Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Melanchthon - On the Sacraments





"If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments...Therefore Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Absolution, which is the Sacrament of Repentance, are truly Sacraments. For these rites have God's command and the promise of grace, which is peculiar to the New Testament. For when we are baptized, when we eat the Lord's body, when we are absolved, our hearts must be firmly assured that God truly forgives us for Christ's sake. And God, at the same time, by the Word and by the rite, moves hearts to believe and conceive faith, just as Paul says, Romans 10:17: 'Faith cometh by hearing.' But just as the Word enters the ear in order to strike our heart, so the rite itself strikes the eye, in order to move the heart. The effect of the Word and of the rite is the same..." [Luther, Babylonian Captivity, 3 sacraments] Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII,#3. Number/Use Sacraments. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 309. Tappert, p. 211. Heiser, p. 94.

Religious Freedom and Suing Their Jackboots Off


grumpy has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Scott,

I disagree strongly with your statement that Rick should sue the congregation. Perhaps you simply meant that as a joke.

In our society where freedom of religion is protected (at least for now, sometimes, well you get the idea), I believe that such an action, although it may be seen as cruel and unjust, is still within the rights of a church body to do so.

On the other hand, I believe that Rick has the right to speak and write about the actions that were taken against him by his church. As long as what he says is truthful and non-slanderous of course that is protected by free speech.

It's kind of like when I tell Dr. Jackson that no preps or colleges are closing and then give him a "BA-ZING-OO"...

Grumps

***

GJ - State law varies. Minnesota lets denominations get away with all kinds of abuse. That is why ELCA is incorporated there. The exception in Minnesota is kicking a member out. Use a pastor like a foot-rag and toss him out, violating the call contract. No problem. But kick a member out and he has the right to sue and be compensated.

I think a situation like this demands legal advice, even though Rick is an attorney himself. The great thing about a lawyer is that he removes 99% of the stress. Having a lawyer means being able to say, "I already discussed this with my attorney." That statement has removed many obstacles, saved thousands of dollars, and proved once again that the Law creates contrition.

They say that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. There is nothing unChristian about having an attorney be a spokesman in this kind of situation. One shady agency tried for several years to nail me for a $10,000 car loan taken out by a man with a different name, social security number, and race. I paid a lawyer $100 to phone this dude and say, "You could face credit libel charges, etc etc." Justice rolled down like a river. I could have sued and won, but I was assured that collecting from a guy like that was another matter.

All the clergy have a conflict of interest. Intrepid pastors have been told they will be kicked out if they step out of line - a threat never heard by Jeske, Kelm, Glende, or Ski, I am sure.

I am quite certain that WELS is sued on a regular basis and counter-sues, as they did when Team Gurgle looted the MilCraft Estate and the widow wanted the promised money. What does the Bible say about robbing widows and orphans? All in a day's work with WELS. That is why they promoted Gurgle from incompetent DP to incompetent SP. WELS did not give back the money willingly, but the court forced them to fork over $1 million. WELS actually went to court to keep the widow from getting the money due her. Try not to smirk when WELS talks about not suing a fellow-Christian. Under Gurgle, who now works for Kudu Don Patterson:
  1. The MilCraft Estate was ruined.
  2. They refused to pay the widow.
  3. WELS went to court to keep from paying the widow.
  4. WELS wasted a ton of money paying a lawyer to fight this widow in court.
  5. WELS had to pay the million in cash anyway, on top of legal expenses.
  6. Yes, that is Patterson's kind of guy, SP Gurgle.

But I agree with Grumpy about not bothering to sue WELS. Make them sweat, beg for mercy. Apologize? That would be a miracle.

Grumpy's dare is open-ended, so I get to say "Bah-zing" when the next school closes, or when Mary Lou College moves to Watertown and Milwaukee, a plan already seriously discussed.
4 preps, 2 colleges, 1 sausage factory = 7 schools.
3 preps, 2 colleges, 1 sausage factory = 6 schools.
2 preps, 1 college, 1 sausage factory = 4 schools.
The next number is either 3 or 2.

Melanchthon - Ordination as a Sacrament


"But if ordination be understood as applying to the ministry of the Word, we are not unwilling to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word has God's command and glorious promises. Romans 1:16 The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Likewise, Isaiah 55:11: So shall My Word be that goeth forth out of My mouth; it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please...And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own...." Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII. #11. Number/Use Sacraments, Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 311. Tappert, p. 212. Heiser, p. 95. Romans 1:16; Isaiah 55:11.

Melanchthon - Adorn the Ministry of the Word



"And it is of advantage, so far as can be done, to adorn the ministry of the Word with every kind of praise against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Ghost is given not through the Word, but because of certain preparations of their own, if they sit unoccupied and silent in obscure places, waiting for illumination, as the Enthusiasts formerly taught, and the Anabaptists now teach." Apology Augsburg Confession, XIII. #13. The Sacraments. Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1921, p. 311. Tappert, p. 213. Heiser, p. 95.

Emmaus Question and Answer


AC V has left a new comment on your post "Emmaus Photograph":

Harrison: "Why are you guys so obsessed with whether or not you can pray with your non-WELS grandmother at a Thanksgiving dinner?"

Jackson (voice from the www.): "Because WELS is an anti-Lutheran abusive sect."

Responses to the Defenestration of Rick Techlin


Jimmy James has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Dear Rick:

Irony of ironies, our family chose NOT to join the fellowship of WELS because they were not practicing what they preached as far as fellowship/unity!

We told them that as long as they were involved in the Lutheran version of the "Knights of Columbus" lodge (that being "Thrivent for Lutherans") we could not, in Biblical good conscious, be in unity with WELS because we knew being in a brotherhood fellowship with Thrivent (as WELS was) was complicit with sin.

There are other smaller Lutheran conferences you can look into, Rick. WELS may have just saved your soul!

---

AC V has left a new comment on your post "Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All. W...":

Intrepids said on February 6, 2011:

"This layman has gone above and beyond what is necessary to follow the Scriptural procedures. All the editors at Intrepid Lutheran stand behind him one hundred percent."

http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/2011/02/why-i-no-longer-attend-my-wels-church.html

Does this mean St. Peter has declared Intrepid Lutherans out of fellowship with itself and WELS?

Who will stand? Who will fall? Who will care?....

***

GJ - Was Al Just excommunicated for murdering his wife and lying about it? No, WELS clergy are still claiming he was innocent.

Was Tabor excommunicated for aiding and abetting his mistress in the murder of his wife? No, he moved to Escanaba to a new parish call.

Was DP Ed Werner excommunicated for decades of abusing girls in his congregation? No, he was arranging for adoption of babies, born to young girls in his congregation, from the state hoosegow.

Was Vicar Scott Zerbe excommunicated for having an affair with a minor girl at Fred Adrian's church? I do not think so.

---

bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Responses to the Defenestration of Rick Techlin":

That's the WELS for you. If someone writes a letter and says that if the WELS church doesn't give even an inch, I'll probably have to find another church, that's just waving a red flag in front of a bull. Immediately they'll say that person declared himself out of fellowship with the WELS. Then after the person has left, they'll say that so and so has left only because he couldn't get his way.

Ironically, after a while they might have second thoughts about doing what was contentious, and end it, but they'll say they changed course only for financial or legal reasons, not because it was wrong, wrongheaded, or sinful. So they'll never give the disfellowshipped person a call asking him to come back, saying "we've changed."

So if The CORE closed operations tomorrow, they'd say it was only because of financial reasons or some such, but Rick Techlin will never be invited back.

Dangerous

Read all about it.



The most dangerous place for a baby in America is his mother's womb.
The most dangerous place for a Lutheran is in the Wisconsin Sect.



Tim Glende's Shirt and Facebook Pose Say It All.
Write a Letter!
See How an Abusive Sect Responds





On April 11, 2011, the voters of St. Peter congregation met, and voted to terminate my fellowship with St. Peter Church and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).  I was not aware of this meeting, no members of my family were present, and I was not afforded any opportunity to defend myself.

Out of the blue and without any warning right before Holy Week of 2011, I received a certified letter informing me that my membership in St. Peter and the WELS was terminated.  (April 12, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church).  That certified letter said:
April 12, 2011
Dear Fredrick (Rick) Techlin Jr.,
In your letter titled “Letter to WELS 2011″ dated January 20, 2011 and published on your blog a few days later, you made the following statements:
“However, during our attempts to resolve the doctrinal differences reiterated by that letter, it became apparent that I disagree doctrinally not only with Pastor Glende and my Church Council, but also District President Engelbrecht, and other leaders in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS).”  (page 1)
“I do disagree with my pastors and Church Council over doctrine.”  (page 11)
“My doctrinal differences with my congregation have been known by me for well over two years.”  (page 29)
“Should I continue in fellowship with synod leaders who counsel laymen not to pray with other non-WELS Christians, but then defend WELS pastors who plagiarize the sermons of our theological enemies?  The answer is no.  I should not continue in fellowship with the theological blackguards of the WELS…’  (page 31)
Rick, by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church and the doctrine of the WELS.  On the basis of your published statements, St. Peter’s Board of Elders and Church Council recommended to the Voter’s Assembly that your membership in our congregation be terminated.  At the Voter’s Meeting of St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church on April 11th, 2011, this recommendation was acted upon and unanimously approved.  In carrying out this action, St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your “Letter to WELS 2011″.  This action is in keeping with St. Peter’s Constitution, Article V, Section 5 – Termination of Fellowship.
We commend you to your own spiritual care and will continue to keep you in our prayers.
Sincerely,
St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church Voters, Board of Elders, & Church Council
According to St. Peter Church’s certified letter, “by your own words you have declared that you are no longer in fellowship with … the doctrine of the WELS” and that “St. Peter is simply acknowledging what you have already declared to be true in your ‘Letter to WELS 2011′.”  However, my 2011 letter to the WELS also said:
… if I am wrong about the doctrine, then how am I supposed to be corrected if I cannot attend any meetings where these issues are being discussed?  …
Therefore, I am sending this letter to the WELS Conference of Presidents (COP) in the hope that maybe I do not have to leave the WELS over doctrine.  These are important issues, and if I am wrong, then I should be properly instructed so that I can be convinced by God’s Word…  My strongest desire is not to leave the WELS, rather I more strongly desire that these doctrinal conflicts would be resolved with unanimous agreement.  To that end, there needs to be discussion, and that is one of the primary purposes of these letters…
1.  Is it the WELS doctrine that Christians can choose to believe God’s Word?
2.  Is it the WELS doctrine that from our perspective God needs our service?
3.  Is it the WELS doctrine that the sin of plagiarism is not a sin?  …
If the WELS Conference of Presidents answers ‘yes’ to any of these questions, please have some kind person explain the doctrine to me in a way that I can understand.  If I am wrong, then I will be wrong.  I have no personal stake in being infallible, and neither should any other Christian.  Further it is not my desire to leave the WELS without serious effort to at least understand these positions, even if I am unable to agree.
I cannot simply choose to believe that which I actually believe is false.  I must be shown the truth in the light of plain reason or the Scriptures.  This points to the fifth consequence of post conversion Decision Theology:  There has been very little (virtually no) effort put into showing me the ‘light.’  I have been simply expected to choose to believe the St. Peter & The CORE doctrine.  And if praise songs, popcorn, and big screen TVs are not enough positive motivation, then other negative motivators are applied.  The goal is not to reveal the light of truth, but to motivate a choice…
(See also “WELS Northern Wisconsin District Doctrinal Issues“).  The entire letter dated January 20, 2011 is basically a description of my efforts to discuss doctrine, and the total rebuffing of those efforts.  This final act of terminating fellowship means that I am no longer a member of the WELS or of any visible Christian church.
St. Peter Church terminated my fellowship with the WELS under Article V, Section 5 of St. Peter Church’s Constitution.  That section deals with Christians who are not accused of any willful sin (and thus can still go to heaven), but are still nonetheless guilty of false doctrine, and therefore must be excluded from the fellowship of the orthodox.  It states:
Termination of Fellowship
A.  Members who persist in an error that in itself does not make the presence of saving faith impossible and who otherwise are not under church discipline (cf Article V Section 2D and Section 3) may be excluded from the fellowship of the congregation
1.  after they have been evangelically admonished by their fellow Christians in the spirit of Matthew 18:15-16; and
2.  when their adherence to error becomes public and a matter of divisiveness (Titus 3:10) and thus an offense and obstacle to the truth of God’s Word (Romans 16:17-18).
B.  This action shall not be used for removing inactive members as a substitute for the loving act of excommunication when impenitence is clearly evident.
C.  Members thus excluded from fellowship shall lose all rights in the congregation and in its property.
That section of the Constitution cites Titus 3:10 and Romans 16:17-18.  There Paul says: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (KJV).  Also:
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.  For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.  [KJV.  Emphasis added].
The Scriptures cited by the St. Peter Church constitution contain the phrase: “mark … and avoid.”  This means that St. Peter Church has marked me as a persistent errorist and a teacher of false doctrine that all WELS congregations and members should avoid.

St. Peter Church says I declared myself out of WELS fellowship.  That is false.  If I thought the WELS doctrine was wrong, and I believed that I could not be convinced of that doctrine, then I would gladly leave.  I would not need to be without warning kicked out right before Easter.

In terminating my fellowship, St. Peter Church cited only my letter to the WELS dated January 20, 2011.  That letter also references another letter dated November 1, 2009.  Here are links to both letters:
People can judge for themselves whether there is false doctrine in those letters.  I believe those letters accurately represent the doctrine of the Scriptures as interpreted by the Lutheran Confessions and as subscribed to by the WELS.
·
After the January 20, 2011 letter, the only meeting I had with the pastors of St. Peter Congregation was on March 25, 2011.  The five concerned area WELS pastors had been trying to meet with the pastors of St. Peter & The CORE for over a year.  However, the pastors of St. Peter refused to meet without the District Presidium, and the District Presidium refused to meet together with all the pastors.  Finally, as a courtesy to the Synod President, the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium scheduled a meeting for March 25, 2011.  The five concerned pastors were also able to secure an invitation for Tony Kubek Jr. and me.  (See the post: “An Update“).

The Northern Wisconsin District Presidium continues to maintain that these public matters cannot be handled in a brotherly way if we publicly discuss them.  However, St. Peter Church has publicly terminated my fellowship with the WELS, therefore, I should be able to at least say that the conclusion of this meeting was not: that I should leave the WELS.
No agreement was reached on any issue, nonetheless, I did not leave this meeting thinking that my fellowship with the WELS was about to be terminated.  District President Engelbrecht encouraged everyone to keep our discussions private and to be willing to engage in further meetings.  Nonetheless, two weeks later, St. Peter Church publicly terminated my fellowship in the WELS as a persistent errorist.
·
In their certified letter, St. Peter Church concluded: “We commend you to your own spiritual care …”  I have done my best to resolve these matters Scripturally by attempting to discuss them.  However, the leadership of St. Peter Church has been steadfastly adamant that there is absolutely nothing wrong at St. Peter Church, and therefore these matters will not be discussed in any way in which my concerns would be given any legitimate consideration.  By their words and deeds the leadership of St. Peter Church has officially declared that we are not walking together, we do not have the same doctrine, and we do not belong in the same synod.  Their persistence has forced me to agree, that we do not belong in the same synod.

I have appealed this wrongful termination of my WELS fellowship to the Appeals Board of the Northern Wisconsin District.  That is as high as a layman can appeal.  (WELS Constitution § 8.50(e)).  If I lose this appeal and no other WELS congregation steps in to intervene, then my days in the WELS will be over.  But at least I would know where the Northern Wisconsin District officially stands on doctrine.
Win or lose, the spiritual battle belongs to the Lord.  (Ephesians 6:12).
Kyrie eleison.
·

Holy Week

It is unfortunate that the leadership of St. Peter Church in Freedom, WI chose to take these actions without warning right before Holy Week.  As a result, I did not have time to find a place to receive the Lord’s Supper on Maundy Thursday in an orderly fashion.  This was the first year since my confirmation that I was not able to receive the physical essence of our faith (the Lord’s body and blood) on Maundy Thursday.  After hearing all the pleas to “take, and eat,” I felt like just watching the Lord’s Supper was hardening my heart, so I did not attend Good Friday or Easter Divine Services.
A number of faithful WELS pastors graciously promised to commune me if I came forward, but I decided that it would be best to refrain.  The last thing I wanted to do was give District President Engelbrecht a technical excuse to discipline faithful pastors for communing non-WELS members.  (Open communion is a serious infraction of the ordained ministry).  Nor did I wish to spark a confrontation or a confessional crisis between two WELS congregations during Holy Week.

On Maundy Thursday, I received a second letter from St. Peter Church saying that if I disagree with my termination of WELS fellowship, then my only option was to write a letter to District President Engelbrecht.  Anything else would be disorderly.  (April 18, 2011 letter from St. Peter Church).

On Good Friday afternoon, I wandered around for awhile looking for a church to attend, but then gave up.  I stopped at another Christian church in Freedom, WI in the hope that I could touch the water to just physically remind myself that I am baptized, but their baptismal font in the entrance was dry.

On Saturday, April 30, 2011, I wrote a letter to District President Engelbrecht announcing my appeal, and dropped it in the mail.  In that letter, I also asked him to give me written permission to commune at any WELS church pending my appeal.

---


Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
For those who are following Rick's situation, he has just posted an update. http://vdma.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/terminated-from-wels-fellowship/
Mr. Douglas Lindee said...
I stated above: "It seems ridiculous that in an “apolitical” institution, such our Synod, “lobbying” for one’s position en masse seems to garner the most attention and respect from leadership – and the greater the numbers, the greater the attention and respect, while the fewer the numbers, the greater the risk, even to one's continuation in fellowship. In principle, this should not necessarily be the case, but observation over time has shown this to be true." How many laymen in the NWD have come to Mr. Techlin's aid? How many are going to now? By my recollection of this ongoing issue, based on its public documentation, representatives of his congregation, including his pastor, refused his overtures to meet and discuss these issues, requiring escalation to the District President. This meeting finally occurred, as Rev. Lidtke stated above, but "did little to bring the two sides closer to a real agreement on the issues before us." Following the meeting, still without meeting to discuss any issues directly with Mr Techlin, his congregation terminated his fellowship. In my post, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease, posted yesterday, I quoted Dr. Walter Martin as he provided analysis of similar events and movements in other church bodies: "But how do you see the... professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith!" Are we seeing the same practices played out here in Freedom, WI? We'll need to watch closely, and as Dr. Martin advised, start asking questions! -- beginning with our own fellow laymen and church councils, our pastors, Circuit Pastors, etc.
Daniel Baker said...
This is unacceptable in the highest degree. As I said on Rick's blog, so I say here: Anathema to the leadership and voting members of St. Peter's, Freedom.

More on Appleton from the Intrepids



LutherRocks said...
I am deeply disturbed by the comments of the sponsors of this forum. Initially Mathew 6:24 came into focus...but as the ensuing comments came in...there is just an utter lack of faith in the Means of Grace. I am appalled and astounded. I truly believe that the problem of all of this is rooted in the doctrine of justification...that doctrine by which the church stands or falls. I will be blogging about this soon enough from my corner of WELS as experienced through the portal of Holy Word Austin, Texas...May the Lord have mercy. Joe Krohn
Daniel Baker said...
The 'worship' methods illustrated by a number of the above commentators are "unLutheran" for a number of reasons, most obviously because they directly contradict the sentiments and prescriptions of the foundational confessions of the Lutheran Church: "At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things" (Ap:XII:1). This in and of itself would not make these 'worship' methods non-Christian or sinful, however - only "unLutheran" (or, more appropriately, different than the Churches of the Augsburg Confession). Unfortunately, and perhaps in a graver sense, these 'worship' methods are dangerous and apostatic because of their origins. Although Article X of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - referenced by Mr. Lund above - was written with the papists in mind, the same principles can be applied to the radical Evangelical and Reformed sects that are arguably more threatening to the Church in America today. Although Mr. Lund declined to bore us with long blocks of text quoted from the Solid Declaration, in light of the recent discussion I find certain portions worth noting, namely: "When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]. For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference" (FC:SD:X:5-7). Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us (which, as I have personally experienced, Pastor Ski does not only in 'worship' practices but also in use of graphics, bulletin content, and sermon outlines) is not only a violation of the principle of being unequally yoked, but such practices as popcorn munching during prayers are also "useless, foolish displays" that are not in the best interests of the "evangelical propriety" of the Church, as condemned above. I hope this begins to clarify why abandoning the historic, traditional, and Christ-centered tradition of the catholic Church is not only "unLutheran," but why it is also dangerous and unbiblical.


They love Stetzer in WELS because he cannot spell or edit!
Hooked on Phonics worked for me.

Luther to Zwingli - "You Have Another Spirit."
Why the Syn Conference Will Not Face the Truth


Luther refused to shake hands with Zwingli at the end of the Marburg Colloquy, because Zwingli denied the Real Presence and therefore the efficacy of the Word.

At Mequon, in the senior year, one student answered in class that it was Luther's fault, not Zwingli's. The church history professor was shocked and alarmed. I answered - instead of looking bored and irritated, the proper Sausage Factory attitude.

Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect on the Prairie will continue to decline, because they cannot face their foundational problem - rejecting the exclusive work of the Holy Spirit through the Word. God does not work through fads, gimmicks, clever Satan-centered billboards, programs, rock music, chancel drama, liturgical dancing, or clown ministry.

The so-called conservatives in the Syn Conference want to nibble politely around the edges of apostasy, careful lest someone be offended. The problem is that the dedicated apostates, drama queens all, know how to play the offended card and network their rage into a classic manufactured meltdown. The Intrepids experienced that when they dared to suggest that a canned Love Shack sermon offered grace without the Means of Grace. Days of rage followed. White flags of surrender began flapping on the blog.

The Word of God must be used to rebuke.

Against the Law-mongering Shrinkers:
KJV Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: 11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. 12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

Pastoral Charges
KJV Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

KJV 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Jesus rebuked with the Word, too:

KJV Mark 8:32 And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33 But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

The Enthusiasm of the Syn Conference is the foundational error supporting all the various heresies that dominate each sect. Not teaching the efficacy of the Word alone opens the door to Pentecostalism, Romanism, Church Shrinkers, the Maggot Church (aka Emergent Church), and every other disgusting blasphemy, including UOJ.

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "Another Response to Wisconsin Sect's Refusal To De...":

Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us

for instance - from the CA/AZ district (how many things are just like the other: MINISTRIES Music and Drama - that's one, MEDIA View Our Latest Sermon Video - that's two...:
First Baptist Fulton
http://www.fbcfulton.org/events/

Crown of Life Lutheran Church - (W)ELS
http://www.crownoflifechurch.net/about/

Time To Say Goodbye To ELCA

"We have our own armored division - Lavender Leopard Tanks."




Wednesday, November 24, 2010


ELCA council proposes changing rules to make it harder for congregations to leave

Leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are proposing changing rules to make it harder for congregations to leave the church body.

At its Nov. 12-14 meeting, the ELCA Church Council proposed amendments to ELCA constitutions that would make the process of leaving the church body more difficult for congregations. The changes must be approved by the 2011 ELCA Churchwide Assembly.

“How ironic that ELCA leadership is so committed to disregarding the Law of God on sexual ethics but so determined to use the law of humans to coerce congregations to remain in the ELCA ,” said the Rev. Mark Chavez, director of Lutheran CORE.

Many congregations are considering whether to remain affiliated with the ELCA as they have seen the church body move away from the teaching of the Bible.

Some have cited ELCA publications that question the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus and promise salvation to non-believers as examples of the ELCA’s move away from Scripture. Many have pointed to recent changes in church teaching and policy to allow pastors to be in same-sex sexual relationships in spite of the Bible’s clear teaching to the contrary. Still others have cited ELCA congregations and synods that have utilized a radically rewritten Lord’s Prayer that addresses God as “our mother who is within us.”

The ELCA announced Nov. 3 that nearly 300 congregations have already completed the required two votes to leave the ELCA and 140 additional congregations have taken a first vote but have not yet taken their second vote.

These congregations represent a loss of more than 200,000 ELCA members, according to an online tally. Many individuals have left congregations that remain in the ELCA, so the total membership loss is much larger.

The current process requires two votes to leave the ELCA at least 90 days apart. The votes must each be approved by a two-thirds majority. The synod’s bishop must consult with the congregation during the 90-day period. In addition, congregations that had been members of the Lutheran Church in America (LCA) or that were established by the ELCA must also receive approval from their synods to end their ELCA affiliation.

The proposed changes — all of which make the process more difficult for congregations — include the following:

+ A congregation must hold a 30-day consultation period with its bishop before taking a first vote to leave the ELCA, in addition to the current 90-day consultation after a congregation’s first vote.

+ The synod bishop is given authority to determine how the consultation will be conducted “in consultation with” the congregation’s council.

+ The bishop will be able to appoint “designees” with whom the congrega-tion will be required to consult.

+ The bishop or his/her designee must be granted the opportunity to speak at special congregational meetings regarding ending ELCA affiliation.

+ A congregation will be required to vote by a two-thirds majority to join a new Lutheran church body, or else it will be “conclusively presumed” to have become an independent Lutheran congregation, potentially forfeiting its property.

+ Congregations will be required to meet any financial obligations to the ELCA before leaving.

+ Congregations must wait at least six months before taking another first vote if the original first vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.

+ Congregations must wait at least six months and restart the process if their second vote does not achieve the required two-thirds majority.

+ Congregations which fail to follow the specified process must obtain synod council approval in order to leave the ELCA.

4 comments:

Recovering Lutheran said...
It would appear that the doctrine of bound conscience actually means "bound to the conscience of the ELCA's leadership" - literally. At any rate, perhaps Christians should render unto the ELCA's leadership that which belongs to them, and render unto God the things that belong to God. Let the ELCA take the property and the money. The ELCA's new god of radical secular politics is a greedy god as well as a jealous one, and the pennies the ELCA manages to wring out of poor congregations will not be enough slake their god's ravenous thirst.
Anonymous said...
Thank you for reporting this, and thanks to the NALC for making this page-one news in the Nov 2010 newsletter. No such details appear in the ELCA's official news release on the recent Church Council meeting. How else will folks find out what's going on before it's too late?

Another Response to Wisconsin Sect's Refusal To Deal with Plagiarized False Doctrine



Daniel Baker said...
The 'worship' methods illustrated by a number of the above commentators are "unLutheran" for a number of reasons, most obviously because they directly contradict the sentiments and prescriptions of the foundational confessions of the Lutheran Church: "At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord's Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things" (Ap:XII:1). This in and of itself would not make these 'worship' methods non-Christian or sinful, however - only "unLutheran" (or, more appropriately, different than the Churches of the Augsburg Confession). Unfortunately, and perhaps in a graver sense, these 'worship' methods are dangerous and apostatic because of their origins. Although Article X of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord - referenced by Mr. Lund above - was written with the papists in mind, the same principles can be applied to the radical Evangelical and Reformed sects that are arguably more threatening to the Church in America today. Although Mr. Lund declined to bore us with long blocks of text quoted from the Solid Declaration, in light of the recent discussion I find certain portions worth noting, namely: "When under the title and pretext of external adiaphora such things are proposed as are in principle contrary to God's Word (although painted another color), these are not to be regarded as adiaphora, in which one is free to act as he will, but must be avoided as things prohibited by God. In like manner, too, such ceremonies should not be reckoned among the genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference, as make a show or feign the appearance, as though our religion and that of the Papists were not far apart, thus to avoid persecution, or as though the latter were not at least highly offensive to us; or when such ceremonies are designed for the purpose, and required and received in this sense, as though by and through them both contrary religions were reconciled and became one body; or when a reentering into the Papacy and a departure from the pure doctrine of the Gospel and true religion should occur or gradually follow therefrom [when there is danger lest we seem to have reentered the Papacy, and to have departed, or to be on the point of departing gradually, from the pure doctrine of the Gospel]. For in this case what Paul writes, 2 Cor. 6:14-17, shall and must obtain: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what communion hath light with darkness? Wherefore come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord. Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays, that are profitable neither for good order nor Christian discipline, nor evangelical propriety in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference" (FC:SD:X:5-7). Copying the practices of the erroneous sects around us (which, as I have personally experienced, Pastor Ski does not only in 'worship' practices but also in use of graphics, bulletin content, and sermon outlines) is not only a violation of the principle of being unequally yoked, but such practices as popcorn munching during prayers are also "useless, foolish displays" that are not in the best interests of the "evangelical propriety" of the Church, as condemned above. I hope this begins to clarify why abandoning the historic, traditional, and Christ-centered tradition of the catholic Church is not only "unLutheran," but why it is also dangerous and unbiblical.

Keep Watching the Intrepids, Light from Light, Luther Rocks, and Rogue Lutheran




Watch the blogs I have linked on the left side. You can tell how new the posts are, but some also add comments. For once the Intrepids have left the window open. The comments are sulfurous - for that group.

I told Brett Meyer that I was glad the Intrepids got to deal with something so obvious, public, and outrageous. Now a group of clergy and laity together have seen how the synod protects the apostates while kicking others to the curb.

Some of them were ostentatiously mute when their friends, and their friends' families, were slimed by synod leaders. Now they are getting the same treatment as they deal mildly and patiently with the Three Stooges of heresy: Ski, Glende, and Englebrecht.

WELS is an abusive sect, run by and for a few families. They are large enough to matter (unlike the odious CLC) and small enough to know fairly well. They reflect the downward trend of mainline Protestantism and Western society in general.

Monday, May 9, 2011

LCMS Chaplains To Perform Gay Marriages?
That Would Never Happen in WELS



bruce-church (http://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Time To Escape From The Synod of the Apes.Why Pay...":

The LCMS has always been heavily involved in the US military chaplaincy program--at least since WWII. Now, however, with the military's "Don't Ask, Please Tell" policy of allowing gays, chaplains are being asked to officiate at same-sex marriages:

"HOMOSEXUAL SENSITIVITY TRAINING" AND GAY MARRIAGE IN THE MILITARY

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/05/homosexual-sensitivyt-training-and-gay-marriage-in-the-military-.html

Rhonda Martinez on the Condition of WELS



Anonymous said...
Personally I don't see how there can even BE a WELS Synod convention this summer if there is not complete doctrinal unity amongst the members - both laity and pastors. There must be a common starting point. The synod seems to be in complete disarray. Just the fact that we ~ who have been long awaiting some kind of indication to show which side of the fence the WELS leadership would fall on ~ are STILL waiting... speaks volumes. Wait no longer, their silence tells the story loud and clear. It should be the FIRST thing that's discussed at the synod convention to show the church body as a whole where we stand. That should be followed by a proclamation of what we believe and then go from there. It then becomes decision time for every one of us. Do you stay or do you go? Will you be part of the solution or part of the problem? Sadly, there are many members who do not even know the first thing about these matters or choose NOT to know about them. The way it stands now, we are not even in fellowship with many of our own synod members. How does one get past that to carry on a convention? What other matter could top this one in importance and priority? I, for one, will be watching and making decisions of my own afterwards. I have personally written President Schroeder over the past couple years with concerns and encouragement. It's been my prayer, and still is, that under his leadership and with the help of God, our synod resolves its issues and we are able to read, learn, and inwardly digest God's Word- our Great Heritage, keep its teachings pure, and continue to spread them from age to age. Others before us did that for us. It's now OUR responsibility to do it for others and throughout all generations. There needs to be a quick resolution of all these problems so we can get back to the real work of the church. Rhonda Martinez



Oh, the cost of dicipleship!

Appleton Proves That Speaking to an Errant Pastor, Writing Letters to the SP, Meeting with Pastors, Keeping the DP's Secrecy, etc - All Are a Waste of Time




No, I don't see a problem in Appleton. Nope.



The Silence Is Broken: An Appleton Update

“This issue, and now the silence following it, has deeply shook my confidence in our synod.”
Dan Johnson (5/3/11)


The WELS Conference of Presidents (COP) reports in the recently released Book of Reports and Memorials for this summer’s synod convention:

“One continuing area of discussion is the matter of congregational practices in the areas of worship, outreach, and organization. While fully committed to the scriptural principle of Christian freedom, the COP continues to encourage congregations to determine carefully those things that lie within the realm of Christian freedom and then to exercise Christian freedom with wisdom, brotherly love, and extensive consultation with others in our fellowship who may be affected. The COP maintains, as it has in the past, that our practice in all of these areas should be consistent with our doctrine and should reflect a unified understanding of scriptural principles. It continues to encourage open and brotherly discussion of these matters at circuit, conference, and district meetings, convinced that such discussions, done in a spirit of Christian love and based on an ongoing study of God’s Word, are essential to maintaining our unity, our understanding of Christian freedom, and our clear identity as a confessional Lutheran church body.” (Emphasis added)

The concerns raised by a group of five WELS pastors and two laymen in Wisconsin’s Fox Valley have everything to do with “congregational practices in the areas of worship, outreach, and organization.” They center on the “exercise (of) Christian freedom with wisdom (and) brotherly love.” There’s a desire for “extensive consultation with others in our fellowship who may be affected.” And the concern is absolutely about how “our practice in all these areas should be consistent with our doctrine and should reflect a unified understanding of scriptural principles.”

The highlighted portion of the paragraph above relates why there has been silence since the March 25 meeting. We were told not to write in a blog about anything that was discussed. I’m not saying that I agree with this, but I’ve done my best to respect the request.

I will say this: the concerns we had were answered by the district presidium in a written response. There was a time for discussion, but it did little to bring the two sides closer to a real agreement on the issues before us. Nevertheless, there is a desire to keep talking.

As for Rick Techlin, please stay in touch with his situation by visiting his blog, "Light from Light." I’ve agreed to allow him to speak for himself.

I’m sorry, Dan, that your faith in our synod’s resolve to teach pure doctrine is shaken. As a whole, I believe the WELS is still committed to that. When practices that threaten to upset our unity of doctrine are paraded in front of the public on the internet, a public response may very well be called for, even if it’s not our first choice.

The Intrepid Lutherans’ hope has always been for an open, honest discussion on the matters of doctrine and practice that threaten to divide our synod. We still hope for that, instead of silence.

Pastor Paul Lidtke

16 comments:

Anonymous said...
I can't speak for Dan Johnson, I can only speak for myself. If my confidence in the resolve of WELS leaders to deal with false doctrine wasn't shaken before, it certainly is after reading this. Public sin demands and requires public rebuke. By dealing with this matter silently and enforcing silence on all involved, the leaders of the synod have tacitly expressed their approval of the things going on in Appleton. This is inexcusable. Who cares if the COP puts a paragraph in the BORAM about how nice it is to talk to each other? Talk is cheap. I get the impression that the leaders of the synod are more concerned with preserving external unity at the expense of true Scriptural unity. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: those who would sacrifice true Scriptural unity for the sake of false outward unity deserve neither. Mr. Adam Peeler
Tim Niedfeldt said...
Another tough issue settled with an ambiguous letter that stresses silence, patience, and a promise to talk more. If they were any more effective they could be congressmen. I agree with Adam. I just sit dumbfounded as to why the ministry community can't handle dealing with issues in public, with authority and speed. But at least this BORAM addition is a nice public wuss out. Hmm. Lack of transparency, all talk no action, watered down compromise that ultimately leads to a unity no one is happy with. Where have I heard this tired story before? Tim Niedfeldt
Daniel Baker said...
Perhaps if the synod bureaucracy considered itself to be the leadership of Christ's Church, rather than the administration of some money-obsessed business, we wouldn't be seeing example after example of politicking at its finest. Suffice it to say, I remain unsurprised by this turn of events. Negotiations are not going to win this war (and that is what this is); an aggressive frontal assault is called for. Perhaps we 'die' trying, but there are worse things than leaving the synod.
Anonymous said...
I'm admittedly not fully aware of all that is going on in Appleton. But I've followed the story here and on other blogs. But what, specifically, would you nail Pastor Skorewski to the wall for? (I assume that is whom is meant by Appleton?) I've read about the plagiarism charge. It is disconcerting that a pastor would preach a sermon that is not his own without referencing that it is his own. But I don't think that this is the heart of the concern. Is he non-sacramental? Well, I know they celebrate the Lord's Supper and practice baptism. They might not do it with the reverence or frequency I would like, but I'm not sure I could call that sin. Is it that Pastor Skorewski is non-liturgical? I would call that unwise, but saying that a failure to use the Western Rite makes you a sinner... well... I can't imagine any Lutheran saying that. A Pharisee, yes. A Lutheran, no. Bottom line - I'd appreciate it someone would delineate a specific point of doctrine which Pastor Skorewski has violated, and which, if confronted, would not recant. It seems to me that what the guy is most guilty of is failing to consult with and address the concerns of the other Appleton pastors in the area, as well as other WELS members at large. If that is the case, then the action of the district presidents seems fairly spot on - encouraging more theological study and discussion. To do more, to discipline Pastor Skorewski or remove him from ministry, would require someone to be able to name some specific doctrine that he has violated, and refuse to repent. I have not seen that done yet. It's all been fairly vague, it seems. If his specific offenses have been spelled out here, if someone could please link me to that post, I'd appreciate it. Yours in Christ, Daniel Kastens
Scott E. Jungen said...
Daniel, A good place to start might be the open letter written by Intrepids to Pastor Ski. Scott E. Jungen
Intrepid Lutherans said...
To AP, Tim, and Daniel Baker - What everyone simply must understand is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, which is complete, all-out, civil war in the WELS. If discipline were to be carried out as swiftly and as firmly as many of us believe it should, there would be open rebellion from a large portion of WELS Pastors, congregations, and district leaders; perhaps one-third or more would leave or withhold their support. So, let's all understand what is at stake here. In my opinion, what our more confessional leaders, such as Pres. Schroeder, are trying to do is bring that one third around to a correct understanding and practice of confessional Lutheranism without alienating them or bringing about open warfare. This in itself is a laudable enough goal. However, it remains to be seen whether or not it is already too late to accomplish this. Many believe - I am one - that discipline should be carried out as needed and when needed, and that we must then simply put our faith and trust in the Lord of the Church. If He wants the WELS to continue to exist He is quite capable of making that happen. All of us need to encourage our leaders to do what needs to be done and let Jesus take care of the results. Let us hold up their weary arms in this long battle! To Daniel Kastens - By his actions, more so than his words, Pastor Ski has demonstrated a very clear lack of trust in the Means of Grace, and indeed a denigration of these Means, not to mention making a mockery of the Pastoral office. That makes him a sectarian and not a confessional Lutheran. While I believe he is a Christian, his ministry is not a confessional Lutheran one, and therefore, if he is honest he should not remain in the WELS, and if WELS were honest he would not be allowed to remain in the synod, unless and until his actions matched the promises he made at his Lutheran ordination. Thank you all for your comments. Pastor Spencer
Scott E. Jungen said...
Pastor Spencer, I taught in Lutheran elementary schools for twenty-four years. One of the best ways to lose the respect of the well-behaved, hard-working students in your class is to not, or be perceived to not, discipline the "naughty" ones. Trust me, I know from first-hand experience. We have many "naughty" pastors and teachers in the WELS. (The above mentioned Pastor Ski being one of them.) I and several of the gentlemen above are saying they have lost confidence in the "teacher" because the "naught" ones still get away with the same old stuff. I believe that open civil war in the WELS might not be the worst thing to happen. One of the problems I perceive in the WELS is the number of closed door, don't talk about it, I'll handle it personally meetings. I civil war would cause pastors, teachers, congregations, Districts to stand-up for, and fight for, what they believe. I know the dust would be knocked of those Books of Concord, Scriptures would be studied, the Smalcald Articles read, etc. As painful as civil war might be, can we say that greater study of Scripture and the Confessions is a bad thing? Didn't the Lord of the Church cause His Church to thrive in time of trouble? As laudable as President Schroeder's goal of instruction might be, I believe that time is past. Stand up, state what you believe and confess, and let the "chips' fall where they may. Didn't a monk named Luther do that five hundred years ago? Scott E. Jungen
Lund Family said...
I am a delegate to the WELS convention this summer. I am uncertain that any of this will come up as formal discussion. I do know a few other memorials are on the voting block so to speak. The makeup of delegates is one such memorial. As Pastor Spencer and Rydecki and other suggest, I continue to voice my concerns to local and circuit pastors. They sometime in turn voice concerns to the Minnesota DP. I have written a letter to Pastor Jeske with concerns previously. I certainly hope others write letters in their districts. Whether it happens quickly or slowly, we must continue to be vigilant and faithful in pointing out the problems of doctrine and practice. We certainly would not want to wakeup some day to anything resembling Seminex. My biggest concern is the lack of public communication, even with the Internet today. If its a public offense, we need to have public responses, lest the parties causing offense are seen by WELS as edifying and orderly in their poor practices.
Intrepid Lutherans said...
Scott & The Lunds, I taught in a Middle School in El Paso, TX for five years, and wholeheartedly agree with you. What's true of 1st graders, is doubly true of Middle-schoolers! The best way to loose control of a classroom is to let the trouble-makers get away with disrupting the class! So, I for one agree that we should carry out discipline swift and sure and let the war happen if it happens. My other point is that ALL of us need to let our leaders know WE will support them if and when they do their job. Maybe instead, or at least in addition to, of being "ankle-biters," and criticizing them for not acting as fast as we would like, we need to constantly encourage and support them and tell them we are behind them 1000%. This might do as much if not more than kicking at them to act. Yes, they sometimes need to be criticized, I agree with that. But, more than anything else, I believe they need to know that many are very strongly behind them and will back them up when and if they have to take action. Call it "positive reinforcement." Thanks for your comments and your efforts! Pastor Spencer
Joseph Jewell said...
"The highlighted portion of the paragraph above relates why there has been silence since the March 25 meeting. We were told not to write in a blog about anything that was discussed. I’m not saying that I agree with this, but I’ve done my best to respect the request." That makes no sense at all vis-a-vis the highlighted text. How are "open discussions" especially "essential" open discussions done with "ongoing study" at all compatible with a gag order? It grieves my heart that my synod operates like this.
Mr. Douglas Lindee said...
Mr. Lund, You state matters quite well. And, I'll add, as I've read your commentary over the past, what, couple years or so on this blog and on others, I have been impressed with how careful and well-balanced you've been as you address the concerns of others and express your own. You'll make a fine delegate. I will not be at Synod Convention as a delegate this year. It was my congregation's turn to send a delegate to the last convention – though I volunteered, I was passed over for that privilege. Rev. Lidtke has official duties at Convention this year, however, as a member of one of the committees, but none of the rest of us have an official reason to be there, nor do we have an invitation to be there. We had discussed among ourselves the possibility of having a booth for Intrepid Lutherans at Convention, but have not made a final decision on that. If we do something of that sort, I, and possibly Mr. Heyer, would attend for the sake of attending the booth and engaging in discussion with folks, but obviously we would have no part in the Convention itself. Personally, I am quite positive that no provision for formal discussion over these and similar troublesome issues will be made part of this years' agenda. Nevertheless, I would encourage you and others to make them a part of informal discussion, not only at Convention, but among the lay delegates prior to and leading up to it. When your district delegates meet, bring them up personally with your fellow lay delegates. Point them to our blog articles, or print some out and bring them with you. The fact is, the pressing issues of unity in doctrine and practice underlie all matters of practice that can or will be discussed at Convention. Therefore, while not formal items on the agenda, they will, nevertheless, indirectly be aspects of each item. Informal discussion of them is implicit in the agenda, and reference to them ought to be made from the floor when appropriate. For example, rather than assuming that the Convention is being presented with orthodox and confessional recommendations, all agenda items ought to be critically assessed by the delegates from the perspective of consistency with our body of doctrine and unity of practice across our fellowship; committee chairmen ought to be interrogated from the floor regarding the practices they recommend to Synod; essayists ought to be scrutinized, and if found wanting, suggestion that their work be returned by the Synod in Convention, rather than "received with thanks," will need to be made by the delegates. Continued in next post...
Mr. Douglas Lindee said...
...Continued from previous post. At this point, after having been at this with Intrepid Lutherans for almost a year now, and in the process having seen from the inside some of the political pressures that are applied to the clergy, I am convinced that, regardless of how critical these issues may be, there will be no "broad uprising" from among them. If the issues were viewed as that important, it would be far simpler for a pastor to lead his congregation out of Synod than to try to change it – but where would he go? He’d have to grin and bear no matter where he went, so why not just stay put and keep quiet? I’ve heard a few confessional pastors among us speak to me this way in the past year. The fact is, although many support IL privately, we have been informed by several young and mid-career pastors that they cannot do so publicly due to very real external pressures that are exerted on them. And among the more experienced clergy – especially the old war-dogs like Rev. Spencer who have been fighting these battles for decades – they simply won't bother with it anymore – but not because they’re tired, and not because they don’t care, but because they've given up any hope that meaningful positive change can occur and will no longer exert themselves toward this end. If positive change is going to occur, then, in my honest opinion, meaningful leadership will need to emerge from among the laity. The laity alone, in the end, however, will be insufficient – but perhaps their leadership will roust otherwise complacent, fearful or burdened clergy to action. "Perhaps" – that's as positive as I can be, humanly speaking. Seriously. But what sort of leadership shall the laity supply? Certainly, speaking out on the floor of Convention, or in committees, is one way. Another may be openly communicating in venues like IL. A third may be openly addressing issues as they are observed in one's own congregation. Just as importantly, I think, is letter writing to Synod leadership and encouraging fellow laymen to do the same. It seems ridiculous that in an “apolitical” institution, such our Synod, “lobbying” for one’s position en masse seems to garner the most attention and respect from leadership – and the greater the numbers, the greater the attention and respect, while the fewer the numbers, the greater the risk, even to one's continuation in fellowship. In principle, this should not necessarily be the case, but observation over time has shown this to be true. Ultimately, we know that the Lord of the Church is in control. Mr. Douglas Lindee
Scott E. Jungen said...
Mr. Lindee, One of the few positive aspects of leaving the teaching ministry is the fact that I am more free to speak my mind. (For better or worse!) I would not have written what I wrote above two years ago. I'm not sure my former pastor and congregation would have minded. I know they feel the same ways on many issues. My current pastor reads this blog. However, there is an unspoken reluctance to "rock the boat." Scott E. Jungen
Anonymous said...
Dear Scott and Pastor Spencer, I just re-read that open letter. I didn't comment on it at the time, because I figured I didn't understand the whole situation. I am certain I still don't. The first objection is that Pastors Jeske and Skorewski shouldn't participate in the conference because the premise is faulty - Change or Die. I certainly appreciate that God's Church will never disappear. But can the same be said of individual congregations. For example, if an orthodox Lutheran church continued to preach in German, in spite of the fact fewer and fewer members spoke German, would not that church eventually "die"? I would be willing to bet both Pastor Jeske and Pastor Skorewski would say they believe the Means of Grace are the only thing that can save souls. I think, as that letter indicates, they are focusing on methodology, German vs. English, contemporary music vs. historic music, etc. I think the terminology is probably bad, a bit sky-is-falling. I'd rather the theme be stated positively, something like, "Being good stewards of the Means of Grace," or "Using All Our Gifts to Share the Gospel." But, bottom line, I don't know you can say for certain that the premise is wrong. The second objection of that letter is more of a concern -- the appearance of unity. But, does simply participating in a conference together signify unity? Did Pastor Jeske and Skorewski worship or pray with these other pastors? If so, that's clearly wrong. But what if they actually gave testimony to the false doctrine of other Lutheran church bodies by their non-participation in such activities? Might they have done that? I still would have concerns. The way the event was promoted, it can give the appearance of unity. But might not that danger always be there with any type of free conference? I'm certain there are some who feel with this recent Emmaus conference, WELS and the LCMS might be moving very close to re-establishing fellowship. That would be a false assumption, but it is one that I could see one making. Yet, a judgment call was made that the potential misunderstanding does not outweigh the potential good that was accomplished by clarifying positions on the basis of the Word and Confessions. I assume that's what Pastor Jeske and Skorewski did too - weighed the potential good vs. the potential harm. I would disagree with their conclusion, but I wouldn't say they have sinned, but simply acted unwisely. Pastor Spencer, your comment - "more by his actions than his words" - is sort of an example of what I mean when I say things seem to be stately vaguely. If the Judge were holding court, and you were the prosecuting attorney, what passage of Scripture would you say Pastor Skorewski has violated, that he would not readily recant if confronted with his error? Daniel K.
Anonymous said...
Rick Techlin made three accusations of false doctrine, pointed largely at Pastor Glende at St. Peter, Freedom, in his January 20, 2011 letter (see pages 14-26). The Intrepids (which includes pastors) said that they stand behind Mr. Techlin one hundred percent. That leaves three possibilities: 1. Mr. Techlin is right and Pastor Glende is promoting false doctrine 2. Mr. Techlin is wrong and the Intrepid pastors are promoting false doctrine 3. This is all just a big misunderstanding. The following sentence in the original post above seems to eliminate #3 as a possibility: "There was a time for discussion, but it did little to bring the two sides closer to a real agreement on the issues before us." That leaves possibilities #1 and #2. In a synod that says we keep its doctrine pure, there cannot be public accusations of false doctrine flying around without public rebuke or remorse about them. The silence addressing the false doctrine continues... Dan Johnson
Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...
First, the "Appleton update" is not to be understood as a big target with Pastor Ski as the bullseye. The issues being discussed are bigger than Ski. Our treatment of the ongoing situation there is centered around the concerns of a confessional Lutheran WELS layman, and the inexplicable refusal of some pastors and leaders in that district to treat him with respect and answer his concerns in accordance with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. Daniel, if you're looking for a point by point explanation of what the issues in question are, then I'll encourage you to read Rick Techlin's two letters (available on his Light from Light blog) outlining the specific issues he and the area pastors are trying to address. Daniel, you played the "Pharisee card" above, and I'm going to have to call you on it. You say "failure to use the Western Rite" would never be labeled as sinful by any Lutheran. Granted. It's not the "non-use" of the Western Rite that's the problem. It's what IS used that's the problem. If not the Western Rite, then use the Eastern Rite, I guess, or any rite that is compatible with Lutheran doctrine. Popcorn, theatrical smoke and lights, pop bands, Wizard of Oz sound bites (literally!), hip duds, and even sermon outlines that all flow from the entertainment based, man-centered, decision theology of the Methobapticostals is incompatible with the Lutheran doctrine in regard to God, Man, Salvation, the Means of Grace, Law and Gospel, Faith, Holy Communion, etc. As for the Change or Die open letter, I stand behind what was written. We do call their participation (in the end, only Pastor Jeske participated) in this conference as sinful and wrong and demanding public rebuke, for all the reasons stated. "German to English" and "liturgical vs. sectarian" is a complete apples and oranges comparison. Exploring ministry methods together with apostates is far worse than praying together with apostates. In the latter case, no one else is brought into their detestable prayer but the participants. In the former, many souls will be affected as church-growth ministry methods are introduced into parishes. Finally, it's absolutely wrong to compare the honest doctrinal discussions among Bible-believing, Confessions-subscribing Lutherans at the Emmaus Conference with the false type of unity of purpose that was explored with apostates at Change or Die.
Perry Lund said...
I would echo Pastor Rydecki's well written statements on the matters of discussion here. I would echo that by saying that Lutheran doctrine is hidden by the use of incompatible methodologies learned from other theologies. It is dishonest to those souls coming to a Lutheran church to do so; of course many of those churches using tainted theological methods hide the term Lutheran as well. Lastly, these methodologies and poor practices cause offense to many confessional Lutheran, confuse many others who see WELS leaders staying neutral while edification and good order are left to chance. As Lutherans, both called workers and laity, we fail to look at the Book of Concord. I too do not refer to it often and regret my lack of effort in understanding how it reflects the truths of the Bible. In particular in reference to the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord in article X, we find the very reason the issue of poor practice in our churches burdens our consciences. I will not bore you with the text copied and pasted here. Rather read it in your copy of the Book on Concord or here at http://bookofconcord.org/sd-adiaphora.php in the Internet. The issues is that "most practices" that do not use the Western Rite are done so in a thoughtless and offensive manner and not in an orderly and becoming way that is profitable, beneficial and that preserves good order. It does not edify the Church, rather it edifies the feelings of our sinful nature. Forgive my aggressive wording, but given it is from the Book of Concord and it is part of our confession, I do not think it is an overstatement. Perry Lund Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church Oskaloosa, IA.
Anonymous said...
Personally I don't see how there can even BE a WELS Synod convention this summer if there is not complete doctrinal unity amongst the members - both laity and pastors. There must be a common starting point. The synod seems to be in complete disarray. Just the fact that we ~ who have been long awaiting some kind of indication to show which side of the fence the WELS leadership would fall on ~ are STILL waiting... speaks volumes. Wait no longer, their silence tells the story loud and clear. It should be the FIRST thing that's discussed at the synod convention to show the church body as a whole where we stand. That should be followed by a proclamation of what we believe and then go from there. It then becomes decision time for every one of us. Do you stay or do you go? Will you be part of the solution or part of the problem? Sadly, there are many members who do not even know the first thing about these matters or choose NOT to know about them. The way it stands now, we are not even in fellowship with many of our own synod members. How does one get past that to carry on a convention? What other matter could top this one in importance and priority? I, for one, will be watching and making decisions of my own afterwards. I have personally written President Schroeder over the past couple years with concerns and encouragement. It's been my prayer, and still is, that under his leadership and with the help of God, our synod resolves its issues and we are able to read, learn, and inwardly digest God's Word- our Great Heritage, keep its teachings pure, and continue to spread them from age to age. Others before us did that for us. It's now OUR responsibility to do it for others and throughout all generations. There needs to be a quick resolution of all these problems so we can get back to the real work of the church. Rhonda Martinez