Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Fellowship Principles? Fellowship Only with the Ba...":
It is ridiculous that the WELS cultish mentality leads the pastoral leadership to ignore the plank sticking out of its (WELS) own eye.
I recently had a conversation with one of the stealth leaders of C and C (Patterson). He tried to completely disown C and C and said he has his own concerns about the group ("pure gold?"). Yet he is leading the CG charge in the SouthCentral Babptist District as he gives approval to the Methodist methods of Doebler, journeys off to visit Stetzer, pushes soccer for Jesus, safari hunts to Africa, and grant writing 101 for free vicars and staph ministers.
Patterson's own church is cutting teachers' salaries, yet this small to mid-size church brings on president-in-exile Gurgel to ramp up for Patterson's ascent to DP.
Jeske, Kelm, Parlow, Patterson, et al are persistent errorist that the WELS won't touch. Yet the pastoral leadership screams about the LCMS view of ministry and fellowship principles...huh...
***
GJ - The secret hazing ritual at Mequon starts with everyone lying about GA being held, the upperclassmen pretending to be the opposite of what they are (Pietists versus The Hards). False teachers have always deceived people about their doctrine, but GA has honed the skills of the Shrinker leaders. DP Robert Mueller said, "No one in WELS has a problem with Church Growth - just you." Later he admitted Paul Calvin Kelm was in constant trouble over CG doctrine. Say what? - I was the only one who objected.
Patterson and the Shrinkers have two stories, depending on the audience. If they have two conflicting stories, they do not believe either one. The Kingdom of God is not advanced with deception.
---
Freddy Finkelstein has left a new comment on your post "Too Bad Patterson Does Not Use the Historic Lesson...":
TM,
Your observation regarding the connection of CGM to Synod administration -- or Administration with a capital "A" -- resonates with me. The principles of CGM grow out of organizational theory, and in the Church, represent the wish-dreams of Administrators become reality.
My father, a rather "mavericky" fellow, has spent his entire life studying organizations and administrators for the sole purpose of knowing how to circumvent them. I think this grew out of his intense dislike for the administrators in charge of his tour in Vietnam... I have found that his observation regarding Administrators has in every case been true: "Administrators don't climb ladders. They start by looking for something -- anything -- to manage or administer (the smaller the better), and proceed to build a ladder beneath them by expanding the project, or adding sub-projects. They are always on top of the ladder. As the scope of their administrative responsibilities expands, so does their value and influence." Administrative growth occurs, not as individuals act out of concern for the organization, but generally as they act out of personal ambition. Administrators, ever the "creative idea men," are always suggesting new programs to administer -- it often comes off as creative philanthropy, but in reality, perhaps even sub-consciously, it's self-promoting.
CGM, with myriad projects requiring someone to administer them, dangles golden carrots in the faces of administrator-types. And when introduced to "virgin territory", to a congregation or Church Body without CGM, aggressive administrator-types become unstoppable: it's an easy opportunity to become important. If we are to get rid of CGM, as a practical matter we really ought to severely reduce the administrative positions that serve to lure such personalities to begin with, limit the number, scope, and duration of "new programs," require frequent turnover of staff who serve in administrative positions, and really scrutinize the roots of "new programs."
My Opinion,
Freddy Finkelstein
8 comments:
What is the attraction to CG doctrine? I have struggled with this until a common denominator popped up: laziness and disbelief. All the prominent CG pastors that come to mind seek in one or another way to do the work of the Lord without doing it themselves. That includes outsourcing it to members and students, copying techniques of growing denominations, looking for one crutch or another, etc. While not a mind reader, I have to question whether or not they believe in the efficacy of the Word – and in God and Christ.
It really does not matter what they think or believe. “By their fruits yea shall know them.” Their deceit and deception cinches the answer.
"DP Robert Mueller said, "No one in WELS has a problem with Church Growth - just you." Later he admitted Paul Calvin Kelm was in constant trouble over CG doctrine. Say what? - I was the only one who objected."
What if anything can you believe coming from DP Robert Mueller?
The history of the C&C conference next month is a good example of the double standard in fellowship that the WELS CGers adhere to. When it was made public that the Babtist Ed Stetzer was on the agenda, there were denials that he was ever invited. Jeff Davis admitted that Stetzer was going to be "dis-invited". Then, Davis tried to deny the significance of Church and Change as just some innocuous group of guys that have no pull in the WELS. False teachers should never be given the benefit of the doubt. Ski playing kissy face with Andy Stanley and others outside of the WELS is another good example. Then we have Time of Disgrace.....
Those who drink from the CG cup will experience the perverted unforeseen outcome of destruction.
Anon 9:11 asks "What is the attraction to CG doctrine?"
From my experience CG occurs at three levels for different reasons:
1) For the laity - lack of education and understanding of the Bible. At least this is my personal experience. Although born to a WELS pastor I always perceived those "haughty confessional Lutherans" to be arrogant, close-minded, and boring.
By the grace of God, I was led to actually read His Word and the Lutheran Confessions. My "stuffy" pastor also unapologetically preaches law, gospel, and rightly administers the sacraments. When faithful WELS pastors (yes, that is not an oxymoron) preach God's unadulterated Word, that's what we expect to happen.
2) Pastors - I believe pastors are swept away by the promises of fame and fortune that CG offers. Since the ways of CG are parallel to the ways of the world, its popular (by definition) nature is an easy sell. The lack of education piece applies here as well.
3) Synod-wide - CG has been permitted to take hold and grow in WELS because of the administrative quagmire that ensues. I believe many pastors and even more laypersons want this crap out of WELS. With every passing year and with each additional unionistic conference, the roots of CG grow stronger and those poor "haughty confessional Lutherans" lack the strength and spine to chop it down.
Lack of education applies at synod level as well.
-TM
TM,
Your observation regarding the connection of CGM to Synod administration -- or Administration with a capital "A" -- resonates with me. The principles of CGM grow out of organizational theory, and in the Church, represent the wish-dreams of Administrators become reality.
My father, a rather "mavericky" fellow, has spent his entire life studying organizations and administrators for the sole purpose of knowing how to circumvent them. I think this grew out of his intense dislike for the administrators in charge of his tour in Vietnam... I have found that his observation regarding Administrators has in every case been true: "Administrators don't climb ladders. They start by looking for something -- anything -- to manage or administer (the smaller the better), and proceed to build a ladder beneath them by expanding the project, or adding sub-projects. They are always on top of the ladder. As the scope of their administrative responsibilities expands, so does their value and influence." Administrative growth occurs, not as individuals act out of concern for the organization, but generally as they act out of personal ambition. Administrators, ever the "creative idea men," are always suggesting new programs to administer -- it often comes off as creative philanthropy, but in reality, perhaps even sub-consciously, it's self-promoting.
CGM, with myriad projects requiring someone to administer them, dangles golden carrots in the faces of administrator-types. And when introduced to "virgin territory", to a congregation or Church Body without CGM, aggressive administrator-types become unstoppable: it's an easy opportunity to become important. If we are to get rid of CGM, as a practical matter we really ought to severely reduce the administrative positions that serve to lure such personalities to begin with, limit the number, scope, and duration of "new programs," require frequent turnover of staff who serve in administrative positions, and really scrutinize the roots of "new programs."
My Opinion,
Freddy Finkelstein
"If we are to get rid of CGM, as a practical matter we really ought to severely reduce the administrative positions that serve to lure such personalities to begin with, limit the number, scope, and duration of "new programs," require frequent turnover of staff who serve in administrative positions, and really scrutinize the roots of "new programs.""
Makes sense to me. We need to get the budget under control after the Gurgle legacy.
Freddy,
I couldn't agree more. I work in the nonprofit sector and have noticed that the number one concern of any organization is not to fulfill its mission statement. Instead, it is the survival of the organization via raising revenue.
One result is that the raison d'etre of the organization takes a back seat to fundraising. A more sinister result is that America is breeding a viscious brood of bureaucrats more intent on getting paid than getting work done. This can be witnessed in most nonprofits, in every level of government, and sadly in church administrations as well.
I would love to poll the entire synod to see the correlation between views on CGM and political stances. My guess is that "haughty confessionals" would tend toward Libertarianism while CGM advocates probably buy into the gimmickry of our dear, freedom-hating Obamassiah and Community Organizer in Chief. Those who are apathetic on CGM probably vote a straight Rebublican ticket without being able to articulate why or identify major policies or their implications.
Perhaps Parish Services can facilitate this survey as their last hoorah.
-TM
Post a Comment