Actual quote:
Also, there seems to be a buzz in the Lutheran blogosphere that there's really no such person as "Brett Meyer" and that you're just Dr. Greg Jackson incognito.
That is so funny, and coming from an alleged historian. His source is...not known. His source is... a rumor passed along on some blog or blogs, so he claims. It is hard to verify something so vague.
As I have mentioned to LPC, Brett, and Bruce Church, I seldom give serious attention to a Missouri Lutheran teaching at a Roman Catholic school. Add the latest hallucinations and his credibility goes below the sub-basement level.
Gary and Alicia would be very sad to hear that their son does not exist. Brett's wife and children would also be alarmed. DP Buchholz would also be wondering.
I can see how dense the UOJ people are. Their heads are starting to explode. They think I can post 4200 times and invent a separate identity who posts lengthy, detailed comments, full of facts and quotations.
I want to say, on behalf of Brett - thanks for complimenting him. He is trained in computers and got Bethany going on the video broadcasts. The bloggostorian is saying that Brett's comments are close enough to mine that he thinks a PhD in theology has written them.
Tonight, before I read that claim, I was thinking about how good the responses from LPC and Brett have been. When I talk to pastors or church officials, they repeat their seminary dog notes and never grasp the basics of Biblical theology.
Brett, LPC, Bruce Church, Church Lady, and Grey Goose understand what Lutherans have believed and practiced.
WELS and Missouri should toss out their DPs and randomly select laymen to fill the office so badly abused by the current occupants.
4 comments:
With UOJers thinking that certain commenters are Dr. Jackson and write on a Ph.D. level, I'm starting to get offended that the UOJers haven't also started a rumor that Bruce Church is Dr. Jackson! :) Come on guys, help my ego out here!
Bruce Church' comments sometimes seem bitter and angry. Maybe Bruce-Church has a point, put a friendly smile, balding forehead and a twinkle in the eye of those comments and...it just might be...
On the other hand the topics he's commenting on regard the activities of false teachers,false doctrines, man's inhumanity to man, lieing, stealing, murder and abortion all funded and defended by Lutheran churches...then again, he ought to be bitter and angry. In the face of that how can someone be a timid lutheran when wolves are teaching false doctrine and leading people away from Christ and eternal salvation through faith in Him. Why is it that people are offended that someone's bitter and angry at church offerings supporting the murder of babies - what level of disgust and anger would be appropriate? It seems we cannot be bitter and angry to the point where the financiers of these activities feel the heat of their actions.
"We find this attitude of tolerance quite frequently among unionists. It is often used to assuage a troubled conscience, one's own as well as that of others; for the unionist declares that every one may continue to hold his own private convictions and merely needs to respect and tolerate those of another. This attitude is totally wrong, for it disregards two important factors: (a) in tolerating divergent doctrines one either denies the perspicuity and clarity of the Scriptures, or one grants to error the right to exist alongside of truth, or one evidences indifference over against Biblical truth by surrendering its absolute validity; and (b) in allowing two opposite views concerning one doctrine to exist side by side, one has entered upon an inclined plane which of necessity leads ever further into complete doctrinal indifference, as may plainly be seen from the most calamitous case on record, viz., the Prussian Union."
M. Reu, In the Interest of Lutheran Unity, Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1940, p. 20.
Hi Brett. You should cite an example of an angry or bitter comment of mine. I haven't actually felt "bitter and angry" posting any comments. I'm just reacting to reality, and not trying to put a buff and sheen on it. For example, the other day when Grumpy noted that only $200 was raised for a congregant who couldn't pay his or her medical bills, and I said it was probably worse than Grumpy made it out to be because $200 may have been the total after Thrivent matching funds. That's not being angry or bitter--just a statement of fact correlating to to what I've seen too often. If I really wanted to be negative, I could have mentioned that our church lost a family to an ELCA church because a member asked that the next free will offering at the after church lunches that our church often has go to his son who had steep medical bills. The pastor told him "no" because we already maxed out the Thrivent matching funds for the year, and without the matching funds, the "take" wouldn't warrant a special meal/free will offering.
I apologize Bruce and stand corrected. I read back through months of postings and your comments have been factual, calm and direct. It was my way of setting up a comment on the current requirement that criticism of current heresies and abominations should be with a pound of powdery sugar, buff and sheen, so the offenders don't get offended.
I did run across an excellent comment from rlschultz that would fit the current situation with Intrepid and Timid Lutheran's popping up now. The comment can be found here:
http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-to-lose-by-quitting.html
Post a Comment