” claims need careful caveats on methodology and definitions of “convert.” 5. Distinction between proportion of converts and actual vitality/growth: Even if 1 in 3 current members in certain segments are converts, this must be weighed against retention losses and overall membership trends. High convert inflow can mask or offset cradle attrition. Stone’s own writing notes surveys often overstate active membership due to nominals. Using the figure in isolation for “we’re doing great on outreach” risks missing the fuller demographic picture (fertility, retention pipelines, etc.).

@TheLuthInn Where are you getting these numbers

@TheLuthInn Thanks. Just looking to see this and the source.

@phifer_phillip President Harrison mentioned this figure directly in his speech yesterday. This figure is also substantiated in numerous sources which you can find available online.