Monday, August 10, 2009

Top Hymns




Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Little Sect on the Prairie Is All About Doctri...":

Pr. Jackson,

This question has little to do with previous posts. Knowing that you are a true lover of Lutheran hymnody, I have a question for you: What are your top ten favorite hymns of all time? The primary list would, of course, be based on text. If at all possible, perhaps a second list based on tune or an aesthetic / personal choice could be made? I thank you for your time. I am a WELS teacher looking for a new set of hymns for my students to study this school year - and I would like your opinion.

***

GJ - This is tempting and dangerous at the same time. I will start with great texts. As much as I love Luther's hymns, Gerhardt's are even better when viewed as doctrinal, inspirational essays.

TLH 142 - A Lamb Goes Uncomplaining Forth - Gerhardt
TLH 528 - If God Himself Be For Me - Gerhardt
TLH 192 - Awake, My Heart, With Gladness - Gerhardt
TLH 85 - From Heaven Above - Luther
TLH 287 - That Man a Godly Life Might Live - Luther
TLH 260 - O Lord, Look Down from Heaven - Luther (to Nun freut euch)
TLH 292 - Lord Jesus Christ, With Us Abide - Selnecker
TLH 656 - Behold a Host, Arrayed in White - Brorson
TLH 305 - Soul Adorn Thyself - Johann Franck
TLH 347 - Jesus, Priceless Treasure - Johann Franck

Hymns I love to sing - with especially good melodies:
TLH 657 - Beautiful Savior - Author Unknown
TLH 479 - Zion Rise - Johann Schmidt
TLH 429 - Lord, Thee I Love - Martin Schalling (Selnecker's friend)
TLH 458 - Our Father, Thou in Heaven Above - Luther
TLH 331 - Yea, As I Live - Nikolaus Hermam (to Old Hundredth)
TLH 207 - Like the Golden Sun Ascending - Thomas Kingo
TLH 259 - Flung to the Heedless Winds - Luther's first hymn
TLH 40 - The God of Abraham Praise - Thomas Olivers
TLH 44 - Ye Lands to the Lord - Ulrik Koren
Children of the Heavenly Father - Carolina Sandell

Children of the heav’nly Father
Safely in His bosom gather;
Nestling bird nor star in Heaven
Such a refuge e’er was given.

God His own doth tend and nourish;
In His holy courts they flourish;
From all evil things He spares them;
In His mighty arms He bears them.

Neither life nor death shall ever
From the Lord His children sever;
Unto them His grace He showeth,
And their sorrows all He knoweth.

Though He giveth or He taketh,
God His children ne’er forsaketh;
His the loving purpose solely
To preserve them pure and holy.

Lo, their very hairs He numbers,
And no daily care encumbers
Them that share His ev’ry blessing
And His help in woes distressing.

Praise the Lord in joyful numbers:
Your Protector never slumbers.
At the will of your Defender
Ev’ry foeman must surrender.

***

I hope this helps. Teaching great hymns to children is a great service to the Kingdom of God. Everyone is blessed by your work.

Note all the hymn videos linked on the left column, including one of my all-time favorites, which I cannot find in English - Gerhardt's "Lobet den Herren."


UOJ Survey



Portrait of the Theologian as a Young Doughnut Maker


DK has left a new comment on your post "The Little Sect on the Prairie Is All About Doctri...":

Hi Professor Jackson

I have a UOJ question for you. I’ve talked with several WELS and LCMS pastors about UOJ. Out of 6 or 8 pastors, 1 from each synod has responded in what I would call ‘very favorable’. (each has told me they are going to read Thy Strong Word).

The rest of the pastors kindly, but very definitely blew me off. “Of course Christ Objectively Justified the whole world!”, went the general theme. The more questions I ask the more vague the response until the wind of conversation dies out, replaced by awkward silence…(crickets chirping…) The agony of it makes me ask a benign question, one I know will warm the marrow quickly. “Are you going to watch the Packers this afternoon?”

Even though I think that Pastors ought to be engaging me in this conversation (instead of the other way around) I really do get the distinct impression that the guys I talked to, at least, believe that Faith Alone justifies; It’s almost as if the words they use are jumbled, confusing and misleading but their belief is alright. Using the word ‘reconciliation’ as a direct synonym for ‘justification’ is a pretty big error, but look at our times!

We’re experiencing one of the biggest butcheries of English in the history of the language. The poor uneducated Confederate soldier had a bigger vocabulary and better usage and grammar (I’ve read countless letters) than any collection of M.DIVs from any synod. This degredation(sic) of English is particularly bad in the WELS—there(sic) fetish for misspelling words only scratches the surface.

So my question for you is this: In your opinion, what percent of UOJ defenders actually don’t believe the substance(sic) of that doctrine? How many of them are unaware that the Equivication(sic) changes what they are saying? And how many WELS pastors, considering the WELS MO is K.I.S.S., ever actually talk about UOJ? And as far as that goes, how many of them even think about UOJ? I’m just wondering if you think that UOJ is having a negative threat on the Whole WELS or only on the movers and shakers, who in turn affect the whole WELS?

Sorry, maybe this is a dumb question… Oh but good news! I purposefully misspelled words for affect (and effect) and added (sic) for you so you didn’t have to. Cheers!

***

GJ - I have always appreciated doctrinal questions. WELS/LCMS laity got me interested in the issue, and some badly brain-washed UOJ-CGM laity raved at me for being influenced by laity. (Self-loathing laity?)

By now most pastors know that UOJ is the Third Rail of the Synodical Conference - touch it and you die. The Cascione junkyard dogs rant, rave, and lie through their fangs about it. The CG leadership of all three synods adore UOJ, so pastors interested in keeping their calls would rather avoid the issue.

WELS pastors have avoided doctrinal issues for several decades and have grown anemic and lethargic in their discernment. Missouri and the Little Sect are no different.

My experience is that many pastors trained in UOJ cling to the words but do not believe the heresy. A certain percentage of those pastors think OJ is the Atonement, so they may say the UOJ words while expressing the Biblical concept of justification by faith. Other pastors do not accept UOJ because they realize it is utter hogwash. Some are more frank with me, and some will argue the issue when given the chance.

I think SP Schroeder gave the entire synod permission to study doctrine again. There will be conflict, but that is not all bad. "There must be heresies and divisions among you to prove what is acceptable." Suppressing doctrinal discussions is foundational for apostasy.

The more I studied UOJ, the more I saw it as an expression of the Enthusiasm which gushed forth from the Pietistic founders of the Synodical Conference. When they were not praising themselves for being so orthodox, they were busy creating a hybrid of Pietism and Lutheran Orthodoxy. Now they are shocked that their husbandry has created a sterile mule? They should have spent more time on a farm growing up.

Perhaps this anecdote will illustrate what is going on about UOJ. I was at an independent conference when someone gave an incoherent presentation. Archbishop-to-be Jim Heiser was there and said, "He denied OJ!" I am not sure what the presenter said, although he was clearly against baptismal regeneration. Later, when Heiser read the justification chapter of Thy Strong Word, he was appalled at what UOJ really meant. Like me, he took the term to be a synonym for the Atonement. Heiser told me that another pastor read that chapter and was also shocked. Both of them were at The Surrendered Fort while Robert Preus was president.

When Fake Ichabod made its brief, odoriferous debut, the authors refused to link the chapter while maladroitly presenting their favorite heresy, which is wedded to Church Growth. People need to read copious quotations from both sides, not the repeat-after-me nonsense of Enthusiasm. What are the pastors afraid of - the truth?

The UOJ Stormtroopers are afraid these issues will come out in the open as they discuss the Book of Concord. The laity and a few brave pastors will have to pursue the Biblical concept of the Means of Grace as it applies to UOJ.

One thing leads to another. As I wrote before, laity got me involved in the UOJ issue. I spent as much time as I could gathering UOJ materials. Now others are opening up new understanding about its origin - including original research about the Pietist Knapp. Copying false doctrine did not begin with Paul Calvin Kelm.


The Little Sect on the Prairie Is All About Doctrine - And Teaching the Truth



Pope John the Malefactor has visited more countries and extended
the Left Foot of Fellowship more often than his Roman counterpart,
given the size of the Little Sect.


The August newsletter of the ELS managed to cover the WELS convention without mentioning the repudiation of Church Growth doctrine.

Pope John the Malefactor would have problems with the content of the papers given, except for John Brenner's fantasies about UOJ.

The one thing the Synodical Conference keeps harping on is an opinion not found in the Book of Concord, Luther, Chemnitz, Melanchthon, Gerhard, or Calov - UOJ or double justification.

But double justification is found in Burk (Pietist) and Knapp (Pietist), transported by Walther (Pietist), and canonized by F. Pieper - who was born into a Pietistic, unionistic sect and subsequently had his membership upgraded to Missouri Synod.

A brief catechism on Universal Objective Justification:

The whole world is forgiven and everyone is saved. Every single person is a guilt-free saint. Therefore we are born without sin, like Mary Immaculata. That is Universal Objective Justification. However, all this forgiveness and salvation and grace do not mean anything until we make a decision and accept that it is true (subjective justification). If we hem and haw, we are damned forever and will probably be the only ones in Hell who are not guilt-free saints. This eternal doctrine can be traced all the way back to the first days of the Christian Church in Perry County, Missouri.


The Shrinkers love UOJ, harping on it even more than the seminary professors.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Little Sect on the Prairie Is All About Doctri...":

It's kind of hard to believe that anything at all will be done about CGM in the ELS. The number of pastors for CGM may be few, but they're folks who get their way. Nothing will be done about Abiding Shepherd.


Thy Strong Word - Sells Used for $65!


Used books sell for deeply discounted prices at Alibris.

I never dealt with them before, but an alleged friend bought Reu's Luther and the Scriptures out from under my nose for only $5. I always wanted that book but was not aware of the vast used market out there when I first got the itch.

This friend got his copy for $5 and gave me the link for a $9 purchase of the same book. Some people think Ichabodians are not considerate, selfless, generous. What more could I ask?

I thought that was pretty funny, so I looked up my name as an author. The prices were what I expected, except for Thy Strong Word, which is offered for more than the original price of $40. I have been shipping it to people for $10 per copy - new. As I explained to one reader, there is not much money in writing so I would rather distribute copies than earn a little more.

Later I will do an English-only version of TSW and produce a free PDF for people to download, through Lulu.

---

Bruce Church has left a new comment on your post "Thy Strong Word - Sells Used for $65!":

Reu's bio (The Lutherans By L. DeAne Lagerquist, p. 218) says he argued against inerrancy of Scripture, so it's odd that you want Reu's book entitled "Luther and the Scriptures," though I haven't read it, nor do I own it:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kli5nRmGzm4C&pg=PA218&dq=luther+and+the+scriptures+reu&ei=yT2ASviIHIzIMd6smOEK#v=onepage&q=&f=false

***

GJ - That's why I have a PhD instead of a drive-by DMin. The Shrinkers all have unionistic, drive-by DMins, because a real doctorate is too much work for them. However, they all call themselves "Dr."

Back to the main subject. Yes, Reu did argue against inerrancy at first. He was a true scholar, stunning Germany by coming from America and becoming an expert on German catechisms. His studies led him to conclude Luther did teach inerrancy. Reu became increasingly orthodox, and that really miffed the liberal element in the ALC/LCA wing of Lutherdom. They never forgave him for backsliding into inerrancy. A parallel example is Robert Preus, who abandoned UOJ and clearly taught against it in his last book, Justification and Rome.

Reu could look at a page of German and write it down from memory. Think what he could have done for Paul Calvin Kelm and John Xerox Parlow!

I read about Reu in one of the two Fuerbringer books, which are invaluable for Lutheran history in America. Both books are small volumes full of eye-witness anecdotes about the leading figures of various synods. Ludwig's idiot son Fibby was the man who led Concordia St. Louis into apostasy.


Knock, Knock



Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, Hillary Clinton Ally


"Knock, knock."
"Who's there?"
"Kenya."
"Kenya who?"
"Kenya show me your birth certificate?"
"Not funny, Rahm."

[Found on the Internet]

WELS Shrinkers in Fellowship with Islam via Warren and Stetzer



WELS Church and Chicaneries invited Stetzer to teach the Wisconsin Synod the Word of God.
Here is Stetzer consulting with Rick Warren, on his extreme Left.



Rick Warren asks Muslims for help


Published July 30, 2009



WASHINGTON (BP)—In a controversial address to the nation’s largest Muslim organization, Rick Warren asked for their cooperation in addressing some of the world’s problems that governments haven’t been able to solve.

Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., told about 8,000 Muslims at the Islamic Society of North America’s annual convention in Washington July 4 that he was “deeply humbled” and applauded their courage for inviting an evangelical pastor.

“I come to you today with a spirit of love and a spirit of friendship and a spirit of deep respect. I love my dear, dear Muslim friends, my next door neighbor and so many that are friends, and I love you,” Warren said.

During his 20-minute address, Warren set forth four specific ways Muslims and Christians can work together, “maintaining our separate traditions, maintaining our convictions without compromise,” for the world’s greater good.

“As the two largest faiths on this planet—Muslims and Christians—we must lead in this. We must lead,” Warren said. “With over 1 billion Muslims and over 2 billion Christians, together as half the world we have to do something about modeling what it means to live in peace, to live in harmony.”

First, Warren called on Muslims and Christians to demonstrate what it means to respect the dignity of every person.

“Tolerance is not enough. People don’t want to be tolerated. They want to be respected. They want to be treated with dignity. They want to be listened to. They want to be valued,” he said.

Toward that end, Warren proposed a coalition to end stereotyping.

“Since today much of the press is actually clueless as to what you believe and as to what I believe, there are frequent mischaracterizations in the media, frequent ignorant generalizations—generalizations are generally wrong—and frequent stereotyping of all of us. And, friends, it needs to be challenged,” Warren said.

A second area where Muslims and Christians should work together, Warren said, is restoring the civil public square where people of all beliefs can debate and even disagree without demeaning each other.

“The right to believe anything does not mean everything is right,” he said. “But you can, as I said, disagree without being disagreeable.”

Warren cited as a third goal of Muslims and Christians working together to promote peace and protect freedom, particularly the freedoms of speech and religion.

“History has proven over and over again that freedom is eventually lost to either license or political correctness or the fear for security. And so we have to work at protecting the freedoms,” Warren said, adding that Muslims who have been in America for many generations have a responsibility to teach the newcomers what it means to be American.

Fourth, Muslims and Christians can work together toward tackling what Warren called five global giants: conflict, corruption, poverty, disease and illiteracy.

“There are 600,000 Buddhists in the world, there are 800,000 Hindus in the world, there are over a billion Muslims, a couple billion Christians,” he said. “Most of the world has some kind of faith, and if you say only secularists can do humanitarian care, you’ve ruled out most of the world.”

Warren gave as an example his church’s work with Muslims in Rwanda toward improving the African nation’s poor health care system, suggesting that the success could be duplicated elsewhere.

“Friends, this is the time for action, this is the time for civility, this is the time for respecting each other. It’s the time for the common good, that we work together because some problems are so big you have to team tackle them,” Warren said.

Before and after Warren spoke at the Muslim convention, observers voiced views supporting and criticizing his decision. The Associated Press said that, given Warren’s standing as “one of the most prominent religious leaders in the country,” his willingness to speak was “a sign of growing acceptance of U.S. Muslims.”

AP also noted that it was not the first time Warren had addressed an American Muslim group. Last December he spoke at a meeting of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a policy organization based in Los Angeles.

“But the Islamic Society gathering is by far his most dramatic display of friendship with U.S. Muslims,” AP said.

Mike Edens, a professor of theology and Islamic studies at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press Warren was acting in line with a document he had signed previously advocating Muslim-Christian
interaction.

The full-page letter endorsed by Warren and nearly 300 other Christian leaders appeared in The New York Times in December 2007. It was drafted by scholars at Yale Divinity School’s Center for Faith and Culture and said conversation should take place between Christians and Muslims centered on the “common ground” the two religions share.

“Warren speaks as a disciple of Jesus Christ explains the meaning of Jesus’ command to love our neighbors,” Edens said in a statement to BP. “In his view, biblical love is active, attacking stereotypes, respecting diversity and living with civility with neighbors.

“Freedom of thought and religion is granted lovingly for neighbors. This freedom includes persuasive witness, without coercion between neighbors,” Edens continued. “For Warren, this definition of neighborly love is the beginning of establishing the common good for all humanity.

“The hard part of this speech is the application: working together for the common good and conducting personal witness to salvation in Jesus Christ within the context of that work,” Edens said.

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, a think tank focusing on issues in the Middle East, questioned Warren’s choice to speak to the Islamic Society of North America in particular.

“The constructive substance of Warren’s talk—the calls to dignity, civility, freedom and to constructive action—was severely outbalanced by his addressing these words to an Islamist organization that shares few of his goals—hat is in fact antagonistic to them,” Pipes told BP.

“ISNA works to apply the Shari’a, or Islamic law, a medieval code that denies dignity, civility and freedom to non-Muslims. Worse, the Department of Justice in 2007 named ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in the crime of financing a foreign terrorist group,” Pipes said. “Warren should atone for this mistake by apologizing and finding moderate Muslims to endorse and work with.”

In a July 10 blog entry at danielpipes.org, Pipes quoted a report by the Investigative Project on Terrorism which said the conference also “featured speakers spewing raw anti-Semitism, homophobic rhetoric and defense of the terrorist group Hezbollah.”

Edens, in his comments to Baptist Press, said, “While it is clear that ISNA has been a channel for funds to Hamas, the fact remains that the members of the ISNA are our American neighbors in need of a Christian witness. Secondly, although those members have always had a choice between involvement with groups like Hamas and groups which seek the common good, with Pastor Warren’s address that choice becomes stark. As Muslim Americans disavow Hamas and choose to embrace the common good, freedom and peace will advance. Giving Muslims a choice to join in such a pursuit benefits all humanity.”

***

GJ - A reader noted - "This is a good example of where Pietism leads."

Pietism is unionistic and anti-confessional, so the movement inevitably leads to apostasy and political activism.

The Pietists--who "took the pledge" against alcohol 50 years ago--are marching for radical causes today.

Rick Warren should Google such terms as "honor killings" and "FGM."

Last year, VP Don Patterson took a bunch of WELS workers to hear Stetzer at the pan-denominational--Pietistic--Exponential Conference. Soon after, Stetzer was booked to speak at the November, 2009 conference, as indicated by his Twitter, blog, and official speaking calendar. Calling Stetzer a liar, the Chicaneries denied this. Oh wait, maybe they were saying, "Do you believe us or your lying eyes?" The Conference of Pussycats finally had claws for concern and ordered a disinvitation. The invitation that never happened was withdrawn and the Stetzer calendar changed.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Shrinkers in Fellowship with Islam via Warren...":

Warren's biggest error was addressing a large audience of unbelievers and failing to declare Christ crucified. Instead of taking advantage of an opportunity to reach the lost, he instead spoke about the "common good" and other post modernist pipe-dreams.

Do certain WELS pastors, upon meeting with the doctrinally lost, take a bold stand and point out error, or do they cower behind fake smiles, opportunism, and self-serving desire?

Post modernism is a grave threat to any confessional church and will at least lead to bland (and deadly) ecumenicism. "Lemkeel," a regular new-age troll over at Bailing Water, is a good example of this. In her sincere efforts to embrace diversity, cultural competency, and toe the party line at a public university, she is more than willing to compromise the Word. The poison is so strong that she is unable to see her error.

Let Obama keep Warren and let WELS stick to the Word. Both false doctrine and political/ideological post modernism can be overcome with a little education and adhering to first principles. In the WELS, we need to study the Word and the Confessions and not false prophets. In our society, we need to brush up on basic economic principles and realize that destroying perfectly usable and fully paid vehicles in order to get into debt by buying a shiny new car is absurd.


Positively UOJ at NPH




Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "FIC Shrinker Count:August, 2009 Issue":

I received a copy of "Positively Lutheran" by said author. Big disappointment. "Objective Justification" is the only form explicitly discussed. Gone is the confessional emphasis on justification by grace through faith alone. A triumph of the 2 & 1/4 redemption theory: Atonement/Justification/justification.

---

Chapter 1 – "The Great Comfort the Doctrine of Objective Justification Gives"

1. Why do we use the word "objective" to describe justification?
2. While the Bible never uses the term "objective justification," it teaches this doctrine quite clearly. Who identified Jesus as the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"? Why does the church sing these words right before receiving the Lord's Supper?
3. Give some synonyms for "justify."
4. Explain what Luther meant by the "blessed exchange."
5. Where should we look for the assurance that God forgives us all our sins?
6. Where would we have to look if something had to happen in us before God would forgive us?
7. Does objective justification teach that anyone "receives" the forgiveness of sins without faith? What is the significance of this fact for doing mission work?
8. How does this teaching of objective justification give you certainty that you really are forgiven by God?
9. Can you receive true comfort from God if you are not sure that he has forgiven you? Why or why not?