Seminex War Foreshadowed Church Growth Movement

I stumbled onto Dan Preus' talk about the Seminex walkout (LCMS, 1974). The liberals, led by John Tietjen, argued that they used the Historical Critical Method in a neutral way, so doctrine was not affected. The conservatives, led by Dan Preus' father (Robert) and his uncle Jack, eventually prevailed in showing the synod that the Seminex liberals had indeed departed from the historic understanding of the Bible.

Walkout

I never thought of it before - The arguments of the LCMS liberals foreshadowed all the baloney of the Church Growth enthusiasts I knew in the old Synodical Conference:
President-in-Waiting Wayne Mueller, David Valleskey, Frosty Bivens, Lawrence Otto Olson (D.Min., Fuller), James Huebner, Harry Hagedorn, James Radloff, Paul Kelm, Roger Zehms, Paul Kuske, Floyd Luther Stolzenburg, Roger Kovaciny, Kent Hunter (D.Min, Fuller), Waldo Werning, Norm Berg, Joel Gerlach, Ron Roth, Robert Hartman, Mark Freier, Randy Cutter, Rick Miller, Wally Oelhaven, Fred Adrian, and many more. I am omitting a few names simply because they crave attention.

The Lutheran Church Growth fanatics sometimes admitted their study at Fuller, sometimes denied it, and often did both. Their primary argument has been, "I have studied those methods, but they have not affected my doctrine. The methods are neutral."

The Church Growth apostates share many characteristics with Seminex liberals:

1. Their greatest love is their method.
   
2. They are never honest about their agenda.
   
3. They love every denomination except their own.
   
4. They lock arms with their own to promote their ideology.
   
5. They work hard to destroy what others have built up.
   
6. They operate in stealth mode and control the synod where they lodge.