Plagiarizing Swindoll and Kissing Up to Jeske - Pay Off Big Time. First service at church’s second site | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS)

Jeske Zombies!

First service at church’s second site | Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS):

Bethany, Appleton, Wis., held its first worship service at its second site Easter Sunday, March 31. The service was held at Our Shepherd Child Care and Family Ministry Center, Bethany's child care center located about three miles away. More than 160 people attended, many of them from the child care center and the community.

Rev. Darin Aden, one of Bethany’s three pastors, says he is thankful for the turnout and for all the hard work that Bethany’s members put into the service. “The blessing of having a solid group of mature Christians to draw on for experience, input, and service is priceless,” he says. “Knowing all that went into the service, seeing the many families within whose hearts God moved to bring them to worship, and being able to stand before the congregation as God’s messenger is a humbling and treasured experience.”

Bethany started the child care center in 2000 to serve a growing neighborhood not really covered by any of the seven WELS churches in Appleton; now more than 144 children from six weeks to 12 years old are enrolled. Last summer, with funding help from the Board for Home Missions, Bethany added a third pastor so it can better reach out to prospects and unchurched families at the center—including offering worship opportunities.

Future worship services at the center will be held Saturday evenings and tailored for those who are new to church. Aden says having worship at the center instead of the church helps community members make a connection to regular worship because they are familiar and comfortable with the location.

A recent 14,500 square foot expansion of the center provided the space for worship. The expansion included classrooms; office space; and a Praise Center, a multi-purpose room that can hold 250 people.

“Before the addition, I would come out and do devotions copy Swindoll on a weekly basis, but there was not a place to do work—no office, no place for counseling,” says Aden. Now with additional space and staff, Aden’s office is at Our Shepherd, where he can greet the families and work directly with them every day.

Along with its normal child care activities and programs, the building also is used to host parenting seminars, fellowship events, service projects, and other neighborhood programs for those who aren’t using the child care.

Aden says he is excited to see what the future will bring. “As I ponder what God has in mind, I am reminded of the words of a song, ‘Lord, I don’t know what you’re doing, but I know who you are.’ I don’t know what God will do through his people and ministry in northwest Appleton, but I know him. That is what will guide us, inspire us, and give us peace.”

'via Blog this'

---

Chuck Swindoll is Evangelical Free (Pietist) but serves a community church with no affiliation.
Chuck graduated from a non-E-Free seminary, Dallas, and is a bigshot there.

From Wikipedia:

"In July 1994, Swindoll became the president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and now serves as its chancellor. He is the author of more than 70 books, most of which are based on his research and preparation for sermons preached each Sunday. In celebration of its 50th anniversary, Christianity Today produced an article naming Swindoll as one of the top 25 most influential preachers of the past 50 years (1956–2006).

In 1998, Swindoll founded a new church in Frisco, Texas, Stonebriar Community Church. The church first held services at Collin County Community College (now called Collin College) then moved to its permanent home on Legendary Drive in Frisco. The congregation grew rapidly from a few hundred members to several thousand in the first few years and this growth has necessitated major expansion of the current facility. Construction for the additions began in 2005. Many of the pastors at Stonebriar are graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary, and the church is known for its missionary work in India and other countries. Though Swindoll is still widely regarded as an Evangelical Free Church of America preacher, the Stonebriar Community Church is not affiliated with any particular denomination.[2]"

---

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Bethany Appleton WELS Caught Plagiarizing Swindoll

Your offering dollars at work, promoting false teachers. --- bruce-church (https://bruce-church.myopenid.com/) has left a new comment on your post "Bethany Appleton WELS Caught Plagiarizing Swindoll...":

The members, no doubt, got suspicious when their pastor produced a devotion without spelling and grammar mistakes, and suspected false doctrine. Spelling and grammar mistakes are part of the Marks of the Church as far as WELS is concerned. *** GJ -

I noticed today that the Intrepids caught Bethany (WELS) in Appleton plagiarizing Church Swindoll. The link is here.

The Intrepids did not name Bethany because there was an apology posted. However, I was able to find it by a process of elimination. WELS pastors never apologize, so that narrowed it down quite a bit. Secondly, Bethany was already known as one of many Shrinker cesspools in the State of Wisconsin.

Here is the apology:

Pastor's Blog

Dear Friends, I'd like to use this space to offer you, the dear members and friends of Bethany Lutheran Church and Our Shepherd Child Care & Family Ministry Center -- a sincere apology. As many of you are well aware, especially those still actively involved in the work-a-day world, it is vitally important, yet not always to easy to keep an organization's web site fresh and up-to-date. Your pastors have tried to provide fresh information and spiritually valuable devotions and articles for our members and friends as routinely as time allows. This particular page, formerly know (sic) at the "Pastor's Message", was updated about every three months or so. The last time it was updated - in June of 2010 - I must confess to you that my press of schedule and the weakness of my sinful flesh led me to publish a devotion in this space that was not the work of your pastor. Without attributing the work to its proper author, Pastor Charles Swindoll of Insight for Living Ministries, and without seeking permission of his publisher, Thomas Nelson Publishers, I shared Pastor Swindoll's devotion here with a very slight modification. For this transgression I am sorry. It was wrong to share some one else's work without acknowledging it's (sic) original source. My apologies to you and please know that I will be sending a personal letter of apology to Pastor Swindoll as well. It is the prayer of your pastors that you will be gracious in accepting our apology and will continue to give us the privilege and opportunity to encourage you in your walk of faith by visiting our website in the future. We are grateful for the powerful and healing message of our Savior-God's grace as recorded in Isaiah 43:25 -- "I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more." (Isaiah 43:25) In Christ's love, Pastor Mark P. Henke Pastor Darin D. Aden

---

Here is what the Intrepids wrote, in case the blog disappears the way the Issues in WELS website did:

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series of blog posts, we discussed two important issues directly connected with the tragedy of pastoral plagiarism:

1. the fraudulent nature of plagiarism itself, and the meaning of this fraud within the context of the Office of Representational or Public Ministry,and
2. the added offense of plagiarizing sectarian sources.

We concluded both that:

A plagiarist is one who knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source. The result of this theft is misrepresentation and fraud: that is, the plagiarist’s audience concludes that he is the author or creator of the quoted or used material (misrepresentation) and uses this conclusion as a basis for trust in the plagiarist (fraud). He takes on an identity that is not his – that of the original author – and uses that identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work.

and,

When a pastor knowingly quotes or uses a source other than himself while concealing the identity of that source, the result is misrepresentation and fraud – a case of clear infidelity to his Call. ...When he commits misrepresentation using sectarian sources, he not only passes off sectarian teaching as his own, but... passes off sectarian content as pure Scripture teaching. The fraud associated with this misrepresentation is no longer merely that others trust his teaching on the basis of his misrepresentation, but that they trust sectarian teaching as orthodox on the basis of his misrepresentation. In stealing and applying to himself the identity of the sectarian author, he disgraces his Call, which requires that he “[hold] fast the faithful Word as he has been taught.” Using borrowed sectarian identity against the consciences of those who hear or read his work is tantamount to false teaching.

In this third installment we provide an illustration of plagiarism in the WELS using an example from one of a growing number of congregations which we have either observed directly, or which have come to our attention through concerned laymen and pastors of our Synod.


Plagiarism from Sectarian sources in the WELS
If only we could concern ourselves with pastors who plagiarize the sermons of Martin Luther, Johann Gerhard, C.F.W. Walther, or other giants of the Lutheran Confession! We might be inclined to just let it pass, and let homiletics professors at the seminary stew over it! Indeed, there have been many fine Lutheran pastors who have bequeathed to the church a legacy and record of exegetical and homiletical excellence, from whom many continue to borrow and repeat, and will continue to do so. Fine. Many of the ideas communicated by them are not foreign to us, but reminders of what is already common knowledge – like quoting from the Small Catechism, which every adult Lutheran is expected to have long since memorized, understood, and incorporated into his worldview. Citing original sources of common knowledge is not necessary – not even under the stringent guidelines of the APA.

But when we warn of plagiarism in our Synod, we are not talking about the pastor who’s had a rough week and finds it necessary to read a sermon from one of Martin Luther’s or Sig Becker’s postils, nor are we harping on the occasional unattributed quotation. In this discussion, we leave the fine points of situation ethics regarding plagiarism for others to debate, for the thresholds of acceptable use of unattributed sources are far, far south of the gross abuses which concern us. What we are warning of is wholesale, unattributed, nearly verbatim use of entire sectarian sermons, outlines, devotions, and other resources, the motivation for which seems to be derived from priorities of the Church Growth Movement. Indeed, by and large, it isn’t the traditional churches who have found it necessary to parrot Rick Warren, Craig Groeschel, or Mark Driscoll.

The example of one such congregation is illustrative. They had made verbatim and unattributed use of devotional material from Chuck Swindoll on their website. They had published their congregation’s “strategic plan,” suggesting influence from the Church Growth Movement. They had evidently recently preached a sermon series from Craig Groeschel’s LifeChurch.tv. Knowing we were going to treat this topic, we sent them an email last Friday, informing them that we were going to use their congregation’s website as an example of the type of plagiarism and use of sectarian sources that we observe more frequently, and, we fear, is becoming more and more accepted in our Synod. To this congregation's credit, within an hour of having sent our email, most of the offending material was removed, and by Saturday, a public apology had been posted in its place. Because of this, we have voluntarily chosen not to reveal the name of this congregation. Yet, the example of their offense remains useful, so we reproduce the details of our communication with them, which reveals the nature of the issues we observed there, and observe elsewhere:

Pastors and Elders of (name removed) Ev. Lutheran Church, (city and state removed)Intrepid Lutherans, a blog concerned with Confessional unity in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, is currently writing an article on plagiarism and the use of sectarian resources in our Synod, and will be using your congregation's website as an example. We have discovered on your congregation's website several troubling instances where use of sectarian sources is made – instances which are quite typical of a growing number of our congregations. We are contacting you ahead of publication for your comments on the following issues.
1. Your "Pastor's Message" entry located at this URL is taken almost verbatim, without attribution, from Chuck Swindoll's devotional Day by Day with Chuck Swindoll, Copyright 2000. This very same entry from Chuck Swindoll's work was used,with attribution, on Christianity.com, here:http://www.christianity.com/devotionals/day_by_day/11623905/. Do you have permission from either Chuck Swindoll or Thomas Nelson Publishers to use his content without attribution? If you do, do you consider it dishonest toward your readers to pass off his thoughts and experiences as your own? Did you actually "[receive] a letter from a fine Christian couple, and [smile] understandingly at one line: 'Although the Lord has taken good care of my wife and me for the past thirty-eight years, He has taken control of us for the past two and a half'"? If not, do you consider it a lie to say that you did? Is lying sinful? If so, do you and Chuck Swindoll know the same fine Christian couple? Could we see a copy of that letter?
2. We noticed that Chuck Swindoll's message is entirely a message of Law – Gospel-less is the term we used when critiquing it – which is aptly demonstrated in the final line summarizing the devotion: “Don't get ‘out of control’ because you're so determined to stay ‘in control.’” Do you think that it is appropriate for Lutherans to fixate on sanctification messages such as this? Do you think it is appropriate for a Lutheran to emphasize the third use of the Law without preceding it with its second use and the Gospel? If so, how can this be considered proper application of Law and Gospel? How does Swindoll's content indicate a Gospel motivation for Christian works? Granting that you may have found a pearl of great value among Swindoll’s works, do you consider it wise to use his material without warning your readers of his many errors? If so, have you read Harold Senkbeil'sSanctification: Christ in Action, published by NPH? It is an analysis of modern Evangelicalism and it's theological fixation on sanctification over justification, using Chuck Swindoll as a case study, and offers a confessional Lutheran corrective. For that matter, have you read Robert Koester's Gospel Motivation: More than "Jesus Died for My Sins", also published by NPH? If not, we highly recommend them.
3. We noticed that you altered Chuck Swindoll's content, in the third to last paragraph, adding the following sentence: "And it is only through the Spirit's working through the Means of Grace - the gospel in Word and Sacrament - that he bends and shapes our will (our new man) to be conformed to the likeness of God's Son, our Savior."
   
   

   Click image to see documents side-by-side

   We have further noticed that adding a token reference to the Means of Grace is a common way to "Lutheranize" sectarian content among WELS congregations enamoured with non-Lutheran sources. Your one-sentence addition to Swindoll’s work is illustrative of this technique. Do you honestly believe that this one-sentence is sufficient to make Swindoll's devotion – a devotion that is entirely a message of Law and entirely centered on sanctification – something that could be considered (a) your own original work, and/or (b) a distinctly "Lutheran" devotion, centered on Justification, where Law and Gospel are balanced in favor of the Gospel? Moreover, if you have permission to use Swindoll's content without attribution, do you also have permission to alter it?
4. We have noticed, in your congregation’s "Proposed Strategic Plan," that you envision people joining your church for no other reason than that your congregation is "so welcoming." We see precious little emphasis on Word and Sacrament ministry, nor mention of the Holy Spirit's work exclusively through those Means to call, gather and enlighten His people, drawing them into fellowship with other believers and keeping them in the faith. This troubles us. We are, of course, veryfamiliar with the errors of the Church Growth Movement (CGM), and the reliance of CGM on alien means – means outside those through which the Holy Spirit is known to work – to “grow the church”.
   
   The ministry approach espoused in your "Proposed Strategic Plan" smacks of CGM. Are you familiar with CGM? Are you adherents of CGM practices? If not, who advised you to engage in such methods? If so, why are you so willing to flirt with sectarian errors?
   
   Are you aware that the WELS Michigan District commissioned a multi-year study of CGM, and that the resulting paper repudiated CGM, especially Lutheran involvement with CGM? The name of the paper is "The Tendrils of the Church Growth Movement," and it was enthusiastically received by the Michigan District at their 2008 Convention. We have attached a pdf of this paper for your edification.
5. Are you fans of Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv? Was your July 4 sermon, entitled “How to Commit Adultery,” and taken nearly verbatim from the identically titled 1^st part of Groeschel's five-part sermon series "Five Easy Steps...," published on his website, here: http://www.lifechurch.tv/watch/five-easy-steps/1?
   
   If this is the case, did you inform those assembled that you were parroting a sectarian sermon? Or, is Craig Groeschel a confessional Lutheran? Did you do the same with the remaining four sermons of Groeschel’s series? We understand that Craig Groeschel publishes his sermons so that others can copy him, but also that his blog states pastors ought to cite their sources, because citation "honors the pastor or church who came up with the idea," "demonstrates humility and security," "exposes a church to other great leaders and teachers," and "removes any doubt of copying" (Plagiarizing Pastors by Craig Groeschel; July 21, 2008). If you copy his sermons, we assume that you largely agree with Craig Groeschel's preaching. If Craig Groeschel isn’t a confessional Lutheran, shouldn’t we be concerned about this fact alone? Moreover, even granting that one may have permission to copy someone else’s work without attribution, when, in your opinion, does a failure to cite sources constitute fraud against one’s hearers/readers?
Gentlemen, we will be publishing our article on Monday. Please have your comments to us by Sunday afternoon in order to have them included in our article. These are matters of public offense. Having taken council together and with others, we stand firm on Scripture (Ga. 2:11-14; 1 Ti. 5:20) and the Confessions (LC:3:284ff) when we insist that discussion of these issues, and all responses, be made in public. This includes a refusal to answer or participate. If you are unable to reply by Sunday afternoon, you may publicly engage the ensuing discussion by posting to our blog following publication.In Christ,Intrepid Lutherans

Apart from the removal of most of the offending content and the posting of an apology on their own website, we have received no return communication from this congregation.

Nevertheless, in response to their online apology, we have written back to them. That letter (with names removed) will appear in our next post.

***

GJ - I am looking forward to apologies from Ski, Glende, Kelm, Parlow, Deputy Doug Englebrecht, the hapless district VP, Ron Ash, Patmos, and various other enablers.

---

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Le Grande Swindle - Or Swindoll

Copy and paste Luther next time.
No will will recognize the text,
but they will be furious about the content.

This recent post on WELS catechisms explains how UOJ became the Helen of Troy in WELS.

WELS dumped justification by faith in favor of Universal Objective Justification. The ministerium moved lockstep to buy the Kuske catechism, which was larger, more expensive, and based on false doctrine.

Let us go back in our time machine to the Kokomo crisis. There Pastor Papenfuss admitted that he had never heard of UOJ until he reached seminary. His teaching in the Kokomo, Indiana parish ignited the nationwide debate about UOJ. Was he previously trained with Gausewitz? Probably, because WELS tends to go with one book, one idea at a time.

Another look at WAM II is in order, because Missouri long used a justification by faith catechism, as Pastor Harley established in his work. LCMS President Jack Preus beat up WAM II in public. Concordia Seminary stopped short of burning Maier at the stake, but only because of smoke restrictions.

Supposedly UOJ has always been always taught, with Missouri basing its reverence for universal absolution on all these orthodox dudes who wrote after the Book of Concord was published in 1580, orthodox dudes out of print and only found in the musty dark corners of university libraries. Unfortunately, Robert Preus, who knew these authors, admitted before he died that justification only means justification by faith, that no one is forgiven apart from faith.

Pietism is bad. Ptui. Ptui. Ask any LCMS, WELS, or Little Sect graduate. I have heard more than one Mequon graduate claim that drinking beer is a witness against the Pietists. O happy day, that an entire ministerium can wash away Pietism so easily and bear the cross of DUI convictions while doing so.

But this wonderful UOJ, which they call the heart of the Gospel, is a brew imported from Halle University. George Christian Knapp taught Objective Justification and Subjective Justification for years. He was so important that his lectures were translated into English before the (LCMS) Perry County pioneers landed in Nawluns. Not that English mattered. These founders of Missouri spoke, taught, and published in German until the 20th century, when WWI made German less than fashionable.

All the American Lutherans honored Pietism. They came from Halle University or from a group that looked to Halle as their Vatican, whether they graduated from there or not. The entire world knew about the charitable institutions and mission societies that Halle spawned, so no one criticized Spener, even if they took shots at Pietism itself.

Pietism was a doctrinal leaven which slowly worked its way through the American Lutheran church bodies. Chuck Swindoll is a Lutheran, once or twice removed, as they say in family tree studies. The Swedish Augustana Synod began as a blend of Lutheran orthodoxy and Pietism, just as Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect did. Two groups formed out of resistance to the Augustana Synod - the Mission Covenant (North Park U., Warner Sallman, Craig Groeschel) denomination and the Evangelical Free (Trinity, Deerfield) group. Both sects are hotter than Georgia asphalt for Church Growth.

Chuck Swindoll is E. Free but his current congregation is non-denominational. His denomination has trained so many WELS leaders at Trinity that WELS was mentioned twice in a recent academic bulletin.

WELS considers E. Free and Mission Covenant to be safe sects, so they plagiarize Swindoll and Groeschel to a fare-thee-well. No surprise - Fox Valley features one pastor who plagiarized Swindoll because he "was busy." Ski and Glende plagiarize Groeschel, because that will ignite their sputtering evangelism efforts, and Steve Witte takes the Pietistic mission to Asia.

UOJ is plagiarized from Knapp, not from Luther. To copy Luther is natural for sincere Lutherans. Didja ever wonder why Lutheran leaders hate Luther's doctrine so much? The historic liturgy? Lutheran hymns? It is because they are fakes - Pietists who favor Calvinism to the point of Universalism.

The LCMS, WELS, and ELS base all their work on UOJ. That explains why their leaders are indifferent about doctrine, except when persecuting Luther's doctrine. This "we are not in fellowship" business is their Pietism, trying to maintain a false distinction to keep the brand alive a few more years.