I quoted this from the Moose Report:
I’m not quite sure how hosting non-WELS speakers constitutes prayer fellowship and a violation of Scripture. Pretty soon we’ll get to the point where just talking to people who are non-WELS will be breaking fellowship.
It is an unfortunate fact that great confusion exists among clergy and laity alike around applications of the church fellowship principles.
“Confusion” is an understatement.
Rather than contribute to this confusion, the leaders of The CHARIS Institute have decided to cancel this year’s symposium. Our prayer is that we will find a way to resolve this confusion about church fellowship so that CHARIS can again host outstanding scholars on relevant subjects in the future without controversy.
May God guide us to live and work in the freedom of His Gospel so that we can be salt and light to a dying world.
This symposium was on evangelism. Apparently it is breaking fellowship by bringing in those who have effective evangelism programs that actually work because they are not WELS. Our synod is losing members faster than they are gaining them. You’d think they’d be open to new ideas. There is a serious danger here in this fellowship misapplication. Those planning to attend have lost the opportunity to learn about other evangelism methods to win souls for Christ.
***
Someone, anonymously, has said the quotation above does not support Sweet. I guess that person would headline the post a bit differently--like this--"Not so!" Sweet-heart.
themrs has left a new comment on your post "The Leonard Sweet-hearts War, 2005":
I have posted a comment and am curious as to why it hasn't been approved? I want to reiterate the fact that I did not in my post say anything in support of Sweet and am irritated that you introduced my post by saying my blog supported Sweet. The point of my post was that hosting non-WELS speakers is not breaking prayer fellowship. Please allow my feedback on your post or remove any references to my post or blog from your site as it has been misinterpreted and misused. Thank you.
GJ - Next I found this outraged post on The Moose Report:
The injustice of being misquoted
January 1st, 2008
My brother-in-law drew my attention to this post which, after a very, very long description quotes my post in support of Leonard Sweet. As my comments have not been approved by the administrator of that blog, let me speak here about this as it makes my blood boil.
First, when he inserted my post as a quote in his, he did not differentiate between what was quoted from CHARiS and my response. You can find my original post here. The point of my post is not to support Sweet’s doctrinal beliefs–I never even mention or refer to Sweet so I’m not sure how Ichabod can state “Here is a WELS blog supporting Sweet.” I have never posted in support of him!
Second, the whole point of my post was not about the doctrines of the speakers, but questioning the application of the fellowship principal in regards to the symposium. It’s that simple. I have other thoughts on the matter, but I’ll withhold those from this post at the moment.
Third, and this really gets me, Gregory Jackson adds a note stating “I see a familiar name associated with the Moose Report.” It’s bad enough that he mars my blog and falsely testifies that I “support” Sweet, but he adds an unnecessary comment to slander those associated with me, which could easily mean any of my brothers who are faithful WELS members, or even my sainted father.
I’m quite irritated, just FYI.
***
GJ - Ichabodians, was my characterization of the original post wrong? I see The Moose Report doing double back-flips in favor of "great scholars" like Leonard Sweet (pagan New Age fraud), Kent Hunter (Fuller Seminary Puppet), and Waldo Werning (Voted Fuller Seminary Useful Idiot, 2006).
Did you know the Methodist Church was growing? The Moose Report says so. Leonard Sweet is a Methodist, and he is making them grow with his new ideas! When I looked up statistics on the United Methodists, I found a split and irrelevant denomination.
The Moose Report also offered this startling factoid - the LCMS is growing, too, thanks to Hunter and Werning! These great scholars have new ideas. However, whenever I quoted Werning and Hunter verbatim, I found the same new ideas in earlier Fuller Seminary publications. In 2005, the Church Growth Movement of Werning and Hunter was hardly new, certainly not new in WELS. I have recorded, with great precision, the orgins of Church Growth in WELS.
Missouri and WELS began shrinking when they discovered the Church Growth Movement and began implementing its methods and doctrines.
WELS Pastor Steve Kurtzahn wrote, in 1996: "But as you can see from the above references, ever so slyly, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, Valleskey is promoting the Church Growth Movement. [emphasis in original] I will argue that with anyone. God forbid, but my guess would be the next such book out of WELS will be even more CG oriented and even more blatant in its CG statements."
Church Growth false doctrine was about 20 years old in the Wisconsin Synod then. As Kurtzahn predicted, WELS is far more blatant today.
The Moose Report was engaging in typical GA double-talk. Clearly the author was fulminating that his denomination put a slight brake on on the impact of Sweet, Werning, and Hunter. Now the author is angry at his words being understood correctly. So we are left wondering - Is this moose a Lutheran as he claims, or a pagan, New Age Church Growth disciple?
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky: Again?
Bullwinkle: Presto!
Lion: ROAR!!!
Bullwinkle: Oops, wrong hat.
