rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Gurgel Channels Bivens":

"Become preoccupied with those you haven’t reached as opposed to those you keep."

This has happened at my former congregation.

"BUT, according to Ski's report on Stanley, he means for churches to become preoccupied with those we haven't reached at the expense of those we already have. Of course, he did not say "at the expense of" but that is the connotation. I think you would need to turn your brain off not to infer that from the statement."

When your goal is to get cheeks in the seats, why bother with the members who have been there for a long time? They are going to keep coming anyways. When you have follow the synod and not trust in the Efficacy of the Word, members do not stand much of a chance of having discernment, or the heart with ears. The assumption is that once ya got 'em, it should not be too hard to keep 'em.

Lesson from the mega-churches:
The average life expectancy of a spiritual gypsy in any non-denom church is about two and half years.

***

GJ - Every SP Gurgle editorial was the same - the members should get out and witness so WELS would grow in numbers. They even had some delusional numbers in their Vision or Mission Statement, or was it Mission Vision? Hundreds of new churches would be started. Hagedorn called the plan "fresh and exciting."

Michigan Lutheran Seminary Will CloseAnd Then What?

Old Main, MLS - mistakenly called The Plywood Palace.
An anonymous source says my anonymous sources are wrong.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Michigan Lutheran Seminary Will CloseAnd Then What...":

Who will carry on the tradition of Zex-year hazing, pole mels, pink bellies, cardinals, shagging, etc. if MLS closes???

---

Two sources have told me that the Wisconsin Synod expects to close Michigan Lutheran Seminary.

The latest financial figures from WELS were reported sunny-side-up, but the reality is apparently much grimmer.

Martin Luther College has been gasping for several years now. Losing the candidates from MLS may well drop tuition income below the survival point.

There is talk about dealing with The Sausage Factory, too.

Meanwhile, Radloff has written a memorial to close both preps at once.

Radloff was a classmate of Valleskey, so the two worked together very well. Radloff turned the Southern region into a Fuller Seminary playground while pal Valleskey made Mequon a franchise of the Pasadena beehive.

Radloff edited the blasphemous Mission Counsellors' Newsletter, a goldmine of WELS Church Growth thinking.

Radloff is connected with Patterson's congregation. Surprised? I'm not.

The Shrinkers hate the schools.

The Michigan District did not fight against these trends 22 years ago. The pastors served their careers instead of guarding the Word. If someone was driven out for dissenting against Fuller/Willow Creek--and there were a number--the pastors were silent. Oh boy - more job openings.

Not now - and unemployment in Michigan is headed toward 20%.

The Shrinkers are God's chastisement against WELS for neglecting the Word of God, ignoring the Confessions, and abusing members and pastors.

Schmid's Doctrinal Theology for Free

Sorry, pal - no UOJ in Schmid.
He only quotes orthodox Lutheran authors.

Get Schmid's Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on Google Books.

Click here for the text.

Gurgel Channels Bivens

This barf alert is required by OSHA directive #Z145892b.

Frosty Bivens went to Fuller Seminary before he did not go to Fuller Seminary. There he must have learned that questioning Paul Calvin Kelm was a violation of the 8th Commandment.

Phil Gurgel's reminded me of Bivens when he tried to convince WELS members that Ski did not worship with the Babtists.

"Jessica, the blog post [Ski's] was not clear about whether he actually participated in the worship at the conference or not."

Here is the blog post and a quotation:
"The final Main Session with Andy Stanley was just phenomenal. We began with awesome worship. Today though, they began with a Christian rapper, Toby Mac."

In plain English, "We began with awesome worship" means Ski participated: first person, plural, past tense.

"They began with awesome worship" suggests that Ski only observed but coveted. Ski did not say that. He obviously joined their worship with great Enthusiasm.

Decades ago, when I quoted Paul Calvin Kelm endorsing a pan-Lutheran (ELCA-WELS-LCMS) lifestyle evangelism conference, in a paper given to the Northern Conference, Bivens immediately stood up "to defend Kelm's good name."

Bivens first demanded that I offer actual proof that Kelm wrote this. I imagine most in the audience got the same brochure. I had a copy along, so I passed it through the audience.

Bivens' next effort to absolve Kelm went like this, "How do we know Kelm meant to endorse that conference?" Bivens was again calling me a liar and offering a question no one could answer at the moment.

Later, the Church Doctor, Kent Hunter (DMin Fuller) told me that he asked Kelm for the endorsement and got it. So poor innocent Kelm was not snookered into a life with Leah when he expected Rachel. He was a willing participant, as anyone would guess, knowing Kelm. Bivens knew that best of all.

These logical dodges and dishonest cries of alarm might have worked in the 1980s. But now people have seen where these Pietistic methods lead. They are not impressed.

---

Phil Gurgel (Mexico) wrote:
You are not in fellowship with the WELS. You have been marked as a false teacher. So identifying you as such is no different than identifying the pope (Luther´s example), or a baptist pastor as being a false teacher. (This was the entire point that Luther was making above), that the public sinner who has been judged as a false teacher, can be testified about in order to help people mark him for what he is.

I have studied the Large Catechism, and it will continue to be part of my ongoing study of the BOC. However, is it safe to assume that you were in agreement with Joe´s understanding of Luther´s words on the eight commandment? It sure appears to me that those words that were pulled out of their context and made to say something that is not at all Biblical nor Luther´s intention in writing them. Perhaps we all could use a better study of the BOC and the Large Catechism! And with that, I encourage us to either 1) move this discussion to a different forum (WELS theology would be fitting) or 2) leave the discussion at this point because it is clearly that all those involved have clearly made up their minds on the issue as it currently stands.

Why does Jessica Hill know more than the Chicaneries? I wish some pastors could write this:

There have been requests not just to quote people, but to find out exactly what the author meant by that quote. This is taken from Ski's report on what Andy Stanley meant with his mantra: To reach people no one else is reaching we must do things no one else is doing.

"Takeaway - Become preoccupied with those you haven’t reached as opposed to those you keep. This is easier said than done. Wow, it seems so simple. And yet so hard."

The mantra itself *can* be spun and polished and Lutheranized. We, and those in our fellowhip, are the church body who teaches God's Word in its entire truth and purity. So in that way, we are reaching the people nobody else is reaching by doing what no one else is doing. BUT, according to Ski's report on Stanley, he means for churches to become preoccupied with those we haven't reached at the expense of those we already have. Of course, he did not say "at the expense of" but that is the connotation. I think you would need to turn your brain off not to infer that from the statement.

This is NOT the way it works. Believers, laity and lay people alike, must hear the Gospel message clearly and continually in order to have the strength and motivation to go out and reach the lost. If they do not, their motivations will turn away from godly motivations (as has happened with other false teachers) and the strength to take the steps to witness to unbelievers will wane (as has perhaps happened in the WELS).

For the umpteenth time on this thread, when believers are in the Word, God blesses faith. When unbelievers are given the WORD (not ANYTHING else), God works faith. Any extra "things which no one else is doing" are powerless.

[GJ - I just learned Jessica Hill is a Manthey, which means she is also a Brenner on her mother's side.]

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship

Bethany Lutheran Worship, 8 AM Phoenix Time


The Hymn #246 Holy, Holy, Holy 3.35
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual 1 Peter 3:8-15
The Gospel Luke 5:1-11
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn #26 Praise to the Lord 3.1

Basics of the Christian Faith

The Hymn #307 Draw Nigh 3.72
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #283 God’s Word 3.90

Fifth Sunday After Trinity
O Jesus Christ, Thou Son of the living God, who hast given us Thy holy word, and hast bountifully provided for all our temporal wants, we confess that we are unworthy of all these mercies, and that we have rather deserved punishment: But we beseech Thee, forgive us our sins, and prosper and bless us in our several callings, that by Thy strength we may be sustained and defended, now and forever, and so praise and glorify Thee eternally, Thou who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.

KJV 1 Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

KJV Luke 5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, 2 And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. 3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. 9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: 10 And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. 11 And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

Basics of the Christian Faith

Someone asked me to send a written sermon, so I decided to outline the basics of the Christian faith.

Judaism Completed in Christianity
First of all, there is not a real difference between true Judaism and genuine Christianity. Judaism is completed in the Promises of God fulfilled in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. That is why many people from the earliest days have believed in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. If 39 books of the Bible point to a Redeemer, and only One Person is described in all those prophecies, then we cannot separate Judaism from Christianity.

Creation
The Christian faith teaches the doctrine of Creation by the Word, as described in Genesis 1 and many other places in the Scriptures.

KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Creation means that everything we see is from God and has a purpose. Luther wondered about flies having a purpose, but now medical science has discovered the value of maggots in cleansing wounds without harming the patient. More importantly, every living soul has a purpose from the moment of conception.

Natural Law - Creation
We know there is right and wrong because of Creation. The principles of the universe were instilled in God’s Creation. That has an important bearing on our understanding of the Law. In Hebrew, Law is Torah, which really means teaching. Parents know what it means to teach children right and wrong, always with a loving, positive outcome in mind. Since God created, He knows even more about what is good for us.

KJV Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. 2 But his delight is in the Torah (teaching) of the LORD; and in his Torah doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The Law
God gave the Law on Mt. Sinai to teach us our relationship to Him (the first three Commandments) and our relationship to each other (the last seven commandments). This Torah was made even more concise with: “Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind – and your neighbor as yourself.” This is found in the Old Testament and New Testament as well.

KJV Deuteronomy 11:13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

KJV Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

KJV Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

The Law was revealed for our good. It is good, spiritual, and useful, as Paul wrote. The Law is diagnostic, like an X-ray. The Law tells us where we are broken, hurting, and sinful, but it cannot heal us. An X-ray cannot heal us, and the Law cannot make us better. My wife and I were laughing about a “Bible study group” she tried to attend once. It had more rules than there are books in the Bible. I said, “Perfection through the Law – and it never works.”

The Gospel
Because the Law is good but limited, God also gave us sinful, weak people the Gospel, beginning at Genesis 3:15, when Adam and Eve (real people, not symbols) were expelled from Paradise. God promised them the Savior, whose feet would be bruised (crucifixion) but Who would crush the head of Satan. All the Promises and blessings of the Bible are Gospel.

KJV Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Trinity
There was no development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Genesis 1 indicates the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and John 1 spells out this truth with great clarity. There are many references to the Trinity in the Old Testament, such as the three-fold Aaronic blessing, and “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts” in Isaiah. The Trinity is even clearer in Hebrew than our English versions of the Old Testament. “The Jewish Trinity” by Natan lists all those occurrences. One is clear in English, “Let us make man in Our image.”

KJV Numbers 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

KJV Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

KJV Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Jesus, Son of God, Messiah
Isaiah 53 revealed that the Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of the people. When children hear Isaiah 53 and they are asked who this person is, they always say, “Jesus.” That is clear to us now, but it was not obvious until Jesus was crucified and rose again, triumphant over death.

KJV Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

KJV Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Psalm 22
The 22nd Psalm teaches us about the crucifixion, and those details were fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross.

KJV Psalm 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Faith in the Messiah
Faith in the crucified Messiah is expressed in Psalm 23, while the New Testament version is found in John 10.

Isaiah also portrays the Messiah as the Good Shepherd:

KJV Isaiah 40:11
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:
he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom,
and shall gently lead those that are with young.

KJV Psalm 23:1 {A Psalm of David.} The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

KJV John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

How Are We Forgiven?
Justification is God’s declaration that we are forgiven all our sins. This takes place when an individual trusts in the Promises of God. Abraham believed in the Messiah, “and he was justified by faith.”

KJV Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

KJV Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The Gospel is summarized perfectly in John 3:16 –

KJV John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Eternal Life
Everlasting life was earned by Christ and is graciously given to all who believe in Him.

KJV John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

KJV John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Good Works
Salvation is either through the Law or the Gospel. The Bible emphasizes good works throughout. However, good works are the result of salvation, forgiveness of sin. Good works benefit our neighbor – they do not appease God. The more we hear the Gospel and grasp the grace God offers us so freely, the more abundant the fruits of the Spirit will be.

KJV Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Much more could be said about the Means of Grace, which I have discussed many times before. There is really only one Christian doctrine. For our convenience, we break it down into many points, but it remains one unified Truth, revealed by God in His inerrant Word.

Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Without Using the ad hominem and sui generis Fallacies?

The dark side of WELS seems to be shrinking.


"Phil Gurgel is serving the 2008-2009 school year as the WELS Vicar to Mexico. Originally from Mequon, Wisconsin, he currently resides in Torreón, Coahuila, a city in northern Mexico. He serves at the mission congregation, "Cordero de Dios" (Lamb of God)." Phil is the son of Richard Gurgel, Mequon professor and Church and Chicanery activist.

Someone suggested I read some Facebook discussion posts. There is a WELS group and an outreach discussion thread within that group.

One person innocently began discussing Craig Groeschel, the Okie phenom whose sermons are copied by Ski and others in WELS. Groeschel works with Babtist Andy Stanley.

Various WELS people were making good points about evangelism, outreach, and the Means of Grace, when Phil Gurgel wrote:

Don´t be sucked into the thinking of people such as Gregory Jackson or others who state that anything that isn´t preaching the Word, any pre-evangelism whatsoever, is placing the emphasis upon ourselves rather than the means of grace. While we are nothing more than God´s tools in the process of bringing the means of Grace to others, that ought not mean that we be lazy in going about creating relationships with others (or doing such things that are helpful for creating an environment that supports and encourages the formation of relationships), as often along with having a relationship comes many opportunities to serve as God´s tools for bringing his means of Grace to souls.

Above is a perfect straw man fallacy. Phil denounces a statement which was never made, then glides into an excuse for following the Schwaermer with awe and devotion. Someone who disagrees with C & C unionism is "divisive," according to Phil.

People wrote some additional good posts, without rolling in the mud with Phil Gurgel, when he started over:

And sorry, I don´t buy that this doesn´t have anything to do with worship wars. You brought up the sermon issue, which clearly falls in with that. And you are falling into line with Gregory Jackson in making accusations and taking various pastor´s actions in the worst possible way, rather than putting the best construction on the actions of these pastors (go talk to them about your concerns, I think you´ll come away from the talks with a different perspective on why they do the things they do than you do now).

When Phil Gurgel was asked to address the actual topic, he responded:

1) So I am assuming then that these people made it perfectly clear in your discussions with them that they don´t believe in the efficacy of Scripture.

2) I looked at the first post when you made it, and I thought about why it would be brought up, and I wondered that because I:

A) Knew that you know about said quote appearing on a "Church and Change" member´s blog.

B) Your distaste for said person´s worship and outreach approaches (a pastor), and your belief that he is leading our church body into sin and error.

C) Know about how GJ, whose extremely divisive blog it appears you have been following rather closely lately , has been talking about this very quote recently (somewhat off topic, it was interesting, how "Corky" Koelpin´s article also appeared on the Synod Ed board immediately after GJ posted it on his blog. Funny that with all the talk about how these pastors are poor stewards of time for being at meetings with the heterodox, I have lately been seeing so many talking points taken from someone else whose teachings are also heterodox.)

I guess I thought originally that it would make sense that you would publish the quote, and then when the negative of said post was stated, you would insinuate that a WELS pastor agrees with it and therefore doesn´t believe in the efficacy of the means of grace (in my experience, he does believe in it) (and once again, I´m not saying that I think that everything that he does would be wise for other pastors to adopt, or at all, but I hesitate to call what God doesn´t point to as being sinful, as sin).

And lo and behold, my worries about the original post (which I chose not to post, to see if you would hopefully take it in another less divisive direction) came to fruition. This is why I spoke up as I did at this point, because such divisiveness among brothers is not a positive.

Going back to your desired direction for the thread, I have stated what I thought about our synod´s outreach. We as a synod do quite frequently get lazy in our roles as God´s tools. We don´t always do a good job at establishing relationships, relationships which present us with opportunities for evangelism. I feel we as a synod could do a lot better at that.

Here is more of Phil Gurgel's wisdom:

Is it possible that we could learn some things, even from the Groeschel´s of the world in ways of forming relationships? I think so. Outreach is something guys like Groeschel are very talented in. Yes, they tell people what their itching ears want to hear and that certainly is a large aspect of their success, but they are also very good at forming situations where they have open doors to telling people their garbage theology. Where they fail, is in their evangelism, and I see no WELS pastor imitating them in that (which seems to be the accusation of some).

Joe Jewell wrote from Oxford University:

"...they are also very good at forming situations where they have open doors to telling people their garbage theology..."

This is an interesting comment, which brings to mind several thoughts:

The proponents of Groeschel, Stanley, Stetzer, etc. in the WELS--are any of them willing to go on record as saying that their theology is "garbage"? Do they really believe that? I've never seen even a hint of it if they do. What I see is more akin to fawning adoration ("Ooh! Let's get photos with these guys!!") than any kind of cool or evaluative criticism.

When I read Ski's blog I read comments describing his WORSHIP with them as "awesome", the SERMON "one of the best I've heard"... this isn't outreach he's praising! It's straight up theology. Isn't it? If worship and the sermon aren't, what is?

I really don't think he was down there to learn "Facebook as an outreach tool, or Twitter, or texting"... those are things that can be learned from any number of secular or (yes) even confessional Lutheran sources--isn't the existence of this group proof enough of that?

Finally, the whole idea that we ought to adapt for our own use methods which have been--by your own description--developed specifically to deliver "garbage theology" seems quite misguided. Sure, it might be possible for me to rig up my sink's garbage disposal to function (sort of) as a food processor. I'll bet I could blend the heck out of some smoothies with a motor that powerful. But would that really be a good idea? I suppose if I put enough time into cleaning it I could claim it was sanitary, but would you come to be nourished at my home if the invitation said "come eat food I made in my garbage disposal--and don't worry, I cleaned it first"?

That doesn't sound very appetizing to me.

Joe Jewell wrote to Phil Gurgel:

Finally, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that C&Cers need to "stop posting ambiguous and potentially confusing blog posts"... I generally find the blog posts written in unadorned and simple English and not at all confusing (maybe you meant "confused"? I would agree that they are that). I am frankly grateful that the posts are made--what many of these pastors are beginning to do (and treat as a matter of course) is so far outside of what acceptable WELS practice has historically been that it is *absolutely imperative* that it be done in the full light of day and with every detail available for the examination of concerned people, and I would argue especially concerned laymen, the central ministerium having trended a bit insular in recent decades (cf. John 3:19-21).

I am condensing the discussion, but no one up to this point wanted to join Phil in attacking me. They ignored Phil's irrelevant comments. However, Phil responded immediately to Joe with this:

I can see that my posting only encourages you guys to make more and more judgmental posts, most on things that are nothing more than simple adiaphora. I won´t be part of further divisive discussion in this thread.

I will say though before I sign off on this discussion that it is quite hypocritical that this "mark and avoid" discussion is coming from people who are actively involved in reading and participating in Gregory Jackson´s blog (a heterodox teacher himself). Apparently the rule applies only to pastors who don´t share a love for 16th century tunes.

Joe Jewell responded to Phil:

Jackson is roughly the equivalent of a tabloid newspaper in the Lutheran world, as nearly as I can tell. He reports a lot of things, and quite frankly I would take all of them with a huge grain of salt until backed up with other sources. (But you know what? Sometimes they *are* backed up. He seems to be pretty good at collating outside sources.)

Still, NPH sells his books, for goodness sake! The man *is* at least a confessional Lutheran perspective, even if he was thrown out of WELS. Would I worship with him, or take his advice for how my church ought to be run? No. Of course not. But then, I wouldn't do those things with the Schwaermer, either (and certainly wouldn't pay them for the privilege), so I guess my standards for such things are rather different than those prevailing within C&C.

And fundamentally speaking, the man is a (biased, as they all are) news source (maybe more properly a news compiler) not a source of theology. The Wall Street Journal reports on finance and business; Greg Jackson reports on Lutheranism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively involved in reading and participating in" though. Is that an elaborate way of saying "reading"? I do read his blog along with a fairly long list of other Lutheran blogs, but I've certainly never posted or communicated with the man.

By that standard, I'm much more "actively involved in reading and participating in" the New York Times, my local newspaper, the Economist, the aforementioned WSJ, and probably a dozen other news sources (with which I might also frequently disagree)... because I've left comments on their threads or stories, or had letters to the editor published, which are not things that I've done at Ichabod.

Still, this all strikes me as a red herring. No one in the WELS pays Gregory Jackson money to teach them about how to "do church", and no one rants and raves about his sermons or the "awesomeness" of their worship with him.

Michael Schottey added:

The irony is that you continue to attack the character rather than the content. You've questioned motive numerous times and are the only one referring to the "worship wars" as you call them. You've turned a discussion about outreach into a debate about sources--sources you apparently read as well. (Not to mention a good deal of WELS pastors)

You have referenced Jackson in this discussion more times than I could visit his site in a year. You seem to discredit everything in which he could be conceived as the source. I suggest you go back and read the Koelpin paper et al. and take them for what they are and not continue your ad hominem attacks.

And I agree with Joe...you should have a huge problem with NPH for selling his books, and MLC for having all of them in their library. Thy Strong Word is a very good book and our church would be a lot better off if our people bought that book instead of "Purpose Driven..."

I responded to Joe:

Joe, you have your facts wrong. I resigned from WELS because I was disgusted with their constant and persistent support for a known adulterer--to the point of endorsing him for a new ministerial position--and even more with their advocacy of false doctrine: Valleskey, Kelm, Olson, Huebner, Bivens, Oelhaven, et al. A lot of WELS pastors and laity read Ichabod and thank me for discussing the doctrinal issues. I have yet to see a serious argument supporting Church and Change.

Joe was decent enough to retract his false statement:

Ah, sorry about that--quite honestly I have no idea of the circumstances under which you left, so I took Phil's words at face value. Apologies.

Michael Schottey responded to Phil:

The irony is that you continue to attack the character rather than the content. You've questioned motive numerous times and are the only one referring to the "worship wars" as you call them. You've turned a discussion about outreach into a debate about sources--sources you apparently read as well. (Not to mention a good deal of WELS pastors)

You have referenced Jackson in this discussion more times than I could visit his site in a year. You seem to discredit everything in which he could be conceived as the source. I suggest you go back and read the Koelpin paper et al. and take them for what they are and not continue your ad hominem attacks.

And I agree with Joe...you should have a huge problem with NPH for selling his books, and MLC for having all of them in their library. Thy Strong Word is a very good book and our church would be a lot better off if our people bought that book instead of "Purpose Driven..."

When Phil Gurgel was asked by Jessica Hill about WELS pastors worshiping with Babtists, Phil wrote (in reference to Ski's blog, which is still posted for all to read):

Jessica, the blog post was not clear about whether he actually participated in the worship at the conference or not. There is no doubt that he was there to witness what their worship was like (not a sin), but what remains in doubt from his blog posts was whether he participated with them (sinful).

Joe, I never said why GJ left our synod. What I did state, is that the doctrine of our church (and what Scripture teaches) is not in agreement with his beliefs. (We are not in fellowship with his current e-church, and for good reason). (This, however, is not the thread to discuss that though, such a thread would be better in the WELS theology group).

GJ, I am no C & C guy, but it is truly disturbing to see people call things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God sins. Our Lutheran traditions certainly serve a wonderful purpose, and we have a wealth of great things handed down to us from our Lutheran forefathers. But those traditions are not papal law, and if someone uses a different style of music, that is not in and of itself sinful. One can question the "wisdom" of such things and the C & C people should not be held up as role models for all pastors, nor should they be held up as villains (or false teachers). There is a big leap between "unwise" and "wrong". I have gone to a number of the services a couple of years ago, and I have to say that despite what some people are saying, Christ was always front and center during the service. I didn´t always like the sermon styles (I found some of the service themes to be rather cheesy and contrived), but there was no doubt that they were centered on Christ and the Word, and not on the pastor. I don´t desire to debate this further with you. You are firmly convinced that these people are false prophets, and I doubt my words will change your mind (especially considering my last name).

I would encourage, however, as this is a WELS page. While we are open to open minded discussion with those outside of our fellowship, one thing we do not encourage is someone approaching a discussion here with a closed mind and solely seeking to change the minds of those on the board. As Romans 16:17-18 says "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." If you come here trying to push an agenda contrary to the teachings of the church (and specificially the Bible), that will not be tolerated. (Please reserve such topics to the WELS Theology or WELS pastor boards or your blog, thanks).

So I asked Phil Gurgel:

Phil, please parse these sentences for everyone: "The final Main Session with Andy Stanley was just phenomenal. We began with awesome worship."

(http://web.me.com/pastorski/Site/Day_5.html)

A Church and Change board member, Ski, bragged about worshiping with Babtist Andy Stanley, but you explained it away. Next you invoked Romans 16:17-18. Where is the consistency? You are smooth but not convincing.

Phil Gurgel says he is not a Church and Change guy, and I almost believe him. The seminary Gurgel is a C & C activist. Ex-SP Gurgel joined the staff of Kudu Don Patterson, who also denies being with C & C. Patterson led a session at a C & C conference and posts on their listserve, etc.

Diablo, a Lutheran layman wrote to me about the Gurgel exchange: "Taking doctrine aside for one moment, what did the Gurgels do for WELS? It is broke."

Phil Gurgel sent me a message:

Subject: Guilt by Association

I found your comment about guilt by association interesting, as so much of your blog is exactly that, "guilt by association". I guess that speaks to the content of your blog, in your own words "a fallacy" and someone posting with "nothing worthwhile to say". I´ll be sure to pass along that quote to anyone I know who might read your "guilt by association" posts on your blog. Thanks.

As far as my lack of understanding of basic Lutheran doctrine. I noticed you provided no examples, but just merely stated it as fact (I believe we call such accusations "ad hominem"). And if you are going to call me out for public error, you probably should actually point out my error, otherwise it´s just simply slander (but then again, that area of your conscience seems to have long ago become calloused). For someone who likes to "back up" his claims, you provided no such evidence in your post. I would also say that basic "Lutheran doctrine" encompasses the understanding of Law and Gospel. While it is a life time struggle to apply them correctly, the Law condemns me. As a sinner I am worthy of death. The Gospel heals me, as Jesus´death clothed me in righteousness and made me new without any merit of my own. Those are the basics, and I fail to see how I don´t understand them and believe in them wholeheartedly (with faith that the Holy Spirit has worked in my soul). I´ll let God judge me and my faith, and not you sir. (Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved!)

I would wait for an apology, but I don´t feel one is likely to come. So, I´ll just end it here.

God bless you,
Phil

Joe Jewell wrote:

Phil, we've had this discussion once before, remember? (Followed by a short but apparently necessary review of the Large Catechism's position on public error.) It was only "unclear" if English words don't mean what they mean:

"We began with awesome worship." [Description of awesome worship, including rapper, ensues. Or Enthuses, if you like.]

Following the 8th commandment, the most positive construction on that would be that the C&Cers are sorry and promise never to sit at the feet of the Schwaermer again. Is that likely, do you think?

***

GJ - My conclusions? Phil Gurgel represents a frantic, fading fad in WELS. The Chicaneries will fight for their causes at the convention this month, but the discussion on Facebook is a good indication of current attitudes.

Phil Gurgel kept trying to make the discussion revolve around Ichabod (bad, bad) and me (worse, worse). No one wanted to join him in dancing on my grave.

After trying to hijack an intelligent, thoughtful thread various times, Phil expected me to apologize to him.

Phil was obviously angry that everyone got to read the Koeplin essay from Ichabod, that it has spread from there. So Chicaneries can say, "If you mention Koeplin, you have read Ichabod, you worthless sinner."

Koeplin's essay was right on target about everything ex-SP Gurgel did. Koeplin died soon after, trashed by the Shrinkers. SP Gurgel did his best to ruin WELS and now works with VP Patterson. That is God's judgment against WELS for allowing Gurgel-Mueller and the Shrinkers to run the synod.

---

Phil Gurgel (Mexico) wrote:
You are not in fellowship with the WELS. You have been marked as a false teacher. So identifying you as such is no different than identifying the pope (Luther´s example), or a baptist pastor as being a false teacher. (This was the entire point that Luther was making above), that the public sinner who has been judged as a false teacher, can be testified about in order to help people mark him for what he is.

I have studied the Large Catechism, and it will continue to be part of my ongoing study of the BOC. However, is it safe to assume that you were in agreement with Joe´s understanding of Luther´s words on the eight commandment? It sure appears to me that those words that were pulled out of their context and made to say something that is not at all Biblical nor Luther´s intention in writing them. Perhaps we all could use a better study of the BOC and the Large Catechism! And with that, I encourage us to either 1) move this discussion to a different forum (WELS theology would be fitting) or 2) leave the discussion at this point because it is clearly that all those involved have clearly made up their minds on the issue as it currently stands.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

Phil Gurgel is a prime example of an unreal, irrelevant, non-relational, talking head of self-confusion and self-delusion.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

Anyone who supports a divisive movement like CGM seeks to support a failing synod at the expense of the Word of God. Way to go Phil.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

With leaders like Phil Gurgel polluting the WELS, I see why WELS is in decline. Drink at your own risk!

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

The thing that comes to mind when I read what Phil Gurgel wrote:

"Thou doth protest too much"

Frantic is right; but smooth is also right. I can't believe the slippery way Phil misdirects the focus of a conversation and subtly (subtly, mind you!) misuses language for his own end.

When I read someone like Phil Gurgel I'm reminded of seeing the Clinton White House in action--they pulled the same sort of verbal stunts to distract and mislead. The only difference is that the Clinton Administration was a bunch of very intelligent people, all who (I assume) passed 9th grade English class.

Phil Gurgel, in spite his smoothness, has the compositional ability of a lesser great ape.

If I were a on a college accreditation board and read some of what Phil Gurgel wrote I would seriously consider revoking MLC's accreditation. This guy has a college degree??? Review the following Phil Gurgel quote as an example:

"C)Know about how GJ, whose extremely divisive blog it appears you have been following rather closely lately , has been talking about this very quote recently (somewhat off topic, it was interesting, how "Corky" Koelpin´s article also appeared on the Synod Ed board immediately after GJ posted it on his blog."

I'm really not trying to tear Phil Gurgel down--I don't know him--but I have to be realistic. Someone who writes this way probably shouldn't have been awarded a degree. I dun bin larned by mi teecher. I is a collig gradutate! Now I reckon on been a parson"

"...Cluttered writing indicates cluttered thinking."

That's a quote--Strunk and White maybe?