From Bailing Water:
Freddy said...
Mr. “Seeking Truth, not Hysteria”
Perhaps I am being naive, but I will assume that your post is genuine, and try to honestly answer some of your questions from my perspective.
First, understand that C&C is only the latest version of nearly two decades of Church Growth innovation, that has, over the years, been cynically foisted on WELS Lutherans as the only right way, because it is somehow the only relevant way. Yes, the only relevant way, in spite of the condescending nods they seem to offer in the direction “dying traditionalists” who “irrationally cling” to Confessional and catholic (that's small “c” catholic) practices. As CG methods are overtly non-Lutheran, making a joke out of our claim of catholicity, C&C church growth zealots unapologetically express their intent to carry our church practice away from anything (a) recognizably Lutheran, that (b), being recognizably Lutheran, also functions in a way that uniquely supports our doctrine.
Although the names involved seem to be the same, they are almost irrelevant at this point (apart from their continued appointment to positions of centralized leadership). What many of us have observed, especially those of us in a position to observe trends as we travel across the U.S. for business purposes, is the broad impact of CG on Lutheran Practice today, after decades of toleration. Such impact includes crass rejection of the Western Rite (the “Mass” which the Confessions tell us is not to be abolished), the adoption of openly and unavoidably anthropocentric “contemporary” forms in the Divine Service (in an effort to titillate the weak and the unregenerate, over against “traditional” Lutheran and Christocentric practices that may “bore” them), and practices which overtly despise the Sacraments, hiding the Marks of the Church rather than heralding them, for fear that the unregenerate may take offense! Yes, for fear that they may stumble at the Stumbling Stone! CG ideas have been propagated and absorbed by the weak among us, as they jealously look toward pop-church Evangelicals with a longing for their “relevant” "contemporary" practice. Never mind that today, Evangelicalism is virtually in a state of collapse, and that former standard bearers of CG, like Barna Research, are largely pointing at CG as the cause.
Second, understand that if C&C posted anything provocative or directly suggestive of a challenge to Confessional Lutheranism, the principals of this organization would be officially chastised and/or drummed out of the Synod with little ceremony. They know this. Further, the principals of this organization are not young ideologues. They are well-healed and mostly aged CG advocates who have managed to survive decades of fierce polemic from the likes of Dr. Greg Jackson. They are calloused from experience, and have learned from their mistakes -- they know the magic phrases, and can easily thread the needle of doctrinal rhetoric to avoid direct criticism. Looking to the material they post for evidence of manifest unorthodoxy is a waste of time. The proof in is the field, not so much in the naked words themselves; it is in the manifest and growing results of their influence.
To insist that C&C church-growthers mean well and ought to be interminably tolerated is like saying Phillip Jakob Spener meant well (which he did), and ought to have been tolerated (which he was for awhile, at first). Granting that he insisted he wanted to be orthodox, even granting that he tried to remain so, the impact of his teaching grew far beyond his ability to effectively influence it, and even though his ideas were eventually rejected, and he was separated from the Orthodox Lutherans, he had been tolerated by them for too long. The innovations of practice introduced by Spener, in the end, eviscerated orthodox Confessional Lutheranism and left the world and the Church vulnerable to the attacks of the Enlightenment.
WELS has long been infected with CG. This is acknowledged practically everywhere. But it is not just the small list of congregations which have been completely given-over to the methods of failing Evangelicalism, rather, it's a little here and a little there, practically everywhere. Those of us who travel, see it – it sticks out like a sore thumb. To the extent that these unnecessary and unhealthy CG innovations leach into our practice, these non-Lutheran practices are given unfettered access to preach the non-Lutheran doctrines from which they spring. Yes, that's lex orandi, lex credendi, and yes, these uninformed and ill-advised practices are active spreading false doctrine among us, especially regarding Church and Ministry and the Means of Grace, and are obliterating our Confessionalism, particularly among the laity.
Much has been written on this blog, especially in recent months, on these specific topics. Some of it is good, some, perhaps, not so good. Rather than repeat it all in one place, take a read for yourself, if you haven't already.
Freddy Finkelstein
October 29, 2008 12:14 PM
***
GJ - I do not know who Freddy is. He is right about how calloused these Church and Changers are. They got one of their own (Valleskey)into the Sausage Factory, and promoted him up to president of the school. Wayne Mueller was exposed and eased out off the seminary faculty, but his next stop was the newly-invented head of Perish Services (a big, fat raise after leaving the Factory). Mueller became First VP, got voted out of office, and came back as First VP during the next set of ballots.
Now they have the seminary president Wendland, Frosty Bivens, and Al Sorum as moles. In fact, now it is so bad that a Lutheran would be a mole on that faculty.
Richard Krause was the pastor in Marietta, Ohio when I was in Columbus. He was the conference chairman and the circuit pastor. He was getting his DMin from a union seminary with Larry Olson (DMin, Fuller) as his supervisor. He never mentioned that when we discussed the false doctrine of CG. Krause's defense of Olson's false doctrine was, "He's no false teacher. I drank a lot of beer with him when we were in school." The beer defense in WELS is tough to refute.
