WELS CGM Leaders Highlighted Reverently in Red
Good afternoon!
Because of the press of his duties, Steve Witte asked me to send this email out
to you for him.
Blessings in Jesus!
Jim Aderman
Editor, ChurchAndChange.org
__________________________________
Dear Friends of Church and Change:
I thank God for each of you in Christ. What a blessing to have a fellowship across all "methods" of sharing the Word -- in our beloved WELS. Just to let you know, a few people have asked about Ben Freudenberg's (sic) praying at the conference. As conference organizers, Scott Spaulding and I anticipated this potential problem, as I'm sure all WELS conferences using non-WELS speakers have. I specifically directed Ben not to lead us in prayer. I specifically asked him not to commune with us. He agreed.
I apologize to the conference attendees for the matter of offense. If I thought Ben was a "rabble rouser" and would willingly take advantage of the situation, I would not have invited him to share his ministry ideas with us.
I do not believe there was any malicious intent on his part. I cannot read hearts, but Ben does not strike me as that kind of person.
Thank you, brothers and sisters, for raising this issue. I believe it will help future conferences in the WELS. We obviously need to continue to be watchful, extremely clear, and direct with non-WELS speakers.
May God use the positives of the conference to his glory, forgive my faults and
shortcomings for not being direct enough, and help us in all future plans.
Steve Witte
Hello All!
It was great to be in Minneapolis last week! I found the experience uplifting and inspiring. May God continue to bless us, alot!!!
In regards to praying with other Christians. I have struggled with this, especially in light of what happened at our conference and was alluded to in a previous post. As far as our Synod's stance on fellowship, I get it. I agree on most points. But this prayer thing. It just seems that on many fellowship issues, we hold on to them and drive them so deep, that we offend. Then who is throwing obstacles in the way of other Christians and causing division? I was one who prayed along with Dr. Ben Freudenburg's prayer and felt that I did no wrong. I have mixed feelings about how some of my WELS brothers and sisters may feel about this(and me). I have read the
passages that our Synod bases it's practices on. Quite frankly, I don't see the relevance in this circumstance. Those passages to me clearly define examples that are much more serious than praying with someone who is much, much more like me in faith than different. I understand that we should be careful. If we relax on some point, then it will be much easier on the next issue and so on.....and soon we find we've compromised everything away. But, what about that beautifully crafted devotion that Pastor Henkel gave about counting kernels and steps? We mustn't be so quick to judge. A worship service wasn't being conducted. There was no communion given. There were no baptisms. Sometimes I think that if one believes in Christ crucified, the Triune God and being baptized is THE way home, that should be good enough, especially when we KNOW that fellow believer is more, MUCH more like us than different.
In His Peace,
Joe Krohn [Rock and Roll Church Blog]
Hello Joe,
I was not in attendance at the recent conference. However, let me encourage you to continue to wrestle with your feelings and struggles over this application of God's principles of Christian fellowship this side of heaven. I would direct you to the help of the guidance of Prof. John Brug and his book, "Church Fellowship: Working Together for the Truth." The book is part of the Northwestern Publishing House Peoples' Bible Teachings series. You can order the book on their web page.
After reading and reviewing the opening chapters which refer you to the pertinent Bible passages, I would then direct you to page 114 & 115. May the Holy Spirit bless you as you search his word and pay attention to what He instructs us and then moved by your love for the Gospel, I pray you will understand why in certain situations joint prayer with another person who confesses to be a Christian it is not pleasing to God and not loving toward the person who is holding to error.
Pastor Robert Jensen
I think we should think more about I Cor. 1: 10-17. We tend to speak of other Christians at times as if there is some other Holy Spirit in them than the One in us. Our Lutheran tendency to make all relationships tidy has indeed been exclusive and has drifted many of us toward pride and
judgmentalism; in other words, to protect Orthodoxy (to put a fence around it) we have chosen to sit in a circle and count heads. We might try to deny the truth of this, but we would be the only ones listening. As I tell my kids, the only person who listens and believes the excuse is the one offering it. Time to re-examine some of our "rules," I think, and go back to Biblical "principles."
Pete Fraser
Brothers and Sisters,
I was not at the conference therefore I am in no way trying to pass judgment on the people that were there or the situation. I am writing to tell you about an example of why I believe Scripture does want us to be in agreement.
When my father passed away a lady who claimed to be a Christian got up during the visitation and Made the statement that we don't know where Bobbby (my father) is right now. Her reason was because he may not have completed what God had him to do. I understand that this was a highly emotional moment for me and my family. My point is that if you don't know what a person believes or confesses to believe how do you know what they are praying for when they pray.
If a person that doesn't believe that children are accountable for their sins how do they pray for children and is that what you would want to pray to God?
If a person doesn't believe that the Bible is God's inerrant Word what would they speaking about when they prayed to keep his commands?
If a person believes that you can pray to saints for help how can you be assured that as you pray "together" they won't pray to a saint?
It is very clear to me that faith in Christ is what saves and therefore there will be people in heaven that don't know Stille Nacht. It is also clear that we are not to deny what we believe the Bible to be teaching and if we pray with someone that doesn't believe as we do or does not have a teachable Spirit we open the door to have them doubt whether we believe it or not. I don't consider the Holy Spirit or his work or how he works to be minor.
Have a blessed day,
Pastor Robinson
How does this fit together with inviting an "outside" speaker into a
WELS conference in the first place?
I was only at the conference as part of the music on the final day, so
I didn't hear any of the speaker's presentation. I'm only wondering
what the rationale is that allows us to parse a distinction between
teaching and leading in prayer. Or do we not consider what he was asked
to do in his presentations to be teaching?
I'm not trying to challenge anyone about this. I assume that this issue
has been thought through previously; I just don't know what set (or
sets) of guidelines people arrived at to address these circumstances.
Tim Helmen
Pastor Robinson;
Well said! You gave us a lot of food for thought and reflection. You
bring a good perspective to our discussion of prayer fellowship.
God's continued blessings on your work.
Warren L. Widmann
Thanks....I was there...actually asked one of the leaders to speak to the
presenter so he wouldn't pray. Understand they had spoken with him some time
back, but apparently he had forgotten.
John Huebner
Another question: what assurance do we have that we're all "praying
together" even in a WELS setting?
An example--let's say in the recent past the WELS pastor is leading a
prayer for national and world leaders to be given wisdom during a time
of crisis. As the congregation is praying along in their hearts, to
some this means praying that the US leaders would stop being so
arrogant and imperialistic, and to others this means praying that the
French would stop being such obstructionists to the nobel pursuit of
global security and freedom.
There's doctrinal fellowship, but in the silent prayers' hearts, very
different, contradictory things are being sincerely prayed for.
How do we sort that out?
How does God sort that out?
Does or does this not have any relevancy to the questions being asked
about praying with those outside our fellowship?
Tim Helmen
Greetings!
As Lutheran Christians, we are taught from little up to clearly discern,
properly distinguish, and rightly divide Law and Gospel.
Near as I can tell, the Biblical doctrine of fellowship is sweet, sweet Gospel.
We do a disservice to it (the doctrine) and He who established it, when we
unwittingly (or deliberately) use it as Law.
And, as my wise friend, Mr. F. Gump would say, "that's all I got to say 'bout
that!"
Blessings in Jesus!
Carl Henkel
Dear Carl,
With all due regard to Mr. Gump and his love for brevity, could you explain
further your comments that seemed to imply that fellowship is nothing but
gospel?
Certainly I would agree that it is only the gospel that can teach us why we
treasure everything that God has shared with us in his Word. Certainly I would
agree that it is only the gospel that can teach us to have a proper concern of
love with which to apply the principles of fellowship. And it is certainly true
- as you pointed out in your devotion at conference - that we all too easily
forget that evangelical spirit that should be behind our application of
fellowship principles.
However, fellowship is still intimately connected also with the first three
commandments - love for God, love for his reputation, and love for his Word.
Making application of this doctrine is something God asks us to do. As you
mention, I'm sure we have all been taught from little on that the gospel is that
which God has done for us (which works faith and empowers Christian living) but
it is the law that shows us what to do (both to convict me of sin, and, as a
forgiven child of God, to show me how to live genuine love for God and my
neighbor).
Did you mean to say that the doctrine of fellowship is all about love (for the
Word, for our own souls and the souls of others)? That I can understand. But
if you are saying that it is nothing but gospel, I'm afraid that is subject to
some misunderstanding.
In Him,
Rich Gurgel
Thanks, Rich, for your reply.
A short time back, my wife and I enjoyed watching Forest Gump again. I
was impressed by his simple, honest, straightforward approach to things
that we sometimes make excruciatingly complicated. By reducing things
down to their simple, basic, mind-of-a-child meaning, he often made a
whole lot more sense of issues than those with "great" minds.
I am convinced that the same thing can and does happen in the church and
with doctrine meant to be simple and sweet. My encouragement is for us
to get back to the basics (and if necessary, start over).
A good place to start:
God, who has called you into fellowship with His Son Jesus Christ our
Lord, is faithful, (1 Cor 1:9).
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the
fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all, (2 Cor 13:14).
We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have
fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with His
Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete...If we walk
in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin, (1 Jn
1:3,4,7).
Indeed, there is much more to the issue, but the danger always exists
that as we get farther and farther into the complex, we forget the
simple.
And that's all I got to say 'bout that! :-)
Blessings in Him who has called us into fellowship with His Son...
Carl Henkel
Hello Carl,
In the Bible there is expressed the FELLOWSHIP which God has with forgiven
and believing sinners. Beautiful Gospel!
There is the FELLOWSHIP, which is invisible this side of heaven, between all
true believers (and angels) and which is being expressed right now in
heaven. The result of the Gospel!
There is the FELLOWSHIP, which is expressed between confessing believers and
is based on their public confession and practice. It may or may not be part
of the above two forms of fellowship because we can't look into another's
heart. God has given us specific law passages dealing with this fellowship
which we call the doctrine of CHURH fellowship (Rom. 16:17; 2 John 10-11;
Titus 3:10, to name a few) This fellowship is founded on the two pillars of
love and truth.
Which fellowship are you speaking of when you declare "Near as I can tell,
the Biblical doctrine of fellowship is sweet, sweet Gospel"?
I wish it were as simple as you want to declare it to be. I have never found
applying the principles of Church Fellowship to be something simple. Like
many, I agonize and pray for wisdom when the many situations come up and I
need to honor God by protecting the truth and love God by loving other
people and at the same time struggle with my human emotions and logic.
Pastor Bob Jensen
I appreciate the tone of Carl's email. The fact that some struggle to
apply the doctrine of church fellowship suggests to me that when that
happens, it is indeed being treated like a law. Is there a similar
struggle to apply the gospel? Not that I can think of. One doesn't
"apply" the gospel. We are merely told to share the good news with
everyone.
I am not here speaking about the need to condemn sin as a prerequisite to
sharing the gospel. I am talking about the greater danger I see in
refraining from sharing the gospel when we think there may be some rule or
principle that prohibits us from doing so. So then, when a struggle is
experienced, it must be because we labor under the perception that there
must be some law that will guide us. In the case of "persistent errorists"
there is - as explained in the 1970 Doctrinal Statements. But membership
in another church doesn't necessarily mean one is a persistent errorist.
Too often when questions arise, we turn to books about church doctrine as
opposed to following Christ's command to share the good news. When that
happens, the emphasis unfortunately gets shifted to the "application" of
the biblical principle, as contrasted with the overriding command to share
the good news.
If you haven't already read it, Mark Braun's article in the most recent
issue of CHARIS (how's this for a flagrant act of self promotion?) talks
about this tension. His quote from Koehler's "Gezetslich..." is especially
to the point. I've attached the link to the online version of the article.
http://www.charis.wlc.edu/publications/charis_fall03/braun.pdf
Dr. John E. Bauer
Executive Director, CHARIS
Wisconsin Lutheran College
Prof. Fraser wrote, "We tend to speak of other Christians at times as if
there is some other Holy Spirit in them than the One in us." This is a
good reminder. The first thing I will want to do when I meet a heterodox
Christian is rejoice that we share a saving faith in Christ. I need
that reminder, because too often I may tend to focus first on his
doctrinal errors rather than on his saving faith.
Yet this discussion thread has been under the subject line of "praying
with other Christians." When a heterodox Christian invites us to
publicly pray with him, it's difficult to understand how joining with
him DOESN'T imply at least one of several things, all of which are
false.
1: We have no real differences.
2: Our differences (infant baptism, real presence, decision theology,
etc.,) don't matter
3: Doctrine isn't important
Prof. Fraser, I'm not sure I understand your reference to 1 Corinthians
1:10-17. In verse 10 Paul says, "I appeal to you...that you all agree
with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and you may
be perfectly united in mind and thought." He then addresses the
"cliques" that were plaguing the congregation...cliques that were based
on loyalties to different leaders...leaders that were all of the same
confession of faith. That wasn't the case at the Church and Change
conference, which is why Ben Freudenberg was asked NOT to pray. That
it happened anyway doesn't concern me as much as the fact that some feel
that there is nothing wrong with this happening.
When a heterodox Christian invites us to pray with him, we can't claim
that we are perfectly united in mind and thought. God wants us to be,
but not at the expense of giving a clear testimony to the truth.
Doesn't "perfectly united in mind and thought" include being united in
our confession of faith, being united in doctrine?
The doctrine of fellowship IS a command of God. It is a law of God in
the sense that it's showing us how God wants us to interact with others
here on earth. "Watch out for those who cause divisions and put
obstacles among you contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep
away from them." (Ro.16:17) The same Jesus who issued the Great
Commission also said, "Watch out for false prophets." (Matthew 7:15).
How do we reconcile publicly praying with a heterodox Christian with
Jesus' words and Paul's words?
Prof. Bauer is correct in his post about the danger if "something"
stops me from sharing my faith when that "something" is a man-made rule.
I also appreciated Prof. Bauer's encouragement to not turn first to
books when questions arise, but to God's Word. And what does God's Word
say? The Great Commission urges us to share our faith. That same Great
Commission also urges us to "teach them to observe everything I have
commanded." That would include all of God's Word, including the
doctrine of fellowship. If an ELCA congregation invites a WELS pastor
to preach on a Sunday, that is a certainly an opportunity to share our
faith. It would also be a sin. The end does not justify the means.
There are many God-pleasing ways to share our faith, ways that do not
violate God's Word. The Great Commission urges us to share our faith
with all people. It doesn't tell us to join in worship (and prayer IS
worship) with all people. God urges us to "speak the truth in love."
The doctrine of fellowship and all that it entails (close communion,
altar fellowship, prayer fellowship, pulpit fellowship, etc.) are not
"man-made rules", "WELS-made" rules or "excuses". They are part of
God's Word. Too often we are tempted to view the doctrine of
fellowship as an annoying obstacle in carrying out the Great Commission.
That shows a lack of trust in God. In a sense, the work of the Great
Commission is a lifeboat that carries a life-saving message to the
unbeliever. Faithfully and prayerfully applying the doctrine of
fellowship does not punch a hole in the bottom of that boat. God gave
us the Great Commission. Doing so cost him his Son. God also gave us
the doctrine of fellowship, and he didn't do it to hinder the message of
salvation. Like all of God's teachings, the doctrine of fellowship AND
its guidelines (or commands, laws, or applications or whatever word we
choose) are not the enemy.
You are correct, Prof. Bauer, in saying that "we are to share the good
news with everyone." And we are to do that within the framework,
guidelines and laws of God's Word. God will bless our efforts.
"The statutes you have laid down are righteous; they are fully
trustworthy." Psalm 119:138
Dave Wenzel
Brother Wenzel--
Your comments go far beyond my range, but I'll take a chance with the
first part.
When two Christians pray, they pray in the name of Jesus, not their
denomination. My closest friend is now a Conservative Baptist pastor doing
inner-city work in New York City, this after a ten-year stint in Puerto
Rico. We used to pray together frequently as we led an evangelistic Bible
study together at the University of Illinois when both students there in
the early 80s. I was Presbyterian at the time. We prayed for each other,
for our parents, for students we were trying to lead to Christ, for our
future ministries--both of us felt called to share Christ in urban
settings, and we prayed about that, too. We also talked theology quite a
bit and shared books--sometimes we agreed; sometimes we debated. It was a
dear time in my life, and his. We still correspond and pray for one
another.
The notion that praying with a brother assumes you agree on all
points of theology has always seemed a stretch to me. Beyond this, I am
really uncomfortable with labeling a brother of another denomination
"heterodox." Most Christians save this label for heretics, those who have
strayed from the "one holy catholic and apostolic church."
The situation that arose at the C and C Conference was particular;
this conversation has broadened out. Thus, I dipped into it, especially as
St. Marcus, my home church, got mentioned.
My original point was about the danger of the Pharisaic spirit.
Peter Fraser
Dear All of my fellow Christians,
I have been very interested in reading and seeing all that has been posted
concerning fellowship. I really appreciate the Christ centered dialogue and
sharing of viewpoints, scripture, care, love, and concern. It is heartwarming to
see that there is an interest in a dialogue of this nature.
I want to weigh in on a concern (I do not mean to open a box of worms, but I am
concerned) that was reaffirmed in the mailing from Peter Fraser. This concern is
do we have to be in 100% agreeance (sic) on all of scripture with the people around us
in order to pray or share in worship with them? If this 100% agreeance (sic) is the
case, we are all in a lot of trouble in the WELS. If we were to poll our own,
professing WELS membership on every scriptural truth, we would find that there
would be hudreds (sic) to thousands of different responses, stances, views, and
beliefs on just about every doctrine and scriptural item. The only area of
scripture that I am fairly confident would be close to 100% agreement would be
on the fact that it is only through Christ that we have salvation. However, I am
even fearful that many would throw a decision in here, works, or something else.
I think we might hit 90% agreement on this cornerstone/chief doctrine. I know at
least three WELS people that do not have a scriptural view of creation,
revelation, and other doctrines; yet, we still commune and pray with these
people because they are WELS? I know a lifelong WELS member that professed to me
her concern over where God kept the people who died before Jesus came because
they would not be allowed into heaven before Christ died. This person had prayed
with me and I with her for years. Was I sinning? We all know that not all of our
members in the WELS agree on or even know the biblical application of
fellowship, the role of men and women, or abortion being wrong and sinful in all
cases. I am not even 100% sure on everything because of my sin and imperfect
intellect and understanding, I know I do not know scripture 100% perfect!
Therefore, what do we do? What do I do? Do we put a mortuarium (sic) on the Lord's
Super until we give everyone a quiz and get 100% consistency and accuracy? Do we
stop praying in our churches and bible studies until this same quiz is passed?
What is the answer? What do we do? If it is true for one person with knowing or
unknowing errors in understanding of scripture isn't it true for all? What do we
do? Is a doctrinal quiz and contract the answer? What do we do?
The only answer I can find is scripture and faith in Christ. God's word is the
answer, and faith in the true God is the answer! We all need to be continually
studying and working together on what the Lord has revealed to us in his word
and not put more or less into that written word. Matthew chapter 28:19-20 tells
us "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything
that I have commanded you and surely I am with you always until the very end."
Christ has clearly told us what to do. Go and preach the message, baptizing in
his name, and continuing that teaching forever. He then told us how to
accomplish this task and that is with him in us and through us because of the
Spirit worked faith we have, and he will be there with us to the very end of
time. What a comfort Christ gives us. What a clear message he gives us to go and
share the gospel and to teach - a lifelong action with learning being the
lifelong process (the level of sanctification constantly increasing) that is
never completed. We need to worry mainly about faith in Christ, once someone has
that faith and fellowship in the true God, we need to continue to teach them. We
need to work with them (everyone) and help them and help ourselves to see the
truths revealed to us in God's holy word. We have been signed up by the Spirit
for a lifelong journey centered on Christ. May the Lord bless this journey and
be with us always as he has promised. Thanks be to God! It is only through the
love of God that we will find the answer and ultimate forgiveness and eternal
life through Spirit worked faith in Christ!
We have a long ways to go and many questions to investigate and answer, but with
Christ at the center of all that we do, we will do great things! Thanks be to
God! May the Lord bless and kep (sic) us all as we continue to look at the doctrine of
fellowship, and may he grant us wisdom and discernment in all of the
applications of this fellowship principle to be in line with his word and
commands!
I know I do not hold all of the answers, but God surely does. I just have to
make sure that I am not a hindrance to his commands and the spread of the
precious, saving, Gospel message! I look forward to the continued dialogue,
searching, and learning that is taking place. May the Lord bless and keep us all
in our continued efforts to reach all with the message of salvation, and may the
Lord continue to forgive us all through Jesus Christ for our human errors and
mistakes, which stand in the way of the furtherance of the Gospel message! To
God be the glory now and forever!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
I can't believe I'm citing doctrinal statements after what I previously
wrote! However, I would refer readers to points 3 and 4 on page 53 of the
1970 Doctrinal Statement on Church Fellowship. (Original Publication) or
Section B. 3 and 4 on the website link below:
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=795&contentID=4442
Dr. John E. Bauer
Thanks John!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Now that one of my peers has weighed in, I feel comfortable doing so myself.
Thank you, Scott.
A few things that I have questions about, at least, and may even be troubled
with at worst. The first, quantitatively and qualitatively, is an impression
I've had since maybe the beginning of my training. Just because we can
artificially catalog doctrine in outline form so they look nice on paper
(e.g. Dog Notes), surely doesn't mean that the application of all of these
doctrines can also be so easily and artificially cataloged in real life. I
get the impression that we try too hard to do this. Each and every
situation calls for its own application of principles at any given time. The
applications so made in a given circumstance cannot ever become tantamount
to the principles themselves. The principles are what must be the important
thing. Anecdotes, hypotheticals, and any other such "evidence" must bow to
Scriptural principle. Obviously, this is uncomfortable in that we understand
our imperfections and fluidity of thought and conviction from day to day,
but this ought drive us back to what cannot change, Scriptural principle.
In doing this, we are doing what is Godly. I'm sure even Prof. Brug would
rather have each generation apply Scripture to practicing fellowship rather
than his "Church Fellowship" work (which is good). The fact that fully one
third of his book deals with hard cases and exceptions shows just this fact-
application cannnot be universal and mechanical, but individual and
personal.
That being said, I am convinced that I need repent for not saying something
publicly at the Church and Change Conference. With so many trained pastors
there, not one of us said anything publicly. Both for the errorist (Ben) and
many laypeople (and maybe many pastors also) who may have left there more
confused than anything else because of my failure, I beg forgiveness.
Mostly, I am thankful for the forgiveness offered in the One whom I most
offended by my lack of conviction and outward defense of the truth. I
cannot help but think that Romans 16:17-18 apply to this incident. "I urge
you brothers, to watch out for (scrutinize) those who cause divisions and
put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have
learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord
Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive (sic)
the minds of naive people." I do not know Ben's reason for doing what he
did. I would think he knows the differences in our doctrinal practices,
though by the 8th commandment I must assume not. I tust (sic) those who say he was
warned not to do this beforehand. Regardless of these circumstances, he
should have been asked/corrected/made aware of/ or anything else in this
regard- especailly (sic) in a public forum like that. Public offense should have
elicited some form of public rebuke, even if only for clarification's sake.
Doubly so with so many lay members there.
Though I cannot say I would not give Ben communion on his deathbed. Though
I can say I have prayed with realtives (sic) who are Catholic (don't worry, I led
and avoided praying to the holy mother). I cannot accept that somehow
openly and freely allowing Ben not only to pray, but to lead us all in
public prayer at one of our own public conferences, is a defensible
practitioning (sic) of fellowship. On top of Scripture's clear call to watch out
for, to avoid, and not to welcome, just look at what it is sparking in our
own midst. Though I will say God can use this very much to our good if we
all resolve to relearn the principles for ourselves from Scripture- not
anecdotes, exceptions, related man-made works, etc... It is what we all
must do anyway. My prayer is that we all return to the pages of Scripture
and re-learn the principles so we might honestly, soundly, and lovingly
apply them as we have opportunity.
I might suggest that this be done somehow publicly. I say this for no other
reason than I care very much about what church and change speaks for. I
believe our church body may choke on itself (and paradixically on our own
orthodoxy) if we do not find ways to love the lost in action and truth.
That being said, we know full-well that for a synod that has come through
what we have in the past 50 years, changing even things that can and must be
changed is extremely difficult. We have many ex-Missourians in our pews who
have seen Missouri's ills as it has changed some things and who will have a
hard time dealing with any change. Some have come to us as a haven from
what they perceive as change. We have many called workers who have seen the
troubles that have plagued other church bodies over the years as they have
changed. Given all of this, I don't know if there would be a quicker way to
delegitimize the ideals of church and change among us than to not be
straight on any doctrine at all, much less the doctrine of fellowship. For
the sake of our own body's unity, out of love for all, and mostly out of
love for Him, maybe we ought to work this doctrine through for ourselves
publicly somehow, maybe to be delivered in paper form at the next church and
change conference- if there is one.
All that being said, I am only a young nothing. Most of you won't even
recognize my last name, which I know is the fianl determinant in one's
legitimacy in our circles. With that, I wish you all the Lord's wisdom as
you carry out his perfect truth on behalf of an imperfect church to an
imperfect world. I will crawl back under my rock.
In Christ,
Andy Fix
Dear Pastor Fix,
Excellent thoughts and ideas. You have given me much to think about my brother
in Christ!
I am glad that I opened the door for you to respond. It is truly my pleasure.
Lord's blessings always!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Hey Andy,
Thanks for your honest and evangelical response! It said some things I was
thinking and has given me some other things to think about. Don't ever be
afraid to crawl back out from underneath that rock! God's blessings on your
labors in the Lord!
Mark Gabb
Having graduated in '57, the break with LCMS was just coming to a head.
Periodically we had special evening or Sunday afternoon sessions on the various
issues involved, but mainly on fellowship. I more or less blindly accepted it
all
then. Having been involved in missions most of my life, unfortunately I
suppose I offended, even obstacled a number of people because of simply going
along
with it during that period. But due to several circumstances the Lord allowed
me to face, gradually various questions floated up in my mind. Over the years
I have sought answers but haven't really found them. My "Fellowship" file is
several inches thick. I've read just about everything, if not all, of the
material Wels has put out on the subject. What I come away with are, to me,
complex interpretations to only a very few passages of the NT. Many of the
interpretations were written in the heat of controversy within Wels when people
were
straining to deal with or to justify points of difference. Over the years, and
even now in retirement, the Lord has given me many opportunities to talk to
other Christians about my relationship with Him and how He has dealt with me in
my life. Seldom have I talked with a Christian from a non-Wels denomination who
understood why Wels members so quickly and sometimes condescendingly and even
sometimes blithely separate from other Christians. The following are some of
the questions.
Are all denominations or church bodies human organizations or is one or more
of them of divine origin? (With tongue in cheek I might ask how in the world
God got along without the Wels for over 1800 years?)
Does God deal with us on the basis of which Christian denomination we belong
to or solely on the basis of our relationship with Jesus?
Does the Holy Spirit reside only in Wels Christians? If not, how can we
earnestly endeavor to maintain the unity of the Spirit with other Christians
instead of making every effort to stay aloof from them? " Make every effort to
keep
the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." (Eph 4:3)
Are there not far more passages in the Bible, especially in the NT that not
only indicate that we are one with other believers but also that command us to
strive to be one with other believers? (Psa. 133:1; Isa. 52:8; Matt. 23:8;
Acts 4:32; Rom. 12:16; Rom. 14:19; Rom. 15:5, 6; 1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Cor. 13:11; Eph.
4:3; Phil. 1:27; 2:2; 1 Pet. 3:8)
Are not those who serve their own bellies unbelievers (Rom 16:18)? Is it
possible to serve two masters, God and your own belly too?
If we do not deliberately warn a heretic (cf Grk) at least twice (Tit 3:10),
how can we with good conscience have nothing to do with him (sometimes
thinking ourselves righteous in doing so)? Is this not in reference to
individuals
and not to denominations?
Are we more concerned about maintaining the traditions and wordings handed
down from others than about striving to seek unity? Was it not the Pharisees who
were so concerned about the traditions and explanations of those before them
that they disobeyed God? For us would that be Eph 4:3?
Is a strict adherence to a human interpretation of a doctrine the same as
walking humbly in a loving and real relationship with a living Lord? Is there
something here about understanding the heart attitude between mercy and
sacrifice?
Does a (even non-unanimous) vote at a convention have a kind of power to
change another denomination or group from being not united in the Spirit up to
that time to being united in the Spirit at the moment of the vote?
In view of the fact that there are associated with Wels throughout the world
about 400,000 adults who claim to be Christian and that there are still
billions in the present day world who do not know Jesus, is there an attitude
among
Wels members, or has a representative of Wels ever encouraged its members to
thank the Lord that He is using many other Christians to share the good news of
Jesus with others?
The above are just a few of many questions. Are there some answers that can
be easily understood by a simple soul like me?
Norb Meier
Andy, I very much agree! Mark, good to hear from you also!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Thank you, Pastor Meier for your good council, as always. It's always a
blessing for me to hear from you what wisdom your walk with Jesus has given
you. Missing your sermons, In, Christ, Cari Larsen
After reading Pastor Meier's post again, I too want to thank you for
some very insightful questions regarding WELSisms. I have reread
alot of the posts concerning our fellowship practices and come away
feeling even stronger than before on how we should relate to our
fellow Christians . To the pastors who did not create a scene at the
conference, I am thankful that you were not moved to do so, whatever
you thought motivated you. I found it ironic in two of the pastors'
posts that they would have no problem either worshipping in heaven
with Dr. Ben or giving him communion on his death bed. Why should
there be a difference between everyday circumstances and
extraordinary circumstances. What is the deciding factor?
My family has had some pretty good discussions on this over the last
month. My 12 year old son summed it up pretty well last night. To
paraphrase him, we should be Christians first, and then maybe
Lutherans next and then maybe WELS last, instead of the other way
round. I believe that's how Luther would have wanted it.
In His Peace,
Joe Krohn
Brothers & sisters, I understand the doctrine of fellowship triggers strong
emotions. Applying this doctrine in various circumstances isn't easy. But we
need to remember that this doctrine isn't a "WELSism." It is a doctrine given
to us by God himself. The fact that there are more verses in the Bible that
command us to "love one another" and "be united with one another" than there are
verses that command us to "watch out for false prophets" and "keep away" from
them doesn't mean we can ignore the doctrine of fellowship. That is the same
argument many use today in supporting homosexuality. "There are far more
passages in the Bible that tell us to love each other than there are passages
that condemn homosexuality." That is a true statement. It is also a statement
that proves nothing. We are not the only church body that practices the
Scriptural teaching of close communion. There are Roman Catholic churches that
ask that only Catholics receive the sacrament. On paper, the Missouri Synod's
official statements on close communion have been very scriptural. In practice,
LCMS churches vary in their application of this doctrine. For those who
question our WELS' close communion practice*what should determine altar
fellowship? Agreement on 50% of Scripture? 75%? Agreement that Jesus is
Savior? On what passage from Scripture do we defend fellowshipping with someone
whose confession of faith is not scriptural? In most cases, if a man belongs
to a heterodox church body, that church body's confession of faith is that man's
public confession of faith. We cannot judge a man's heart. We can judge, and
by God's command MUST judge his confession of faith. There may be exceptions
and hard cases. But let's not let those exceptions or hard cases establish our
practice in our churches and schools. If a man's confession of faith
contradicts scripture, God doesn't say "agree to disagree". God doesn't say,
"Little differences don't matter." God says "all scripture is God-breathed."
And God clearly tells us to "keep away from him" (Rom.16:17). In all of the
discussion on this topic in the last weeks, no one has explained how we can
reconcile "keep away from him" with "commune with him" or "pray with him."
What God says is clear. What would Luther say? Luther certainly wasn't happy
with the name "Lutheran", and considered himself first and foremost a Christian.
But neither did Luther believe in a false union with someone who espoused false
doctrine. When you read Luther's commentary on Galatians that becomes quite
clear. We must not forget that false doctrine is a sin. It's a sin when
someone denies the efficacy of infant baptism, it's a sin when someone prays to
Mary, it's a sin when someone says that Jesus' body and blood are not present in
communion. It may be a sin of weakness or a sin of ignorance. It doesn't
necessarily mean that someone who denies the real presence in the Lord's Supper
is going to hell. But it's still a SIN. Luther recognized that. That is why
even though Luther and Zwingli agreed on 14 of the 15 points at Marburg, and in
the final article on the Lord's Supper agreed that it is a sacrament, that both
forms should be used, that it is not a work that obtains grace for someone else,
and that it is necessary for every true Christian. Yet because Zwingli refused
to acknowledge the presence of Jesus' body and blood in the Sacrament, Luther
refused to accept Zwingli as someone who was one in faith with him: "Finally the
Zwinglians asked that the Lutherans might accept them as brethren and members of
the Church. This the Lutherans entirely rejected. The final decision was that
the Zwinglians be regarded as our friends (as one is obligated to love even an
enemy), but not as brethren and members of the Church" (Luther and His Times,
E.G. Schwiebert, Concordia, 1950, p.713). Was it UNLOVING for Luther to refuse
to extend the hand of fellowship to Zwingli? Zwingli no doubt felt so. But
Luther was doing exactly what God commanded him to do. Luther spoke the truth
in love. Like Luther, we are Christians first. But if we are also confessional
Lutherans, may God give us the wisdom, discernment and courage to do likewise:
speak the truth in love.
David Wenzel
When we approach "fellowship" in the manner we often do, it isn't a
"doctrine of fellowship"; it is a doctrine of exclusion. We are talking
about people we won't have fellowship with. Call it all the pretty names we
like--"sweet gospel," "God's holy law"--what remains is I don't want you in
my group and here's why. This is how the WELS comes across to many good
Christian folks, including many in the Synod.
Of course there need be limits to fellowship in the Church--as there
are in every human relationship. For heavens sake, there are bars that
won't serve to just anyone who comes in.
Paul's admonitions in Romans and Timothy are toward those who press
their aberrant views and so cause division. Particularly early gnostics, of
one sort or another, and "Judaizers." One assumes, however, that there was
also a large group of other folks who were struggling with the same issues
but not pushing them and so causing division, and one assumes Paul treated
them more gently. Jesus always did (John 4)--it was the Pharisees with
their smugness and love of their own tradition that galled him.
There is a difference between, say, a Baptist who wants to sing with
a Lutheran chorale because he respects the Lutheran tradition and its
music, and a Baptist who wants to proselytize the chorale members to build
his new church down the block. We ought to respond differently to each.
Life doesn't break down as neatly as we wish it would. Every context
is a little different, and thus we need pray for wisdom to discern the
appropriate Scriptural response to each individual situation. The church in
Paul's Rome had a different climate than the one in Luther's Germany than
the ones in my home town.
Pete Fraser
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your insights and comments! They are truly appreciated.
Lord's blessings always!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Hello again,
I asked a similar question as Dave posed about what percentage of knowledge of
scripture should make for "one in fellowship?" So many of our own membership
does not have a clear, accurate, or even right understanding of scripture;
therefore, do we design a test to give everyone until they pass it in order to
keep fellowship within our own churches, or is it enough that they say they are
WELS?
I have been told by individuals at different times that I have broken fellowship
when I had my school children sing an Amy Grant tune for Immanuel. By singing
this tune and song, I expressed agreeance (sic) with all of what Amy Grant says and
espouses? It is a confusing, earthly issue. I think we are looking to hard and
worrying too much about too much. We need to continue to do our best to teach
and preach the truth of God's Word and spread the meassage (sic) of salvation to as
many as possible through all that we do. It is in the Word, through the Spirit,
that true power resides, not in our estimations and earthly judgements (sic).
We all have a lot to work on, study, and learn. I am thankful for a forum like
this one to be able to talk and discuss thoughts, concerns, and ideas in an
open, sharing, and caring format. Thank you all!
Most importantly, I thank God for giving us all his word to study, preach, and
teach. I also thank God for the daily forgiveness he gives to me through the
blood of his Son. I daily sin and do not deserve anything from God, but thanks
to Christ I have fellowship with God and that is all that matters to me, the
heavenly fellowship, except for the responsibility and privelege (sic) of sharing the
message of salvation with all so that everyone may partake of this heavenly
fellowship! The heavenly fellowship is the ultimate! I look forward to this
wonderful reunion with all of you and everyone that has Spirit worked faith in
the one true God!
May the Lord grant us all the wisdom, discernment, and strength to make the
right choices and applications as he has directed us in his Word! May the Lord
also continue to bless and keep each and everyone as we continue to strive to
spread the message of salvation to all people! Lord's blessings to all!
Your Friend In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
I have been told by individuals at different times that I have
broken fellowship when I had my school children sing an Amy Grant
tune for Immanuel. By singing this tune and song, I expressed
agreeance (sic) with all of what Amy Grant says and espouses?
Scott,
I assume these same people have gone through the hymnal and torn our
all the Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, etc...must have been a pretty
thin book when they were done.
Tim Helmen
Dear Dave,
Thank you for your excellent explanation. It is very beneficial to this
discussion.
Your fellow servant in Christ,
--Pastor Joel Nitz
Tim,
I did ask that question about Isaac Watts, and I was given different responses
varying from this is a WELS approved hymnal and hymn, to times, beliefs, and
practices were different than and were more in line with God's Word than Amy
Grant is. I agree, Amy Grant has some false beliefs, but when I use music or a
song she wrote, I do not glorify her (as a matter of fact I just liked the song
and the kids loved singing it and praising God in an upbeat fashion). However, I
am very careful so as not to cause offense or cause someone to sin on account of
the music played. Therefore, many times I will preface a song with some type of
biblical reference and explanation as to what it means and says. Thanks for the
thoughts!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
I didn't think I could be amazed anymore by anything anybody in the WELS
said about fellowship, on any side of the discussion, but the comment about
being prohibited from singing an Amy Grant song in church pushed me over
the edge! Has anyone bothered to peruse the bottoms of the pages of
Christian Worship to note that we regularly sing songs composed by Roman
Catholics, Calvinists, Arminians, Anglicans, Methodists, and liberal
Lutherans? Tell your fellowship censor who forbade your school children
singing an Amy Grant tune that you will cheerfully comply when he forbids
his and other WELS churches from singing "Joy to the World" this Christmas:
texted (sic) authored by Isaac Watts and tune composed by George Handel.
Yikes!
Mark Braun
Wow. It's amazing the rationalizatons (sic) people will come up with. Seems
to indicate people who are more comfortable with clinging to some
wall around a principle than in learning to actually exercise any
sort of active spiritual judgement (sic) based on a principle.
All of which strikes me as a far too common occurence (sic) in our circles
around these issues. I realize that the official fellowship teaching
actually does not contain the sort of proscriptions these people were
advocating. They were going well beyond what any official policy
would state (especially if, as is likely, the song in question was
written by someone else and only performed and recorded by Amy
Grant). Still it's worth noting the kind of atmosphere of fear,
suspicion and over-the-top legalism that is common among WELS people
who put a lot of energy into trying to follow the policy. Even if
that's not the actual policy, do we do much to preach against the
dangers of those excesses?
Good to chat with you, Scott. Hope all is well with you and yours.
Tim Helmen
Was Paul in error when for quoting a pagan poet as he spoke to the
Christians and unbelievers in Athens? We certainly can be happy Amy
Grant wasn't alive back then...that could have really caused a stir!
It seems to me that too often our m.o. seems to go along these lines:
make a person WELS first, Lutheran second, and a Christian third. When
we applying biblical fellowship principles should we not start with the
assumption that we are talking to a member of the una sancta? We are
not the only ones who can express the truth in song or have it to
preach. Remember Christianity is identity reconstruction in Christ not
behavior modification (especially in worship). One who grows in Christ
will naturally want to "keep away" from false doctrine. But if our
approach is ecclesiastically narcissistic, we lose our opportunity to
share God's truth and warn a brother or sister. How loving is that!
John Parlow
It is interesting to hear these comments, because I have not heard the same
response from many others. I just keep praying for the Lord's guideance and for
his will to be done. I really appreciate that the Spirit works in spite of me,
as long as I stick to and direct people to God's true word!
Lord's blessings to all!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Thank you for articulating what to me seems to be a very good approach based
on scripture and the context in which it is written. I believe we sin when
we take the issue of fellowship to the extreme of exclusion just as we sin
when we ignore what Gods word teaches us about fellowship completely and
commune with anyone who professes to be a "Christian". A good discussion!
Bryan Breeser
Dear friends,
As I read the notes posted, I can relate to the awkward moments that
Scripture's fellowship teaching can create in our lives. We're called upon
to speak the truth in love. That can be difficult at times but it is always
necessary. Pastor Wenzel mentioned that all doctrinal error is sin and so
it is. All error flows from unbelief -- a refusal to acknowledge and accept
what God teaches. Where is our love for God and his Word if we are willing
to compromise his truth because we feel awkward telling and showing others
that they are wrong? Where is our love for those who hold to error? Not
only those who insist on proselytizing, but also those who hold to their
error quietly may be in grave spiritual danger. By praying or communing with
these souls do we really wish to tell them that there is no harm in
deviating from God's truth? We put ourselves in the place of God when we
make such a judgment for only he can read the heart. He alone knows how to
rescue a Christian who is holding to some error. He certainly doesn't want
me rushing in to confirm that person in his sin. Instead he wants to use us
to correct, rebuke and encourage with careful instruction. Finally, where
is the love for our own souls. A desire to be one with all Christians
everywhere without basing such unity on our agreement of all of Scripture's
teachings, soon has us questioning the legitimacy and value of some of what
the Bible says. When that happens we are the ones holding to error, error
that could finally cost us eternal life. God works through the precious
truth of his Word. We share that truth best when we hold to it and call upon
others to do the same.
Happy to be with you in Jesus,
Pastor Joel Zank
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
The Gospel is certainly the inclusive message in the world.
The Gospel is certainly the most exclusive message in the world.
The Gospel says that Jesus died for all.
The Gospel says that only those who have a God-given faith in Jesus will be
save. (John 14:6; Matthew 7:21-23)
The Gospel sends Christians into the world.
The Gospel takes Christians out of the world, and tells them to be separate.
The Gospel speaks of a special unity of all Christians around the world, and
in heaven.
The Gospel warns Christians to separate form those who teach falsely.
The Gospel is certainly the most inclusive message in the world.
The Gospel is certainly the most exclusive message in the world.
The discussion about fellowship reminded me of a devotion from Carl Mantey
Zorn, that I just read in "Manna." It warns against the two extremes that
faithful Christians seem to be attracted to when dealing with people who
confess false doctrine. It is a wonderful devotion, and I will copy it for
you. Please read it carefully and to the end. I will try not to make too
many scribal errors. May God bless you all as you read it.
Yours in Christ,
Michael Sullivan
What follows is found on page 431f of "Manna," It is the devotion for the
Wednesday in the 8th week after Trinity.
How it Can Happen that Sincere Christians Because of the Weakness of the
Flesh Become Ensnared in False Doctrine.
"Jesus was astonished and said, "I tell you the truth, I have not found
anyone in Israel with such great faith!" (Matthew 8:10)
Among the various circumstances that account for particular sins of weakness
on the part of God's children is a limited knowledge of the divine Word.
This often results in a poor conceptual judgment because of erroneous,
preconceived notions. Where this is the case, children of God not only
commit this or that particular sin, but may even obstinately persist in it
and are not easily convinced that such behavior is sinful.
God clearly forbids adherence to false doctrine and to false teachers in his
second commandment. Therefore, if you have a knowledge of pure scriptural
teachings and of God's rejection of false doctrine and nonetheless adhere to
false teachers and are a member of a heterodox church, you come under God's
condemnation. And in such an instance you would be knowingly and willfully
rejecting God's holy Word and commandment.
However, there are thousands of sincere Christians who are not only members
of a heterodox church, and consequently adhere to false teachers, but who
even defend this or that false doctrine, as for example with regard to
baptism, the Lord's Supper, the office of the ministry and so forth. They
do so not only because their knowledge of Scripture is deficient and
therefore they do not recognize false doctrines as such. They may also have
been led astray by an erroneous of deceptive presentation and exposition of
that particular doctrine which they have consistently heard from the days of
their youth. They are sinning and persisting in sin, but they are doing so
in ignorance and weakness. When such Christians become aware of the
erroneousness of that teaching, they will reject it and avoid the false
teacher and his church body.
You, dear Christian, have the duty of frequenting the place where the pure
doctrine of God's Word is taught. And you should not be ashamed to
acknowledge your adherence to such doctrine. Besides, it is your duty to
speak out against false doctrine when it is brought to your attention. But
you should not and must not judge or condemn someone because he is a member
of a heterodox church, or because he adheres to this or that erroneous
doctrine. You do not know how highly God may be esteeming that person; it
is possible that He may be esteeming him more highly than yourself.
Remember the centurion of Capernaum of whom Jesus tells us in the eighth
chapter of Matthew's gospel? He was not a member of a Jewish congregation
and in many respects may have had a deficient knowledge of God. Yet he was
a child of God, a believing child of God. Even the Lord Jesus was
astonished at this and said: "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone
in Israel with such a great faith!"
However, your great concern should be that you have a proper knowledge of
the divine Word and that you in every way prove yourself to be a pious,
sincere, believing Christian. This will please your Savior.
"So be it,: then, I say
With all my heart each day.
We, too, dear Lord, adore Thee.
We sing for joy before Thee.
Guide us while here we wander
Until we praise Thee yonder. (TLH 526:5)
Joel Zank wrote:
"Finally, where is the love for our own souls. A desire to be one with all
Christians everywhere without basing such unity on our agreement of all of
Scripture's teachings, soon has us questioning the legitimacy and value of
some of what the Bible says."
Of course, Pastor Zank understands that we ARE one with all Christians
everywhere. There is only one church, and its unity is not based on
agreement in doctrine. Though Scripture calls all Christians to be united
in mind and thought, they are already united in Christ. The question with
which many struggle is this: How may we recognize and celebrate this unity
that already exists, without encouraging the errors to which many of our
brothers and sisters cling?
Thanks for your comments, Joel, and all who are contributing to this
discussion. It's been an interesting thread.
-- Mike Borgwardt
Dave Wenzel wrote, "I understand the doctrine of fellowship triggers strong
emotions. Applying this doctrine in various circumstances isn't easy. But
we need to remember that this doctrine isn't a 'WELSism.' It is a doctrine
given to us by God himself."
Thanks, Dave. Let's also remember that God promises to bless those who hear
and obey his word. Several years ago, the pastor who confirmed me shared
the following ten theses on fellowship with the Red Wing Conference. I am
forwarding them at the request of a brother, and hope that others would
benefit as well.
Dan Borgwardt
1. Faith in Jesus brings us into an intimate fellowship with God. We call
this fellowship the mystic union (Heb 2:11; Jn 17:20-23; 1Jn 1:3; Gal 3:26;
1Jn 4:13-15; Jn 15:15).
2. Faith in Jesus also creates a fellowship among all who share that faith.
The Bible calls this fellowship the church (Jn 17:20,21; Eph 1:13,14; Gal
3:26-28; Eph 1:22,23; Eph 2:19; 1Jn 1:3; 1Pe 2:9).
3. Because both of these fellowships are based on faith, both are
invisible, known only to God (Jn 10:14,15; 2Ti 2:19; Col 3:3,4; 1Ki
19:14-18; 1Sa 16:7).
4. Yet God wants us to practice our invisible fellowship with him by openly
listening to him and avoiding the world (1Jn 1:6,7; 2Co 6:14-17; 1Pe 2:11;
Jn 17:16,17; Jn 17:14; Jas 4:4; 1Jn 2:15-16).
5. God also invites us to express our invisible fellowship with all
believers in the holy Christian church (Eph 4:3-6,16; Php 1:15,17,18; Eph
6:18; Ro 12; 1Co 12).
6. God also asks us to practice our visible fellowship. Since we cannot
discern faith, we practice our visible or church fellowship only with those
we can see share our confession (Ac 2:42; Gal 2:9; Php 1:4,5; 1Co 10:17; Ac
1:14; 1Th 5:11; Ro 1:11,12; Col 3:16).
7. As we practice our fellowship with God by avoiding the world, so we
practice our visible, church fellowship by avoiding those who teach and/or
practice contrary to the words of God (1Jn 4:1; Mt 7:15,16; Ro 16:17; Ac
17:11).
8. So church fellowship is any activity that expresses a shared faith (Ro
1:11,12; Col 3:16; Jas 5:16; 2Ti 3:16,17).
9. This necessarily includes joint prayer (Php 1:4,5; Ac 2:42; Ac 1:14).
10. Separating from errorists is a positive act of love for the souls of
errorists and expresses our mission zeal for a growing church (Jas 5:19-20;
Eph 4:11-15; Gal 5:9; 2Co 7:1; 2Ti 2:17,18; Rev 22:18,19; Rev 3:8; Jn 17:20;
1Jn 1:3; Tit 1:11; 2Pe 2:1; 1Ti 4:1,6).
Greetings Mike and all,
The struggle you mention: "How may we recognize and celebrate this unity
that already exists, without encouraging the errors to which many of our
brothers and sisters cling?" is the struggle God helps us with in his Word.
Since he alone sees the oneness that exists, we can't recognize it. Here on
earth we can find that unity only where we are united in mind and thought
regarding the Bible's teachings. As for celebrating this oneness with all
Christians, we do that by thanking God that his Word does not return to him
empty. The rest of the celebration will wait for heaven when God reveals to
us those who are with us in him.
Like you, Mike, I appreciate the comments made.
Joel Zank
Thanks Dan,
The only thing I'd like to comment on is #4 on the list. I think we've
gotten this one confused in our circles at times, and it may even be one of
the sources of confusion and frustration with our practicing of fellowship.
Scripture doesn't call us to avoid the world per se, but to avoid in
ourselves the sin and unbelief of the world and the love of the world as it
appeals to our sinful flesh. In fact, we are called to be in the world and
act as a light for the world on God's behalf (1 Pt 2:9; Mt 5:13-16; 2 Cor
10:3-6ff; Luke 10; and many others). Many of these passages call for an
active going out with the world as our destination.
I often get the impression that we encourage a full-blown WELS quarantine
from the world. I think we do it in a number of ways. Preaching about the
sin of society gives the impression that we're better than that (i.e.
materialism, divorce, sexual immorality, etc...). Herr Pastor syndrome has
left a laity that expects to be served (contrary to the nature of the
church) and pastors who can do nothing but serve their own. But maybe most
problematic is our tendency to teach about every other denomination in a way
that picks them apart and demolishes them for their doctrine and at least
lends to the impression that we're somehow better than any other. I believe
there's a proper place and degree for this in properly practicing
fellowship. Yet, if we do it to such an extreme that we do very little
looking at ourselves in the mirror, doing the same thing to ourself and our
body that we do to others, we're failing to do one of the things the Lord
calls us all to do in this life, "Repent!" We are not a perfect church
body, far from it, even if by God's grace our doctrine is right. We need to
start acting like we know we're imperfect. (By the way, our docrine (sic) is not
pure because we've avoided the world and all other heterodox denominations.
Like everything else, it's God's rich grace that has preserved it to us. It
is a treasure our Lord expects us to put into use in this life, not bury in
the ground out of fear.) I believe this also holds the key for us to begin
to dump many of the traditional ways of doing things as a synod that have
not worked in the past to any real degree and yet are being practiced for
whatever reason, with no sign of change.
One other troubling thing about our apparent confusion over #4 on the list
is that by thinking we are to avoid the world somehow physically, we miss
the very point of those passages as they relate to us individually. We
preach about the sin of society and how far down the slippery slope America
is heading. "It's so materialistic (unlike us, who so generously give 2%),
it's so immoral sexually (unlike us, who have no history of divorce, zero
couples living together, no adultery going on in our midst, and no single
parents, abortions, unwanted pregnancies or any like thing happening in our
church body), society is so preoccupied with working and leisure activities
it has no time for family (unlike us, who find 99% of our people actively
engaged in serving their Lord and heavily involved with their families, the
other 1% being shut in), the world is dishonest (thankfully none of the
members of our synod have ever cheated on their taxes, cheated on their
spouses, failed to pay tuition, or anything else that even hints at
dishonesty)..." Hopefully you see where I'm going. By giving the
impression that the world is to be avoided physically, we've missed the
heart of these passages- to convict us spiritually of loving the world and
the things in it, so that by God's renewed grace in Christ our lives of
service to him might be brighter by the day rather than duller over the
course of time. Sanctification is a real teaching of Scripture, we need to
preach it more strongly than we have. And it doesn't mean I or anyone else
is a legalist for doing so. None of us would accuse Christ of it. And he
strongly preached sanctification.
I really believe it would be so worthwhile for us and our church body to
spend some real time going over fellowship (sic) and its practice. Like so many
things, the teachings regarding fellowship are there concretely on paper,
but in a sinful world it's impossible to rightly apply them all of the time.
I think we've applied them somewhat arrogantly and smugly for whatever
reason- at least we've given that impression to outsiders (and many
insiders), and that's sinful in itself. But, to somehow change the
principles of the doctrine of fellowship into something that gives an
impression of ecumenism or unionism is to react too strongly and err on the
other extreme. We wouldn't change the principles surrounding marriage and
divorce just because our own people are sinning in this regard- the problem
isn't the principles of marriage. Hopefully, we preach the law and convict
our people of the sin they are engaged in, and salve the guilty with the
gospel. We wouldn't change, I hope, the principles of the roles of man and
woman just because our men are failing to fulfill their God-given duty and
our women are anxious and upset about it. We would use the God-given
instruments of law and gospel to correct the sinful neglect of our men and
the impatience of our women. Likewise, just becasue (sic) we've practiced
fellowship in a way that could be better (to say the least), does not mean
we ought go back and change the doctrine. We convict ourselves where we've
erred, and resolve by God's grace to do better going forward. The
principles of fellowship are not the problem, we are! I hope we can go
about this in a deliberate and loving way, it is a difficult thing for sure.
Regardless of this, I appreciate the list, Dan.
Andy Fix
Andy,
Thank you for that well thought out and eloquent post. Much food for
thought!!! God Bless You!!!
Joe Krohn
Dear Pastor Zank--
We have defined "error" as anything any other church body affirms
that runs contrary to WELS confessional Lutheranism. I assume this means
different ways of expressing similar ideas are "error," too--our human
judgments being faulty and making it impossible for us to discern the true
intent of heart of these different expressions from other believers, say in
Brazil or the Sudan. True?
Then we are saying that all "error" flows from unbelief. So, the
reason other believers don't wind up where we are in our understanding and
"confession" is that they resist the Word of God in some fashion.
So, we are saying that the final standard for true Christianity in
the world is found in the WELS. And we are saying that when people do not
join the WELS, assuming they have heard of us, it is ultimately because of
unbelief. Sin.
The next step in logic would be this--would it be a sin of unbelief
for a person to question, even in this playful way, an accepted teaching of
the Wisconsin Synod.
Peter Fraser
P.S. I offer this respectfully and in the spirit of a brother.
Dear brothers,
Brevity. To the point. It's not easy when you have allot to say. As
most preachers do. And offering ten points re church fellowship or
unionism, is asking for trouble!
I agree that point #4 is in the WRONG place. It doesn't belong under
"fellowship."
Instead of these many exhaustive points how about this?
THREE REASONS to practice religious fellowship ONLY with those of the
same faith are....
1. "Watch out for false prophets." Mat 7:15 Romans 16:17 God
commands it.
2. "A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough." Gal 3:9
God cares about our souls being infected.
3. "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see
your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." Matt 5:16 God cares
about those we can influence with His pure, saving Truth.
Or as the Bumper sticker puts it:
God said it. I believe it. And that settles the matter.
"But Luther, do you think you are the only one who is right?"
True repentance with full confidence in His Word still echoes Luther's
defense at Worms.
M Hahm
Brothers and Sisters in the grace that has been given to us,
I'm sure we have all done this many times: we've seen a list of theses or
propositions, each of which is followed by a list of scriptural references.
We've read through the theses to deduce whether there is a logical flow to
the argument, and to assess how well the propositions address the issues at
hand.
But all too often, we simply make the assumption that the scripture
references cited directly support the propositions being made. We give it a
general sort of instinctual check, and if we find ourselves concluding "Yes,
that's sounds like something I've read in Scripture" we leave it at that. If
we have reservations about the argument being put forth, they often center
on other Scriptural messages are perhaps being overlooked, or point out some
fault in the logical structure.
In short, probably because of time considerations, we often don't actually
look at the scripture references being cited to see how they may or may not
come to bear on the theses being put forth. (I've also contemplated sometime
posting an argument on some issue, and then referencing passages that are
completely, perhaps even comically, unrelated, just to see if anyone would
call me on it. I know most of the time I probably wouldn't catch it if
someone else tried that.)
All of which is a preface to say that after David posted the theses on
fellowship he had received from his confirmation pastor, I though I would
dig into some of the passages to see what they said and to see how they
related to the specific points for which they are provided as support. I
want to hear and understand what God's Word has to say on this subject so
that I can act with integrity and confidence.
I'm going to reproduce two of the theses along with the scriptural texts
that are referenced in support, after which I will make some comments. In
extreme contrast to M Hahn deliberately brief comments, this is quite
lengthy, necessarily so to try to be clear in setting out the issues I see.
(This version is actually the result of pruning an even longer earlier
draft.) I am trying to do my best to analyze the logic proposed by the
writer of the theses, and to be faithful in examining the texts he cites. I
would pray that any response would be done on the same basis.
---------------
5. God also invites us to express our invisible fellowship with all
believers in the holy Christian church (Eph 4:3-6,16; Php 1:15,17,18; Eph
6:18; Ro 12; 1Co 12).
Ephesians 4:3-6,16 "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit
through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were
called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism;
one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…From
him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament,
grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."
Philippians 1:15,17,18 "It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and
rivalry, but others out of goodwill…The former preach Christ out of selfish
ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me
while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that
in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And
because of this I rejoice."
Ephesians 6:18 "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of
prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying
for all the saints."
Romans 12:4-8 [The thesis cites the entire chapter of Romans 12. I won't
reproduce the whole text here, but only four verses that seem most directly
germane to the thesis.] "Just as each of us has one body with many members,
and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are
many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have
different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is
prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith. If it is serving,
let him serve; if it is teaching, let him teach; if it is encouraging, let
him encourage; if it is contributing to the needs of others, let him give
generously; if it is leadership, let him govern diligently; if it is showing
mercy, let him do it cheerfully."
1 Corinthians 12 [This is the familiar section discussing spiritual gifts
and the "one body, many parts" metaphor. I will not reproduce the entire
chapter for reasons of space.]
6. God also asks us to practice our visible fellowship. Since we cannot
discern faith, we practice our visible or church fellowship only with those
we can see share our confession (Ac 2:42; Gal 2:9; Php 1:4,5; 1Co 10:17; Ac
1:14; 1Th 5:11; Ro 1:11,12; Col 3:16).
Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the apostle's teaching and to the
fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer."
Galatians 2:9 "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me
[Paul] and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the
grace given to me."
Philippians 1:4,5 "In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now,
being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it
on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus."
1 Corinthians 10:17 "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one
body, for we all partake of the one loaf."
Acts 1:14 "They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the
women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."
1 Thessalonians 5:11 "Therefore encourage one another and build each other
up, just as in fact you are doing."
Romans 1:11,12 "I [Paul] long to see you so that I may impart to you some
spiritual gift to make you strong—that is, that you and I may be mutually
encouraged by each other's faith."
Colossians 3:15,16 [I'm adding verse 15 to the thesis reference, which
included only verse 16] "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since
as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the
word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another
with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with
gratitude in your hearts to God."
---------------
Key to the overall argument being presented in all ten theses is that there
is a clear difference between the expression of invisible fellowship with
all believers in the holy Christian church (Thesis 5), and our practice of
visible or church fellowship, done "only with those we can see share our
confession" (Thesis 6).
I have to state up front that I am making a very specific assumption. Given
what the writer says in Thesis 6, what he says in Thesis 8 ("So church
fellowship is any activity that expresses a shared faith"), and in the
context of WELS history on this, I'm going to assume that this means
agreement on all points of doctrine. This is not spelled out in so many
words, but I think it is a safe assumption. If my assumption is incorrect, I
apologize, and I welcome clarification and correction. (If that is not the
writer's definition, I believe it is one that WELS teaching on this would
support.)
The structure of the theses and the references cited would have us take as
valid the case that the scriptures referenced in support of Thesis 5 would
clearly point to a different sort of expression, with a different group of
people, based on a different criteria from the expression, group, and
criteria set out in the scriptures listed in support of Thesis 6. There are
certain things we can only do with those who "share our confession." and
these are addressed in the scriptures referenced for Thesis 6. These
practices do not apply to any other Christians, who are covered under the
more general expression of our invisible fellowship delineated in the Thesis
5 references.
I do not see that those distinctions can be made from the texts cited, and I
will attempt to explain why I make this assessment.
Ephesians 4:3-6, listed in support of Thesis 5, calls on us to "make every
effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is
one body and one Spirit…"
1 Corinthians 10:17, listed in support of the more restrictive Thesis 6,
says "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all
partake in one loaf."
In both passages, Paul calls for unity within the "one body." Are these
different bodies, or the same? I see nothing in the texts to say that the
"one body" being referred to has a different meaning in each separate
passage.
Colossians 3:16 is listed in support of Thesis 6. The passage encourages us
to "teach and admonish one another, with all wisdom". The thesis would
indicates that this is something that should be done "only be with those we
can see share our confession." This sets up a clear distinction between this
practice and these activities and the practice and activities addressed in
Thesis 5.
But look at the context of the Colossians verse. The immediately preceding
verse (v.15), which I included above, says: "Let the peace of Christ rule in
your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace." This is
clearly very much the same thought as that expressed in Ephesians 4:3-6
"make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of
peace. There is one body and one Spirit…"
It gets even more interesting. Thesis 8 states "So church fellowship is any
activity that expresses a shared faith" and again cites Colossians 3:16. Per
the thesis, the activities listed here are an "express[ion] of shared
faith". Yet the context of the passage (v.15) clearly puts this expression
in the context of the "one body."
But for the writer, the Ephesians passage with its "one body" is said
to support Thesis 5, while the Colossians reference to "one body" is the
immediate context of the passage used to support Theses 6 and 8. Though the
passages are nearly the same in thought and use much of the same wording,
they are used to support two very different expressions or practices of
fellowship! Is Paul suddenly addressing a different group of people in
Colossians 3:16 than he is in 3:15? Or is making a differentiation between
what is being talked about in the Ephesians passage and the Colossians
passage simply ignoring the obvious, that they are both talking about
activity among members of the very same "one body"?
Is this not the very same "one body" being referenced in Ephesians 4:3-6,16,
Romans 12:4-8, and 1 Corinthians 12 (all referenced in support of Thesis 5),
and 1 Corinthians 10:17 and the immediate context of Colossians 3:16
(referenced in support of Thesis 6)?
How then can the activities addressed in the passages cited for Thesis 6 be
off limits among members of the broader group addressed in Thesis 5?
As far as that goes, what are the activities encouraged in the Thesis 5
passages, which is addressing our expression of the broader fellowship which
does not necessarily share an identical confession? They are:
· making every effort to keep the unity of the spirit
· growing
· building up the body
· preaching
· praying
· prophesying
· serving
· teaching
· encouraging
· giving
· leading
· showing mercy
· [sharing] the message of wisdom
· [sharing] the message of knowledge
· healing
· [using] miraculous powers
· distinguishing between spirits
· speaking in different kinds of tongues
· [sharing] the interpretation of tongues
Yet the writer of the theses would have us see these passages in the context
of expressing "our invisible fellowship with all believers", but then makes
a distinction between this sort of expression and the visible practice "only
with those we can see share our confession." Later in Thesis 8, he states
"So church [visible] fellowship is any activity that expresses a shared
faith." Surely the activities mentioned above "express a shared faith." But
they are included in the set of passages he references as support for our
operation within "our invisible fellowship", in the broader group of
Christians, which he differentiates from our practice of visible fellowship.
In the Colossians 3 passage used in support of Thesis 6, as I have noted,
the people being encouraged to "teach and admonish…[and] sing psalms, hymns,
and spiritual songs" are those belonging to the "one body." The activities
are being encouraged within and among the "one body."
The writer also uses the same passage (Colossians 3:16) in support of Thesis
8: "So church fellowship is any activity that expresses a shared faith".
These same activities that the writer says "express a shared faith" are
clearly tied by Scriptural context to occurring within the "one body." There
is nothing I can see in these texts that indicates that the practices he
restricts to only being appropriate within the context of Theses 6 and 8
should not apply within the same "one body" referenced in the passages cited
for Thesis 5.
It comes down to this question: how many "one body"s are there?
In closing, there is one other cited passage I want to look at, which is
particularly interesting because is explicitly references the "who" and
"why" of extending fellowship. It is cited in support of Thesis 6. Galatians
2:9 says, "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me
[Paul] the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to
me." Paul recounts how he went to the leaders of the Jerusalem church and
they extended to him the right hand of fellowship. On what basis did they do
so? "When they recognized the grace given to [Paul]."
What may it have involved when the apostles "recognized the grace given to
[Paul]"? I can't answer that question completely, because the text does not
say. The passage certainly does not spell out that this was most importantly
recognition of complete doctrinal agreement. I think to hold that it does
brings something to the text that isn't there.
I do think the language the Spirit chose here points us to an orientation
and attitude very different from one of checking for complete agreement on
an exhaustive list of detailed doctrinal assertions.
The idea of "recognizing the grace" given to someone seems to encourage us
to focus on God's gift, on the Spirit, on the fact that we recognize someone
who has been born anew of the same Spirit as we have been. It seems to be
about rejoicing in the work of God in another human heart.
Can we honestly say that "recognizing the grace given to others" is an
essential part of how we in WELS are encouraged to relate to other
Christians?
Do we make "recognizing the grace given to others" the basis for our
attitudes and decisions about extending the right hand of fellowship?
So where does that leave us? My goal in undertaking this analysis was to
look at some of the theses writer's assertions and to study the passages he
cites in support of those assertions. If I agree with everything he says, I
want that to be on the basis of Scripture, not on the logic of his argument.
Like the Bereans, I wanted to examine the Scriptures to see if what he said
was true.
And in doing so, I found that the texts he references do not support some of
the essential specifics of the theses in which he cites them. In fact,
looking at all the texts he references for the two theses (plus the
Colossians 3 reference for Thesis 8) show contradictions and confusion in
terms of the points he is trying to make with them. I find they don't
demonstrate and support the distinctions he is trying to parse. They
actually seem to lead to very different conclusions.
This is troubling, to say the least. Are the points he is trying to make and
the selection of Scriptures he uses to support them consistent with the WELS
teaching on fellowship? Has he simply chosen the wrong texts? Am I
completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting his argument? Am I
misinterpreting Scripture?
None of this means that I disagree with everything included in the ten
theses. It only means that in at least the examples I have noted, the
scriptural support is not clear to me, and the use of the passages seems
contradictory. I welcome any attempts to help me out with this by providing
correction or clarification. In the meantime, I cannot use these theses as a
sound basis for understanding what scripture teaches on fellowship.
Peace,
Tim Helmen
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your message, and please know that your brotherly spirit shines
through your post. I hope you read the same spirit in my messages.
I would have to hear more about what you mean when you speak of "different
expressions." We must be very careful not to let language and its idioms
come between us and those with whom the Lord would have us practice
God-pleasing fellowship. Perhaps you have some specific example in mind.
When making my comments I have in mind confessions of church bodies that
have been examined and clarified over time. It's been my experience that
people who refuse to practice infant baptism, for example, do so because
they do not believe what the Scriptures plainly say. That error flows from
unbelief. When people join these churches, the act of joining is part of
their confession. The biblical teaching of fellowship as we lovingly
practice it, gives us an opportunity to say and show this. If we fail to
practice what the Scriptures say, we let them hold to the error, or at the
very least, we let them give the impression that they do. Either way, we
help them in love when we testify to the truth in our words and actions.
This gives them the opportunity to examine what it is they actually believe.
As for your comments regarding the WELS, I belong to this church body
because I find that it agrees with what the Scriptures teach. I would have
no other reason to be a part of it. I'm quite sure that there are people all
over the world studying the Scriptures and coming to the same understanding
of them that we are. As I encounter these folks, I may have the opportunity
to learn of their confession and declare fellowship with them. God wants me
to do this. These fellow Christians do not have to join the WELS for this to
happen. But at the same time, they will not be part of a church body that
holds to error. So, do I believe that the WELS is the only church teaching
the truth? No. But I believe that it is teaching the truth, so yes, since
its teachings are based on Scripture, it teachings are a standard by which
to judge error--because the Bibles teachings are that standard.
As for your next logical point regarding a sin of unbelief, I would be the
first to admit that I often struggle with the teachings to which my faith
clings. There is so much that I don't understand, that I cannot understand.
But God has convinced me that these things are his truth. As I wrestle with
these things, I often join the man who prayed to Jesus, "I do believe; help
me overcome my unbelief." Once again, I don't think of myself as
questioning a church body, but the Scripture itself. By God's grace, the
doubt and unbelief that plague my faith don't damn me, but by God's help I
want to overcome these things. I want God to do the same for his people all
over the world, regardless of what denomination they belong to. I pray that
God uses me as a clear witness to his truth so that I may assist him in some
way to bring people everywhere to know the truth of his teachings.
Again, Peter, and all who share in this list, thanks for the opportunity to
think about such important matters.
Your brother in Christ,
Pastor Joel Zank
Thanks for the reply, Pastor.
The Scriptures plainly teach that Jesus is the incarnate son of God. I
don't think infant baptism is quite as plainly presented; rather we infer
it from several passages and ancient Jewish and Christian practice. I know
many Baptists who point to Romans 6 and say that we are the ones who want
to color the plain meaning of Scripture with our own interpretation. I
believe we who baptize infants have the weight of the best interpretations
and Christian tradition on our side, and I have tried arguing the point to
Baptist friends; but I don't think I want to assume that they are resisting
the Word of God if they disagree. If we go that route, wouldn't we question
why God has used so many Baptist preachers, think Charles Spurgeon or Billy
Graham, to gather souls.
Likewise, we affirm in our Confessional expressions that the Pope is the
AntiChrist. Here again, Scripture doesn't plainly teach this. Rather, at
the time of the Reformation it seemed an obvious conclusion given the
corruption of the papacy. Should Jesus tarry another 1000 years and the
Roman Catholic Church continue to diminish in its authority, I'm not sure
our descendents will draw the same conclusion as most of the Reformers.
Everyone, I think, agrees that we must draw a circle of fellowship
somewhere. The matter to decide is where. When is an interpretation error
and dangerous in its implications, and when is it a lack of instruction or
a half-formed thought or even a different opinion on a passage that might
be taken different ways (say, the end of I Cor. 7)?
We all struggle with these matters, especially as we watch so many
Christian congregations drift into apostasy (e.g., the ordination of
homosexuals and sanctioning of what Scripture calls an abomination). I find
it ironic, however, that we Lutherans who so emphasize gospel over law,
drift in the direction of law when approaching these difficult matters.
Peter Fraser
Hi Peter,
Perhaps we are talking past each other. I believe that Bible clearly
teaches that we should baptize infants. When this teaching is denied as it
is by many, it's not only this teaching that comes into question, but what
is said and taught about original sin and the sinful nature. I belong to
the WELS because it agrees with what the Scripture says about these
teachings. This is my confession, spoken and demonstrated by my membership
in this church body.
I don't regard infant baptism as a teaching up for debate, just as I don't
regard the Bible's teaching regarding real presence of Christ's body and
blood in the Holy Supper to be something up for debate. Those who hold to a
different teaching than the one I know from the Scripture are, as Luther
said, of a "different spirit." I don't know what else to say except that
they are resisting the truth. It doesn't mean that they are not Christians,
but it does mean that I cannot pretend to be one with them when I am not. It
also does not mean that I wish to suggest that it is fine for them to hold
to their error because it may simply be the other side of a great
theological debate. At the heart of what we are talking about is the truth
of God's Word. Is there one truth or many variations of the truth. I
believe there is one truth that God calls upon us to defend with our words
and actions. If doing that makes it seem as if we are leaning toward law, I
can live with that, because I know the powerful things our loving God wants
to accomplish with a Word that is taught in its purest form. Having said
that, I never want my proclamation of this truth, whether by word or action,
to come across in a condescending, judgmental manner. I pray that the love
of Jesus shines through me when is stand on and share his truth. I don't
believe that doing these two things, holding to the truth and sharing it,
are mutually exclusive.
As for "gospel preachers." I rejoice to know that our gracious God is able
to use truth mixed with error to still accomplish his purposes. This is done
in spite of the error, not because of it. This people accomplish things in
the kingdom because God says that his Word will not return to him empty.
But the fact that God is gracious enough to work this way doesn't suggest
that he is ever pleased with the fact that people corrupt his truth with
error.
Have a blessed day in the Lord,
Pastor Joel Zank
Hello to all,
I just want to thank you all for your wonderful Christ centered responses and
discussion. I have really enjoyed reading everyone's remarks and thoughts. I
thank you all for sharing!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Here's how Dr. Mark Braun addresses this issue (from "It's a Different
World - Or is It? CHARIS, vol.1, no.3) Note Koehler's admonition regarding
bragging about orthodoxy, and the caution about putting too much on
denominational membership. I think Peter Fraser's point is that all this
may make a lot of sense in the pastor's study, but talking to Christians of
other denominations in the course of daily life, practicing church
fellowship is messy - as it should be - and that we must guard against
prescribing black and white rules or applications. Anyway, here are Mark's
thoughts on the matter.
---------
We like to believe that the issues separating us from other Christians are
always purely doctrinal in nature. One must wonder, however, whether
sometimes our attitude toward Christians of other church bodies is shaped
more by the fact that they are ?not one of us? than by clear differences of
teaching. Ecumenical can be a good word, too (should this surprise us?),
and there is something wonderfully ecumenical about Luther?s explanation of
the Third Article: ?The Holy Ghost has called me by the gospel, enlightened
me with his gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same
way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian
church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.?
The warnings of John Philipp Koehler, professor almost a century ago when
our seminary was in Wauwatosa, seem to have been addressed to our current
church life. With our emphasis on justification and faith, Koehler noted,
it is to be expected ?that among us doctrinal presentation receives
emphasis? in our preaching and teaching. But legalism can infiltrate among
us ?in the form of bragging about orthodoxy.? That happens when emphasis
in our teaching shifts ?from faith to correct faith.? This ?bravado of
orthodoxy,? as Koehler labeled it, ?feeds on the factious spirit which
opposes the ecumenical spirit.? The result is traditionalism, which ?has
lost the spirit of the gospel.? As we discuss what we believe with a
Christian of a different denominational stripe, we should proceed ?from the
assumption that the other person probably means the right thing, but either
expresses himself incorrectly, or even expresses himself differently than
I.?
How refreshing his advice compared to the tendency we may discover in
ourselves, to say little about the many areas in which we agree with other
Christians and to focus instead like a laser beam on our presumed areas of
disagreement. True ecumenicity, said Koehler, recognizes and fosters the
?sensibility of the one true invisible church.? In practice, the
ecumenical spirit (again, this is Koehler)"consists in this, that I find
joy in the fact that someone else believes in the Lord Jesus, no matter in
which fellowship I meet him, and that I can do nothing else than
acknowledge him and also in that way my Savior and, as there is
opportunity, foster this partnership in salvation in the truth. When I
meet anywhere someone who believes in the Lord Jesus, then what interests
me above all else is that he so believes, and that through faith he is a
child of God and a member of the body of Jesus. I will express as much in
emphasizing the things that unite us in faith and not, by finding fault and
criticizing, mainly emphasize the things that separate us."
In the 1950s, when the Wisconsin Synod in its great debate with the
Missouri Synod was compelled to reexamine and delineate its fellowship
principles more precisely, our synodical fathers wisely recognized the
distinction between those who are weak in their understanding of Scripture
and willing to receive further instruction, and those who refuse to accept
further testimony but cling to unbiblical beliefs and practices. The
uniquely WELS nomenclature of weak brother and persistent errorist, though
unfamiliar to most other Christians, accurately reflects Romans 16:17?18.
God calls us to separate from those who habitually cause divisions and
place obstacles in our way that are contrary to the teaching we have
learned.
Significantly, the ?Essay on Church Fellowship? in the WELS Doctrinal
Statements of 1970 never mentions one?s denominational membership as the
only or even the primary criterion for determining whether someone is a
weak Christian or a persistent errorist. The essay proceeds from the Una
Sancta? the one holy Christian church? to expressions of church fellowship,
to weakness of faith, to persistence in error. The statement rightly
recognizes that ?this Spirit-wrought faith at the same time unites us in an
intimate bond with all other believers? and that the faith of all
Christians is ?marked by many imperfections, either in the grasp and
understanding of Scriptural truths, or in the matter of turning these
truths to full account in their lives. We are all weak in one way or
another.? The essay does not say that membership in another church body
provides sufficient evidence by itself that one is a persistent errorist.
Instead, it says, ?We can no longer recognize and treat as Christian
brethren those who in spite of patient admonition persistently adhere to an
error in doctrine or practice, demand recognition for their error, and make
propaganda for it.?
John Bauer
Hi John,
Thanks for the article. As I read it, it reinforces the need for practicing
fellowship as the Bible teaches it. While membership in another denomination
does not necessarily make one a persistent errorist, it gives us reason to
call attention to the differences that exist between us. Such discussions
allow Christians over time to consider what they believe and how they want
to confess their beliefs through their membership in a church body. As I've
said in other posts, we can rejoice to know that God brings people to faith
throughout his world. When visiting with Christians of other denominations,
I'm happy to begin conversations about spiritual matters by talking about
the things on which we agree.
Your brother in Christ,
Pastor Joel Zank
Well said Joel. It saddens me to think so many in the reform churches
believe that baptism isn't a gift for sinful children. It even saddens
me worse when those who have received and been taught this wonderful
blessing from God's Word think it to be ambiguous.
Matt DeNoyer
Is it just me, or is this second comment way out of line?
Here's the original quote from Peter:
”The Scriptures plainly teach that Jesus is the incarnate son of God.
I don't think infant baptism is quite as plainly presented; rather we
infer it from several passages and ancient Jewish and Christian practice.”
Tim Helmen
Maybe I have something to add to the discussion on fellowship. Maybe not
1. We need to think more about what it means to speak the truth in love. We
must not demean agape love by using that as our motive when we try to correct
the errors of those whom we do not in fact love. Paul tells us in 1 Cor 13 what
he means in Eph. 4 about speaking the truth in love. Our efforts to correct
false doctrine may be well intentioned, but let's not say that we love the
errorist, if we don't really love him.
2. It is clear that God wants us to avoid the false teacher. But how do we
avoid? By not eating with him? By not sleeping with him, if he happenes to be
our husband? By not golfing or playing tennis with him?
We deny to the false teacher altar, pulpit and prayer fellowship. But that
doesn't answer all the questions. We are not guilty of the accusation that we
won't let you pray with your dying LCMS grandmother, or your (my) dying Baptist
brother. We do not forbid you to stand up in a Catholic wedding. So how do we
avoid?
3. We avoid the false teacher
a) when he is making propaganda for his teaching and asking us to support it;
not when he is getting married.
b) when he wants to take the Sacrament without knowing that he is treating
Jesus' body and blood as if it were only bread and wine:
c) When we necessarily cause confusion by uniting with him in a way that
suggests that there are no differences between us, or that the differences don't
matter. (This requires an arbitary (sic) judgment upon the impression we are making.
We can't assume that offense occurs just because the possibility of offense
exists. We are not wise if we judge a brother who has carefully made this
judgment, one way or another.)
If you find this helpful, good. If not, respond to some other contributor. I
have bigger fish to fry.
With love in Christ, Rolfe Westendorf
Thanks for you Christ-centered advice and insight, Rolfe.
John Parlow
Brothers--
I'm going to leave better minds to resolve all the fine points being
raised in this conversation and go back to my world of literature and film.
As a person with significant experience outside the WELS, however, I
thought I'd offer a different perspective to get the topic stirred.
There are at last count 43 million Baptists in the world, over 33
million in the States. Many of them have advanced degrees. Many study the
Scripture as did the Bereans. We (in this discussion link) all disagree
with their view on baptism. But they are our brothers in Jesus and may very
well be our neighbors in heaven. My point is that we ought to treat them
and other "brothers" with respect.
My other point, and then I stop, is that our attitude regarding
fellowship tends toward legalism. We seem to have trouble in the WELS
allowing our people to think for themselves when in difficult situations.
This Christmas when my 91-year old believing Roman Catholic father asks me
to offer the table grace, I'd like the freedom to decide what I should do
on my own--without fear that some concerned brother will spy me through the
window and send a letter questioning my orthodoxy.
Our greatest danger is Pharisaism. There are plenty of Scriptural
warnings against that, which we might take more to heart than we do.
Peace.
Peter Fraser
Thanks for your thoughts Rolfe!
Brothers and sisters, I have to admit that this has been a painful exercise
to read through this email exchange (along with Koehler's excellent essay in
the latest issue of Charis). Not painful in a bad sense, but in a good
sense, much like good exercise - it's painful, but good for you. It has
forced me to look inward at my own weaknesses and my own tendencies which
aren't always in line with Scripture. I can see where I'm guilty on two
fronts. On some occasions I've been quick to label as a persistent errorist
a fellow Christian from a different denomination who is in fact a weak
Christian. On other occasions, I've quietly ignored significant differences
and considered others as weak Christians (and prayed with them) when in
reality they were persistent errorists.
So I'm learning some things from this dialogue. One, we don't necessarily
assume that someone from a different denomination is a persistent errorist.
He or she may very well in weakness and ignorance be part of a heterodox
church body, and thus be a weak Christian, not a persistent errorist. Two,
it's much easier to avoid conflict and unpleasant situations by ignoring
clear differences that divide and separate us from other Christians. (And
finally, we're not the ones causing the division, they are by their
adherence to a false teaching). I dare not allow my desire to avoid
conflict and confrontation keep me from doing what is right. (Confrontation
might be too strong a word, but my point is that we don't want to avoid
approaching a situation that could cause us to see that the person we
thought was a weak Christian was in reality a persistent errorist.)
The principles remain the same as spelled out for us in Rom. 16:17-18, Titus
3:10, and 2 Thess. 3:14-15. These have to do with the persistent errorist.
"Acts 1:6; Galatians (Judaizing error); Colossians (Jewish-Gnostic error); I
Cor 15...In all these cases Paul patiently built up the weak faith of these
Christians with the gospel to give them strength to overcome the error that
had affected them" (WELS Doctrinal Statement on Church Fellowship 4d).
The Statement later goes on to say, "From all this, we see that in the
matter of the outward expression of Christian fellowship, the exercise of
church fellowship, particularly two Christian principles need to direct us:
the great debt of love which the Lord would have us pay to the weak brother,
and His clear injunction (also flowing out of love) to avoid those who
adhere to false doctrine and practice...Conscientious recognition of both
principles will lead to an evangelical practice also in facing many
difficult situations that confront us, situations which properly lie in the
field of casuistry."
It is only harmful and misrepresents our synod, our confessions and, most
importantly, Scripture when those principles are misapplied as in the case
with the song performed my Amy Grant.
My prayer is that God give us all Solomon's wisdom, Paul's zeal for the
truth, Luther's courage to stand up for the truth, and Christ's love and
compassion as we apply the truth that we adhere to these Scriptural
principles and properly apply them in our lives and ministries.
Thanks to all who have contributed to this meaningful and beneficial
discussion!
God bless you with the peace of Christ and the joy his birth brings!
In His Service,
Pastor Mark Gabb
Good morning!
I've followed our fellowship thread with interest over the last weeks. I've
appreciated the overall positive and constructive tone of the discussion.
Because email provides so few communication cues, it's easy for threads to
explode into "flame wars." When discussing issues like how we practice
fellowship, that lack of cues makes misunderstanding and miscommunication even
more likely. But even though email isn't well suited for this kind of
discussion, you've done a great job avoiding the communication traps inherent in
this medium. Thank you.
I'm also pleased that our listserv has functioned as a place where brothers and
sisters feel free to share their ideas and perceptions. And when they have
shared, others have responded in Christ-like love, even if they saw the issue
another way. I hope that encourages more of us to participate in all the
discussions here.
That brings me to my final thought. The Church and Change listserv is about more
than discussing how we practice fellowship. We are here to exchange ministry
ideas so more believers are better nurtured and more of those outside the
kingdom are welcomed in. The listserv can handle more than one topic at a time,
so don't hesitate to jump in with other issues.
Blessings in Jesus!
Jim Aderman
No, I don't think it is out of line Tim when you consider the big
picture. The Catholic sees in baptism only a remission of original sin
and quickly adds works to the plan of salvation. The Methodist looks at
their conversion experience as proof of their salvation and empties
baptism of its grace, the Presbyterian sees it as a covenant being made
at Baptism, but doesn't believe that Baptism saves you or forgives all of
your sins (You're either elect or not). The Baptist sees it as an
outward sign of your obedience and surrendering to God but no imputing of
righteousness (I think that covers most of the philosophies behind this
doctrine). The Lutheran, on the other hand sees it as it is: "He saved
us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his
mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the
Holy Spirit..." (Titus 3:5). A Lutheran points back to his/her baptism
for objective proof of God's mercy and love. I just don't see the
ambiguity in this doctrine.
Perhaps the reason some think infant baptism is an ambiguous doctrine is
because they aren't relying on God's objective mercy and love but their
own works and experiences etc.
Considering the Bible's clear teaching on original sin (Surely I was a
sinner from conception - David), objective justification (God was
reconciling the world to himself not counting men's sins against him
anymore - Paul), and all the passages regarding Baptism as a work of God
and not man, I find the doctrine of Baptism no less ambiguous than the
teaching of the incarnate Son of God. Both doctrines call for simple
childlike faith.
Matt DeNoyer
Matt and Joel,
Thank you for your comments. Baptism, original sin, objective
justification and the real presence in the Lord's Supper are not
ambiguous teachings open to interpretation. God's Word is clear.
And false teaching--false doctrine--isn't just a difference of opinion.
It is SIN. And it is dangerous. Because he doesn't have the true
Sacrament, the Baptist is robbed of the blessings and comfort God would
offer him in the Lord's Supper. That doesn't exclude him from the
invisible church. But contradicting what God says is always sinful.
Of course, arrogance is also sinful. So this doesn't mean that we
refuse to talk to non-WELS Christians. It doesn't mean we're better
than they are. It doesn't mean there's a higher degree of glory for
WELS Lutherans in heaven than non-WELS. But nor does it mean that we
pretend false doctrine doesn't matter or that orthodoxy and confessional
Lutheranism are dirty words for which we need to apologize.
Dave Wenzel
Matthew,
I apologize if I'm being overly confrontational about this, or reading
something into your words that you do not mean.
Let me clarify. What I thought was out of line was the comment that
appeared to me to be directed at Peter personally:
>It even saddens me worse when those who have received and been taught
this wonderful blessing from God's Word think it to be ambiguous.
Now you you (sic) have added this:
> Perhaps the reason some think infant baptism is an ambiguous doctrine
is because they aren't relying on God's objective mercy and love but
their own works and experiences etc.
Again, if that's directed at Peter, I think that is also out of line.
Peter never said the teaching on infant baptism was ambiguous. He only
contrasted the way the Bible presents the teaching of Christ as the
incarnate Son of God with the way it presents infant baptism.
As he correctly pointed out, we infer our teaching on infant baptism
from many passages and through an integration of other of the Bible's
teachings. You have done a good job of summarizing what those are and
how they form a holistic unit. But for all the scripture that points to
the truth of God's grace to infants in baptism (which I agree with, and
I think Peter does also), there isn't anything as straightforwardly put
as a single passage like "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living
God."
That doesn't mean the teaching on baptism is ambiguous, just presented
and arrived at differently. I think that's all Peter was trying to get
at. If someone rejects the teaching that Jesus is the incarnate Son of
God, on its own that's a much bigger red flag regarding someone's
approach to scripture than if they don't believe in baptising infants.
Here's a question that may help to get at the point in a different: Do
you see justification for relating to a Baptist differently than you
would a Jehovah's Witness?
Grace and peace,
Tim Helmen
I've been teaching Religion in America to college students for 17 years and
I have never seen the beliefs of various Christians regarding baptism
delineated and categorized as neatly as Matt DeNoyer has done. I would
probably be more likely to say, however, that "Roman Catholicism has
officially taught . . . ," or "Vatican II says . . . ." When I have had
actual Catholics or Presbyterians or Baptists in my classes, whenever I
confidently told them "what they believe," likely as not one of them would
say in response, "I never saw it that way," or, "I'm a Baptist, but I
wouldn't say that," or "I'm a Presbyterian, but I don't believe that, so I
guess maybe I'm not a Presbyterian after all."
Real people do not always submit to such easy delineations and
categorizations as readily as Matt's description would seem to imply.
How many members of other Christian denominations have receive an
indoctrination in their theology as thorough and as prescriptive as what
many of us have received in the Wisconsin Synod? For that matter, how many
of the people participating in this discussion have had the benefit of 21+
years of daily religious instruction, all the way to the seminary level and
beyond? One of the assumptions inherent in the way we talk about and
practice church fellowship is we assume that everybody who belongs to a
church body is fully cognizant of that church body's theology, fully agreed
with it, and fully committed to its propagation. Such an assumption,
however, flies in the face of the way many people actually are. Many
people, including perhaps some who read this, may be Lutheran more out of
family circumstance and tradition than through thoroughly informed
conviction.
This may not be the way we would like things to be, but if this is how
things actually are, then the next question is: what is our responsibility
and our opportunity in connection with such people? It is easiest to say
that since we live in the United States, which is a religiously diverse
nation, everyone has a chance to belong to whatever church he or she
chooses, therefore we can assume that everyone is a member of his or her
particular church by choice and with full knowledge of its teachings,
therefore we can assume that all (or just about all) members of non-WELS
churches are persistent errorists, and so we will (Roman 16:17) avoid them.
If we carry the "avoid" principle beyond the doors of our churches and into
our personal lives, we may be able (and may even feel obliged) to avoid
talking about any of these issues with other Christians because that is our
"final act of love" in response to their persistent adherence to error.
This is not only the easiest thing to do, it is also the safest. You'll
never have a fellow pastor at the next parish accuse you of being a
"liberal" or being "soft on fellowship" if you follow this approach!
But if we recognize that all of us are weak in our understanding of God's
truth (which is what the WELS Doctrinal Statements admit),, and if others
are genuinely willing to talk with us about the Scriptures, don't we have a
responsibility and opportunity to be talking with them? And I don't
believe we can bring other Christians to share our viewpoints with only an
occasional paragraph in a sermon devoted to a subject, or a list of the
proof passages to demonstrate our case. The New Testament urges us to
teach and encourage others with great patience and perseverance.
In the meantime, as we recognize the Christianity of others, and as we are
being patiently working to come to understanding and agreement on
scriptural truth, what sort of relationship do we have with these
Christians willing to learn? Do we present our entire body of doctrine as
a settled, finished product, and tell people, "When you get it all correct
the way we do, then we can express our church fellowship with you"? Or
should we have the freedom to decide that in some cases we must make an
individual judgment and decide that circumstances warrant that we pray with
them as an appropriate response as we work toward fuller understanding and
acceptance of the truth?
The only surprise here should be that anyone would read this last paragraph
and think this is some "new" or "liberal" viewpoint that departs from WELS
teaching and tradition. Tract Ten of Eleven tracts published in the 1950s
urges, that if we know Christians "who may be caught in an error, not
willingly, but because their understanding of Scripture is insufficient"
and who "are willing to bow to Scripture, but yet, through human weakness,
do not clearly see how the truth of Scripture necessarily rules out their
error," we are to "Receive" such weak Christians, and "receiving" such a
weak Christian "means that praying with him may well be in place and God
pleasing, and we trust that God will help him to grow in knowledge and
strength." That's an exact quote from Tract Ten. If you are now thinking
to yourself, "I've belong to the WELS all my life and I've never heard that
before," then I would suggest this is evidence that in our practical
application of the church fellowship principle we have drifted into a
greater emphasis on the "avoid" principle and a corresponding lesser
emphasis on the "weak Christian" side of the principle.
One thing more: I have gotten a couple messages privately that this entire
"Church and Change" discussion of church fellowship is beneficial, in fact
counterproductive, because it is "generating more heat than light." I
would imagine that such a concern would be rooted in the view that our
calling is to tell people what they should believe rather than asking them
what they do believe. Even as we profess the truth, however, I believe it
is important to be listening to people too.
Mark Braun
Mark, can you give more insight on how we have handled the situation of
fellowship principles in our past?
John Parlow
Who's Peter? I thought I was writing to Tim this whole time. Sorry
about that. I've lost track on who I was writing to. I didn't mean to
be confrontational myself, but with 1001 different baptisms down here, I
get a little defensive regarding the straightforward teaching of Christ,
"To baptize all nations" (all meaning inclusive of infants). Again, I'm
just saying that they both seem rather straightforward to me. As far as
the red flag regarding a person's approach to Scripture. I don't know
how much redder (not sure if that's a word) a flag you can get when
several church bodies today empty the sacraments of their biblical
meaning, the very things that create and sustain faith.
As for your last question, "Do
> you see justification for relating to a Baptist differently than you
would a Jehovah's Witness?
Yes, I do see a difference in the 2 church bodies. One's a cult that
denies the essentials to be a member of the Holy Christian Church, the
other church body (Baptist) speaks a good game regarding grace but
doesn't really understand it (according to their doctrines - I'm not
saying average Joe layman may or may not understand what the body
teaches), however, because the Holy Spirit works in spite of sinful man
and because the Word is in deed spoken, read, and to some extent
expounded on properly there will inevitably be saints within that church
body (Baptist). However, because of the error that is taught within that
church body, the saints of God are under constant attack.
Don't take my e-mail personal, I'm just doing a little Advent
procrastination. I've enjoyed the dialog.
Blessings
Matt DeNoyer
Rolfe:
Thanks for the pearls of wisdom.
The doctrine of fellowship has always seemed pretty simple to me. It
comes down to two concepts: witnessing appropriately and loving our fellow
man.
Our problem in the WELS lies in our propensity to make immediate
assumptions regarding individuals who are members of other denominations.
We live in a post-denominational society, i.e. people put much less stock
in denomination as an indicator of who they are or what they precisely
believe. Whether we agree with this approach to life or not, it is the
reality of our times. Therefore, we should not immediately assume that the
Catholic, Methodist, or Baptist we are talking to has come to any real
doctrinal conclusions about anything. Our insistence that an individual's
denomination makes him/her a "persistent errorist" is flawed. I have met
far more non-WELS Christians who would more appropriately fit the
descriptor of "weak brother." In such cases we are charged by God to
embrace and encourage, not exclude and denounce. Yet all too often it
seems we do the latter.
I have dozens of friends who are intensely Biblical Christians who joined
a church because they saw very active ministry going on and wanted to be a
part of it. A "Baptist" friend of mine was drawn into Uptown Baptist in
Chicago because of their aggressive urban outreach ministry. He was no
more "Baptist" than I. He was actually a "WELS" Christian in Baptist
clothing; he had never been exposed to the WELS and had no clue it
existed. He didn't join Uptown because of any doctrinal stance, rather he
was attracted by their sense of mission and outreach. He is now a fully
functioning WELS member who regularly is confused by our law-based
approach to fellowship.
Many Christians fit into this category. If we would embrace such folks in
a loving manner and celebrate what we share, rather than immediately point
out differences, our church's strength--Biblical purity--would draw many,
many more well-meaning, but "confused" people into our midst. Instead,
sadly, we are regularly dis-invitational and law-based in our approach to
our Christian brothers from other church bodies.
Let's turn this train around before our synod dies a slow, self-righteous
death. Let's share the wonderful truth that we have through pro-activity
and gospel-motivated interactions.
Kole K.
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ (and I mean every word of that!),
Some may have felt that the "thread" about fellowship has generated more
heat than light. I would emphatically DISAGREE (perhaps that emphasis is
heat heh?!). I elected to use several hours yesterday and this morning to
follow the "thread". (Actually, it was self preservation - my "free storage"
was about used up!) I have filed all of the responses and that has led to a
book of 49 plus pages.
I sincerely appreciate everyone's responses and am convinced that God's
Spirit is directing it all and indeed producing light not heat. (Maybe some
of us are even praying for each other about this!) I especially give
thanks to Him for the courage of Peter Fraser as well as his convictions and
the convictions of everyone else.
The light that I am seeing really shines especially bringhtly (sic), in my
judgment, from the Tuesday December 9 posting from brother Mark Braun and
from the communication from brother Kole. I am convinced that their
articulation of the issue and its application is where the Scriptures are
and where we, as WELS Christians therefore need to go and be.
I appreciated brother Rolfe's comments too - with one exception - I submit
that this fellowship issue is one of the biggest fishes we have to fry and
it needs to be fried right! If we get Christ's perspective on love as well
as truth right with respect to fellowship; then, we will fulfill what may be
our greatest mission in the WELS - sharing with all Christians and
non-Christians the astounding heritage of our WELS Lutheran Biblical
confession - especially the reformation heritage of salvation by grace
alone, through faith alone, based upon Scripture alone.
May God's Spirit continue to lead us to the light of His Word and to
confessions in word and action that never budge from His truth and always
reflect His love!
Brother Bob Gurgel
P.S. How is this for an outrageous addendum? I think it is time to reflect
who we really are while holding to our Lutheran Confessions by changing the
name of our church body to: FOLLOWERS OF JESUS (A Lutheran Church, formerly
the WELS) Boy now I'm in trouble as soon as I push this send button...
Pastor Gurgel and all else,
Let's change the name today!! I love it!
Thanks for all the insights from you and everyone else. I am truly seeing light
also. The heat is coming from everything else that pressures each of us in this
sinful world and our struggle with the sinful flesh.
Thank God for his love and the forgiveness we have through Jesus Christ, through
Spirit worked faith, which cools the heat and quenches our thirst to never
thirst again! Thanks be to God!
May the Lord bless and keep you all and grant you all a wonderful Christ,
centered Christmas!
In Christ,
Scott Gostchock
Dear Pastor Gurgel,
I like the name change idea. At times I have wondered this: I love
my/our Lutheran heritage. However, to an outsider that has merely
looked at us and other churches superficiously (sic), I wander what they
think. We talk about holding to the Lutheran Confessions, the
Augsburg Confession, what is contained in The Book of Concord. The
Mormons hold to The Book of Mormon and the teachings of their
forefathers. Other churches I would guess have their
sources/standards by which they base their doctrines. Some of it
sounds cultish.
I like the Followers of Jesus, because THAT is who we are. NOT
followers of Luther. And wasn't it Luther who urged his successors
NOT to call themselves Lutherans? Luther ALWAYS pointed to where he
was coming from. The Word of God.
Have a Blessed Christmas Season everyone!!!
Joe Krohn
I would like to echo Pastor Gurgel's comments. For me reading through all
the "fellowship" emails has been a painful exercise - not in a bad sense,
though. Much like exercising can be painful, but good for you, reading
through the emails was painful because it forced me to look at the way I've
done things in the past while at the same time helped me come to a clearer
understanding of the proper application of the principles (that was the good
part!). While I appreciated ALL the comments I especially appreciated Mark
Braun and Kole's comments. They much more clearly and concisely articulated
many of my own thoughts.
A blessed Christmas to you all!
In Christ's service,
Pastor Mark Gabb
