Our pastor uses the term "plunder the Egyptians" a lot. I am not exactly sure what is meant by this, and since he has used it so long I am now embarrassed to ask what he means by the phrase whenever he mentions it.
I think it has something to do with using the secular world to achieve sacred objectives. In this case, using taxpayer money (even though the people sending their kids to WELS schools are usually tax payers) is sort of like plundering the Egyptians.
Back in ancient times when I was in WELS schools, it was a source of pride that WELS did NOT accept public money.
I guess maybe this has changed?
Our WELS teachers would often critically point out that Roman Catholic school children would often have "Vote Yes" stickers on their book bags for various proposals which would allow parochial schools access to public funds.
So I guess we are now supposed to plunder the Egyptians?
On their way out of slavery in Egypt, the Israelites boldly asked the Egyptians for their finest goods (plundering the Egyptians). In other words, they actually had to walk up to the Egyptians and ask them for things.
Ironically, our pastor does not believe in walking the neighborhood and canvassing potential members.
---
GJ - The term was used by St. Augustine, but more recently by Larry Crab, one of the favorites of Fuller Seminary. David Valleskey, former president of The Sausage Factory, used the term "spoiling the Egyptians" to say we needed the gold and precious jewels of Fuller Seminary, his alma mater, in WELS.
I pointed out to Valleskey, when he gave the paper, that the Israelites stole the gold and jewels from the Egyptians, not their garbage. He scowled. Later he claimed I never talked to him about his essay.
So I imagine the pastor is simply echoing Valleskey. One of the ELS professors gave his Amen Halleluia chorus paper on Church Growth by quoting Valleskey quoting Crab. Nothing is new or original in the Church Growth Movement. Even Craig Groeschel admits cobbing from Andy Stanley, and everyone cool borrows heavily from both of them.
Valleskey's essay would been more accurate if it had been titled "Figs From Thistles," but that was what I called my response to his false doctrine.
ICHABOD, THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED - explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, to attack Objective Faithless Justification, Church Growth Clowns, and their ringmasters. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Isaiah 55:8ff. Romans 10. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Left-wing, National Council of Churches denominations.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Plundering or Spoiling the Egyptians
Hope Floats
On Big Foundation/Thrivent Bucks
Journal Online
Hope Christian Schools building $3.27 million K-8 school
By Alan J. Borsuk of the Journal Sentinel
HOPE Christian Schools, a network of three north side schools known for structured and demanding programs, is taking a big step forward with construction of a $3.27 million building.
The new building, at 3601 N. Port Washington Ave., will allow the HOPE Middle School to be restructured as a kindergarten through eighth-grade program. The school is now located in the Holton Youth Center at 510 E. Burleigh St.
HOPE is affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and also includes a K-8 school at 2345 N. 25th St. and a high school at 3215 N. King Drive. Together, the schools have more than 500 students, almost all of them participants in Wisconsin's private school voucher program.
HOPE leaders said they aim to open in September in the new building, offering 4- and 5-year-old kindergarten and first and second grades along with middle school grades. The middle school currently has about 70 students. Plans call for the new school to have about 250 students in all grades within five years.
The two-story building under construction now will primarily consist of classrooms. Fund raising is under way for a $2.5 million second stage of construction that would add a gym, library, cafeteria and additional classrooms.
"With the support of our local and national partners, we will put thousands of children on the path to college and contribute to efforts to help Milwaukee build and maintain a viable work force," Andrew Neumann, president of the HOPE network, said in a statement.
Money for the first stage of the new building came from donors, including the Siebert Lutheran Foundation, the Elizabeth A. Brinn Foundation and PAVE, an organization that has helped schools, primarily in the voucher program, for more than 15 years. The effort also received a $1 million low-interest loan from an organization known as the Illinois Facilities Fund.
Among other major supporters of HOPE in recent years is Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and its foundation.
The new building is being designed not only to be energy efficient - with some solar and geothermal power features - but to have those systems exposed and easily viewable so students can learn from them.
The HOPE network began in 2002 with about 50 students in the facility on N. 25th St.
The schools require students to wear uniforms, have strict codes of behavior and generally use educational materials that emphasize building skills. There is also a strong emphasis on Christian content during the school day.
In addition to its obvious meaning, HOPE is an acronym for Hold Onto the Promises Everywhere. "The promises" include fulfillment of religious as well as academic aspirations.
---
Hope Schools
HOPE opened its doors in 2002 with one school and nearly 50 students. Today, HOPE operates three schools in Milwaukee’s central city – an elementary school (K5-8), a middle school (5-8) and a high school, serving close to 500 students and their families.
***
GJ - The voucher program allows the government to control "private schools."
Monday, March 2, 2009
Resignation of Bruce Becker,
WELS Perish Services
board member of Church and Chicanery.
Conference 09
Nov 5th - 7th
Wyndham Milwaukee Airport Hotel and Convention Center
C&C events are a great place to network with people who have similar ministries, situations and problems. Come, learn and benefit from everyone's experience!
More information is coming soon! [March 2nd - Still no world on Stetzer as the speaker]
WELS Call List:
Resigned call
Becker, Rev Bruce H Board for Parish Ser - Milwaukee WI 03/15/2009
But re-signed at Time of Grace.
Over 1,000 hits on our website just last week! Thanks to everyone who made that possible. We are on the google map.
about 4 hours ago from TweetDeck
[GJ - Ichabod made it possible, but Ski refuses to be my friend on Facebook. Is that reaching out?]
From the pricey executive assistant:
looking back through "unChrisrtian" (sic) and this made me stop & think: "we have become famous for what we oppose, rather than who we are for"
about 7 hours ago from TweetDeck.
@thompsonworld yeah, pretty sad isn't it? but what are we doing to fix it? God's Word is powerful but we sure do a lot to keep ppl from it
about 17 hours ago from Tweetie in reply to thompsonworld [GJ - Rejecting the efficacy of God's Word is one of the best ways to keep people from it.]
***
GJ - Church and Change was begun to oppose the Confessions, good spelling and grammar. Bailing Water comment: "Oh, and before anyone accuses me of slander for calling Becker a heretic, please remember that he just initiated a study to find find out what 'besides the Means of Grace' causes congregations to grow. That's heresy."
All Four Hoenecke Volumes Are Now in Print
Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics
Volumes 1 & 2
by Adolf Hoenecke (1835-1908)
15N0745, 15N0736, 15N0749 (Four Volume Set)
What is it?
• originally written in German, they are two volumes in a collection of four that sets forth the doctrines of Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions in a thesis and antithesis format. They are the third and fourth volumes to be translated and published in English.
About the author
• served as the president of the Wisconsin Synod's seminary during its early years.
• the foremost theologian of the early Wisconsin Synod.
• one of America's foremost confessional Lutheran dogmaticians.
Features/Benefits
• published posthumously by his sons in 1909 and 1912, these volumes first served as important
dogmatics produced by German Lutherans in America.
• Hoenecke quotes from the Lutheran Confessions and the dogmaticians of the 17th century, but his conclusions rest firmly on Scripture. For this reason, his position is still valid today.
• Volume 1 studies the nature, development, and task of prolegomena. Topics addressed in prolegomena include Religion, Theology, Dogmatics (including the history of Lutheran dogmatics), Sacred Scripture as the source and basis of religion, theology, and dogmatics (inspiration, properties of Scripture, canon, articles of faith, symbolical books).
• Volume 2 studies Dogmatics proper 1) Theology in the narrow sense including: the knowledge of God, the existence of God, the essence and attributes of God, the trinity of God, the works of God: creation and providence, the angels 2) Anthropology - in general, the original state of mankind, the state of corruption (sin, guilt, needed punishment, the fall, original sin, hardening, temporal death, free will).
• stand alongside Francis Pieper's Christian Dogmatics as one of the best Lutheran dogmatics produced.
• has served as an important touchstone for the teaching of systematic theology at Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary in Mequon, Wisconsin.
• available in Four Volume Set of Evangelical Dogmatics, by Adolf Hoenecke (15N0749).
Specifications
• 6” x 9”. Hardcover. 577 pages, and 513 pages.
• includes an index, subjects, Scripture passages, footnotes, and a works cited.
Other related NPH Products
• Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, Volume 3 (15N0698) by Adolf Hoenecke
• Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, Volume 4 (15N0626) by Adolf Hoenecke
Corky Koeplin's Paper, 1992 - Ipsissima Verba
REFLECTIONS, CONCERNS, AND QUESTIONS
ABOUT OUR BELOVED WELS – 1992
Why is it that after a fairly long life, thirty-nine years of which have been spent in the public ministry of our dear synod, three questions, somewhat similar in content, persistently come to mind?
1. “WELS, oh WELS, wherefore art thou my WELS?”
2. The song title: “Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered”
3. “Oh foolish, WELS, who hath bewitched you?”
Why on earth do I feel at times like a traumatized lover, a Blue’s singer and an ancient Galatian? What is the cause, or are the causes, for a soul’s deep distress? Perhaps it isn’t at all strange to find comfort in the fact that I am not alone in my anxiety and concern. Multiple scores of brothers throughout the length and breadth of synod, covering the spectrum of ages and types of pastoral services, share all or most of these distressing concerns. These are good men; tried, true blue and tested in the crucible of devoted service to Christ and the synod. Some few are honored “em’s”; some seminary professors; some full-time or part-time synod or district administrators. The vast majority are evangelical parish pastors whose work and lives center squarely on the proclamation of the saving Gospel of our Lord Jesus. They abhor legalism, eschew extremism, while craving balance and moderation in judgment. If someone insists on a label, try: “Progressive-Conservative.”
At the risk of missing a few key points, -- a “P-C” is:
A. pleased to be rooted in the Scriptural and the Lutheran Confessions and yet is not afraid to “try something new or different”;
B. in love with the King James version but uses a more modern English translation in both pulpit and readings;
C. happy to be Christian, Lutheran and WELS;
D. virtually a workaholic, but knows full well that whatever good results are strictly due to the gracious work of the Spirit and whatever “bad” results are due to human inadequacies, his;
E. not afraid to launch out into deep “at Thy word,” but prays fervently for an extra measure of uncommon sanctified sense so that the “new” does not get in the way of the Spirit’s work;
F. not hankering for, longing for, or pining after a return to the “good old days.” But, while recognizing that change and new are inevitable, wants to be certain that the changes are rooted in our WELS heritage and not because of some outside and strange shepherd-teacher or ecclesiastical heritage;
G. quick to recognize and say that non-WELS folk may indeed have some good ideas and sound methods which we may “sanitize,” adapt and adopt, but only if the terminology employed has not been co-opted by the heterodox so as to confuse the faithful rather than edify them.
-2-
In short, these dear brothers are not fanatical “headhunters” nor do they subscribe in any form or fashion to some sort of a “conspiracy theory “that” someone” or “some group” is quietly and persistently trying to drag the WELS to “the left” into the 21st century. However, rejecting that nonsense does not still the anxious hearts either. What is it, rather than who is it, that “troubleth Israel/WELS”? Our concerns can perhaps be summed up into six major categories to whit:
1. A Synodical Drift.
2. The “Business” of the Church Supplanting the Work of the Church.
3. An Unhealthy Inroad of “Church Growth.”
4. A Top Heavy Administration.
5. A Denigration of the Holy Ministry.
6. A Dismantling of the Worker Training System.
Before we look at these items individually, one or two things should be said at the outset. We freely grant that many, if not most of the items listed fall into the category of “feelings,” “impressions,” “observations” and/or “perceptions.” All of the assertions can be flatly denied. But deniability does not obviate reality even if the reality may indeed be somewhat nebulous. Even as we are free to say that Christian brothers of good heart and intent will not and do not agree with our assessments, so also do we ask that the same characterizations be granted to those who respectfully disagree with the assumption that “all is well in the WELS.” Give us the courtesy of a brotherly and thoughtful hearing when we say, “there is – something – an ecclesiastical bug – if you will, that is threatening and attacking the body of corporate WELS and let’s get it now before we wind up in an intensive care ward. No, WELS is not “sick unto death!” By the same token, please grant that “Mother WELS” has more than a simple case of the sniffles.
1. “A SYNODICAL DRIFT”
Yea verily, this concern is perhaps the hardest one to quantify and the most difficult to articulate. Granted, it is a feeling, a perception. But it is also, in our judgment, real enough to be felt and perceived by a rising number of synodical historians, insiders, outsiders and watchers. Again, in our judgment, our beloved WELS is adrift in a sea of indecision. It does not seem to know where it’s going nor how to get there. It seems to lack a unifying focus as it once had in the years immediately following the breakup of the Synodical Conference. It was a mission church on fire for Christ, and from the humble parish pastor in Pumpkin Junction to the high echelon of leadership –‘ most every pastor zeroed in on getting the gospel of Jesus out to a dying and needy world. Say what you will, that driving passion is not present today. Instead we find rising numbers of parish pastors who, to an ever increasing degree, have pronounced a pox on the mail people who deliver rafts of directives, injunctions, appeals, updates (as opposed
-3-
to down dates), and notices of workshops, seminars and skill sharpening sessions all streaming forth Niagara-like from “2929.” They’ve simply “withdrawn”; will do only those synodical “things” that they absolutely “have to,” – but without enthusiasm. Far too many of the foot soldiers of Jesus have said by their lack of gung ho response: “Hey, ‘synod,’ bug off! I’ll work my heart out and my head off in my local vineyard; just leave me alone! You solicit my support, but only if support begins and ends with $$$$ and evermore of them. My advice and counsel is not sought, and if by chance an honest question is raised, it is brushed aside as either being “false” or one raised out of ignorance in not seeing ‘the big picture.’ Hey, O.K. if I’m too ill-informed to get it, go fetch it without me. I pass.” Now apparently “someone” in 2929 may have sensed something of this because “Mission Vision 2,000+” appeared and was adopted with great fanfare at a reasonably recent synod convention. It paints pictures. It sets goals. It lays out plans. It has objectives. It contains numbers for every division, sub-division and unit of synod. It also, unfortunately and factually, falls far short of being the unifying force and rallying point that perhaps it was intended to be. The document is seriously, if not fatally flawed.
You cannot take a document born out of “dreams” (“If there were neither restraints of men and money, where/what would like to see our synod be, go and do next year, three years, five years, ten years from now? Dare to dream a little and let not your dreams be small.”) and then when reality and expectation do not come together, draw the conclusion that somehow we are “failing” as a synod because MV 2000+ says so!
While it is most certainly true that we are confident that not one of our pastoral brothers, synod-wide, does not freely confess from the heart that “the Spirit works;when and where He wills, and is solely responsible for the increase,” nonetheless, numbers, statistics, percentages, growth patterns (or lack thereof), and the ubiquitous bottom-line have SEEMINGLY been cited with alarming regularity. Numbers (not the biblical book), have SEEMINGLY achieved an unhealthy status in our circles.
One of the by-products of the bottom-line fetish has been that many of our parish pastoral brothers have been given yet another ticket for an unwanted, unnecessary, unasked for and unappreciated guilt trip. These distressed brothers have in turn adopted a defensive mode which has also resulted in a rising confrontational stance, “2929” versus “us.”
It is inevitable that this question arises: “Who Is Running the Synod?” We speak not concerning those matters where the Word has clearly spoken, but rather, “Who Is In Charge? Who Sets the Direction? Who Points the Direction Where We Should Be Going and What and How We Should Be Doing It?”
-4-
Is it: a) the General President and the Praesidium?
b) the Coordinating Council?
c) the Board of Trustees?
d) the Conference of Presidents?
e) the Synod in Convention?
f) all of the above?
g) none the above?
h) a combination of the above?
At the present there seems to be a large amount of confusion as to who is supposed to do what. Are we run by a Board of Directors, titled in the WELS, the Coordinating Council? Are we run by the Board of Trustees? Is it a shared responsibility between these two boards?
Constitutionally the lines are clear. But in fact, the reality is a whole lot less clearly defined which has resulted in “The Drift.” How do the district presidents, full-time pastors, and part-time administrators fit into this equation? Again, constitutionally they seem to be restricted to “spiritual matters.” They seem to have little or no voice in practical policy and programs of synod. Is this wise? Is this truly in the best interest of the synodiacal “good and welfare?” The upshot of all this is that there is no clear, insistent clarion call to united action. The trumpet seems to be muted and that, to us, is distressing.
2. THE “BUSINESS” OF THE CHURCH SUPPLANTING
THE “WORK” OF THE CHRUCH
The second concern is like unto the first. Indeed, it is related. Since the mid-eighties it seems that more and more (all) of our WELS – work has fallen under a financial microscope. This is a mixed blessing. On the one hand , none of us are that obtuse not to recognize that money, offerings, the synod dollar, the financial resources the Lord places into our hand; call it what you will, is the “mother’s milk to church work.” Missionaries, professors, et al. need to be salaried/supported. Utilities, vendors of all sorts and description need to be satisfied with legal tender. Secondly, who will argue with good stewardship? Properly understood, the terms, like unto “careful money management,” “maximum results,” “accountability,” – even “more bang for the buck” take on an almost benign air. On the other hand, we do take some umbrage over money calling the shots; decisions which are financially driven; the financial tail wagging the mission dog. Now
-5-
lest some feel that the terminology is both too judgmental or pejorative, kindly permit a brief demonstration to illustrate their aptness. I shall cite but four programs which started out on a pious and devoted “wish list,” captured the heart, interest and imagination of a God-fearing, Christ-believing Christian and are now up and running as part of a synodical budgetary program:
a) Brazil;
b) Taiwan #4;
c) Germany/Eastern Europe (Two year, two men to assist our brothers who formerly were in East Germany;
d) the seminary graduate to the CIR (Russia)
Now understand, NONE of these programs are bad, bad, bad,! On the contrary, they are good! We rejoice, thank and praise a gracious God that He moved the hearts of monetarily blessed Christians to see a special need and have the wherewithal to make something good happen. But that is not the point. These four world mission illustrations hopefully serve to demonstrate that in all innocence and honesty a pliosophical/theological inversion has occurred. We seemingly have gone from, “There’s the Lord’s work, let’s find the money to do it”; to: “There’s the Lord’s work, let’s check our bottom-line to see how much of it we can do.” There is a vast difference, not at all subtle, between the two approaches to “the Lord’s Work.” We know that the WELS cannot do it all. We know that our inability to do it all should not, must not, prevent us from doing all that we can. We know that it takes “someone” to exercise leadership and that “someone” must exercise “value judgments.”
What seems to be missing in these value judgments is the Faith Factor, an unquantifiable attitude of heart and mid-set. It will appear in no computer spread sheet. One cannot attach a number to it on an accountant’s ledger. But, in the Lord’s work, in the “business” of the church, it must be taken into account as “bottom-lines” are scrutinized and evaluated! Parish pastors, hopefully all pastors, know whereof we speak. In a congregation, when the pastor(s) and perhaps key leadership are convinced that a new project which will cost money is in the best interest of: the good and welfare of the kingdom; is the product of prayer, planning and analysis; is both the work and will of God, --but does not have the full cost of the project firmly in hand- four phrases will be sounded by someone in the voters’ assembly just as sure as crabgrass grows bigger and quicker than good lawn seed:
a) “we’ve got to be practical”;
b) “we’ve got to be realistic”;
c) “ we can’t afford it”;
d) “we’ve got to count the cost before we go into battle.”
-6-
Confidently looking for and expecting the blessing of God is NOT “practical” nor “realistic.” It’s the faith factor! “Can’t afford it” is a matter of sanctified Christian judgment while, surely, it is a RARE WELS pastoral bird who ignores the biblical injunction concerning “cost counting.”
We are not aware of a single WELS parish that does NOT have a budget. Similarly there isn’t one around that constructs its budget on its bank or checkbook balance. Likewise the parish does not exist that first takes commitments and then, on the basis of what the commitment total is, - construct the budge. Neither does our synod. Congregations and the synod take into account those who are unwilling to commit/“pledge” (but have, will, and do bring gifts), incidental offerings, special gifts, wills, bequests, and the Faith Factor. We recognize our responsibility; we accept it; we set about, under God to do it.
Our God does, in a very real sense, ask us to “crawl out on a limb.” He, on the other hand, promises not to saw it off behind us. It seems too many of us that we today, in our synod, have business expertise, business, acumen, business efficiency, and business techniques. We also seem to have in abundance, practical thinkers who deal in realism and are great in cost counting and accounting. What seems to be in short supply is a mind-set, that risks, dares, and is sure that the faith factor is not dreamy idealism. Has the time come to find the answer to the questions: “Is the Lord’s business (WELS) business – a business?” “Is the Lord’s business the same as any other large multi-national corporation?” “Can we apply the same business principles which are good, tried and true on the “outside” to the WELS?”
Maybe all of the horror stories of the 30’s, those terrible times when our synod was in deep financial trouble, when professors and what few home missionaries we had waited for “short” checks, -- maybe we still bear the deep psychological scars which that near bankrupt condition placed upon our WELS soul. But we now ask, one-half a century later, and just that much closer to The Day, have we become not just “fiscally conservative,” but a timid and frightened synod, who if we can’t see it on our bottom- lines, if we can’t put our finger into the black and white numbers, -- we will not believe in a nebulous “faith factor”. What we respectfully ask is that the questions be addressed via a study of Scripture and perhaps settle the unsettling perception that we’ve somehow reversed how we carry out the Lord’s work, the business of the WELS.
3. “AN UNHEALTHY INFLUENCE OF CHURCH GROWTH”
It is precisely in the area of this concern that our “nervous needle” jumps off the
-7-
meter. What on earth is happening in our WELS? Some seem to be “talking funny” and regional accents have nothing to do with it. Our once common theological language is undergoing a metamorphosis so that either we yearn for parenthetical explanation or a translator or both, to explain what is meant when these foreign-to-WELS-words are used. What manner of language is being used? For want of a better descriptive term, we’ll call it: “CG-speak.” Kindly permit a few examples:
a) Apparently we are not to shepherd God’s flock any longer, we are to “minister” to them.
b) Apparently it’s somewhat passé to teach our people “whatsoever I have commanded you,” we “disciple” them.
c) Instead of “leading people into the pleasant pastures of the word and giving them to drink of the Living Water,” we now are to “nurture” them.
d) People are to “grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The biblical quote is less seen than the words “discipling” and “nurturing.”
e) Although we’ve been “saved to serve,” now we should think of a variety of “ministries,” such as “the ministry of leaf raking,” “the ministry of snow shoveling” and “the ministry of greeting.” Not to be overlooked is the wonderful fun ministry, “the ministry of valet parking.!”
f) Care should be taken that our services, in addition to being the usual edifying, should also be “user friendly.” Additional care should be taken to avoid the name, Lutheran, since it is “well known”(?) that the name, Lutheran is a “turnoff” (in sharp contrast to being “turned on” by “entertainment evangelism” and that marvelous “user friendly” service).
At this point, before proceeding, it perhaps would be wise to comment briefly on the Church Growth Movement itself before proceeding to “CG-speak.” We acknowledge that not everything is rotten about CGM. There are some few so-called “common sense” things (a misnomer), that many have done or are doing as an automatic. For example, is there a WELS pastor around who does not emphasize that the congregation’s ushers should look neat, clean, tidy and well dressed, as well as giving off an aura of friendly welcome as they distribute the worship folders of the day? What disturbs us is the origin, the authorship and the theological heritage of CGM. Although it is used by lawyers, to some of us the “poison fruit” terminology with reference to bodies of evidence, seems to not be fit, but apply in the case of CGM. Luther identified it as “the other of different spirit” at Marburg. He did not classify his opponent as a non-Christian antagonist; but Ulrich badly needed a theological attitude adjustment. The upshot of this is that WELS Lutherans do not leave
-8-
“Wittenberg” and take excursions into “Geneva” to see what “good things” we can pick up, use and ingest. We feel that the warning label, “Poison Fruit,” should be printed in bold type and affixed to all things having to do with the CGM. We are aware that some may indeed say that first of all we are “too extreme” and secondly our COP has looked into it, commissioned our seminary to examine and dissect it and that our official WELS position is that the CGM is “wanting,” to say the least. We would simply counter by contending that a defense of our theological heritage is hardly “extremism” and that in our honorable effort to be “balanced” in our critique we MAY have given a measure of credibility of the CGM by “damning it faintly.”
Two other items need to be touched on at this point in time:
1) Why have some felt the need to use “CG-speak” in a variety of communications one to the other? Is it wise, is it in the best interests of the WELS to use terms and phrases which unfortunately have been co-opted by the heterodox, Reformed, Evangelicals and suchlike?
To illustrate: It may be biblically correct (there’s nothing “wrong” with the phrase), to refer to Mary, the mother of our Lord, as “The Blessed Virgin Mother.” But brothers, who in the WELS speaks like that? The term, like “catholic,” has been co-opted by the Romanists! These are “good” words; a good title, but it simply is neither wise nor expedient to use them. So also with “CG-speak.” Uncommon sanctified sense would seem to indicate that we avoid, discontinue use of, or at the very least, be extremely judicious in the sparing use of co-opted terms and phrases.
2) Are we way off the mark when we express concern over our WELS brothers taking in seminars, workshops, etc. etc. sponsored by and featuring CG speakers? What do we hope to learn from teachers who are not of our theological persuasion? Verily, we do turn out mature men of discernment from our seminary. But it’s hard to erase the biblical picture of the Apostle Peter, who only wanted to warm himself by the fire, and see what he could see and perhaps learn about the fate of his Lord. Although there wasn’t a fire-blister apparent on Peter, who will argue that “he got burned!” Is it “absurd” to think that maybe; just maybe, that if we persist in warming ourselves by the fires of false teachers in an effort to rid ourselves of the cutesy but terribly unfair label of “The Frozen Chosen”, a whole host of good WELS-folk are going to be badly burned and blistered?
Perhaps this section can be concluded by the one final set of not-so-nice questions.
a) However inadvertently and with the purest of intentions, have some subconsciously fallen victim to “a number fixation?” “Why can’t we of the WELS, who have the truth, grow, go and share?” “There’s got to be something wrong somewhere! We’re not doing something right! We’re not
-9-
growing as we should or could!” It’s vexing to see the Elmbrooks and the Willow Creeks, almost in our backyards with their thousands per Sunday,- While we sit there with our couple hundred thousand WORLD WIDE!
b) Is it barely possible; Is it even worth a long second look; Is it unseemly even to ask the question;- that there has been a subtle shift from a “Theology of The Cross” (its proclamation) to a “Theology of Glory” (“results”)??? In the end, we feel strongly that the nose of the “CG camel” has stuck itself into our WELS tent and before that ungainly beast succeeds in making further inroads which may indeed destroy our heritage- habitat, we call for a theological whacking across the snout of the strange animal with a large 2x4 so that the CGM gets an unmistakable message: “CGM is neither welcomed, wanted or needed in the WELS!”
5. A TOP HEAVY ADMINISTRATION
Here we address the concern of not only the explosion of the number of people employed/called to “2929” but also what we sense as a shift in mind-set.
1. In 1985 when our synod reorganized itself organizationally, we added ca. 1 million dollars to our administrative costs.
2. We readily recognize that we must have a certain amount of administrative personnel to manage and coordinate a relatively complex entity called “the synod.”
3. Since the 1991 convention called for the formation for a CPR (Committee on Program Review), we will not address the concern of too many full time people producing too much of “a good things.”
4. Rather, we ask respectfully, are our administrative people resource people, people who serve the body of synod, or are they people who lead, formulate and set both policy and programs for the WELS?
In all candor, the reason for this 
last question is the unmistakable feeling/perception that we of the WELS are now working from the top down, that decisions are made and announced from headquarters to the trench. For those who would vigorously decent (sic) from that assessment, we would submit in meekness the following: Olympia Village, Oconomowoc. A few years ago everyone and anyone who had anything at all to do with synodical administration and/or budget planning was summoned to Olympia Village where it was announced that from henceforth, “Decision Package Budgeting” was in. “Old things are passed away. Behold, all things are new!” No one asked the troops. The new marching orders were given, period. We had the option-presumably, to love it or hate it. It really made no difference. THIS IS THE WAY IT SHALL BE DONE! All descended from Olympia with instruction sheets and manuals firmly in hand.
- 10 -
Oconomowoc was not an administrative and therefore an internal matter. It was a precursor of things to come and with ever greater frequency. One not so little illustration: If “someone” has “nominated” members of our parish, (identified those who have been thought of being blessed with golden heels), they will be solicited by a LHTC worker for a special gift-with or without (obviously, preferably with), the parish pastor’s blessing. This has caused perceptive lay people to ask, along with aggrieved pastors, “Has synod abandoned its traditional raising of funds THROUGH the congregations or does it now try to raise its funds through a “heavy hitter’s list” nationwide? This is merely another symptom of not running a synod by consensus but by decree. From the bottom up may indeed be not only idealistic, impossible and totally impractical, but could someone please be more conscious leading by the velvet cords of love rather than a pronouncement? This leads us to yet another nettlesome concern: “pastor bashing.” We hastily acknowledge that we are aware of the fact that this is NOT an all pervasive, common or every day occurrence. But even if it happens on occasion with some degree of regularity, it bothers and disturbs our community. Phrases such as: “If only the pastors out there would...,” “There are some pastoral pockets of resistance out there which...” -should be purged from all speech and hearts. It does not bode well for the church to have synodical administration and pastors fall into a confrontational posture. Let’s unite to fight sin and Satan and not each other!
6. A DENIGRATION OF THE HOLY MINISTRY
Here we speak of EFFECT, not cause. Somewhere, somehow, we recently have seen the rise of the use of the use of words, “ministry” and “ministries.” We are now seemingly awash in a variety of ministers ministering to segments and/or special interest groups of God’s people via a plethora of ministries. You name it; we’ve got it-“just like the Big Boys” of the church world. Who says that WELS isn’t a “full service church,” (and that phrase could use some catechtical examination), we minister to every age group, sex marital status, and special interest under the sun. And well we should! But haven’t we in the past? Have we failed so miserably in olden days so as to call for a total revamping and remaking of our WELS corps of pastors? Yes, a case could well be made for the use of the words minister, ministry and ministries. But as we plunge forward in our enthusiasm for the training of, placement and use of a variety of staff ministers, could we ask whatever happened to THE ministry? Is it just one of scores? Less than a generation ago if the answer to the question were given, “Well, I’m the minister of St. Peter’s Lutheran Church,” most, if not all, rational people
- 11 -
would know what I am and do! Want to try that today? Would not a more likely response to your humble question be, “Yes, that’s nice, but what do you do??” We feel that there is a swiftly approaching case of wholesale confusion “out there” while at the same time, there is,-albeit unconscious, a denigration of the Holy Ministry and its ministers. The ministry is being demeaned by the excessive use of the term to denote various service activities in the Church. Could we ask for a study of Scripture concerning these terms, titles and activities? Let’s review the Greek again and attempt to underscore what the Spirit meant to tell us when he used different words to describe differing aspects of serving in and service to the body of Christ?
7. A DISMANTLING OF OUR WORKER TRAINING SYSTEM
Indeed, we grant that some may vigorously take exception to the term, “dismantling.” But with all due deference and with a brief apology to the person who first coined the hoary phrase: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, squawks like a duck-it ain’t a horse!” There were four. But then, the numbers weren’t right; “too much money for too few church worker candidates.” Tearfully, we closed Mobridge. And then there were three. “MLPS is too expensive! We’ve got too much plant for not enough students. A million plus extra is going into that school each year we run it. Let’s close it.” And soon there are to be two. But this triggers multiple moves. Move MLPS; merge it into NPS and bring forth one new prep school with a new name and say goodbye to an over 100 year old school. Move NWC to DMLC and merge it so that we have two schools, on terminal and one preparatory on the same campus.
Take a unique crown jewel out of our educational system, the only single purpose, single focus college in the U.S. if not the world and put the two student bodies on the same campus while building lasting friendships as future co-workers. Truly, we understand that closing a campus is not the same as getting out of the college training program for pastoral candidates altogether.
But please understand us when we say that it looks like a radical departure from the tried, true and traditional. It even looks like-forgive us- a piecemeal dismantling of our worker training system. Right here is the place where each of these concerns of our seem to be linked. One of the major reasons MLPS is getting its feet put to the fire is because is IS too much plant for too few students and it does cost a bundle. But, would the question have come
- 12 -
up if we would have had a constant set of significant percentage increases of the synodical portion of our congregations offering in the last ten years? Well, why isn’t the money rolling into “2929?” Could it possibly be because of a growing disaffection for the way things are or are not done; the way decisions roll down from the heights of Mayfair Road; the frustration pastors feel over not being able to implement every new program and project streaming forth out of headquarters; the inability of the pastors to deal with the guilt trips they’ve been given the feeling of pastors that we are ill trained and ill equipped to effectively serve Christ in a ministry that has passed us by?
Some closing thoughts about our worker training system and its current trauma.
1. In view of the wide variety of reaction to the special study committee’s report and recommendations to the districts, we feel that very few MAJOR decisions of long-range consequence be sought of the 1993 synod convention. There simply are too many unanswered questions and we are too far removed from a consensus agreement by an overwhelming majority to make moves which radically alter our workers training system for the next century.
2. We also feel that a substantial number of pastors, while recognizing that MLPS has performed well and admirably under some very difficult circumstances, may have come to also recognize that it is too large of a facility for too few students.
3. In light of the foregoing we would respectively ask that more study be given to alternatives such as proposed by at least one of our districts; sell the campus at “PDC”; move the school, so to speak, and merge it into ALA (thus fulfilling the fondest dreams of the founders of “The Academy”); but leave the colleges substantially untouched.
In conclusion, this isn’t the last word about “concerns,” it’s just the latest. We have tried to be moderate and evangelical in our judgments and statements. Where we’ve failed and some one of our brothers has been inadvertently and unintentionally wounded, please, please forgive. We’ve made every effort to be impersonal; it’s brothers talking shop; nothing more or less. Yes, obviously, there are a number of critical areas of concern and disagreement Therefore we earnestly pray that God will give us both direction and answers so that we can indeed walk forward together in Christ.
Celebrating His Pentecost Promise
Pastor Kurt F. Koeplin
Milwaukee, WI
August, 1992
Hoenecke Dogmatics Finished -
And On Sale -
Ten Months Before the Second Coming
Until the end of March, all the individual volumes will actually be on sale at 25% off rather than the normal 20% professional discounts--pastors won't be able to get 25% + 20%, but at least it's something!
Adolph Hoenecke (1835-1908) is one of America's foremost Lutheran dogmaticians. His examination of doctrine and practice always begins in Scripture. This is an English translation from the author's original language of German. The subject of Volume 4 continues with soteriology--the doctrine of salvation. It looks into the means by which salvation is made one's own--by the Word of God and the sacraments. It also explains the community of saved, that is, the church in general, and then the threefold difference among the members of the church. Also covered are the last things, explanations of the completion of salvation with the state after death, resurrection, final judgment, eternal damnation, and eternal life. Included in this volume are an outline for all four volumes, indexes, and a useful translator's forward by Joel D. Fredrich. Hardcover. Size, 6 x 9 inches. 412 pages. Published 1999.
Catalog Item Number: OL-150626
Regular Price: $40.50
Discounted Price: $30.38
Be sure to go to NPH.net rather than NPH.com (Nazarene Publishing House).
Here is the NPH link to one Hoenecke volume.
Hoenecke studied under Tholuck (a Pietistic Universalist) at Halle University. Hoenecke on General Justification is an interesting piece of the UOJ puzzle.
From the Popcorn Cathedral of Rock:
The Glass-Bottomed Boat Spawned by
Church and Change
may not be able to see it, but big things, great forward progress happened at The CORE this weekend. God continues to be glorified.
about 9 hours ago from TweetDeck
dreadful saturday afternoon - working with numbers again....makes my brain hurt!
11:26 AM Feb 28th from TweetDeck
***
GJ - The CORE in Appleton is run by a board member of Church and Change, Pastor Ski.
Everything The CORE does, including dropping "Lutheran" and "church", is from the Church and Change playbook, plagiarized from Fuller, Willow Creek, Andy Stanely, Craig Groeschel, Leonard Sweet, Ed Stetzer, and Werning/Hunter. Many of them plagiarize one another, so it is difficult to find the original author, apart from Old Scratch* himself. Nothing is from the Scriptures or the Book of Concord.
So if you read the material provided by Ski, you will see the content of the Parish Assistance program of WELS. That is why the Popcorn Cathedral of Rock is the glass-bottomed boat. Everyone gets to see what is really going on - the cutting edge of WELS, as they like to say. Another belch from Fuller, Trinity, and Willow Creek, as I like to say.
Reverent – pointing people to Jesus.
Relevant – meeting people where they’re at.
Relational – helping build relationships.
That is both the mission vision of one WELS church and the philosophy of The CORE. What a coincidence.
The WELS parish experts promote women ministers and rock music. What does The CORE offer? More of the same. The WELS parish experts absorb huge fees for providing what anyone can get from the Net for free. The CORE is duplicating, at an enormous cost, what several other Emergent Churches are already doing in A-Town.
*Be sure to study the http://www.churchfromscratch.net/. Oh, that is another Church and Change experiment, supported and defended by VP Patterson, funded in part by a foundation grant.
An Experiment:
Pay As You Go
Meanwhile, a woman minister will be installed, as an experiment.
Their version.
I realize that reminding people of an old concept will create immediate resistance. Trained by Church Growth experts for decades, I know that using the word experiment will accomplish the same thing.
The experiment is very simple:
1. Make do.
2. Do without.
3. Pay cash.
Overpaid consultants tell gullible congregational leaders that they will thrive if they spend a small fortune on a new building. Magic is the art of misdirecting the eyes. If they get busy spending millions on a parish hall, they will stop thinking about faithfulness to the Scriptures and the efficacy of the Means of Grace.
Parish Consultants study the local congregation in great detail and always come up with the same answers:
1. Contemporary music.
2. Women ministers.
3. Taj Mahal building plans.
They even have boiler-plate pages in their reports, which are funny and revealing, such as "when the bells stop ringing for the service..." That is a hoot when published for a WEF.
The Experiment
This costs next to nothing, so it will not be popular with those who live from grants, subsidies, and synodical life-support.
A. Rely on the historic, liturgical service, which glorifies God rather than the personality of the minister.
B. Teach the next generation to love the music and the content of the great hymns of the Christian faith.
C. Study the Word and the Confessions with material generated by the pastor rather than outsiders. This ensures that he will be renewed in his studies while providing an example for all the men in the congregation - to be spiritual leaders in their homes.
D. Limit pastoral duties to preaching, teaching, and visitation. Social activies should be managed by the laity. If they cannot generate interest - good - because social activities are not the mission of the true Church.
We had some building plans once, at another church. The members did not want to give up their 6% mortgage, so they decided to build for cash. Nothing was built until the cash was in the account. First we had a shell with windows. No money - no lights. We did not do electrical until the cash was raised, so classes were held in the debris, near the windows. Lights and electrical cost a lot, but we did without for a period of time. Once we had them installed, we waited to pay for the carpeting. The end result was a small addition which cost half the square foot amount estimated by an expert. And there was no debt load.
Robert Schuller was the founder of Church Growth and he crowed about his building plans, but nothing more has been added to his Crystal Cathedral in decades. In fact, his empire is shrinking fast. He fired his son from the airwaves, and his son quit the congregation as its pastor. Likewise, many other mega-churches have proved to be One Hit Wonders, unable to outlast their founders. Some of the worst foreclosures are coming due now - on congregations which borrowed on the pastors' ego instead of the member's ability and willingness to pay.
"Build it and they will come" is a sad perversion of the Means of Grace. Magicians call it misdirection of the eyes. With a sleight of hand, they pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Run and Hide the Congregation's Checkbook:
WELS Parish Services
The latest cause promoted and defended by Church and Change
is Pastor Ski's Popcorn Cathedral of Rock in downtown Appleton.
The March issue of FIC has a full-page ad:
WELS Parish Assistance
Turning Problems Into Opportunities
[GJ - Turning churches into Fuller franchises]
- Analyzing your Ministry
[GJ - Promoting women ministers and rock music] - Strengthening your School
[GJ - From the enemies of the school system] - Planning your Future
[GJ - Future insolvency, with an expensive building project] - Involving more Members -
[GJ - The ones we favor: the crypto-Babtists] - Developing Leadership -
[GJ - Empowering the crypto-Babtists] - Managing Change -
[GJ - Crushing the opposition to our program] - Launching new Programs -
[GJ - Making more money for our overpaid consultants]
WE CAN HELP
+Parish Assistance - A Ministry of WELS Parish Services
The Corky Koelpin Essay
all the synod, Thrivent, and and grant money
consumed by Church and Chicanery.
The triangles leaving the fish represent the toxic waste
spread by their leaders, all over the synod.
I find it strange that Issues in WELS expressed its feelings by posting an essay by a dead man, a pastor who wrote perceptively 15 years ago. Here is the link:
http://www.issuesinwels.org/RecReading07/IIWKoeplin.doc <==Dead link. Ask around: the essay is still being circulated. If someone has a Word document of the essay, I will post it verbatim.
Corky Koeplin, as he was known, was senior pastor of a large WELS church, Atonement in Milwaukee where all the synodical staff were members. He wrote this essay, had a stroke, and then died. The synod staff said he wrote it while brain damaged from the stroke, but he published it before the stroke. Someone sent it to me anonymously, so I had Christian News print it. One of my "friends" called me up to scream at me that the essay was only to be circulated "among the brothers," that this was stated on the cover sheet. The anonymous sender omitted the cover sheet. I thought it odd that the person phoning, who decried the changes in the synod, was so distraught that the synodical crisis was laid out so clearly and so publicly by one of the senior pastors.
Odder still is having pastors publishing the essay now, an indictment of the whole Issues in WELS bunch. They have been silent for 15 years. The best essay on the website is Corky's. The rest are mushy, wimpy, and poorly written.
To summarize the Koeplin essay, using his own categories.
1. A Synodical Drift.
2. The “Business” of the Church Supplanting the Work of the Church.
3. An Unhealthy Inroad of “Church Growth.”
4. A Top Heavy Administration.
5. A Denigration of the Holy Ministry.
6. A Dismantling of the Worker Training System.
Oh yes, Corky noticed they were taking apart the WELS school system 15 years ago. But wait, didn't Issues in WELS just point out the problem, as if the school crisis suddenly breached the surface, like Moby Dick?
Marcus Manthey shouts from the crow's nest, "Thar she blows! We are doomed."
The Silent Generation circulated the Corky essay covertly in 1992, angry that I had it published for everyone to see. The pastors did nothing. They said nothing. Meanwhile, they let the synod leaders behave just as Pope Pius IX did about the topic of infallibility. Every Catholic prelate had to submit to Pope Pius' infallibility. If they did not, they were punished. If they were slow to repent, they were still punished. No one was spared. Many Catholic prelates were hounded and even feared for their lives. Fear is a wonderfully motivating emotion. Some think that the infallibility decree alone had a tremendous, negative effect on European politics, making it far more secular and anti-Christian. The infallibility of the synod has had the same effect on WELS.
Looking at Corky's categories, I notice that they are more true today than in 1992. The synod, first under Naumann and then under Mischke, allowed the anti-Lutherans to take over the doctrinal leadership of the denomination. This will become clear later. Perhaps someone will write a dissertation. The evidence is abundant. They started with TELL magazine, which Synodical President Naumann endorsed. The first editor was Ron Roth. The second was Paul Kelm. The third was Robert Hartman. The theme of TELL was to promote the Church Growth Movement in WELS.
"The publication TELL ('The Evangelism Life Line') has been inaugurated to promote the cause of church growth."
Ernst H. Wendland, "Church Growth Theology," Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, April, 1981, 78, p. 105.
"When was the last time you kissed a frog?...'Lifestyle Evangelism and Follow-up,' a Navigator video seminar for the church, makes a solid case for Christian frog kissing as a way of life."
James A. Aderman, TELL, The Evangelism Life Line (WELS), Summer, 1986, p. 2.
"TELL has served the church faithfully for 15 years. Three editors have served; Ronald Roth (1977-84), Paul Kelm (1985-88), and the undersigned since 1989...The lead article in the first issue of TELL was titled 'Church Growth - Worthwhile for WELS.'...The author of this article in April 1988 issue of TELL concludes, 'It's obvious by now that I believe we in WELS can profit greatly from the writings of the church-growth leaders.' ... TELL as a separate publication ends with this issue. Nevertheless, the focus of The Evangelism Life Line will continue for years to come as an integral part of the new Board for Parish Services journal - PARISH LEADERSHIP." (Robert Hartman)
"Our decision not to use the name Lutheran in the name of the congregation seems to have caused some concern. We point you to the Lutheran confessions which clearly state that a name is an adiaphoron. So only when not using the name is a denial of what the name stands for is there a problem. We reject the inferences that have been drawn that have been drawn [sic] that it is our intention to deny the biblical teach [sic] (ibid. conservative Lutheran teaching). Put in very practical terms our question is: Can we reach more of the unchurched if we can begin with sin and grace, guilt and forgiveness, rather than having to deal with lodge, scouts, the vagaries of ELCA, etc. at the beginning."
WELS Michigan District Vice-president Paul Kuske, Letter to the Ohio Conference, Pilgrim Community Church, sponsored from Grove City by Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church Fall Conference, Gibsonia, 1989.[44] [emphasis in original]
"We have discovered that the Early Church was an institution that unknowingly saw its world through Church Growth eyes. We have some benefits they did not have in that we can look back today and analyze their successes and failures."
Floyd Luther Stolzenburg, "Church Growth - the Acts of the Apostles," Taught at St. Paul's Lutheran Church, Columbus, Ohio. Stolzenburg worked closely with Kuske in creating Pilgrim Community Church, a flop.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Corky wrote an essay 15 years ago, naming Church Growth as the main culprit in the drift of the synod. The synod's own wrecking team (Roth, Kelm, Hartman) gloated in 1992 that they had been busy promoting Church Growth for 15 years. This is the happy 30th Anniversary of Church Growth in WELS. The results are in:
1. The synod is completely broke, even with Marvin Schwan money, Thrivent gifts, and the loot from the Tetzels gathering Irrevocable Gift Trusts. Note well the first word in IGTs.
2. Two preps have been closed - Mobridge and Prairie. Northwestern College has been absorbed by Dr. Martin Luther College, its unique pastoral track ended. The pre-sem students all take the same courses as the teachers at MLC.
3. Michigan Lutheran Seminary will soon be closed by the synod, making that 3 out of 4 preps killed, but Martin Luther Prep is already losing synodical support and may close in two more years or so.
4. Closing the last two preps will finish off Martin Luther College.
5. Seminary enrollments seem to be down and will be heading downward fast with the loss of the preps. Church workers come mostly from the prep schools.
6. WELS membership has been going down ever since the Church Growth Movement was started. The solution for the declining membership has always been, "We need more Church Growth methods!"
Luther says this about false teachers:
False Doctrine Tolerated
"And such false teachers have the good fortune that all their folly is tolerated, even though the people realize how these act the fool, and rather rudely at that. They have success with it all, and people bear with them. But no patience is to be exercised toward true teachers! Their words and their works are watched with the intent of entrapping them, as complained of in Psalm 17:9 and elsewhere. When only apparently a mote is found, it is exaggerated to a very great beam. No toleration is granted. There is only judgment, condemnation and scorn. Hence the office of preaching is a grievous one. He who has not for his sole motive the benefit of his neighbor and the glory of God cannot continue therein. The true teacher must labor, and permit others to have the honor and profit of his efforts, while he receives injury and derision for his reward."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 110f. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9. Psalm 17:9.
God Punishes Ingratitude by Allowing False Teachers
"In the second place such teachers are disposed to bring the people into downright bondage and to bind their conscience by forcing laws upon them and teaching works-righteousness. The effect is that fear impels them to do what has been pounded into them, as if they were bondslaves, while their teachers command fear and attention. But the true teachers, they who give us freedom of conscience and create us lords, we soon forget, even despise. The dominion of false teachers is willingly tolerated and patiently endured; indeed, it is given high repute. All those conditions are punishments sent by God upon them who do not receive the Gospel with love and gratitude."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 111. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9. John 5:43.
False Teachers Flay Disciples to Bone
"In the third place, false teachers flay their disciples to the bone, and cut them out of house and home, but even this is taken and endured. Such, I opine, has been our experience under the Papacy. But true preachers are even denied their bread. Yet this all perfectly squares with justice! For, since men fail to give unto those from whom they receive the Word of God, and permit the latter to serve them at their own expense, it is but fair they should give the more unto preachers of lies, whose instruction redounds to their injury. What is withheld from Christ must be given in tenfold proportion to the devil. They who refuse to give the servant of truth a single thread, must be oppressed by liars."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 111f. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.
Avarice in False Teachers
"Fourth, false apostles forcibly take more than is given them. They seize whatever and whenever they can, thus enhancing their insatiable avarice. This, too, is excused in them."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.
They Lord It Over Us
"Fifth, these deceitful teachers, not satisfied with having acquired our property, must exalt themselves above us and lord it over us...We bow our knees before them, worship them and kiss their feet. And we suffer it all, yes, with fearful reverence regard it as just and right. And it is just and right, for why did we not honor the Gospel by accepting and preserving it?"
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.
We Are Dogs and Foot-Rags
"Sixth, our false apostles justly reward us by smiting us in the face. That is, they consider us inferior to dogs; they abuse us, and treat us as foot-rags."
Sermons of Martin Luther, 8 vols., ed., John Nicholas Lenker, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983, VII, p. 112. Second Sunday in Lent. 2 Corinthians 11:19-33; 12:1-9.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Support Your Local Popcorn Cathedral
Let's get this straight. Some rich WELS dudes gave a huge amount of money to start a mission one block from a WELS church with 1100 members. But this is for people who hate church, Popcorn Cathedral claims. But there are already two or three of those I-hate-church entertainment centers already in the area, the A-Town regulars say. They don't need to go to a WELS mission to hear Craig Droeschel, Andy Stanley, Leonard Sweet, and Ed Stetzer.
Anonymouse has left a new comment on your post "Church and Chicaneries Debate the Issues":
I seem to remember Jackson saying he wasn't allowed on the Church and Change List serve. Which begs the questions; Did GJ lie under some kind of anonymity to gain access? Or is there a mole that has sent him emails or much worse given their identity to GJ to peruse a list that was not meant to be public. Regardless, it is despicable.
***
GJ - By the way, that is the wrong use of begging the question, but literacy has never been a spiritual gift of the Church and Chicaneries. I hope this link helps.
I never thought of assuming a false identity to get the precious cogitations of the Church and Chicaneries. Some must be ducking for cover right now, after laying down suppressive fire.
Despicable would be exemplified by someone making false accusations anonymousely.
---
Anonymous has left an innocent comment on your post "Church and Chicaneries Debate the Issues":
Anonymouse.. what is despicable.. the C&C list serve?
Church and Chicaneries Debate the Issues
Below are words of encouragement were e-mailed to me today by a fellow brother in Christ. I have one question for you before you get encouraged.
How many more hours are men and women going to waste arguing about how to deliver the Gospel message to those who are lost and destined for hell?
Traditional, contemporary, inside, outside of the box, pastoral, lay lead ministry, focus on the older members, wait and see if the youth come back to church, your unfit to be involved in ministry, stay away from our members here is a directive from our board etc.......
I would love to hear just an ounce of God's thoughts on what He thinks of the WELS "the only denomination that holds to the true teachings of the Bible" and how many hours, day's and week's we spend ripping each other and our respective ministries apart as one by one the people who need to be rescued with the truth we brag about holding true to die.
Safe ministry? There is no such thing. Ministry is messy, stop worrying about getting dirty and dig in for Christ! What I have learned is that apart from God man can do nothing, and that our minds are hostile towards Him. Isn't ministry supposed to be about God's Kingdom purpose?
Brian Arthur Lampe
CEO-Ministries.com
Words of Encouragement;
We live in a day when leaders are often driven more by public opinion than what is right. We are each called to live a life based on obedience-based decisions, not public opinion. Living a life of obedience will often go against the tide of public opinion. Jesus lived a life based on a purity of purpose and mission. The Pharisees wanted Him to conform to the rules of religious tradition. The result was He died because He lived to obey an audience of One, not public opinion.
Are you challenged to live a life of conviction versus pleasing others? Be true to what God has called you to do no matter the cost.
Since when does "getting along" require that we neglect to discuss issues where we disagree? If some critiques have not been presented in a civil fashion, then let us repent and make future comments in a more loving manner.
I have noticed recent Quarterly and Forward In Christ articles and commentary that is clearly aimed against contemporary worship and some forms of outreach. These articles were very civil and were presented in a loving manner. I do though, find that many of the arguments presented in those articles do not apply to the contemporary WELS worship of which I am familiar. I still encourage that these issues be discussed and not ignored. While the WELS is united in doctrine, we are not always united in how to apply that doctrine.
I do not see that the WELS is spending much in the way of resources in such discussions, so I do not see it as wasting valuable resources. I see the discussion of these topics as a necessity. I expect that such discussions may go on at some level for decades. That may sound bad to some, but I see the alternative of ignoring these important issues as far worse.
in love for Christ
Mark Bergemann
LCMS is on the verge of being ripped apart over this issue - any time spent studying what God's Word has to say about this (or any other issue) is not time "wasted", IMO.
I have no idea what has caused you to feel the frustration coming across in your post, Brian, but I encourage you to give whomever is frustrating you the benefit of the doubt that they aren't just out to puff up their own pride. "Bragging" to hold to the truth is no more dangerous than "bragging" that others don't care about the lost as much as you do (I don't mean "you" personally), but I suspect that there are stronger principles at the heart of your disagreement than simple pride and its probably worth the patience to try to understand each other better.
Here are two things I know for certain:
- Sharing the Gospel is never at odds with holding to God's Truth (in fact, they rely on each other). It it feels like these are conflicting goals, then its time to revisit our theology
- Not all methods of sharing the Gospel are "neutral" with regards to God's Word. (i.e. there is more than one right way, but there are also many wrong ways - many of which are very popular today)
Mark Salzwedel
Brian, Mark, etc.,
It's too easy to think that love for pure doctrine and love for souls are at odds with one another.
In fact, I cannot love souls as Jesus wants me to unless I love the pure teaching of his Word. "The words I have spoken to you are Spirit, and they are life." (Yet thousands of people walked away from Jesus that very day, precisely because of his words! John 6:63.) "Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the Word of Christ." Simply put, announcing God's Law and Gospel, sin and forgiveness of sin, is the be all and end all for Jesus' church. We confess as Lutherans that the doctrine of Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, is the article by which the church stands or falls.
So it's also true that Satan attacks the church by refocusing on things other than the forgiveness of sins. Therefore it is absolutely essential we watch out for one another in doctrine and life. Matt. 18 (the whole chapter) focuses us on that holy and difficult duty of watching out for each other's souls.
Yes, sometimes sinful pride can say "we are the only orthodox church body." (Although we do not make that claim, actually.) And yes, sometimes sinful pride can say, "Get your nose out of what I say and teach! I don't need the admonition to watch my life and doctrine closely (1 Tim. 4:16), especially not from you! I don't see the problem. Besides, I'm trying to save the lost, and you're just getting in my way!" Paul wrote most of his letters to address problems in doctrine and practice. In Romans and Ephesians (the 2 churches that didn't have problems) he also strongly commands that we guard our doctrine.
Never be quick to judge or condemn a brother. And never be too frustrated to learn from a brother. There's a very narrow, very difficult Lutheran middle road between "don't ever change anything," and, "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." I consider it 100% certain that in the WELS, there's some of #1. And I consider it 100% certain that in the WELS, there's some of #2.
Dennis Rardin
Mark, I was glad to see your post. I may not have been paying very close
attention to what has been posted lately, so I have not picked up on the not
getting along, either. I do have some questions and am looking for some
discussion from others:
We hold a contemporary service. We use contemporary language. We 'lead' with 3
contemporary Christian-type songs, go to confession, hear basis from scripture
for the sermon then sermon, offering with prayers requests, communion, then
close with 3 songs. I have struggled to get the other musicians to understand
that there is a theme for the week's service. They may be coming around. Some
of the singers get it. Anyone else confront that or handled that same
situation?
Another 'thing' that has been bugging me. As I'm "on duty" at the organ, I am
sometimes getting music prepped and not engaged in worship, when that happens
during a prayer, I notice, from the balcony, many looking around, getting
something from a purse, etc. This may be my sinful nature, but I find myself
wondering "Do they know that this is an opportunity for them to pray along with
the Pastor? Are we teaching/reinforcing to these people that all you have to do
is show up and the pastor will pray for you?" "Do most of the people like the
contemporary service because they are entertained?" I do not see many singing
along. We even take CW hymns and jazz them up with guitar and drums. This is
hard for some from our 'band' because "those tunes just don't flow." I have
begun introducing the songs and tieing them into the theme with the lyrics, and
singing the refrain and verse without the rest of the band, so they could get a
jump on the song, but
singing still seems to be so-so.
So, I also wonder, are we teaching the people that there is value in how we
worship? Are we teaching them that it is okay to enter church with the same
reverence as a theater or symphony hall? Is it good to socialize with members
of the church? YES it is. Why do you think they built fellowship halls? (Sorry,
my editorial) I worry that we are not giving respect to God in his house. Some
may say that I am too high-church. I believe that symbols help to illustrate.
Pictures on the screen during a sermon. Processing out with the Alleluia banner
at the end of Transfiguration and minimal organ as a postlude. Alleluia is
gone, Lent is on the way. Should I feel like I'm out of touch because of a
tradition that is not contemporary? Or would that practice be viewed as
contemporary?
This actually is the tip of the iceberg. Even though I grew up in small town
MN, served in large WI conservative church, was a member of a mission church
meeting in garage of parsonage, served in metro medium-sized church/school, and
now at a larger church, I still don't feel as if I've experienced enough to help
with these issues. So, let's talk. I probably have opened up too many topics,
but let's follow one and see how the Holy Spirit leads us through these
situations by His Word.
Thanks,
Troy Yerks
Trinity
Bay City, MI
Let me quote a visiting professor to Asia Lutheran Seminary on the underside of the China where 1/4th of humanity lives, many without Christ. Upon leaving a very successful three and a half months of teaching in a way similar, yet dissimilar, to what we do at Mequon, he said to me, "I had no idea. I had no idea."
What he referred to is that experience and exposure to the huge challenge of sharing Christ with the world is circumscribed by our three score years and ten and the places and people with whom we have had the privilege of ministry. Of course there are many ways, shapes and forms in which the Gospel is shared! Of course.
Snippets of the apostolic witness found in Acts emphasize five things. Jesus of Nazareth was really a man and this Jesus was God's son. Third and fourth, he really died and really rose again! All four in accordance with God's foreknowledge and inspired prophesy. And fifth, the impact is repentance and the forgiveness of sins. About what music (contemporary synagogue or what the kids were humming in Antioch?) we are told little. I suspect that is so that we could follow in the footsteps of the man of Tarsus who said from the bottom of his heart that he would be whatever God asked to be in order that some be saved.
A more contemporary church leader and former president of WELS, Carl Mischke, once closed a WELS convention with words that I will paraphrase from memory, "We must examine everything we say and examine everything that we do so that more are saved."
Grace and peace from Hong Kong, John C. Lawrenz
Thank you Troy, for bringing up your concerns. I also look forward to hearing from others on this subject.
I am not an advocate for contemporary worship. I am an advocate for choice in worship styles. If I had to choose one style of worship to attend, it would be straight from TLH. CW would be second. Contemporary would be third. My real preference, is to attend a variety of worship styles. In this I am a person of the times. I like choice in worship. I do not buy the argument that each congregation must have one worship style, nor do I agree that the WELS needs to have one national worship style.
I firmly believe that all of our worship styles should clearly reflect our confessional Lutheran doctrines (in other words the Biblical position). Each worship service must center on justification. Overall, the prevailing theme of the hymns should be justification. I expect all worship services to have a confession of sins.
I do not see the concerns voiced by Troy as generically applying to any one particular style of worship.
Troy mentions a problem with some musicians not following the service theme. Does each musician picks their own music? Doesn't someone coordinate all the music for the entire service? All aspects of any style service should be well coordinated.
Worshiper not paying attention is a problem in any style service. People need to be lovingly corrected. At least they attend worship. We will always have worshipers who are at differing levels of faith. Occasionally I do not pay attention and am doing something else. No one can pay complete attention at all times (at least I can not).
One complaint about contemporary worship is that we are "entertaining" worshipers. I do not fully understand this complaint about contemporary worship. We should set a high standard in how we plan and execute all styles of worship. People in our society expect quality. In days gone by, worshipers had to sit on unpadded pews (or in some eras stand the whole time) in unheated and non-air-conditioned churches. Do we want to live in the past? People expect good musicians, including good organists. People expect a professional looking worship folder and bulletin. People expect a well written and well delivered sermon. I understand that some consider a PowerPoint of the hymns to be entertainment, but many today consider it normal. A well done PowerPoint shows Christian background images that enhance the words of the hymn. Why is this bad? The fact is that we live in today's society, not the 1960s. I remember the 1960s well. I could be very happy worshipping in a 1960s style service even today. Many people today were not yet born in 1960, nor even in 1970 or 1980. They have higher expectations that I do, but even I have higher expectations than I had in the past.
Mark Bergemann
John,
That was pure gold - thanks
Don Patterson
I guess the concern I had with entertaining aspect is that the 'band' is there
to 'rock out' the congregation and 'get them moving.' I used single quotes,
because those were exact words from some of our contemporary band members. Not
many of the people sing with the group, and they applaud. Now, make sure you
understand me. I don't have a problem with clapping in church with the correct
motivation. If it seems like a concert, and we're receiving applause during a
worship service, I missed the boat! If there is applause at the end of the
service and it is understood as giving thanks to God for the talent He has
granted us, then I feel comfortable and like I'm not sinning. I feel as if I am
sinning getting applause while giving praise to God. All glory should be going
to him and not to myself or others that are creating music.
Troy Yerks
It sounds like I too might have some issues with your contemporary worship if I was in attendance.
I value congregational singing in worship. Maybe your worship leader needs to try various methods of encouraging singing by the worshipers. Maybe worship could be a topic for a Bible study at your congregation. Our worshipers sing the songs at our monthly contemporary worship just like they do at our traditional services.
I am always uncomfortable with applause in a worship service. I seem to recall someone mentioning that at one of our 4 weekend services a few weeks ago, there was applause for the visiting high school choir. Applause is a rare visitor to our congregation, so it is noticed when it happens.
Mark Bergemann
In my judgment, much rock/pop/jazz/soul music simply does not lend itself to congregational singing. That doesn't mean it can't ever be used, of course, but it's one more challenge to consider.
Dennis Rardin
Prof. Lawrenz,
Ummm…. “We must examine everything we say and examine everything that we do so that more are saved” ???
You know that sounded fine to me… at first, but… on second glance, it seems to me to be a bit “off.
When I look at the statement the first thing that strikes me is the statement’s focus – who’s doing what for what reason. The doer in the statement is “we”, the focus seems to me to be squarely on what “we do” (not exactly the best focus when one is talking about salvation – yes, it is “ok” in a sense to ascribe God’s work to those who apply the means of Grace, but… ) and the reason we are to do what the statement says is so that “more are saved.” More than what? More than you or I would have saved otherwise? That doesn’t sound right… More than God would have saved otherwise? That doesn’t sound right, either. (In fact, is it not true that in one sense all of our collective efforts will not add one soul to the list of those already written in the Book of Life?) So, is it really mandated that we are to examine everything we say and do “so that more are saved”? And if not, what then?
Perhaps we should look at this another way and perhaps we should ask a different question… as Christians, what is our desire and our call? Well… as a Christian, aren’t we called to love God and our neighbor – and aren’t our lives to be living sacrifices, lives of service to God and to our neighbors? And as Christians, isn’t it by definition our desire that all be saved… and doesn’t the new man in us desire such with fervor and with a deep love for the lost? Indeed, isn’t that is exactly what God desires, as well (so much that he was willing to become man, so much that he was willing to take our sins on himself and suffer the ultimate punishment for those sins – so that we too might become adopted sons in God’s family, co-inheritors with the Son, so that we might live forever with him in heaven)?
But as far as how we serve God and our neighbor, don’t we do so first and foremost by faithfully living and serving in the various vocations in which God has placed us – and striving at all times to do so in full accordance with God’s Word (“For all men, in every vocation, ought to seek perfection, that is, to grow in the fear of God, in faith, in love towards one’s neighbor….”)? And indeed, isn’t the way that I grow in the fear of God solely through the application of his Word, specifically, the Gospel, and through the sacraments?
And if we are serious about what God’s Word says, won’t we always strive to proclaim it fully in accord with its truth and purity? Put another way, yes, we are to follow the footsteps of Paul. But in so doing, dare we excise from those footsteps Paul’s constant focus, indeed his persistent emphasis, on teaching and proclaiming pure doctrine? In short, as a Christian, I love God’s Word – I love to hear it, read it and meditate on it… and I love to proclaim it – in each case always in all of its truth and purity. That love for the Word sits side by side with my desire that all be saved – with the love that I as a Christian necessarily have for my neighbor. There is no disconnecting pure doctrine from the love a Christian has for his neighbor, for as Dennis aptly noted, “I cannot love souls as Jesus wants me to unless I love the pure teaching of his Word.”
With best regards,
Harvey Dunn
Dear C & C Brothers and Sisters,
Please understand that my comments are purely out of Christian love and that I want to insure that my daughter who is 4 years old now has WELS church that will be able to reach and apply God’s Word to her when she gets into her teens and college age.
I personally witnessed my Father coming home from council meetings almost monthly upset and telling me how “yelling” and “arguing” would take place in the basement of the church. Who knew what the topics were, but every month with the fighting?
I agree that talking about issues is healthy, and I don’t want to see traditional worship disappear. However, I would like choices but for those of us who are unable to worship our God with all heart, soul, and mind because they are held hostage by the refusal of being open minded to new ideas.
I clicked and pasted this from our WELS web-site;
Read John 8:31,32.
3. What does it mean to be “set free” in the area of worship forms?
We are free to choose the best forms to present Jesus’ teaching, the truth that sets us free.
5. How do you keep from studying the Scriptures and coming to false conclusions?
Keep Jesus as the center of everything you study.
Shouldn’t that be enough?
Keeping Jesus at the center of everything we study?
I get some of the contemporary music is unhealthy, and I actually love most of the hymns but not with organ. I have been introduced to KOINE from St Marcus and it’s amazing what they can do with hymn.
In closing my goal isn’t to change the way churches currently perform worship, I am just wanting to open up new churches that are outside of the outside of the box idea.
www.gotocore.com is a great ministry. I would encourage you to e-mail Pastor Ski who’s church isn’t even open yet, and no members. Ask him how much love he has experienced from his fellow brothers as they begin to launch into new un charted territories.
God Bless
Brian Arthur Lampe
CEO-ministries.com
Brian,
I have been reading the responses to various types of worship and note with interest
how many of them seem to fit your description of your father's reaction to council meetings.
We seem to have the same reaction in our council meetings, too. Now, I'm not particularly
interested in getting into the "theology" of council meetings but I thought that there might
be an application of this church council characteristic to the primary discussion at hand involving
worship services!
Somehow we manage to discuss, to an alarming degree, the size of the bug that we're choking
on while missing the whole point of the discussion. Frankly, I have seen the "liturgy" question
discussed between pastors and lay people wherein the debate ends up in a stalemate. The
lay people will say, "I dislike hymn #nnn because it's so old and stifling!" The pastors respond,
"But the words are so Bible-based and meaningful!" And it grinds to a halt. Of course, the
lay people are talking about the music and the pastors are discussing the words. Both groups end up frustrated and little, if any progress is made in furthering Christ's kingdom.
I believe that the Christian doctrine taught by WELS is right on. But, let me say that I'm scared
of how we use adiaphora to justify, defend and continue to bolster our arguments in clearly non-Biblical situations. The American response in defending the status quo is: "Circle the wagons!"
My concern is that when "we circle the wagons," we are then excluding the lost sinners out there that need a risen Christ in their lives.
We are now beginning a new season of Lent and Easter. Maybe we need to really look at how we can proclaim the gospel in a totally new way including our worship services.
I await the deluge of responses...
Peace Through Jesus!
Ray Miller
Brian,
Actually I'm glad you originally posted, because I think we have a dialogue going regarding worship. I don't think we should have sides for traditional or contemporary. It need to be the best of both. I feel we need to blend both together. The mix of that blend depends on how we will least likely cause offense. This stems from motivation factors and how spiritually mature others are. Many variants to delicately work through.
I too remember many people complaining about arguing at church meetings. Sometimes it was on the side of called workers, sometimes it was on the side of lay leaders. Most of the time, it seems in retrospect, that it boiled down to "good old German stubborness." I grew up in heavily German/Norwegian/Sweedish area. The Norwegian side seems to not leat things bother them so much, perhaps that's why the ALC/LCA/ELCA have become so allowing. I digress.
Anyway, thank you for putting this out.
Troy
Brothers and sisters-
I must be amazingly naive. I have no idea what you're talking about. It's not that I don't understand the concept of a discussion descending into a shouting match; I've just never seen it happen at a church council or voters meeting--at least, not without it being addressed and resolved.
When a pastor and a lay person disagree about a hymn, in my experience they both learn from it and grow from there. I don't doubt that you guys have experienced what you have experienced, but I'm a guy who gets pinned fairly often as being "old school WELS," and I don't even know what you're talking about.
I preach the gospel. I make use of the best of what I have available to me in worship. I study the Word. I don't worry about whether or not more souls could be saved if I did this, that, or the other thing, so long as the thing that I am doing reflects both love for those souls and love for the Word that is the one thing that has the power to save them. I don't feel I have a side to come down on in the contemporary/traditional debate because every time it has come up in a church I've been a part of, it either results in a blending where everyone learns a little something and grows together or it results in someone finally showing their true colors doctrinally after a long period of getting upset about things that weren't really at the core of their issues. And I certainly don't resent the amount of time it took to get to the core of the issue, as that was God at work to call those precious souls to repentance.
Act from a sincere, repentant heart that desires the last Word to be God's, and deal with your brothers in accord with that Word. And I do mean deal with them. Don't paint the WELS as having the problems that you have seen in your own life or church, tempting others to worry about the state of pastor/lay relations in their own congregations, the state of our theology as a body or about our collective love for the lost. That just creates an atmosphere of suspicion and avoids the debt of love we have toward one another to deal together in truth and in love. It even tempts us to look outside our church body, which does, in fact, have a pure confession, to listen to blind, false teachers who have bigger issues than our own.
God bless your service, everyone. And may he abundantly bless the Word that you sow.
In Christ,
Aaron Frey
I agree and won't post or answer on this venue anymore.
Brian Lampe
All of a sudden the number of e-mails in my in-box went up. I knew there
must be some sort of discussion regarding contemporary worship going on.
Everyone seems to have an opinion on this topic and there usually isn't much
middle ground.
If traditional worship works best in your effort to serve your congregation
and reach out with the gospel message to your community, by all means, use
traditional worship. If blended or contemporary worship work best for that same
purpose, use it. If you or your church doesn't like a certain worship style,
that's ok, but please don't condemn those who have a different approach to
worship that is not your preference. God has given us freedom in worship.
Let's not try and make rules where rules do not exist. The WELS theology can be
shared in numerous ways that are pleasing to God.
One other thing - I strongly believe we need to re-examine the way we are
doing ministry as a church body, especially when it comes to outreach. The 2007
synod statistics are evidence of that, especially when it comes to adult
confirmations:
Total Adult Confirmations 3,669
The number of adult confirmations in 2007 is the lowest number since 1994. The
number of adult confirmations in 2007 is 183 (-4.8%) less than in 2006.
Breakdown
• 491 congregations (38.4%) had 0 adult confirmations
• 206 congregations (16.1%) had 1 adult confirmation
Almost 55% of congregations in our synod did not add more than one soul to
the church in 2007. For a church body that strongly emphasizes the importance
of evangelism, these statistics should alarm us. If we really care for the
souls of the lost, we need to reflect on what we can do better and possibly
different so we are less of an obstacle to the Holy Spirit. Let us continue to
strive to worship and serve the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and
strength.
My 2 cents - thanks for your time.
In His Arms,
Phil Boileau
While I am 100% in agreement that we should always be asking if we're doing our best, I strongly believe that we need to be very careful with how we use statistics. This statement certainly could be taken to be saying that if my church was among the 55% that added one or fewer members to its roster, then we are doing something to be an obstacle to the Holy Spirit. I fail to see any Scriptural support for such a statement. I don't believe we have any promises from God that our numbers will continue to increase, and we have several allusions to the contrary, that the little flock will continue to get even more little as the love of most grows cold.
This is used so often that it becomes a cliche, but by the standard recently stated, it seems like Noah and Jeremiah, and many other biblical heroes, must have been obstacles to the Holy Spirit, because they didn't win many adult confirmands either.
We dare not wear our small-ness as a badge of honor, but we also dare not see it as a sign that we're doing something wrong. As Pres. Schroeder explained so well in his recent FIC article, we don't define success by the numbers of the results. How many people we contact with the gospel is up to us, but how many adult confirmands are added to our churches (i.e., how many people are converted) is purely in the realm of the Holy Spirit. And we really can't glean much from those numbers, except to be reminded that the Holy Spirit will work when and how he desires, not according to our dictates.
Rik Krahn
Pastor, Martin Luther Church
Neenah, WI
www.MartinLutherNeenah.org
The numbers are important because they are souls - souls that aren't being
reaching with the saving Gospel message. How can it not hurt to see so many
congregations without any adult confirmations?. I never said that God has
promised us that our numbers would increase, but don't you think it is worth
examining why we aren't reaching more and why numbers continue to shrink?
I fear complacency in ministry. It is so easy to make excuses for ourself.
I am not judging the faithfulness and motivation of any of our called workers
who are serving in our church body, but I do believe that it is healthy for us
to continually examine what we are doing in ministry. (I need this reminder
myself.) I have been hearing about the flock growing smaller and "love growing
cold" for at least the last 20 years or so. Instead of giving in to this
direction, we need to need to come out even stronger and more determined for the
Lord and His desire for us to reach the lost. We don't know when the Lord will
come again, so we need to do as much as we can while we can.
I don't know if more souls will come to God's kingdom or not (the Holy
Spirit is the one who works the faith) in congregations in our synod, but
regardless of our perception, we should be willing to do anything short of
sinning to reach the souls of those who don't know Jesus.
In His Arms,
Phil Boileau
Phil,
I agree that 3,669 adult confirmations is embarrassingly low for our 1,284 congregations. Even worse is that many congregations go for years without a single adult confirmation.
Even though almost 55% of our congregations had 1 or less adult confirmation in 2007, does not lead to the conclusion that "Almost 55% of congregations in our synod did not add more than one soul to the church in 2007." Other columns in the statistical report are additional indicators of how many souls our congregations are bringing to faith. There were 730 adult baptisms, 2,119 professions of faith, and 6,923 child baptisms.
I agree that we should be reevaluating our outreach both as congregations and as individual Christians. Outreach by our individual members to their friends, relatives, associates, and neighbors (FRAN) is almost always far more effective at reaching the lost than congregational projects. That said, my congregation has greatly expanded its evangelism budget over the last few years. We are starting several new and innovative programs. The programs that bear fruit we expand, and the programs that bear little fruit we change. Our congregational outreach still has many weaknesses, but we are working to change that.
When quoting statistics as I have here, it is also prudent to point out that the effectiveness of outreach should NOT be primarily judged by the number of souls it brings to Christ. Outreach must be judged first by faithfulness to Scripture. Several Old Testament prophets brought so very few to faith. Some today would call these prophets failures. God calls these prophets his faithful witnesses.
Mark Bergemann
I used to feel this way too - but I've come to see the dangers in this attitude.
God is in control of the numbers - not us. Putting stock in numbers and "what works" tends to divert us from what God has asked us to do in the Great Commission - baptize and teach.
What's most sinister is that the devil uses our fixation on numbers and our sinful pride (which causes us to believe that *we* control the numbers, not God) - to trade off clear, cross-focused teaching for what brings in better numbers. This is Evangelicalism in a nutshell.
Now, I've argued on this board before about the need to be willing to improve our methods (but I won't make the mistake of referring to their "effectiveness" again) ;-) BUT - I think the focus of our self-evaluation needs to be on how faithful we stay to God's Word in our teaching, how focused we remain on the Cross as our central message, how well we do at communicating these truths clearly, etc. I suppose we could arguably also measure how many people we share the Word with, but even there we have to be very aware of a slippery slope that will tempt us to make concessions to get people to "like us better". Seeker-sensitive churches inevitably become seeker-centered churches! (I heard that slogan from an Evangelical, and I think its true.)
A story a former Pastor of mine gave really stuck with me, and I've repeated it in some Evangelism training at my current church. On one hand, the Bible makes it clear that lost human souls depend on us ("how will they believe if they have not heard..."). On the other hand, we know that God will save all who have been recorded in the Book of Life. I've come to see our role in Evangelism much the way I see my 3-year-old's role in "helping" me shovel my driveway. First I go out and start shoveling in nice, neat rows. then, my 3-year old excitedly tells me he wants to "help", and starts smearing snow all over what I've already cleared. After a while, he has enough and goes into the house excitedly telling Mom how much he "helped" dad shovel the driveway, after which I go back and clean up his mess for him.
Remember - God prepared our "good works" in advance for us, including evangelism. I know that in reality God doesn't need my help, and in fact the only thing I can really accomplish is to make more work for Him to clean up my mess - but at the same time I rejoice that I have the privilege to take part in my father's work. When I get lazy, I remind myself I have work to do. When I start feeling either self-important, pressured, or anxious, I remember that my Father's really in control of every lost soul - not me.
Mark Salzwedel
Well said!
A few other points should be made before we beat-ourselves up with statistics:
- overall, the WELS is doing as well or better than most denominations (including Evangelicalism). The lack of growth we are feeling is largely a trend against Christianity in our culture in favor of more pluralistic faiths.
- Over the long term, many churches that experience explosive growth tend to experience explosive declines not far later on. Witness what Willow Creek has come to see about their growth over the years - they were not developing any deep roots and have huge losses through the back door.
- Another huge point that often gets lost - for every Evangelical megachurch that seems to be growing explosively, there are a dozen smaller churches shrinking. In other words, a lot of the "growth" is not really souls saved - it is people drifting from other churches of similar denominational backgrounds. So - if our focus is on growing our congregation, these churches are successful - but laregly at the expense of many sister churches. The net gain isn't all that large - if at all.
- To be fair in comparing ourselves to the past, we need to realize that for most of 2000 years the main source of the Church's growth has come through our expanding families. With the late 20th Century trend of shrinking families, our growth is likewise shrinking. Our main "Evangelism Prospects" have historically been our own children - and the best way to continue to do that has to do with strong Bible Studies in our churches and homes - it has nothing to do with outreach programs.
Mark Salzwedel
It is my experience, that when people on opposite sides of an issue at church, discuss the issue at length, they often find that they have more common ground than at first thought. They also often change their views at least a little. This may or may not resolve the issue, but it usually makes the situation far better than before a lengthy discussion took place. With a large group of people involved, the discussion process can take a long time. Changing your own opinion, or the opinion of another, or both, takes time.
My career is as an electrical engineer. Like many engineers, I tend to sound like a know-it-all and one who is unwilling to listen to opposing opinions. Others often perceive me in that light, even though I do desire to listen, and I do sometimes completely reverse my opinion. There are many like me who strongly support their position and seem to be unwilling to listen to the other side. Please give such people many chances to hear your opinions. Consider them (people like me) to be weak in that they are slow to listen and fast to speak.
in Christian love for my brethren,
Mark Bergemann
So let's look at an example from the Bible and see what lessons we can learn from it:
II Samuel 6:5 (David was bringing the ark to Jerusalem) "David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord, with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals." Maybe what our members are saying is that they want to worship "with all their might." (On a side note, I know a lot of people who don't celebrate with their voice, me included, because we can't hit the notes in the hymns. I love to sing, but a lot of times I can't so I don't. That's very frustrating.)
After the death of Uzzah, when David had consulted the Law on the proper way to move the ark, and the procession continued, here's what happened:
II Samuel 6:14-15: "David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the Lord with all his might, while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets." There's that "all his might" thing again. What does that mean? How does it apply to us? Have you ever celebrated the Lord with all your might? Isn't that the environment and atmosphere that we are trying to create with our worship services, no matter what the style?
Then along came the traditional liturgy supporters, or the contemporary service supporters, or the "we've-never-done-it-that-way-before" group, or whatever faction you can think of.
II Samuel 6:20-22: "When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said 'How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!'"
"David said to Michal, 'It was before the Lord, who chose me rather than your father or anyone from his house when he appointed me ruler over the Lord's people Israel - I will celebrate before the Lord. I will become even more undignified than this, and I will be humiliated in my own eyes. But by these slave girls you spoke of, I will be held in honor.'"
I don't think there's a worship style in existence today that won't offend someone. But if that worship is done "before the Lord," and to "celebrate before the Lord," then the offense is due to the weak faith of the offended.
In response to that I ask: Why would any Christian put up judgemental barriers in front others, preventing them from worshipping God "with all their might?" Instead of preferring one style over another, why not take joy in the the edification that others are receiving from their worship? After all, it's not about me, it's about God first and then others.
Here's a suggestion to take our minds off ourselves and our preferences. No matter what type of worship style it is, no matter what our preference is, why don't we try to worship God with all our might.
Oh, and don't forget how this saga ended - God's displeasure at Michal's criticism of David: II Samuel 6:23 - "And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death."
Thank You,
Matt Plocher
Amen Brother!
Brian Lampe
I think this is where the discussion breaks down on forums like this - because we all have different perceptions in our head about what we are arguing that can't be conveyed well in a discussion group - and we end up arguing over things we really don't disagree about. Its easy to make blanket statements and argue about things like "contemporary worship" when in the particulars we're envisioning completely different things and arguing past each other. Maybe it would be constructive for someone to post a particular "contemporary" order of service as a talking point if we want to discuss anything more specific.
Here's a point I'd be careful about, though. On one hand you state " it's not about me, it's about God ", but on the other hand most of your argument is about "me" getting edified and worshiping "with all my might" - it seems to me that that's putting the emphasis of worship on "me", not God. It also can be very tricky for us to discern the difference between what is "worshiping with all my might", and what is "me enjoying this experience with all my might" - we need to be careful we don't confuse those things - and its easy to do.
My other concern is this statement:
”I don't think there's a worship style in existence today that won't offend someone. But if that worship is done "before the Lord," and to "celebrate before the Lord," then the offense is due to the weak faith of the offended.”
This may be true - and better to have a millstone around my neck than to cause one of these little ones (or weak ones) to stumble! This is a case where the "strong" must give way to the "weak". However, just as important is that we aren't too quick to label those who disagree with us as "weak" before we carefully listen to their arguments.
I think you are right in that our attitude about questions like these has more to do with what is God-pleasing worship than the particular instruments we use, song styles we choose, orders of service, etc. However - those choices are not independent from these theological and brother-loving concerns either - they tend to flow out of them.
Just to be clear - I'm all for freshening up many of our hymns, orders of service, etc. Depending on your definitions, I'm even OK with a non-liturgical form of worship (in the narrow sense) - but that's a far cry from anything goes either, and frankly most (but not all) of the attempts I've seen to be new or novel in worship tend to leave behind critical aspects of sound, God-pleasing worship - which is one reason you'll probably initially be greeted with skepticism about "contemporary" worship by many others who have seen this for themselves. Have patience and talk about the particulars with them, and leave open the possibility that, like me, you will learn some things from them (and this may or may not be the right forum for that.)
Mark Salzwedel
Well said:
"Let us praise God with all our might".
May I expand this to:
"Let us praise God with all our might and lovingly encourage others to do the same".
I see this as a foundational reason for much of the debate on worship style. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but I also see this as the motive behind most of the points made recently here on ChuchAndChange.
When some criticize some worship as "entertainment," it may be they wish to have the worshipers praise God with all their might, and they think that is not happening.
When some point out worshipers who are not paying attention or not participating in the service, it may be they wish to have the worshipers praise God with all their might, and they think that is not happening.
God evaluates not only our thoughts and actions, he especially looks at our motives. Our motives should be based on trust and faith in God. I believe that Michal's criticism of David did not flow from faith. If it had been based on faith, then things would have turned out differently. Mary, in faith, questioned God's plan, when she was told she would have a baby. God explained his plan to Mary and did not punish her for questioning God's plan. Zechariah, from lack of faith, questioned God's plan and was made mute until John was circumcised.
We can in a God pleasing way and out of faith, question worship styles, evangelism methods, and anything else. Such questioning can be a learning exercise for us all. I have learned much from those who questioned what I was doing and how and why I was doing it.
Change agents, who are on the leading edge of doing things in a new way, often receive much more criticism than those who continue doing things the same way as in the past. I see this as very reasonable. People need to be educated as to the purpose and need for the change. Some changes are good and some are not. In many cases it is hard to know. The old way is known and the new way is unknown. I have been a church leader in many areas for many years. Some times I am a change agent and other times I am not. If you wish to minimize criticism of what you are doing, do NOT be a change agent. I believe that a good change agent is one who is able to lovingly and patiently and repeatedly explain the change and why it is good.
Mark Bergemann
I've probably exceeded my posts for today - I haven't seen my last one go through. I was just reflecting on the Scripture quoted by Matthew and was struck by an observation regarding the portion of the account that was skipped over:
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
Interesting that in worship we need to struggle to keep both of these perspectives in balance - "worshiping with might" while not losing reverence for an almighty God - and worshiping him on His terms. I guess I had never noticed that the accounts of David and Uzzah's "worship" were so intertwined before.
Mark Salzwedel
For what it's worth... The key to understanding the OT ascendancy of King David and the crash landing of King Saul respectively, one hear's Samuel's inspired words, "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7). God knew Uzzah and his heart even as God knew Cain and his heart. Ditto for King David and for Abel. Saul's daughter Michal thought David undignified when he danced before the ark. She was truly her father's daughter. Saul with a wink and a nudge tried to get Samuel to see the "advantages" of having a big sheep slaughter and the political payoff of parading of the captured Agag before the troops. Saul looked every inch a king, but his heart was a nest of demons.
I wrote to C&C (after a long hiatus) this week in the context of the contending for the truth around the outward appearance of worship. The responses (some public, some private) have been across the spectrum. I pray, of course, that the God who loves me will send his Spirit to those who read what I wrote and what others write. I make no claims to special wisdom. Some will choose to take my choice of words in the kindest possible way. Others will read into this or that expression something unintended. God knows my heart. Do we presume to judge at times too quickly. Like Michal? Who among us is an Uzzah or a Cain or a Saul? Who among us is a David or an Abel? God knows.
There is perhaps (just a suggestion inviting others to think as I am thinking) a tendency to contened earnestly for the faith with too much reliance on our ability (individually or corporately as WELS) to thing we have to (or can) get it right every time. Who of us would not really like to to have complete control of our lives and our faith and our words? I would! Alas, since the fall in Eden none of us controls a thing. Not really. It's a lie of Satan that we have "open eyes" to "be like God" and "know good and evil" and "never die." The Spirit opens blind eyes, restores in us the image of God in Christ, gives the gift of discernment, and shows the path to eternal life. If we control anything at all--to our own benefit and for the eternal welfare of others--it is by the grace of God in Christ and by the working of the Spirit whom Jesus sent to work in us through Word and Sacrament what God wills. God alone controls. Through law and Gospel. We serve.
Also in the way we worship.
John C. Lawrenz in Hong Kong
One of the things that strikes me when we consider statistical numbers is that we don't always take into consideration other things that may be going on within our outside of a congregation:
1) We may have a congregation that is growing with lots of new people being brought in (either through adult confirmations, professions of faith or transfers), but it really doesn't show in the statistical report because the pastors and elders are doing their jobs when it comes to working with and dealing with delinquents.
2) A congregation may be in a "dying" community, such as a rural area or a small town. I wonder how many of our Michigan communities are "dying" right now due to this economy? If you have a small town where population is stagnant (no one moving in for the past 5 years, for example), or a town where the major employers are shutting down and people are moving away for work, it shouldn't surpise anyone if this is reflected in church attendance and membership. I believe we have quite a large number of congregations in such communities. Not all of us are blessed to live in growing metro suburbs.
3) In a small rural community a church may be doing lots of evangelism work--it may not show on the stats, but the pastors are working with people in area nursing homes, where residents have one foot in this life and they're almost ready to enter the next. A pastor's work in such a situation will not necessarily show up in the annual statistics, but more and more people are hearing the gospel and will rejoice with us in heaven.
Stephen Kurtzahn