Friday, February 27, 2015

Leonard Nimoy Encouraged Moliner Ken Berry to Try Hollywood



"Go West, young man."
Yes - that is my Photoshop.


When his hitch was up in 1955, Ken was looking for the logical next move. "My sergeant in Atlanta was Leonard Nimoy, from ‘Star Trek,’" Ken recalls. "Leonard said, ‘You really ought to contact some people on the coast since you’re going back out there.’ He set it up and I got a screen test. I didn’t get the job but it got me to California." (The film was Francis in the Haunted House and at the last minute Mickey Rooney got the job of essentially succeeding Donald O’Connor in what turned out to be the last of the "Francis the Talking Mule" films.)
Ken Berry Official Website

Delusions of Orthodoxy Remain in WELS - Even on the WELS Documented Blog

Jeske's 2014 Change or Die! Circus -WELS, ELCA, LCMS


http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/02/additional-reading-for-techlin-case.html

I don't think you erred, necessarily, but neither should you expect that you have joined a synod with no issues. There are probably fewer of these manifestly unjust, unscriptural issues in the WELS than the LCMS. But our weakness as a synod is that because we might be *better* we are very tempted to pretend we're *perfect* (this will be objected to, of course, but few WELS pastors would be willing to say publicly that the synod has gotten anything of any consequence "wrong" in living memory, while many LCMS pastors are perfectly willing to do so). There is simply less independent thinking, which works OK so long as everyone actively agrees to be identifiably, genuinely Confessional Lutheran, but is not so great when the ways of the world start to creep in from the top, not the bottom (few rank-and-file WELS pastors went to study church growth at Fuller Seminary, for example--it was professors and leaders, or those whose ambition to be professors and leaders has since in large part been fulfilled).

Mark Jeske is far more significant and damaging than Matthew Becker.

Matthew Becker could probably not happen in the WELS today. A relatively low-ranking pastor teaching at a non-training school, such as him, would be swiftly tossed for so publicly flouting synod leadership--although I think if he were well-connected and taught his stuff quietly in a sympathetic congregation, it's quite possible that he would last for quite a while, perhaps with a few "disfellowshipped" objecting laymen as collateral damage. By the same token, though, I don't think WELS rank-and-file pastors and laypeople would have the intestinal and doctrinal fortitude to be able to carry out a housecleaning at the seminary such as the LCMS was able to do during the Seminex controversy.

***
GJ - Where to start? Mark Jeske is the media guy recognized nationally by WELS and the LCMS while tying them together with ELCA in his managed conferences, funded by Thrivent or the Siebert Foundation or both.

Jeske's dogma is warmed-over Joel Osteen coaching and boosterism. Mrs. Ichabod puts it on to annoy me. Without listening or watching, I begin to feel the pain in five minutes.

No one wants to deal with Jeske shoveling millions to ELCA to help fund their abortion-driven sect, or Thrivent funding Planned Parenthood. Certain Lutherans discoverd that - with dramatic shock - and failed to mention how this blog revealed the same more than five years ago (thanks to Brett Meyer).

The only discipline in WELS is shutting down dissent, as previously shown, and selectively kicking out justification by faith. 

If I need to mention:
Ski
  • Tim Glende
  • Ski
  • Paul Kelm
  • Jeff Gunn
  • Adam Mueller
  • John Parlow
  • Steve Witte
  • John Parlow
  • Larry Olson
  • Jim Huebner
  • David Valleskey
  • or a few dozen others...

                  Then you have not been reading.

WELS fellowship is centered on the Green Bay Packers.

Joe Krohn Weighs In with Attacks on Justification by Faith and Lenski's Scholarship.
Dozens Cheer.
Boycott the Emmaus Conference

Lenski was a parish pastor and district president
before becoming a distinguished professor of New Testament studies.

  1. I would have to agree with Warren on the point of Lenski. Since Lenski denied Objective Justification, his works should be suspect since Justification is the pillar of Lutheran doctrine. What is ironic to me is that Lenski is even defended here by a WELsian since the view of some hold such a view of OJ that it skews their view of The Keys...
  2. Would Lenski approve of popcorn munching
    and cola slurping during the Prayer of the Church?
  3. Mr. Krohn: That's absurd. It's one paragraph out of 12,000 pages, in a different volume, on a different book of the Bible, dealing with different doctrine. One lousy paragraph where Lenski expresses a theological opinion, on a matter that is not really a textual issue anyway (and that is why people read Lenski: because of his facility with the Greek and deep research of the text, not for his dogmatic insight). Lenski is absolutely wonderful, THE best available commentary at this fine level of detail. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (WELS) calls it "one of the great commentaries on the New Testament". The Northwestern Lutheran (Forward in Christ, WELS) said "Dr. Lenski presents the message of the book with clarity and convincing force. The book breathes the spirit of reverence for the Inspired Word and of faith in the Savior and zeal for his cause." Concordia (LCMS): "The book should be gratefully received by the Lutheran Church."

    But, oh, Joe Krohn disagrees! Because Lenski rendered a different opinion on one verse--more controversial now than then--out of the entire blessed New Testament. The very same Joe Krohn whose own thinking on that verse swung like a pendulum over the space of weeks and months--and absurdly is even now somehow convinced that WELS and the LCMS teach differently on it!--dismisses the whole corpus of a true expert's scholarship on the entire New Testament for his perceived error in the analysis of a single verse.

    In short, if Lenski is "suspect" in your mind then everyone else who wrote a comprehensive New Testament textual commentary (or lexicon, or...) must be deeply and irretrievably flawed (since essentially none of them are Lutheran at all). And then you're left with no outside scholarly sources whatsoever, just your own presumably infallible wits and whatever your professor's notes say. Nothing could be more WELSian than that! Are you sure you've left us?
  4. Really? I'll stick with Kretzmann for the most part.

    You know it's interesting, Melanchthon (Anonymous...oh how brave you can be there at your keyboard in anonymity...) that you would choose such a 'handle'; wishy washy as he really was...a sell out to the reformed...kind of like Lenski...who was off on Election too!
  5. JP Meyer was over the top and into enemy territory with his UOJ,
    but this statement is a good commentary on the passage in Corinthians. Joe Krohn should recognize how this applies to
    CrossWalk in Phoenix, The CORE in Appleton,
    Christ the King in Round Rock.

    1. I would have to agree with Warren on the point of Lenski. Since Lenski denied Objective Justification, his works should be suspect since Justification is the pillar of Lutheran doctrine. What is ironic to me is that Lenski is even defended here by a WELsian since the view of some hold such a view of OJ that it skews their view of The Keys...
    2. Mr. Krohn: That's absurd. It's one paragraph out of 12,000 pages, in a different volume, on a different book of the Bible, dealing with different doctrine. One lousy paragraph where Lenski expresses a theological opinion, on a matter that is not really a textual issue anyway (and that is why people read Lenski: because of his facility with the Greek and deep research of the text, not for his dogmatic insight). Lenski is absolutely wonderful, THE best available commentary at this fine level of detail. Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly (WELS) calls it "one of the great commentaries on the New Testament". The Northwestern Lutheran (Forward in Christ, WELS) said "Dr. Lenski presents the message of the book with clarity and convincing force. The book breathes the spirit of reverence for the Inspired Word and of faith in the Savior and zeal for his cause." Concordia (LCMS): "The book should be gratefully received by the Lutheran Church."

      But, oh, Joe Krohn disagrees! Because Lenski rendered a different opinion on one verse--more controversial now than then--out of the entire blessed New Testament. The very same Joe Krohn whose own thinking on that verse swung like a pendulum over the space of weeks and months--and absurdly is even now somehow convinced that WELS and the LCMS teach differently on it!--dismisses the whole corpus of a true expert's scholarship on the entire New Testament for his perceived error in the analysis of a single verse.

      In short, if Lenski is "suspect" in your mind then everyone else who wrote a comprehensive New Testament textual commentary (or lexicon, or...) must be deeply and irretrievably flawed (since essentially none of them are Lutheran at all). And then you're left with no outside scholarly sources whatsoever, just your own presumably infallible wits and whatever your professor's notes say. Nothing could be more WELSian than that! Are you sure you've left us?
    3. Really? I'll stick with Kretzmann for the most part.

      You know it's interesting, Melanchthon (Anonymous...oh how brave you can be there at your keyboard in anonymity...) that you would choose such a 'handle'; wishy washy as he really was...a sell out to the reformed...kind of like Lenski...who was off on Election too!
    4. Mr. Krohn:

      You realize that these volumes are on nearly every WELS pastor's shelf? Why do you think that is? So they can mock him? Decorative paperweights? Enjoyment of the color green?

      Kretzmann (which already existed at the time Lenski did his work) is great, I agree! But he is also not by any means a substitute for Lenski since the work is not done at the same level of textual detail. For starters, he covers the New Testament in about 1200 pages and does not really get into the underlying language. Lenski takes 12,000 and dissects literally every Greek word.

      But all of this is a moot point. Why? KRETZMANN AGREES WITH LENSKI ON THE VERSE IN CONTENTION. Don't believe me? Crack yours open--I just did. Kretzmann's treatment of Titus 3:10 is identical to Lenski's (I mean, without all of the discussion of the Greek, of course, since Kretzmann doesn't get into that, and in one paragraph instead of five pages--but the conclusion is the same: "heretic")!

      So, in conclusion, thank you for helping me make my point. You may now resume your regularly scheduled ad hominem.
    5. Melanchtymous, please. Is it possible to lob ad hominem on the anonymous? It seems you want your cake and to eat it too. If you can’t stand the heat, then you probably shouldn’t light the oven.

      “You realize that these volumes are on nearly every WELS pastor's shelf?”

      So what. For a theologian so well versed in Greek as you say and yet is off on Justification and Election, in my mind taints his work. You should read this: http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GeigerLenski.pdf

      As far as Kretzmann is concerned; you said: “…then everyone else who wrote a comprehensive New Testament textual commentary (or lexicon, or...) must be deeply and irretrievably flawed (since essentially none of them are Lutheran at all).” I was simply countering your assertion there were no authoritative Lutheran commentaries. I know, I know…nothing could come out of the LC-MS that would stand up to the standards of the WELS.

      And to your ad hominem: “The very same Joe Krohn whose own thinking on that verse swung like a pendulum over the space of weeks and months--and absurdly is even now somehow convinced that WELS and the LCMS teach differently on it!”

      I do believe there are some in the WELS who do not teach Objective Justification correctly just like there are probably some in the LC-MS that do not either and vice versa. My contention was with a certain pastor and his preaching on the Keys. In the final analysis, I did find out where he stood as I found myself out of fellowship until I repented of ‘false doctrine’ and a critical spirit; without a fair hearing. He liked to eat his cake and have it too.
    6. No, Mr. Krohn, your ad hominem was against Dr. Lenski, not me. "Ad hominem" doesn't mean "saying something really mean or blunt" it means "arguing against THE MAN rather than the man's arguments". Which is precisely what you are doing by insinuating that Dr. Lenski should be "suspected" of not having gotten Titus 3 right because you don't like the way he treated a verse in Romans several volumes over on the shelf.

      I have, of course, read the essay you cite. Have you, actually? It acknowledges that: "Lenski’s commentaries are generally accepted in all conservative Lutheran circles as the finest New Testament commentaries. It is a scholarly work, issued by a man who loved the Lord and His verbally inspired Word, and it is found in the libraries of many of our pastors."

      Which is true. EVEN WITH THE JUSTIFICATION CAVEATS, Lenski is STILL "generally accepted as the finest available New Testament commentary in all conservative Lutheran circles," whether LCMS, WELS, or ELS. This is not a slam on Kretzmann, because Kretzmann is not a comprehensive commentary in the same sense. Kretzmann is the proto-"People's Bible", a gloss and explanation aimed at the level of the lay family, rather than a textual analysis based on the original language aimed at scholars and pastors. Reading Kretzmann provides no special insight into whether a particular Greek word in Titus 3 should be understood one way or another; reading Lenski does (though it's worth noting that Kretzmann does of course render it just as Lenski does, he provides no reasoning or reference to the Greek).
  6. Mr. Krohn:

    You realize that these volumes are on nearly every WELS pastor's shelf? Why do you think that is? So they can mock him? Decorative paperweights? Enjoyment of the color green?

    Kretzmann (which already existed at the time Lenski did his work) is great, I agree! But he is also not by any means a substitute for Lenski since the work is not done at the same level of textual detail. For starters, he covers the New Testament in about 1200 pages and does not really get into the underlying language. Lenski takes 12,000 and dissects literally every Greek word.

    But all of this is a moot point. Why? KRETZMANN AGREES WITH LENSKI ON THE VERSE IN CONTENTION. Don't believe me? Crack yours open--I just did. Kretzmann's treatment of Titus 3:10 is identical to Lenski's (I mean, without all of the discussion of the Greek, of course, since Kretzmann doesn't get into that, and in one paragraph instead of five pages--but the conclusion is the same: "heretic")!

    So, in conclusion, thank you for helping me make my point. You may now resume your regularly scheduled ad hominem.
  7. Melanchtymous, please. Is it possible to lob ad hominem on the anonymous? It seems you want your cake and to eat it too. If you can’t stand the heat, then you probably shouldn’t light the oven.

    “You realize that these volumes are on nearly every WELS pastor's shelf?”

    So what. For a theologian so well versed in Greek as you say and yet is off on Justification and Election, in my mind taints his work. You should read this: http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GeigerLenski.pdf

    As far as Kretzmann is concerned; you said: “…then everyone else who wrote a comprehensive New Testament textual commentary (or lexicon, or...) must be deeply and irretrievably flawed (since essentially none of them are Lutheran at all).” I was simply countering your assertion there were no authoritative Lutheran commentaries. I know, I know…nothing could come out of the LC-MS that would stand up to the standards of the WELS.

    And to your ad hominem: “The very same Joe Krohn whose own thinking on that verse swung like a pendulum over the space of weeks and months--and absurdly is even now somehow convinced that WELS and the LCMS teach differently on it!”

    I do believe there are some in the WELS who do not teach Objective Justification correctly just like there are probably some in the LC-MS that do not either and vice versa. My contention was with a certain pastor and his preaching on the Keys. In the final analysis, I did find out where he stood as I found myself out of fellowship until I repented of ‘false doctrine’ and a critical spirit; without a fair hearing. He liked to eat his cake and have it too.
  8. No, Mr. Krohn, your ad hominem was against Dr. Lenski, not me. "Ad hominem" doesn't mean "saying something really mean or blunt" it means "arguing against THE MAN rather than the man's arguments". Which is precisely what you are doing by insinuating that Dr. Lenski should be "suspected" of not having gotten Titus 3 right because you don't like the way he treated a verse in Romans several volumes over on the shelf.

    I have, of course, read the essay you cite. Have you, actually? It acknowledges that: "Lenski’s commentaries are generally accepted in all conservative Lutheran circles as the finest New Testament commentaries. It is a scholarly work, issued by a man who loved the Lord and His verbally inspired Word, and it is found in the libraries of many of our pastors."

    Which is true. EVEN WITH THE JUSTIFICATION CAVEATS, Lenski is STILL "generally accepted as the finest available New Testament commentary in all conservative Lutheran circles," whether LCMS, WELS, or ELS. This is not a slam on Kretzmann, because Kretzmann is not a comprehensive commentary in the same sense. Kretzmann is the proto-"People's Bible", a gloss and explanation aimed at the level of the lay family, rather than a textual analysis based on the original language aimed at scholars and pastors. Reading Kretzmann provides no special insight into whether a particular Greek word in Titus 3 should be understood one way or another; reading Lenski does (though it's worth noting that Kretzmann does of course render it just as Lenski does, he provides no reasoning or reference to the Greek).

Writer Seems Not To Know the Real Monster Ministers

When did you first suspect something was wrong with the new pastor?


http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/48481-11-signs-of-a-monster-pastor
In a previous post, I wrote about "monster churches" in reference to congregations that chew up and spit out pastors on a regular basis. Monster churches are highly dysfunctional and rarely fruitful.
The congregation, however, is not always the problem. Just as monster churches are a factory of discord, monster pastors take trouble with them wherever they go.
Nicknames for monster pastors include: dictator, authoritarian and control freak.
Biblically speaking, they may be false teachers, greedy for selfish gain, deceitful workmen and ravenous wolves. They specialize in hijacking congregations and then abusing their power.
Monster pastors have little regard for the sheep (or the Chief Shepherd for that matter). Instead, their first priority is self, masked by other agendas. Such pastors may use pressure tactics, political maneuvering, and/or persuasive speech in order to manipulate a congregation into acting on their behalf.
When they don't get their way, monster pastors usually 1) move on to another church, 2) cause a stir in their current church and/or 3) blame the congregation for not following their lead. Simply put, monster pastors are building their own kingdom rather than Christ's kingdom.
As a general rule, monster pastors:
1. Are always right and never wrong.
2. Cannot accept criticism without becoming defensive.
3. Are not willing to share the pulpit.
4. Do not support other ministries.
5. Overly use the personal pronoun, "I."
6. Resist accountability.
7. Feels threatened by former pastors.
8. Surround themselves with "yes men" rather than edifying leaders.
9. Do not entrust ministry to other leaders.
10. Undermine programs that they cannot control.
11. Insist that everything in the church run through them.
***

GJ - These are characteristics of controlling pastors, above. Many ministers have those characteristics. The socialistic nature of church organizations makes this worse. The easiest promotion is to leave for a better salary, home, and situation. This opens the door for church executives to play politics with the call, rewarding friends and relatives, punishing anyone who questions their infallibility. Synodical leaders are a cancer today, absorbing enormous amounts of money for themselves, taking over and eating up everything.
Here is my description of monster pastors in the parish:
  • Like Bishop Martin Stephan, they think they own the bodies of their members and exploit them --men or women, boys or girls--to satisfy their egos and their lusts.
  • Their disordered lives are marked by alcohol and drug addiction, often both together.
  • They make money disappear, but sometimes have deep-pocket pals who bail them out and defend them. In return, these enablers are absolved for their own abusive behavior at home or in business. There is nothing better than a sugar daddy adulterer whose Mafia business ethics make the newspapers. 
  • The monster pastors are either incompetent or too lazy to carry out their duties, so they cover up by acting busy and taking shortcuts.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Questions Aimed at Luther and Lutherans



Someone asked me to answer these questions aimed at Luther and Lutherans. I have marked them in blue with the answers following.

Question
I have a question that is perhaps provocative, but it not intended to offend or be upsetting, if you can possibly take it that way. It is intended to get an answer from an “insider” of what I shall refer to as Protestantism.
In 2 Tim 3, Paul says that all scripture is inspired by God and (useful or profitable)…
He also refers to the sacred writings.
He’s writing in Greek to Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles. Historically, do you feel that he is referring to anything other than the Greek Septuagint, which he apparently assumes his readers/listeners would understand? Historically, that seems to be the answer.
What I understand as the Septuagint is a Jewish translation of the Hebrew sacred writings (Torah, etc.) which would include all the recognized canonical books of the Jewish religion. It stands as a Jewish witness to what were considered to be the inspired writings.
Over the course of hundreds of years, the early Church adopted the writings of the Septuagint as its canonical text.
That seems to be a stable situation, although even a “Catholic” guy like St. Jerome really liked only books that he could translate from Hebrew, not translating a translation (Greek). But, overall, the Roman Church and later the Orthodox Church as well recognized the canonicity of the Septuagint.

But, then, in the 16th century, along comes Martin Luther who overturns a lot of things. In translating the Bible into German, people commonly say that he threw 7 books out of the Old Testament.
Answer
One would be hard pressed to find the New Testament text quoting the Old Testament apocrypha, so that is one answer found in the Bible itself. The apocryphal books were pious additions but did not belong to the Old Testament. It was not a matter of "liking" or "feelings" or "opinions." It was a matter of right and wrong. If I add to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, later editors have every right to separate my additions or commentary and call it the extra gregoristicum
In contrast, the New Testament quotes almost all of Isiah 53, indicating its status within the Bible. The issue of the canonical books is not deciding which ones to include but which ones never belonged in the first place. The same can be said about the New Testament, when people wanted to include extra books, some magical in nature, long after the apostles were dead.
The Old Testament canon was limited first by the Jewish scholars, then by the Christian Church.
The apocryphal books were found in Bibles through the Reformation and after. Luther and a pope separated the books and put them in a section between the two Testaments. Later, Protestants became angry at the Roman Catholic doctrinal debates using the Apocrypha and dropped that section. 
It is a false claim that Luther "threw out seven books from the Old Testament." He was trained as a Catholic Biblical scholar at a Catholic University. He simply taught what he learned - that those later additions, the Apocrypha, were never regarded as the Old Testament Canon but only as well meaning, somewhat valuable additions. They are worthy of study but not authoritative for deciding Christian doctrine. Many Protestant Bibles today have a section on the Apocrypha and it is taught to a lesser degree in various Protestant schools. 
Many Catholic editions of the Bible have the Apocrypha in a separate, center section. Does that mean the Catholic Church threw out books of the Bible. Since any Catholic Bible edition has to be approved, that would be going against the Roman Catholic magisterium.
Question
I read Eric Metaxis’s biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was very smart (otherwise) but seemed to have rejected membership in the German Lutheran Church (because it was supporting Hitler or at least not effectively opposing Hitler). Metaxis says that DB was troubled by a nagging question, What is the Church?
Answer
I am not a fan of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He reminds me of many modern theologians (like Rahner and Hans Kueng - tboth Roman Catholics) who use the words of faith but are really rationalists. The Church is not an institution. To quote Augustine, Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord.  Augustine, The City of God
The Church exists wherever the Word is taught in its truth and the Sacraments are administered according to the Scriptures. They are the Means of Grace that bring Christ and His forgiveness to us - the Word and Sacraments. Someone described them as the invisible Word of teaching and preaching, the visible Word of the Sacraments. The purpose of the Church is to plant and nurture faith in Christ.



More Winter - So I Threw a Picnic for the Birds.
Gratitude Increases as the Temps Reach Single Digits

"Feed them and they will come."
St. Gregorius, Patron Saint of Arkansas Birds


We have had almost constant traffic at the feeders during this cold spell, especially since grandson Alex and I offered four pounds of suet to the birds. The first response was a frenzy of feeding with so many extra lumps and fragments of suet scattered outside the mesh bags - and several bags packed full.

We had tossed lumps and crumbles of suet in various places around the Jackson Bird Spa, instead of putting them in the front bags. The downy woodpecker obliged by moving his feeding from the front to the backyard. Today when I went outside, the starlings took to the air but settled in trees nearby to see what I had for them. Most of my trips in the backyard are to feed them, so we are conditioning each other.

I may pour some water in the baths, too, but they will freeze over fairly fast. Next year I will buy a birdbath warmer and smile if I never need it. That is why people rent storage space, so they can look for the birdbath warmer from Minnesota they did not need in Arizona.

I went to Walmart's new Supercenter today, since I follow the advice of union members and shop the locally owned stores. Walmart began a few miles away, and we know one of the major stockholders. The little store has grown a bit since she make popcorn for her dad in downtown Bentonville.

The new Springdale Walmart has a great bird feeding area in the gardening center, which was strangely quiet today. I found supersized metal suet baskets from Pennington, which are far better than overpriced mesh bags. The next meat market buy will include chunks of suet I can jam into the baskets and hang on the trees.

Walmart sells bags of field corn, far too expensive when squirrels eat one ear a day. Instead I bought a block of corn, all fuzed together with sunflower and some other seeds. As Sharon Lovejoy points out in A Blessing of Toads, a variety of seeds will bring a diversity of birds.

Corn has attracted blue jays time and again, so I am happy to have them. Lately I have seen crows stealthily eating. The crows seem to know the moment I spot them, and they leave. Like all the corvids, crows are famous bug eaters and fun to watch (when they allow it). One night we saw a mass of them swirling in the sky in New Ulm, Minnesota, looking for a place to roost. Here is a link about that habit.

I bought this block at Walmart today, about $6.00

Cracked corn is very popular with the birds.


Share the Lint Program
Nothing disappears faster than twine pieces and dryer lint in the spring. I am using my tiny suet baskets to hold both, so birds come near our window for nesting material.

There is a little more activity on the bird swing too, as they get used to the strange new device. Once they decide it is for their safety rather than a danger, the birds will use it more often.


String, twine, and lint are just what birds want in the spring.
I saw a robin tugging on string from my chicken wire,
determined to have it for her nest.



Various Plagiarism Links - Centered in Fox Valley, WELS

Sent by a reader, who added - "This is you."
He added - "
Time to give more reason to fear the truth."


Reverend John ThorpeThe first minister of record to preach here was a Calvinist minister, Reverend John Thorpe. Unfortunately soon after arriving in 1659, it became apparent he did not adhere to the gospel he preached. His shortcomings included addiction to strong drink, extreme profanity, and a foul disposition. In 1661, he was forbidden by court order to continue preaching.  GJ - Note - he was banned, not promoted. Read Jane's story here.

2008 Links

St. Mark DePere - removes evidence of plagiarism from their websty

GJ - St. Mark is the home of Church and Change, a political lobby funded by your offering money, WELS members. 

Creepy Plagiarism - Church and Changers Copy Each Other and Their False Teaching Idols

Church and Change Misbegotten Ideas - Including Ski from St. Marcus and Cross-Dressing Pastor Adam Mueller

Church and Change Board Member Ski Evacuates to Appleton

Another Coven of Changers Offering Their Toxins - Ski Again

You Must Read This - Parlow and Timmer Plagiarize Hybels Words and Emotions


WELS Pastor Adam Mueller -
From Church and Changer to Gender Bender.


2009 Links



The Rebels Guide To Plagiarism - How To Get Promoted from Round Rock to Asian Prof

Church and Change Conference in Appleton



2010 Links

 Change or Die - Seibert Foundation - Parlow and the ELCA LCMS Shrinkers


Parlow Plagiarism

Hilarious Kelm Graphic - From Anonymous - Not That One, Another Anonymous

More Fox Valley Plagiarism - From Intrepid Lutherans

Bethany Appleton Caught Plagiarizing Swindoll

Apology Erased from Bethany Websty


2011 Links

Why Did Pastor Christenson Leave St. Peter in Freedom after a Few Months?

Deep Sixing the Plagiarism Issue - Intrepids


2012 Links





Plagiarism from Paul McCain, MDiv



2013 Links



Intrepids - Steve Spencer - Afraid 

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Cannot Spell Plagiarist - Does He Know What It Is?
Starting To Think Anonymous Is Glende



http://welsdocument.blogspot.com/2015/02/accessible-worship-how-did-it-start-and.html?showComment=1424908523925

You can try and take the high ground of just trying to tell the truth but I and others won't bite. You continued to call your pastor a plagerist (sic). Loudly, Rudely, Publicly, You pick the adjective. The voters of the congregation did not agree with you. You continued to call your pastor a plagerist (sic) and again I will let you pick the adjective but neither the congregation or district agreed with you. You don't get to select a different truth than the rest of the congregation or district. You can either submit to the will of the body or leave as a testament of the truth.

***

GJ - Here is a rundown on Glende from 2010.

More on Glende and his fake blog.

Groeschel taught Glende how to plagiarize. Yes, Groeschel is a plagiarist.

Various Examples of WELS Plagiarism.

Anonymouser7 speaks the truth.




Second Mid-Week Vespers Service, 2015



Second Mid-Week Lenten Vespers, 2015


Pastor Gregory L. Jackson


Bethany Lutheran Worship, 7 PM Central Time 

The Hymn #649    Jesus Savior Pilot Me                3.80
The Order of Vespers                                             p. 41
The Psalmody                   Psalm 23                    p. 128
The Lections                            The Passion History
                                                 John 6

The Sermon Hymn #370   My Hope Is Built           3.70

The Sermon –     I AM That Bread of Life
 
The Prayers
The Lord’s Prayer
The Collect for Grace                                            p. 45

The Hymn #653        Now the Light Has Gone Away               3.30

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.


I AM That Bread of Life

John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The seven I AM passages are very important for the Gospels. The Fourth Gospel clearly supplements the first three and assumes knowledge of those Gospels. John's Gospel could be seen as an elaboration on the others and a commentary on them. Since the author was an apostle and close to Jesus, even taking care of His mother in Ephesus, the importance of the added material can hardly be emphasized enough.
John's Gospel is both sermonic and poetic. The Gospel is more sermonic because the readers or hearers already know most of the narrative. The sermons are poetic, reflecting Hebrew poetry and a style that makes them easy to memorize. Very few Bibles line them out like poetry, but they clearly have that the kind of poetry we see and memorize easily in the Psalms.
The theme of John's Gospel is faith. The noun and verb are the most frequent in the New Testament and very frequent in this Gospel. 
The verses above are clearly in complete harmony with the end of the Gospel and John 16:8ff. The foundational sin is not believing. Therefore, this Gospel was written especially to promote and nurture faith.
Believing is forgiveness, and forgiveness is salvation and eternal life. No one can separate this theme from any section of John's Gospel.
Luther knew this Gospel well and saw through the efforts of others to supplant faith, to make it secondary, and insert their form of works, which eliminates grace.
Why are people less gracious today? They do not hear about true grace. They hear the word endlessly, but not the meaning. Grace plus works is not grace, it is the Law.
This little exchange is very powerful, which is why the false teachers have to ignore it. Doing the works of God - that does not mean building another cathedral or funding another charity. 
This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
That is where the Gospel begins and ends, not without fruit. Not at all. The fruit of faith is the only good, wholesome and spiritual fruit. But the tree is not fruitful without faith.
The Father-Son relationship is constantly emphasized in this Gospel. Faith means believe in God the Father, Who sent the Only-Begotten Son. That sounds odd to some, to say that. Don't we all know it? No.
The foundation of disbelief, apostasy, starts with "I cannot believe in a god who lets his son die on a cross." The modernist theologians cannot get rid of the cross, so they re-invent it and make it a symbol of Jesus' transparency, so we can see God (whatever that means!) or some other rationalistic nonsense, spoken with great piety and emotion.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? 31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
The transition is very telling - doubt. What miracle do you have to prove who you are, that we may see and believe? In other words - we do not believe, but we have a miracle for you to try for us.
This is always the plea of doubters - God must do something they demand, to prove He is God. For that reason their prayers will not be answered.
This is what sets up the sermon by Jesus. They demand manna, which is a minor miracle for God, but Jesus is the Bread of Life and tells them so.
First He defined the true Bread of Life -

32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
Then He said clearly - 
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
36 But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
As anyone can see, this is becoming a clash between teaching faith and the doubting reaction.
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The message is one of comfort, and yet it irritates those who do not believe. This is a litmus test - If someone halts and does not like part of the message, then he does not believe what Jesus said. There is no book, essay, or statement outside the Bible that trumps what Jesus said here.
We can also see how the simple words of Jesus (simple in vocabulary and grammar, profound in meaning) soar higher and higher as He speaks. 
Jesus gathered the crowds with His profound revelation of Himself as the source of righteousness. The people were told they could never be as pious, as scholarly, and as strict as the Pharisees. They could never have that kind of righteousness. And Jesus told them that righteousness meant nothing - they only needed to believe in the Father Who Sent Him to receive forgiveness, eternal life, and salvation. 
This is the grace others praise but seldom teach. Their law demands always creep in, even when they talk grace and tack on faith as a supplement to their New Moses talk (coaching, achieving goals, that kind of baloney). 
This chapter is a sermon that we can read and meditate upon. One measure of the Gospel is how we react - or rather it is a measure of us. If we find comfort and peace in these Words of Jesus, then we believe the message as from God Himself, as it is. If we fight against it, doubt it, demand proofs, or reject parts of it, then the Spirit is convicting us of unbelief.
Anyone who has trouble with John's Gospel is being convicted of unbelief by the Holy Spirit. The answer is more Gospel of John, more meditation upon the Fourth Gospel, prayerful study of faithful authors to help. Any Luther sermon is worth two dozen good books, and he would say better than his own scholarly works. The sermon is everything.
The entire Bible is a sermon about Jesus.