Pastor Nathan Bickel - On the NNIV

Pastor Nathan Bickel, WELS

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "The Original NIV Mistake in WELS Has Paved the Way...":

[His blog is now listed in the left column -  http://www.thechristianmessage.org/ ]

Some weeks ago I posted the following on the WELS Facebook Page - the part relegated to "recommendations." Here, following, was my comment:

That WELS include, an addendum to the latest synodical 4 lesson Bible study on Bible translations. Specifically, that:

1) Our sister Evangelical Lutheran Synod' Translation Committee gave thumbs down to the new NIV 11
2) Two WELS Districts have basically rejected the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee's recommendation for the new NIV 11 3) The Southern Baptist Convention has turned thumbs down on the new NIV 11
4) The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has turned thumbs down to the new NIV 11
5) What other Lutheran leaders / pastors have said about the new gender neutral NIV 11

I believe that the aforementioned information with some details would augment the present study and make it more objective and forthright. Our congregation, (of which my wife and I are members) is presently going through the 4 lesson study. I was dismayed and frustrated what I read in the 4th lesson. It had to do with the Translation Evaluation Committee's stated "Principles" (criteria) that guided them in the evaluation process. Here is that last principle of criteria, of which I thought, was not only flawed and presumptive, but also, assuming:

"We expect that the primary way in which most WELS people experience most of the Bible most of the time is by hearing it read--in the context of the public worship service. Consideration must therefore be given to a translation's suitability for being read aloud. Where do most of our members come into contact with God's Word? For better or for worse, isn't it in the worship serve or catechism class? Isn't it where Scripture is being read aloud? For this reason we felt it was important that the translation is easy to understand when being read........."

Finally, returning to my comment about being "dismayed and frustrated:" I can only conclude that the WELS Translation Evaluation process is flawed. It has assumed some things, without illustrating evidence to, what appears to be a foregone conclusion.

Secondly, it is lumping the total membership with this (apparent) preconceived criterion.

And, thirdly, it illustrates (and I sadly, say so) that the Translation process criteria goals were to recommend a translation that is "dumbed down," because our WELS membership [supposedly] cannot handle a translation that doesn't "sound" as well as another translation. It seems to me that this is [was] a similar flawed, presumptive, and assuming criterion of those [others] who desire to promote and sell the new NIV 11.

Finally, it seems to me, that something is not "right" with this whole process and the way it is now being presented to the WELS membership. I believe that we deserve, better.

http://www.facebook.com/welslutherans

***

Sceptical baby is sceptical.
He does not like my do due pun.

GJ - The Wisconsin Sect is a participatory monarchy, with Mark Jeske as the king, Mark Schroeder as his loyal subject.

Everyone is invited to participate, to give the illusion that opinons matter. Of course opinions matter very much if they are in agreement with the apostate leaders.

The agenda has been shaped, just like a cattle pen, to move the bovine herd into the right position to remove horns and other sensitive parts before they stampede in favor of the NNIV.

Those who object will be picked off one by one. This is the last chance for members and pastors to make a difference. By defying the process they can throw the Jeske zombies off, as they did at the WELS convention.

Paul O. Wendland's face was lined with thinly disguised disgust that anyone questioned his Biblical pornography, aka, the New NIV from R. Murdoch. DP Glaeske objected in a speech that was rare for one of the steers on the COP.

Did you wonder why conventions are run by steering committees. Steer is a middle verb in this case, "to make oneself into a steer for the sake of career advancement."

I am not allowed to associate the crook Murdoch with the pretzeling of the Scriptures. Germans like pretzels, so WELS will love the NNIV, Ja?

Bury this piece of work in rage and WELS will be a better sect. After all, Jeske's deputy, Mark Schroeder said that discussion was good for everyone.

Discuss - why are we letting The Sausage Factory push this garbage onto us?

Secondly - why is Mark Schroeder caving in again?

---

Brett Meyer has left a new comment on your post "The Original NIV Mistake in WELS Has Paved the Way...":

Conservative Lutheran Christian denominational church body would ever entertain adopting a gender neutral translation

First, there are no Conservative Lutheran denominations in existance.

(W)ELS excommunicated Joe and Lisa Krohn from Holy Word, Austin Texas because they confessed Justification by Faith Alone and rejected the false gospel of sins forgiven by God before and without the Means of Grace working Godly contrition over sin and faith alone in Christ. Every (W)ELS member took part in that excommunication and persecution of Christ's Church.

Second, the (W)ELS didn't only entertain adopting the blasphamy called the NNIV - their Seminary recommended the Convention adopt the NNIV as the official translation of the Synod. Those charged with training future pastors swooned with glee over Dr. Moo's false doctrine and abhorent deletions and additions to God's Word and are currently teaching (W)ELS future pastors to do the same.

The clear message from Lutheran Leadership, SP, DP, etc is:

WELS - Change or Die
ELS - Change or Die
LCMS - Change or Die
ELCA - Change or Die
CLC - Change or Die

That's what synod straddler Mark Jeske declares!

The Original NIV Mistake in WELS Has Paved the Way for the NNIV

Mark and Avoid Jeske's father  promoted the NIV.
Mark's brother Tom smirked his way through the NNIV presentation at the convention.
Mark sat with his buddies and watched.

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Darwin Schauer Is Only a Hint of the Lawsuits To C...":

The longer I live, the more I am becoming convinced that Christian denominations [sadly and pathetically] possess spiritual inbreeding. After reading this posting about some early LCMS history, I am now becoming convinced that physical inbreeding may be a major forerunner to denominational spiritual inbreeding.

It greatly distresses me that WELS would even consider the NIV11 as an option for official WELS publications, as it looks to a different Bible translation to replace the 1984 NIV.

I keep reading that WELS and our local congregation are committed to Christian belief and practice, based upon the inerrant Word of God. However, the very consideration of the gender neutral NIV11 renders that professed, resolve, inconsistent.

Warning: this post is offensive to Larry Olson's  women ministers.

Adopting a gender neutral Bible is tantamount to messing with God's Word. I prefer to liken it to "molestation" of God's written revelation. Adopting gender neutrality in Scripture is humanly micro managing and tweaking Scripture to suit one's own (carnal political correctness, Bible study slothfulness, or, whatever) desires and / or, ends. There is no Scriptural or rational excuse to intentionally remove and / or alter Scripture's patriarchal language. Doing so would be akin to literary revisionism, - as altering other literary works of antiquity, such as Homer's Iliad, Caesar's Gallic Wars, Josephus’ writings, etc. Even in the secular world, I’m convinced that many would consider this type of editing alteration, unconscionable.

Scripture, itself makes it clear that "every word of God is pure." Scripture, (itself) also states that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" [God-breathed - the very words] - [Proverbs 30:5-6 ; 2 Timothy 3:14-17]

If WELS leadership and congregational pastors would be (Biblically) wise, they would drop the NIV11 consideration from the mix of options. Presently, I'm reminded of the Scriptural reality: ".....Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you....." [2 Corinthians 6:14-18 - in context]

Finally, I never thought I'd witness the day that a Conservative Lutheran Christian denominational church body would ever entertain adopting a gender neutral translation, which, essentially, departs from the Reformation sola scriptura principle. I can't believe that our Triune God ever intended that His Word (and very words) be conveyed in any other way than what His Holy Spirit breathed to His inspired authors.

----

Various comments from Lutheran laity:

Thanks for posting the Luther sermon re the closed doors.  I first read this a few years back and it was nice to be able to go over it again.  It certainly helps to explain a lot of things about what the Holy Ministry is all about.  There is a lot noise which interferes with a true understanding of what Lutheran theology is all about.

I noticed in my weekly troll through the Lutheran comic section, [Luther Quest] some interesting things.  Every one, it seems, wants to enforce the rules of what everyone else should think.

---

Another:

How can Fox Valley and the Intrepid Lutherans be in the same synod?

---

Yet Another:

I'm going to have to judge a church on an individual basis. The WELS I had been attending here in this district definitely towed the party line, but when I visited my relative in WI and attended another WELS church, the difference was day and night. Traditional liturgy and a great Gospel sermon, so it really depends on the church.

***

Not a Photoshop.

GJ - The dissolution of the Lutheran synods has begun. 

ELCA proved it could happen - even with iron-fisted lady bishops, so WELS can do it with their suffragettes, trimmers, and snake-handlers.

Not a Photoshop.

---

WELS church lady has left a new comment on your post "Darwin Schauer Is Only a Hint of the Lawsuits To C...":

Thankyou Pastor Bickel. Might you be considered as a guest speaker for the many district conventions that will take place this June?

In Christ,
Rebecca 

---

Pastor emeritus Nathan Bickel has left a new comment on your post "Darwin Schauer Is Only a Hint of the Lawsuits To C...":

Rebecca - Re: Your April 16, 2012 2:23 PM comment reply:

Thank you for the very kind thought. But, I rather doubt that I would be invited by the district leaderships and / or their perspective convention committees. My wife and I are recent "additions" to our local WELS parish. It may take another 30 years to be totally accepted there. So, then how, in the world, would I be even considered to speak on a district level?

My thinking is such: If the various many WELS tightly bound group of leaderships (in the first place), can't seriously comprehend what they are doing by placing the [new] NIV 11 in the synodical consideration mix, then nothing what I or anyone else would, or could say, opposing it, - [and, questioning their judgment], would make a difference. It seems as though a large percentage of them have allowed themselves to be led around by the Translation Evaluation Committee. Else why would the (biased bent) translation committee's 4 part synodical Bible study be even allowed, featuring the new NIV 11 gender neutral translation, as a show prep?

I was born into a Lutheran family, baptized as an infant; became an LCMS parish pastor in my early forties. Presently, my wife and I are WELS members. It will be a sad story to witness when fellow Lutherans feel that they must (in good conscience) eschew other Lutherans over the gender neutral NIV 11 on the basis of the Scriptural principle of Romans 16:17-20. That Scripture has been utilized for years by Lutherans to separate them from opposing denominational Christian communions who practice false doctrine, not in accordance with the whole of Scripture. Now, I see the day fast approaching when that (same Romans) Scripture can and will be utilized as a viable (and conscienable) rationale to separate from other Lutherans.

Again, Rebecca, thank you for the thought of being invited as a guest speaker. But, "as" Father Abraham responded to the Rich Man in Christ's parable, they [WELS leaderships] have (available) "Moses and the prophets" [Luke 16:19-31] 

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - Soper Trust Lawsuit Intensifies: Legal Hearing Speculates if TEC Will Survive. Doomed Dinosaur Denominations Sue for Money

DC Bishop Budde is doing a Walther on a huge endowment,
to make up for loss of funds and members.

VirtueOnline - News - Exclusives - Soper Trust Lawsuit Intensifies: Legal Hearing Speculates if TEC Will Survive:


The Diocese of Washington's aggressive action against PNC bank continued in a hearing on January 23, 2012. The full transcripts of this hearing recently became publicly available in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the Greenbelt, Maryland court file. In this lawsuit, the Diocese of Washington seeks to terminate the trust left by a generous contributor to the Episcopal Church, Mrs. Ruth Gregory Soper, and place this considerable wealth under its own control. The Soper Trust began with $7 million and now has over $25 million. Originally Riggs National Bank managed the trust and after its collapse, PNC bank took over this managing function. (for more about this see other Virtueonline articles, including 10-10-11 www.virtueonline.org)

The original intent of the Soper Trust was to fund ministries but with the Diocese of Washington's steadily declining revenues, it now fills the gap in its annual budget by providing one/third of the operating expenses.

Some vocal members of the Diocese have expressed concern and anger about this use of the Soper Trust in a series of regional meetings. The Canon to the Ordinary, Paul Cooney, has given public talks about this lawsuit in an attempt to gain support for this legal action against PNC bank. Cooney says that the diocese initiated this lawsuit in order to avoid the PNC management fees of about one hundred thousand annually. Cooney hopes that they will avoid this fee if the trust is terminated and managed by him along with a diocesan committee of investors. Cooney filed an affidavit about this on January 20, 2011.

Yet this lawsuit invokes much larger issues than details about trusts. The leadership of the Episcopal Church has abandoned the central beliefs about the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death and resurrection. Now as Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori plans to transform Christian parishes into interfaith centers, the Episcopal Church faces precipitous declines and many wonder if it will survive. Indeed, the January 23, 2012 transcripts reveal that Judge Peter J. Messitte also expressed a question about the continuation of the Episcopal Church, while in previous court actions, he had disregarded this possibility.

In this hearing the lawyer for the Diocese of Washington, Daniel Shea, dialogued with Judge Messitte about the continued survival of the Episcopal Church. The judge is called The Court in the following transcripts. These transcripts are presented in this article exactly as they read in the court file.

"MR. SHEA: Well, the next issue, Your Honor, is Your Honor went to great lengths to explain in response to PNC's last argument that, gee, maybe there'll be some other entity that will come along that has a right or title in interest to this, and you went to great lengths to explain how the Anglican church has been around since before the American Revolution when the Episcopal Church was created in the United Sates. And I'll take it a step further. The Anglican Church has been around since, I think, the Reformation, Your Honor. So the suggestion that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican church, its parent, are somehow going to go somewhere anytime soon, pales in comparison."

THE COURT: I thought some of them were going to the Catholic Church, Mr. Shea, that's what I read.

MR. SHEA: Well, I hear you. That has happened, Your Honor, where one diocese here in this - one church in this Diocese has been permitted by, I guess Rome, to join the Roman Catholic, it's very interesting, Your Honor, in terms of ecclesiastical law how all that happened. I don't profess to have any greater knowledge than what I read in the paper about that, though."

Following this exchange, the judge and Shea dropped the issue of whether the Episcopal Church will survive. In his presentation Shea explained that the Diocese of Washington's interest is to control fully the remaining Soper money. He stated that in "Mr. Cooney's declaration" the Soper Trust provides "a third of the operating budget of the Diocese." Shea mentioned Paul Cooney's testimony about the Soper Trust about ten times in the hearing. The Diocese had previously stated that they want the highest possible income stream from this trust, but this argument has now been dropped after PNC pointed out previously that Mrs. Soper did not express this in her will.

Shea stated that Mrs. Soper was not keeping the Diocese away from managing her trust, even if her 1973 will stated that the trust should continue "in perpetuity." At one point Judge Messitte requested a copy of Mrs. Soper's will but in response Shea states, "I'm sorry, Your Honor, I didn't bring the will, I apologize."

Shea expressed several times that the Diocese of Washington wants control of the money only to avoid the management fees charged by PNC bank. The judge finally expressed impatience with this argument and suggested that if the diocese gained control of the money, it would also pay management fees. The dialogue reads below.

"THE COURT: Counsel, be fair. Are you saying that you would, if the Diocese got the corpus, you would not be investing with professional investment houses [?]"

Murphy responded that the Diocese would indeed pay fees to an investment house but he thought that the fees would be less expensive.

In his attempts to get the judge to rule for the termination of the Soper Trust, Shea took great care to define Cooney and other diocesan money managers by the term "sophisticated." In the following exchange, Shea said that because of diocesan sophistication, PNC management should be dismissed.

"MR. SHEA: The Diocese is a sophisticated diocese, Your Honor, with a sophisticated investment committee with sophisticated members on the committee, Your Honor, . . . So we're dealing with a sophisticated, not a non-sophisticated beneficiary . . .Clearly there's a need to have some sophisticated management over assets."

PNC lawyer Sean Murphy addressed Mr. Shea's argument rooted in the term "sophisticated" by offering this fact showing PNC's vast experience handling money as compared to the limited expertise of the diocese.

"MR. MURPHY: [PNC] manages nearly 40 billion in assets under management as opposed to the 16 million of the Diocese."

Murphy stated that under Washington DC law UPMIFA there would be no restrictions on the Soper body of money if the diocese gained control of it. He stated, "Under UPMIFA in Washington D.C., if you're going to use these funds for your own use, then there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. In other words, you can dip into the fund and use it for income. . . .They can take our corpus, if they want under UPMIFA as enacted in D.C. And that's - that's our point. . . It exposes the corpus to the claims of creditors, the right to spend the money as they deem fit jeopardizes what she wanted, [which] was the fund to exist in perpetuity."

In conclusion, Judge Messitte denied both the Diocese of Washington and PNC bank's motion for summary judgment and said that this issue should proceed to a trial with a public record. The lawyers for the diocese expressed distress about this ruling and in particular asked for a limited amount of discovery for this upcoming trial. Another attorney for the Diocese, Albert Brault said, "I don't want to get into this discovery route with, you know, boxes of records . . . In talking about discovery, we are in the unenviable position of that its trust funds that are undoubtedly paying the expenses. And so we would be very concerned with the expense factor and hoping we could hold it down." PNC lawyer Murphy agreed that in principle they could try to hold the discovery down.

The point here though is that PNC does not have to look far for an example to prove that the Diocese of Washington if left to its own devices will use the Soper Trust for its personal piggybank without concern for Mrs. Soper's wish for the trust to continue in perpetuity. Funding this lawsuit over the Soper Trust was not in the 2012 budget that the Diocese of Washington convention approved by a vote, though perhaps this expense was slipped into a general category without making the convention aware of it. If the Diocese of Washington gets control of the Soper Trust, the long-term survival of this trust seems questionable.

A crucial point in this hearing was that Mrs. Soper made no direct gifts to the Diocese of Washington but left money to it only under a separate management from the diocese. The judge seemed to seek a legal interpretation of her action and whether it is was meant to keep her financial assets away from the management of the Diocese of Washington.

That argument that Mrs. Soper held concerns about the Diocese of Washington can be made from her choice of church membership. In her will, Mrs. Soper gave an outright gift of 25,000 to her parish. Ruth Gregory Soper's church, All Saints, Chevy Chase, Maryland, now holds a distant relationship with the Episcopal Church. In the early 2000s, this church requested alternative oversight so it would not have to receive the bishop of the Diocese of Washington. The Rt. Rev. Edward L. Salmon, Jr., the former Bishop of South Carolina provided Episcopal support to this congregation so it would not be under the authority of the former Washington D.C. Bishop John Bryson Chane. This prominent parish's criticism of the leadership of the Episcopal Church is well known and from this it can logically be speculated that Mrs. Soper (as a long-term member) also had reservations about the direction of the Diocese of Washington. The court wanted to know if someone could testify that knew Mrs. Soper and her thinking about the Episcopal Church. No name was mentioned in the transcripts.

On March 26, 2012 both counsel produced the subsequent schedule. Legal discovery will continue until October 30, 2012 and the trial should happen in November or December 2012.

Even a limited discovery process should reveal the debts and financial decline that the Diocese of Washington now experiences. Its situation is dire and getting worse.Already the sophisticated Diocese of Washington pays for lawsuits out of a trust, dismisses concern of whether its actions will drive the Episcopal Church out of existence, and plans a hearing about Mrs. Soper's trust without a written copy of the will. In a parallel way, the current sophisticated leadership of the Episcopal Church conducts dozens of lawsuits, while watching its money disappear. The Episcopal Church as a whole watches parishes and dioceses flee to Rome or faithful Anglican groups, and yet it still continues to reject the scriptures with their written record of the holy actions of Christ. For those watching the Episcopal Church's follies and heresies, this hearing seems somehow indicative of the Church as a whole.


'via Blog this'

Bobby Petrino: Jessica Dorrell Incident Will Ensure Petrino Never Coaches Again | Bleacher Report. Are You Reading This, LCMS, WELS, ELS?

Clergy adultery earns promotions in WELS,
a quick firing at a football program.
Helpless SPs in WELS and Missouri manage to impose Stalinist censorship.

Bobby Petrino: Jessica Dorrell Incident Will Ensure Petrino Never Coaches Again | Bleacher Report:

When will the "conservative" Lutherans ever be as decisive as the Arkansas football program?

May God have mercy on anyone who points this out to Missouri, WELS, and the ELS, because the Synod Popes have no mercy for their victims plenty of cheap grace for the predators. Holy Mother Synod must remain immaculate in the public media.

'via Blog this'