WELS Members Visit Victory of the Movie Screen:Another Chicanery Showcase

Tim Felt-needs, Victory of the Lamb Blogger

We went to Victory of the Lamb a while back. The irony of the whole scenario is that we stopped going to our normal place of worship because we felt it wasn't liturgical enough. I didn't have high hopes for VotL but my friend said, "Its kind of contemporary, but it's done right."

He couldn't have been more wrong.

I drove past another WELS church about three miles and arrived at Celebration Cinema and immediately had reservations. I walked into the lobby, smelling of old popcorn, and was greeted by Pastor Ben...more reservations. He invited us to grab a snack and a drink from the "Victory Cafe"...I was unsure because it was already after the time church should start but he invited us to bring it with us into Theater #1.

We walked in just as the praise band started.

Got to our chairs as people said hello to us and tried to carry on conversations (the first "hymn" was still in session). We awkwardly tried to sing along but gave up and mouthed the words. Then "Pastor" Ben invited us to greet each other. After the confession of sins which was somewhat normal...the rest of the service was contrived and awkward. We were unable to sing anything and people clapped after each praise band performance.

I was perturbed when the children left before the sermon, except for one who screamed loudly and the parents acted like they were in a movie theater--wait, they were. Zero transcendence at this point. "Pastor" Ben started his sermon which contained five lengthy stories--probably taking up 1/4 of his actual speaking time. The rest of his time was spent retelling those stories (using Abraham) and then retelling them again (using us) and giving us a "takeaway."

Then, the coup de grace was when he claimed that we need to be attached to the means of grace...didn't mention the Lord's Supper once...and said we "can remember our baptisms every time we wash our face in the morning..." (paraphrase)

After the service he gave a announcement about "Hallepalooza" and Soccer Camp. We got out of there as fast as I could.

They are having "success" - many of their families are from established congregations but there are a few large convert families as well (from the soccer camps)...however sowing seed in shallow ground often has early success. I can guarantee you, as a WELS Lutheran...I would not have communed there (as if it had been offered) and my wife and I did not feel the least bit edified.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Members Visit Victory of the Movie Screen:Ano...":

Anon@10:22

No the sermon did not center on the savior. The word "God" was used in stories about Abraham. The words "Jesus" or "Christ" were not.

As for the hymn, the entire atmosphere at VotL (along with other happy clappy churches) is a performance. When you take the people out of worship by installing a praise band no one can sing along to--no one sings(Koine is the obvious WELS exception).

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "WELS Members Visit Victory of the Movie Screen:Ano...":

As the writer/visitor states, I too, like many WELS members, are beginning to do what may be called Selective Fellowship. I do not think this is recognized by the leadership in WELS as a scriptural principal. I have heard it said "we do not practice selective fellowship. We either are in fellowship with our brothers or we are not." Those leaders who are not doing what the Bible tells us to do, with regards to those who cause divisions among us, have allowed laity to do it. That is simply to "Mark and avoid", which the laity are doing in a very quiet way.

I myself, having been in Greenbay not too long ago, found it quite a job of finding a sound Lutheran church in town. But I did. Web sites can tell you volumes of what a church is doing and you can save yourself the heartache caused by much of what is being done in the name Lutheran. Some people say, "step out of your comfort zone." I say, step into the light of discernment.

Bye, bye.

---

Joseph Schmidt answered the howls of Joe Krohn here.

***

GJ - Many of us have seen choir members, organists, choir directors, and acolytes in a cassock and surplice. I am so high church that I chant the announcements.

Beavis and Butthead Blog

Fake Ichabod called Notre Dame a "Jesuit school,"
a small sample of the ignorance on that site.
Joe Krohn loves the blog.
He claimed GCU was a Baptist school.
Joe knew because he used to live in Phoenix.
I want them to keep displaying their nastiness,
oafishness, Schwaermer theology, and boneheaded cluelessness.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Love and Hate in WELS":

I don't know if you've been following what's been going on over on the Fake Ichabod site. Fake Ichabod was criticizing you for your comments about Gurgel. I demonstrated that you had fairly and accurately quoted the conversation--Ski by his own admission really did worship with the heterodox and Gurgel really did support and defend him.

Fake Ichabod then chastised me by abusing the 8th Commandment as all C&Cers do, telling me I had no business saying anything if I didn't go and speak privately with Ski.

I then pointed out his abuse of the 8th Commandment, leading him to delete the entire post and pretend it never happened, rather than admitting his dirty tricks.

It's the usual C&C m.o. Abuse the 8th Commandment in order to give yourself time to cover up your own wrongdoing.

Love and Hate in WELS

I began doctrinal bulletins by email many years ago. They turned into sermons as well because various people asked for them. Although I kept the list small, where I knew every recipient, I still found a few individuals serving as self-appointed kamikaze pilots, eager to zoom in and detonate on any target.

The first few Ichabod posts were on a website, but that was time-consuming, so I turned to blogging for convenience.

Soon the sanctimonious name-calling began. People who want to be known for their great love unleashed a volley of invective, revealing a lot more about their tortured personalities than anything they read.

Some would like to be known for their great love of the (fill in the blank) synod. Most Doctrinal Pussycats have refused to do their jobs - with the excuse they are protecting Holy Mother Synod from scandal, danger, harm, and bad PR. Ditto many leading pastors and church bureaucrats.

The end result of their torpor is genuine hatred. They have allowed hatred for the Word of God, the sermon, the Confessions, the liturgy, and hymns to dominate all discussions. What was once unthinkable has become a well-funded norm.

The Chicaneries hate the synod they have parasitized for decades. They tilted the budget to guarantee failure of all the schools, simply by changing the percentages. The WELS pastors knew that 20+ years ago.

The Chicaneries put their men and women into positions of power, turning their headquarters into the Chicanery Coop. The Shrikers promoted heresy right and left in the name of "spoiling the Egyptians."

I was favorably impressed with discussions from the WELS group on Facebook. A lot of people see through the heretical and criminal deeds of the recent past. Those who want to Photoshop their family histories--or parade their DNA--are still rolling in the mud of Willow Creek, but they are fading fast.

Nevertheless, Satan's minions do not go gentle into that old blight. They rage, rage against the dying of the night.

The convention and the aftermath will prove whether those who love the Word and the Confessions will exhibit the persistency of their opponents.

---

"The Son of God Goes Forth to War"
by Reginald Heber, 1783-1826)

1. The Son of God goes forth to war
A kingly crown to gain.
His blood-red banner streams afar;
Who follows in His train?
Who best can drink His cup of woe,
Triumphant over pain,
Who patient bears his cross below--
He follows in His train.

2. The martyr first whose eagle eye
Could pierce beyond the grave,
Who saw His Master in the sky
And called on Him to save.
Like Him, with pardon on His tongue,
In midst of mortal pain,
He prayed for them that did the wrong--
Who follows in his train?

3. A glorious band, the chosen few,
On whom the Spirit came,
Twelve valiant saints; their hope they knew
And mocked the cross and flame.
They met the tyrant's brandished steel,
The lion's gory mane;
They bowed their necks the death to feel--
Who follows in their train?

4. A noble army, men and boys,
The matron and the maid,
Around the Savior's throne rejoice,
In robes of light arrayed.
They climbed the steep ascent of heav'n
Thro' peril, toil, and pain.
O God, to us may grace be giv'n
To follow in their train!

Hymn #452
The Lutheran Hymnal
Text: 1 Timothy 6:12
Author: Reginald Heber, 1827
Composer: Henry S. Cutler, 1872
Tune: "All Saints New"

rlschultz has left a new comment on your post "Gurgel Channels Bivens":

"Become preoccupied with those you haven’t reached as opposed to those you keep."

This has happened at my former congregation.

"BUT, according to Ski's report on Stanley, he means for churches to become preoccupied with those we haven't reached at the expense of those we already have. Of course, he did not say "at the expense of" but that is the connotation. I think you would need to turn your brain off not to infer that from the statement."

When your goal is to get cheeks in the seats, why bother with the members who have been there for a long time? They are going to keep coming anyways. When you have follow the synod and not trust in the Efficacy of the Word, members do not stand much of a chance of having discernment, or the heart with ears. The assumption is that once ya got 'em, it should not be too hard to keep 'em.

Lesson from the mega-churches:
The average life expectancy of a spiritual gypsy in any non-denom church is about two and half years.

***

GJ - Every SP Gurgle editorial was the same - the members should get out and witness so WELS would grow in numbers. They even had some delusional numbers in their Vision or Mission Statement, or was it Mission Vision? Hundreds of new churches would be started. Hagedorn called the plan "fresh and exciting."

Michigan Lutheran Seminary Will CloseAnd Then What?

Old Main, MLS - mistakenly called The Plywood Palace.
An anonymous source says my anonymous sources are wrong.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Michigan Lutheran Seminary Will CloseAnd Then What...":

Who will carry on the tradition of Zex-year hazing, pole mels, pink bellies, cardinals, shagging, etc. if MLS closes???

---

Two sources have told me that the Wisconsin Synod expects to close Michigan Lutheran Seminary.

The latest financial figures from WELS were reported sunny-side-up, but the reality is apparently much grimmer.

Martin Luther College has been gasping for several years now. Losing the candidates from MLS may well drop tuition income below the survival point.

There is talk about dealing with The Sausage Factory, too.

Meanwhile, Radloff has written a memorial to close both preps at once.

Radloff was a classmate of Valleskey, so the two worked together very well. Radloff turned the Southern region into a Fuller Seminary playground while pal Valleskey made Mequon a franchise of the Pasadena beehive.

Radloff edited the blasphemous Mission Counsellors' Newsletter, a goldmine of WELS Church Growth thinking.

Radloff is connected with Patterson's congregation. Surprised? I'm not.

The Shrinkers hate the schools.

The Michigan District did not fight against these trends 22 years ago. The pastors served their careers instead of guarding the Word. If someone was driven out for dissenting against Fuller/Willow Creek--and there were a number--the pastors were silent. Oh boy - more job openings.

Not now - and unemployment in Michigan is headed toward 20%.

The Shrinkers are God's chastisement against WELS for neglecting the Word of God, ignoring the Confessions, and abusing members and pastors.

Schmid's Doctrinal Theology for Free

Sorry, pal - no UOJ in Schmid.
He only quotes orthodox Lutheran authors.

Get Schmid's Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church on Google Books.

Click here for the text.

Gurgel Channels Bivens

This barf alert is required by OSHA directive #Z145892b.

Frosty Bivens went to Fuller Seminary before he did not go to Fuller Seminary. There he must have learned that questioning Paul Calvin Kelm was a violation of the 8th Commandment.

Phil Gurgel's reminded me of Bivens when he tried to convince WELS members that Ski did not worship with the Babtists.

"Jessica, the blog post [Ski's] was not clear about whether he actually participated in the worship at the conference or not."

Here is the blog post and a quotation:
"The final Main Session with Andy Stanley was just phenomenal. We began with awesome worship. Today though, they began with a Christian rapper, Toby Mac."

In plain English, "We began with awesome worship" means Ski participated: first person, plural, past tense.

"They began with awesome worship" suggests that Ski only observed but coveted. Ski did not say that. He obviously joined their worship with great Enthusiasm.

Decades ago, when I quoted Paul Calvin Kelm endorsing a pan-Lutheran (ELCA-WELS-LCMS) lifestyle evangelism conference, in a paper given to the Northern Conference, Bivens immediately stood up "to defend Kelm's good name."

Bivens first demanded that I offer actual proof that Kelm wrote this. I imagine most in the audience got the same brochure. I had a copy along, so I passed it through the audience.

Bivens' next effort to absolve Kelm went like this, "How do we know Kelm meant to endorse that conference?" Bivens was again calling me a liar and offering a question no one could answer at the moment.

Later, the Church Doctor, Kent Hunter (DMin Fuller) told me that he asked Kelm for the endorsement and got it. So poor innocent Kelm was not snookered into a life with Leah when he expected Rachel. He was a willing participant, as anyone would guess, knowing Kelm. Bivens knew that best of all.

These logical dodges and dishonest cries of alarm might have worked in the 1980s. But now people have seen where these Pietistic methods lead. They are not impressed.

---

Phil Gurgel (Mexico) wrote:
You are not in fellowship with the WELS. You have been marked as a false teacher. So identifying you as such is no different than identifying the pope (Luther´s example), or a baptist pastor as being a false teacher. (This was the entire point that Luther was making above), that the public sinner who has been judged as a false teacher, can be testified about in order to help people mark him for what he is.

I have studied the Large Catechism, and it will continue to be part of my ongoing study of the BOC. However, is it safe to assume that you were in agreement with Joe´s understanding of Luther´s words on the eight commandment? It sure appears to me that those words that were pulled out of their context and made to say something that is not at all Biblical nor Luther´s intention in writing them. Perhaps we all could use a better study of the BOC and the Large Catechism! And with that, I encourage us to either 1) move this discussion to a different forum (WELS theology would be fitting) or 2) leave the discussion at this point because it is clearly that all those involved have clearly made up their minds on the issue as it currently stands.

Why does Jessica Hill know more than the Chicaneries? I wish some pastors could write this:

There have been requests not just to quote people, but to find out exactly what the author meant by that quote. This is taken from Ski's report on what Andy Stanley meant with his mantra: To reach people no one else is reaching we must do things no one else is doing.

"Takeaway - Become preoccupied with those you haven’t reached as opposed to those you keep. This is easier said than done. Wow, it seems so simple. And yet so hard."

The mantra itself *can* be spun and polished and Lutheranized. We, and those in our fellowhip, are the church body who teaches God's Word in its entire truth and purity. So in that way, we are reaching the people nobody else is reaching by doing what no one else is doing. BUT, according to Ski's report on Stanley, he means for churches to become preoccupied with those we haven't reached at the expense of those we already have. Of course, he did not say "at the expense of" but that is the connotation. I think you would need to turn your brain off not to infer that from the statement.

This is NOT the way it works. Believers, laity and lay people alike, must hear the Gospel message clearly and continually in order to have the strength and motivation to go out and reach the lost. If they do not, their motivations will turn away from godly motivations (as has happened with other false teachers) and the strength to take the steps to witness to unbelievers will wane (as has perhaps happened in the WELS).

For the umpteenth time on this thread, when believers are in the Word, God blesses faith. When unbelievers are given the WORD (not ANYTHING else), God works faith. Any extra "things which no one else is doing" are powerless.

[GJ - I just learned Jessica Hill is a Manthey, which means she is also a Brenner on her mother's side.]

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

The Fifth Sunday after Trinity

Pastor Gregory L. Jackson

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/bethany-lutheran-worship

Bethany Lutheran Worship, 8 AM Phoenix Time


The Hymn #246 Holy, Holy, Holy 3.35
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual 1 Peter 3:8-15
The Gospel Luke 5:1-11
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn #26 Praise to the Lord 3.1

Basics of the Christian Faith

The Hymn #307 Draw Nigh 3.72
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #283 God’s Word 3.90

Fifth Sunday After Trinity
O Jesus Christ, Thou Son of the living God, who hast given us Thy holy word, and hast bountifully provided for all our temporal wants, we confess that we are unworthy of all these mercies, and that we have rather deserved punishment: But we beseech Thee, forgive us our sins, and prosper and bless us in our several callings, that by Thy strength we may be sustained and defended, now and forever, and so praise and glorify Thee eternally, Thou who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.

KJV 1 Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: 9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile: 11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it. 12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil. 13 And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good? 14 But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; 15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

KJV Luke 5:1 And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret, 2 And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets. 3 And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon's, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4 Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5 And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6 And when they had this done, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7 And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8 When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. 9 For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: 10 And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. 11 And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

Basics of the Christian Faith

Someone asked me to send a written sermon, so I decided to outline the basics of the Christian faith.

Judaism Completed in Christianity
First of all, there is not a real difference between true Judaism and genuine Christianity. Judaism is completed in the Promises of God fulfilled in Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. That is why many people from the earliest days have believed in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. If 39 books of the Bible point to a Redeemer, and only One Person is described in all those prophecies, then we cannot separate Judaism from Christianity.

Creation
The Christian faith teaches the doctrine of Creation by the Word, as described in Genesis 1 and many other places in the Scriptures.

KJV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Creation means that everything we see is from God and has a purpose. Luther wondered about flies having a purpose, but now medical science has discovered the value of maggots in cleansing wounds without harming the patient. More importantly, every living soul has a purpose from the moment of conception.

Natural Law - Creation
We know there is right and wrong because of Creation. The principles of the universe were instilled in God’s Creation. That has an important bearing on our understanding of the Law. In Hebrew, Law is Torah, which really means teaching. Parents know what it means to teach children right and wrong, always with a loving, positive outcome in mind. Since God created, He knows even more about what is good for us.

KJV Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. 2 But his delight is in the Torah (teaching) of the LORD; and in his Torah doth he meditate day and night. 3 And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

The Law
God gave the Law on Mt. Sinai to teach us our relationship to Him (the first three Commandments) and our relationship to each other (the last seven commandments). This Torah was made even more concise with: “Love God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind – and your neighbor as yourself.” This is found in the Old Testament and New Testament as well.

KJV Deuteronomy 11:13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

KJV Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

KJV Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

The Law was revealed for our good. It is good, spiritual, and useful, as Paul wrote. The Law is diagnostic, like an X-ray. The Law tells us where we are broken, hurting, and sinful, but it cannot heal us. An X-ray cannot heal us, and the Law cannot make us better. My wife and I were laughing about a “Bible study group” she tried to attend once. It had more rules than there are books in the Bible. I said, “Perfection through the Law – and it never works.”

The Gospel
Because the Law is good but limited, God also gave us sinful, weak people the Gospel, beginning at Genesis 3:15, when Adam and Eve (real people, not symbols) were expelled from Paradise. God promised them the Savior, whose feet would be bruised (crucifixion) but Who would crush the head of Satan. All the Promises and blessings of the Bible are Gospel.

KJV Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

The Trinity
There was no development of the doctrine of the Trinity. Genesis 1 indicates the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and John 1 spells out this truth with great clarity. There are many references to the Trinity in the Old Testament, such as the three-fold Aaronic blessing, and “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Hosts” in Isaiah. The Trinity is even clearer in Hebrew than our English versions of the Old Testament. “The Jewish Trinity” by Natan lists all those occurrences. One is clear in English, “Let us make man in Our image.”

KJV Numbers 6:24 The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

KJV Isaiah 6:3 And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.

KJV Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Jesus, Son of God, Messiah
Isaiah 53 revealed that the Messiah would suffer and die for the sins of the people. When children hear Isaiah 53 and they are asked who this person is, they always say, “Jesus.” That is clear to us now, but it was not obvious until Jesus was crucified and rose again, triumphant over death.

KJV Isaiah 52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. 14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

KJV Isaiah 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? 2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Psalm 22
The 22nd Psalm teaches us about the crucifixion, and those details were fulfilled when Jesus died on the cross.

KJV Psalm 22:18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Faith in the Messiah
Faith in the crucified Messiah is expressed in Psalm 23, while the New Testament version is found in John 10.

Isaiah also portrays the Messiah as the Good Shepherd:

KJV Isaiah 40:11
He shall feed his flock like a shepherd:
he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom,
and shall gently lead those that are with young.

KJV Psalm 23:1 {A Psalm of David.} The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want. 2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. 3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake. 4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over. 6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

KJV John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

How Are We Forgiven?
Justification is God’s declaration that we are forgiven all our sins. This takes place when an individual trusts in the Promises of God. Abraham believed in the Messiah, “and he was justified by faith.”

KJV Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

KJV Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

The Gospel is summarized perfectly in John 3:16 –

KJV John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Eternal Life
Everlasting life was earned by Christ and is graciously given to all who believe in Him.

KJV John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

KJV John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Good Works
Salvation is either through the Law or the Gospel. The Bible emphasizes good works throughout. However, good works are the result of salvation, forgiveness of sin. Good works benefit our neighbor – they do not appease God. The more we hear the Gospel and grasp the grace God offers us so freely, the more abundant the fruits of the Spirit will be.

KJV Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Much more could be said about the Means of Grace, which I have discussed many times before. There is really only one Christian doctrine. For our convenience, we break it down into many points, but it remains one unified Truth, revealed by God in His inerrant Word.

Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Without Using the ad hominem and sui generis Fallacies?

The dark side of WELS seems to be shrinking.


"Phil Gurgel is serving the 2008-2009 school year as the WELS Vicar to Mexico. Originally from Mequon, Wisconsin, he currently resides in Torreón, Coahuila, a city in northern Mexico. He serves at the mission congregation, "Cordero de Dios" (Lamb of God)." Phil is the son of Richard Gurgel, Mequon professor and Church and Chicanery activist.

Someone suggested I read some Facebook discussion posts. There is a WELS group and an outreach discussion thread within that group.

One person innocently began discussing Craig Groeschel, the Okie phenom whose sermons are copied by Ski and others in WELS. Groeschel works with Babtist Andy Stanley.

Various WELS people were making good points about evangelism, outreach, and the Means of Grace, when Phil Gurgel wrote:

Don´t be sucked into the thinking of people such as Gregory Jackson or others who state that anything that isn´t preaching the Word, any pre-evangelism whatsoever, is placing the emphasis upon ourselves rather than the means of grace. While we are nothing more than God´s tools in the process of bringing the means of Grace to others, that ought not mean that we be lazy in going about creating relationships with others (or doing such things that are helpful for creating an environment that supports and encourages the formation of relationships), as often along with having a relationship comes many opportunities to serve as God´s tools for bringing his means of Grace to souls.

Above is a perfect straw man fallacy. Phil denounces a statement which was never made, then glides into an excuse for following the Schwaermer with awe and devotion. Someone who disagrees with C & C unionism is "divisive," according to Phil.

People wrote some additional good posts, without rolling in the mud with Phil Gurgel, when he started over:

And sorry, I don´t buy that this doesn´t have anything to do with worship wars. You brought up the sermon issue, which clearly falls in with that. And you are falling into line with Gregory Jackson in making accusations and taking various pastor´s actions in the worst possible way, rather than putting the best construction on the actions of these pastors (go talk to them about your concerns, I think you´ll come away from the talks with a different perspective on why they do the things they do than you do now).

When Phil Gurgel was asked to address the actual topic, he responded:

1) So I am assuming then that these people made it perfectly clear in your discussions with them that they don´t believe in the efficacy of Scripture.

2) I looked at the first post when you made it, and I thought about why it would be brought up, and I wondered that because I:

A) Knew that you know about said quote appearing on a "Church and Change" member´s blog.

B) Your distaste for said person´s worship and outreach approaches (a pastor), and your belief that he is leading our church body into sin and error.

C) Know about how GJ, whose extremely divisive blog it appears you have been following rather closely lately , has been talking about this very quote recently (somewhat off topic, it was interesting, how "Corky" Koelpin´s article also appeared on the Synod Ed board immediately after GJ posted it on his blog. Funny that with all the talk about how these pastors are poor stewards of time for being at meetings with the heterodox, I have lately been seeing so many talking points taken from someone else whose teachings are also heterodox.)

I guess I thought originally that it would make sense that you would publish the quote, and then when the negative of said post was stated, you would insinuate that a WELS pastor agrees with it and therefore doesn´t believe in the efficacy of the means of grace (in my experience, he does believe in it) (and once again, I´m not saying that I think that everything that he does would be wise for other pastors to adopt, or at all, but I hesitate to call what God doesn´t point to as being sinful, as sin).

And lo and behold, my worries about the original post (which I chose not to post, to see if you would hopefully take it in another less divisive direction) came to fruition. This is why I spoke up as I did at this point, because such divisiveness among brothers is not a positive.

Going back to your desired direction for the thread, I have stated what I thought about our synod´s outreach. We as a synod do quite frequently get lazy in our roles as God´s tools. We don´t always do a good job at establishing relationships, relationships which present us with opportunities for evangelism. I feel we as a synod could do a lot better at that.

Here is more of Phil Gurgel's wisdom:

Is it possible that we could learn some things, even from the Groeschel´s of the world in ways of forming relationships? I think so. Outreach is something guys like Groeschel are very talented in. Yes, they tell people what their itching ears want to hear and that certainly is a large aspect of their success, but they are also very good at forming situations where they have open doors to telling people their garbage theology. Where they fail, is in their evangelism, and I see no WELS pastor imitating them in that (which seems to be the accusation of some).

Joe Jewell wrote from Oxford University:

"...they are also very good at forming situations where they have open doors to telling people their garbage theology..."

This is an interesting comment, which brings to mind several thoughts:

The proponents of Groeschel, Stanley, Stetzer, etc. in the WELS--are any of them willing to go on record as saying that their theology is "garbage"? Do they really believe that? I've never seen even a hint of it if they do. What I see is more akin to fawning adoration ("Ooh! Let's get photos with these guys!!") than any kind of cool or evaluative criticism.

When I read Ski's blog I read comments describing his WORSHIP with them as "awesome", the SERMON "one of the best I've heard"... this isn't outreach he's praising! It's straight up theology. Isn't it? If worship and the sermon aren't, what is?

I really don't think he was down there to learn "Facebook as an outreach tool, or Twitter, or texting"... those are things that can be learned from any number of secular or (yes) even confessional Lutheran sources--isn't the existence of this group proof enough of that?

Finally, the whole idea that we ought to adapt for our own use methods which have been--by your own description--developed specifically to deliver "garbage theology" seems quite misguided. Sure, it might be possible for me to rig up my sink's garbage disposal to function (sort of) as a food processor. I'll bet I could blend the heck out of some smoothies with a motor that powerful. But would that really be a good idea? I suppose if I put enough time into cleaning it I could claim it was sanitary, but would you come to be nourished at my home if the invitation said "come eat food I made in my garbage disposal--and don't worry, I cleaned it first"?

That doesn't sound very appetizing to me.

Joe Jewell wrote to Phil Gurgel:

Finally, I wholeheartedly disagree with you that C&Cers need to "stop posting ambiguous and potentially confusing blog posts"... I generally find the blog posts written in unadorned and simple English and not at all confusing (maybe you meant "confused"? I would agree that they are that). I am frankly grateful that the posts are made--what many of these pastors are beginning to do (and treat as a matter of course) is so far outside of what acceptable WELS practice has historically been that it is *absolutely imperative* that it be done in the full light of day and with every detail available for the examination of concerned people, and I would argue especially concerned laymen, the central ministerium having trended a bit insular in recent decades (cf. John 3:19-21).

I am condensing the discussion, but no one up to this point wanted to join Phil in attacking me. They ignored Phil's irrelevant comments. However, Phil responded immediately to Joe with this:

I can see that my posting only encourages you guys to make more and more judgmental posts, most on things that are nothing more than simple adiaphora. I won´t be part of further divisive discussion in this thread.

I will say though before I sign off on this discussion that it is quite hypocritical that this "mark and avoid" discussion is coming from people who are actively involved in reading and participating in Gregory Jackson´s blog (a heterodox teacher himself). Apparently the rule applies only to pastors who don´t share a love for 16th century tunes.

Joe Jewell responded to Phil:

Jackson is roughly the equivalent of a tabloid newspaper in the Lutheran world, as nearly as I can tell. He reports a lot of things, and quite frankly I would take all of them with a huge grain of salt until backed up with other sources. (But you know what? Sometimes they *are* backed up. He seems to be pretty good at collating outside sources.)

Still, NPH sells his books, for goodness sake! The man *is* at least a confessional Lutheran perspective, even if he was thrown out of WELS. Would I worship with him, or take his advice for how my church ought to be run? No. Of course not. But then, I wouldn't do those things with the Schwaermer, either (and certainly wouldn't pay them for the privilege), so I guess my standards for such things are rather different than those prevailing within C&C.

And fundamentally speaking, the man is a (biased, as they all are) news source (maybe more properly a news compiler) not a source of theology. The Wall Street Journal reports on finance and business; Greg Jackson reports on Lutheranism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively involved in reading and participating in" though. Is that an elaborate way of saying "reading"? I do read his blog along with a fairly long list of other Lutheran blogs, but I've certainly never posted or communicated with the man.

By that standard, I'm much more "actively involved in reading and participating in" the New York Times, my local newspaper, the Economist, the aforementioned WSJ, and probably a dozen other news sources (with which I might also frequently disagree)... because I've left comments on their threads or stories, or had letters to the editor published, which are not things that I've done at Ichabod.

Still, this all strikes me as a red herring. No one in the WELS pays Gregory Jackson money to teach them about how to "do church", and no one rants and raves about his sermons or the "awesomeness" of their worship with him.

Michael Schottey added:

The irony is that you continue to attack the character rather than the content. You've questioned motive numerous times and are the only one referring to the "worship wars" as you call them. You've turned a discussion about outreach into a debate about sources--sources you apparently read as well. (Not to mention a good deal of WELS pastors)

You have referenced Jackson in this discussion more times than I could visit his site in a year. You seem to discredit everything in which he could be conceived as the source. I suggest you go back and read the Koelpin paper et al. and take them for what they are and not continue your ad hominem attacks.

And I agree with Joe...you should have a huge problem with NPH for selling his books, and MLC for having all of them in their library. Thy Strong Word is a very good book and our church would be a lot better off if our people bought that book instead of "Purpose Driven..."

I responded to Joe:

Joe, you have your facts wrong. I resigned from WELS because I was disgusted with their constant and persistent support for a known adulterer--to the point of endorsing him for a new ministerial position--and even more with their advocacy of false doctrine: Valleskey, Kelm, Olson, Huebner, Bivens, Oelhaven, et al. A lot of WELS pastors and laity read Ichabod and thank me for discussing the doctrinal issues. I have yet to see a serious argument supporting Church and Change.

Joe was decent enough to retract his false statement:

Ah, sorry about that--quite honestly I have no idea of the circumstances under which you left, so I took Phil's words at face value. Apologies.

Michael Schottey responded to Phil:

The irony is that you continue to attack the character rather than the content. You've questioned motive numerous times and are the only one referring to the "worship wars" as you call them. You've turned a discussion about outreach into a debate about sources--sources you apparently read as well. (Not to mention a good deal of WELS pastors)

You have referenced Jackson in this discussion more times than I could visit his site in a year. You seem to discredit everything in which he could be conceived as the source. I suggest you go back and read the Koelpin paper et al. and take them for what they are and not continue your ad hominem attacks.

And I agree with Joe...you should have a huge problem with NPH for selling his books, and MLC for having all of them in their library. Thy Strong Word is a very good book and our church would be a lot better off if our people bought that book instead of "Purpose Driven..."

When Phil Gurgel was asked by Jessica Hill about WELS pastors worshiping with Babtists, Phil wrote (in reference to Ski's blog, which is still posted for all to read):

Jessica, the blog post was not clear about whether he actually participated in the worship at the conference or not. There is no doubt that he was there to witness what their worship was like (not a sin), but what remains in doubt from his blog posts was whether he participated with them (sinful).

Joe, I never said why GJ left our synod. What I did state, is that the doctrine of our church (and what Scripture teaches) is not in agreement with his beliefs. (We are not in fellowship with his current e-church, and for good reason). (This, however, is not the thread to discuss that though, such a thread would be better in the WELS theology group).

GJ, I am no C & C guy, but it is truly disturbing to see people call things that are neither commanded nor forbidden by God sins. Our Lutheran traditions certainly serve a wonderful purpose, and we have a wealth of great things handed down to us from our Lutheran forefathers. But those traditions are not papal law, and if someone uses a different style of music, that is not in and of itself sinful. One can question the "wisdom" of such things and the C & C people should not be held up as role models for all pastors, nor should they be held up as villains (or false teachers). There is a big leap between "unwise" and "wrong". I have gone to a number of the services a couple of years ago, and I have to say that despite what some people are saying, Christ was always front and center during the service. I didn´t always like the sermon styles (I found some of the service themes to be rather cheesy and contrived), but there was no doubt that they were centered on Christ and the Word, and not on the pastor. I don´t desire to debate this further with you. You are firmly convinced that these people are false prophets, and I doubt my words will change your mind (especially considering my last name).

I would encourage, however, as this is a WELS page. While we are open to open minded discussion with those outside of our fellowship, one thing we do not encourage is someone approaching a discussion here with a closed mind and solely seeking to change the minds of those on the board. As Romans 16:17-18 says "I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." If you come here trying to push an agenda contrary to the teachings of the church (and specificially the Bible), that will not be tolerated. (Please reserve such topics to the WELS Theology or WELS pastor boards or your blog, thanks).

So I asked Phil Gurgel:

Phil, please parse these sentences for everyone: "The final Main Session with Andy Stanley was just phenomenal. We began with awesome worship."

(http://web.me.com/pastorski/Site/Day_5.html)

A Church and Change board member, Ski, bragged about worshiping with Babtist Andy Stanley, but you explained it away. Next you invoked Romans 16:17-18. Where is the consistency? You are smooth but not convincing.

Phil Gurgel says he is not a Church and Change guy, and I almost believe him. The seminary Gurgel is a C & C activist. Ex-SP Gurgel joined the staff of Kudu Don Patterson, who also denies being with C & C. Patterson led a session at a C & C conference and posts on their listserve, etc.

Diablo, a Lutheran layman wrote to me about the Gurgel exchange: "Taking doctrine aside for one moment, what did the Gurgels do for WELS? It is broke."

Phil Gurgel sent me a message:

Subject: Guilt by Association

I found your comment about guilt by association interesting, as so much of your blog is exactly that, "guilt by association". I guess that speaks to the content of your blog, in your own words "a fallacy" and someone posting with "nothing worthwhile to say". I´ll be sure to pass along that quote to anyone I know who might read your "guilt by association" posts on your blog. Thanks.

As far as my lack of understanding of basic Lutheran doctrine. I noticed you provided no examples, but just merely stated it as fact (I believe we call such accusations "ad hominem"). And if you are going to call me out for public error, you probably should actually point out my error, otherwise it´s just simply slander (but then again, that area of your conscience seems to have long ago become calloused). For someone who likes to "back up" his claims, you provided no such evidence in your post. I would also say that basic "Lutheran doctrine" encompasses the understanding of Law and Gospel. While it is a life time struggle to apply them correctly, the Law condemns me. As a sinner I am worthy of death. The Gospel heals me, as Jesus´death clothed me in righteousness and made me new without any merit of my own. Those are the basics, and I fail to see how I don´t understand them and believe in them wholeheartedly (with faith that the Holy Spirit has worked in my soul). I´ll let God judge me and my faith, and not you sir. (Whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved!)

I would wait for an apology, but I don´t feel one is likely to come. So, I´ll just end it here.

God bless you,
Phil

Joe Jewell wrote:

Phil, we've had this discussion once before, remember? (Followed by a short but apparently necessary review of the Large Catechism's position on public error.) It was only "unclear" if English words don't mean what they mean:

"We began with awesome worship." [Description of awesome worship, including rapper, ensues. Or Enthuses, if you like.]

Following the 8th commandment, the most positive construction on that would be that the C&Cers are sorry and promise never to sit at the feet of the Schwaermer again. Is that likely, do you think?

***

GJ - My conclusions? Phil Gurgel represents a frantic, fading fad in WELS. The Chicaneries will fight for their causes at the convention this month, but the discussion on Facebook is a good indication of current attitudes.

Phil Gurgel kept trying to make the discussion revolve around Ichabod (bad, bad) and me (worse, worse). No one wanted to join him in dancing on my grave.

After trying to hijack an intelligent, thoughtful thread various times, Phil expected me to apologize to him.

Phil was obviously angry that everyone got to read the Koeplin essay from Ichabod, that it has spread from there. So Chicaneries can say, "If you mention Koeplin, you have read Ichabod, you worthless sinner."

Koeplin's essay was right on target about everything ex-SP Gurgel did. Koeplin died soon after, trashed by the Shrinkers. SP Gurgel did his best to ruin WELS and now works with VP Patterson. That is God's judgment against WELS for allowing Gurgel-Mueller and the Shrinkers to run the synod.

---

Phil Gurgel (Mexico) wrote:
You are not in fellowship with the WELS. You have been marked as a false teacher. So identifying you as such is no different than identifying the pope (Luther´s example), or a baptist pastor as being a false teacher. (This was the entire point that Luther was making above), that the public sinner who has been judged as a false teacher, can be testified about in order to help people mark him for what he is.

I have studied the Large Catechism, and it will continue to be part of my ongoing study of the BOC. However, is it safe to assume that you were in agreement with Joe´s understanding of Luther´s words on the eight commandment? It sure appears to me that those words that were pulled out of their context and made to say something that is not at all Biblical nor Luther´s intention in writing them. Perhaps we all could use a better study of the BOC and the Large Catechism! And with that, I encourage us to either 1) move this discussion to a different forum (WELS theology would be fitting) or 2) leave the discussion at this point because it is clearly that all those involved have clearly made up their minds on the issue as it currently stands.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

Phil Gurgel is a prime example of an unreal, irrelevant, non-relational, talking head of self-confusion and self-delusion.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

Anyone who supports a divisive movement like CGM seeks to support a failing synod at the expense of the Word of God. Way to go Phil.

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

With leaders like Phil Gurgel polluting the WELS, I see why WELS is in decline. Drink at your own risk!

---

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Can Church and Chicaneries Discuss Doctrine Withou...":

The thing that comes to mind when I read what Phil Gurgel wrote:

"Thou doth protest too much"

Frantic is right; but smooth is also right. I can't believe the slippery way Phil misdirects the focus of a conversation and subtly (subtly, mind you!) misuses language for his own end.

When I read someone like Phil Gurgel I'm reminded of seeing the Clinton White House in action--they pulled the same sort of verbal stunts to distract and mislead. The only difference is that the Clinton Administration was a bunch of very intelligent people, all who (I assume) passed 9th grade English class.

Phil Gurgel, in spite his smoothness, has the compositional ability of a lesser great ape.

If I were a on a college accreditation board and read some of what Phil Gurgel wrote I would seriously consider revoking MLC's accreditation. This guy has a college degree??? Review the following Phil Gurgel quote as an example:

"C)Know about how GJ, whose extremely divisive blog it appears you have been following rather closely lately , has been talking about this very quote recently (somewhat off topic, it was interesting, how "Corky" Koelpin´s article also appeared on the Synod Ed board immediately after GJ posted it on his blog."

I'm really not trying to tear Phil Gurgel down--I don't know him--but I have to be realistic. Someone who writes this way probably shouldn't have been awarded a degree. I dun bin larned by mi teecher. I is a collig gradutate! Now I reckon on been a parson"

"...Cluttered writing indicates cluttered thinking."

That's a quote--Strunk and White maybe?

An Evening with Paul Gerhardt

Borrowed from Norman Teigen's blog.

Quotes from Krauth

C. P. Krauth served as the first professor of the
General Council Seminary in Philadelphia.
I was nominated for a position at the Philadelphia school,
which Bergendoff had tried unsuccessfully to merge with Gettysburg.
Philadelphia already had their candidate selected, so 9 others were interviewed to make it look fair.
The spirit of Krauth was long-gone from that school.

I suggest reading The Finkelsteinery for some excellent selections from Krauth.

Krauth's life and work are summarized here.

Krauth and others led the Eastern Lutherans back to the Book of Concord, after S. S. Schmucker and others bewitched the General Synod over revivalism and American Lutheranism. The General Synod pioneered:

1. Dropping the liturgy.
2. Turning the Sacraments into ordinances (no efficacy of the Word).
3. Holding revivals.
4. Practicing unionism with the Reformed.

Have you heard those themes before? They sound just like the Shrinkers in WELS, Missouri, and the Little Sect on the Prairie.

Luther Weigle was the first Lutheran professor at Yale Divinity School. He came from the General Synod tradition, so he remembered the Mourner's Bench (revivalism) at his father's congregation. He joined the Congregationalists - now the fast-shrinking United Church of Christ. The unionists at St. Paul Lutheran (WELS) in New Ulm, Mn, split from St. Paul and eventually formed a UCC church.

The ULCA was concentrated in the original 13 colonies as the General Synod, which split over doctrinal issues around the time of the Civil War. The South and North both had a General Synod and a (confessional) General Council. I have heard that some important city intersections had a General Synod church on one corner and a General Council church on another. The General Council had a positive influence on all Lutherans because of the excellent professors/authors at the school. Merger with the General Synod pieces, forming the ULCA in 1917, led to a slow, anti-confessional apostasy.

Looking for Krauth's picture, I just found this quotation:

When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages in its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; let us alone, we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.

Indulged in for this time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the Church. Truth and error are two coordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.

From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their repudiation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.

Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation (Philadelphia, 1871) p.195ff.

And this one from another blog:

More Krauth Goodness

"Had our fathers surrendered the truth, even under that pressure to which ours is but a feather, how would we have cursed their memory, as we contrasted what we were with what we might have been. And shall we despond, draw back, and give our names to the reproach of generations to come, because the burden of the hour seems too heavy? God, in His mercy, forbid! If all others are ready yo yield to despondency, and abandon the struggle, we, children of the Reformation, dare not. That struggle has taught us two lessons, which must never be forgotten. One is, that the true and the good must be secured at any price. They are beyond all price. We dare not compute their cost. They are the soul of our being, and the whole world is as dust in the balance against them. No matter what is to be paid for them, we must not hesitate to lay down their redemption price. The other grand lesson is, that their price is never paid in vain. What we give can never be lost, UNLESS WE GIVE TOO LITTLE. If we give all, we shall have all. All shall come back. Our purses shall be in the mouths of our sacks. We shall have both the corn and the money. But if we are [stingy], we lose all--lose what we meant to buy, lose what we have given. If we maintain the pure Word inflexibly at every cost, over against the arrogance of Rome and of the weak pretentions of Rationalism, we shall conquer both through the Word; but to compromise on a single point, is to lose all and to be lost."

C.P. Krauth, The Conservative Reformation, p. 21.

Luther Weigle became the first Lutheran to teach at Yale Divinity School, but he joined the Congregationalists. Weigle was a leader in the notorious Revised Standard Version of the Bible, similar to Jumpin' Jack Jeske and the notorious NIV.

Oddly enough, an Augustana Synod church moved to the bottom of the hill, next to YDS. That is where I worked for a year, where little Ichabod was baptized.

---

Kenneth J. Schmidt has left a new comment on your post "Quotes from Krauth":

For years I tried to convince people in the LCMS that Jerry Kieschnick was the intellectual reincarnation of S.S. Schmucker and it either went over their heads or people sneered at me. C.P. Krauth is the Lutheran hero for our time.

Worship Trends

Charles has left a new comment on your post "How Can I Question Paul Calvin Kelm":

Thanks for your insight.

I understand your point, and I'm sorry if I came across as disingenuous. I'm just trying to discern between two groups of Christians and I'm trying to ask the right questions.

On one side we have the liberal WELS and LCMS churches. The other side are churches in WELS and LCMS that identify themselves as "Confessional". I generally find that "Confessional" churches more often teach real spiritual meat, and have the strength of 2000 years of Christian tradition (hymns, liturgy, creeds) backing them. Clearly those churches are better than the Whoopee Worship tent meetings.

The disconcerting thing is that I hear a different brand of legalism coming from Confessional churches. There are many of that stripe who insist that the Western Rite is the only acceptable Order(s) of service; Many who insist (subtly) that the Worship Service is legitimized by a crucifix-processional and genuflection. One Pastor I know even says that the Book of Concord is essentially the Bible, because it is so congruous with it. That disturbs me.

This legalism is just as damaging to Sound Doctrine as it is for the liberals to be 'feeling' their way into ecstasy.

But I'm very stoked that you quoted Article VII. It's something that my pastor (at my LCMS confessional church) forgets. And it's not like I want some modern worship service or anything. The traditional service is as beautiful as it is rich. I just know it's not good to swear by one thing or the other.

Perhaps the liberals would be be more attuned to the confessionals if the confessionals could eradicate their own tendency towards legalism.

What do you make of the Conservative brand of legalism that I'm referring to? Do you find other Pastors in your circle tempted by this?
Thanks for your hard work

Charles

***

GJ - I am well aware of the Pharisaical legalism available in the dark corners of the Lutheran Church. I learned that no one is more antinomian than a legalist. For example, the Sleepy Eye CLC (sic) church was aghast that I wore an alb, and the circuit pondered the scandal of Shrove Tuesday pancakes under the discerning eye of Steve Kurtzahn. However, they had no problem with adultery or incest.

I heard a former LCA pastor claim that the Book of Concord was infallible because it was a correct exposition of the inerrant Scriptures. He even tried out his new doctrinal insight on The Surrendered Fort faculty in Ft. Wayne. No one felt edified. Later he was against Creation, turned UCC, and who knows what followed that.

I attended an Augustana Synod congregation, upgraded to LCA, where no one would have considered a non-liturgical service or hiding the Lutheran name. The sermons were Biblical. Many people today would love to have a congregation nearby where Lutheran doctrine and worship are not under regular assault by synod-sponsored, foundation-funded experiments.

There is a historic liturgy with many variations, such as using a chorale service or substituting hymns for parts of the liturgy. The real dividing line is between a genuine worship service (original sermon, real hymns, a Creed, liturgy) and a Sneaker Service (pop music, plagiarized sermonettes, no creed, no liturgy).

I am suspicious of Lutheran pastors sinuflecting toward Rome or Constantinople. How strange that Missouri and ELCA pastors are debating the same issue at once, whether to pope or semi-pope. Some Lutheran pastors cast their longing eyes across the way, claiming to be Lutheran while coveting Bathsheba, who bathes so delightfully in full view: incense, really cool robes, chanting, and no women's ordination...ever. The trouble is, they have to murder Bathsheba's husband (the Means of Grace) to have her.

I appreciated the worship services at Concordia, Ft. Wayne and St. Louis, when I was there, but I wondered about how far they wanted to go. Certain faculty members have been teaching Patristic Fundamentalism, that Lutherans must do whatever the Syrians or Antiochians were doing in 300 AD. Many Lutherans have sensed that this papistic legalism is deadly and wrong.

In contrast, my worship professor, Ulrich Leupold, taught this way. "Do not say the worship must be chanted or cannot be chanted. If it hurts the pastor's throat or the congregation's ears, it should not be chanted." We had some proto-Romanists in the class, who loved robes a bit too much. They wanted the professor to back their new-found laws, but Leupold resisted.

How Can I Question Paul Calvin Kelm

Charles has left a new comment on your post "WELS Leaders Against the Efficacy of the Word":

Kelm:
"A last word on sound doctrine is in place. Sound doctrine must be distinguished from tradition, praxis and preference. The liturgy, translation of the Bible, vestments and organizational policies of the church are not equatable with sound doctrine."
Rev. Paul Kelm, "How to Make Sound Doctrine Sound Good to Mission Prospects," p. 3.


Jackson--Are you suggesting that sound doctrine demands a specific style (praxis, liturgy, organizational policy etc.) of worship and church? Are you saying that the above quote is wrong in and of itself, or only because you know what Kelm means by it?

***

GJ - First of all, the title gives away the agenda - How To Make Sound Doctrine Sound Good To Mission Prospects. Calvinists make the Word of God appealing and reasonable.

Secondly, there is Kelm's well known Calvinistic bent, such as raving about Josh McDowell's Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument.

Lastly, there is the common WELS tactic of hiding behind adiaphora (implicit above) while getting it exactly wrong, and invoking the Mystical Incantation of Wauwatosa - the Gospel creates its own forms.

Here is a question, Charles - Can you find an unqualified Lutheran statement in anything written by Kelm?

---

Charles has left a new comment on your post "How Can I Question Paul Calvin Kelm":

With all due respect to your call, education and age I must insist that there's no need to get defensive. I'm on your side. But you didn't answer reasonable and valid questions.

I don't like Kelm--I think he's a Liar and a Lunatic. But can I find an unqualified Lutheran statement in anything written by Kelm? Probably, yes; That is why he's so dangerous. Satan and friends always mix truth with lies, making it difficult to differentiate.

When you get down to details about things, (like worship practice etc.) being able to illuminate exactly how or where the heretic mixes truth and falsehood goes along way in exposing the heretic for who he is.

Now, by my lights the Kelm quote in question is not wrong, though the paper (I read it) as a whole is hideous. Sound doctrine is not equatable with tradition, praxis, preference, vestments, organizational policy, liturgy etc. The Western Rite is not prescribed in Scripture. People throughout the world may well worship God in a million different ways and still adhere to sound doctrine.
But I'm not an expert on Lutheranism, and you are an authority. I put my questions to you again:

Are you suggesting that sound doctrine demands a specific style (praxis, liturgy, organizational policy etc.) of worship and church? Are you saying that the above quote is wrong in and of itself, or only because WE know what Kelm means by it?

***

GJ - The biggest problem is not Kelm but hundreds of clergy and thousands of laity letting him get away with it. One pastor, now deceased, said he heard Kelm at a WELS gathering through the PA system. He kept thinking, "They will murder him for all that false doctrine." The pastor got into the main auditorium and people were cheering what Kelm said.

For decades the only thought condemned as false doctrine was hinting that Holy Mother WELS might be wrong about something. The Shrinkers wrapped themselves in synodical infallibility and had a blast with it.

Obviously, Kelm delivered that particular thought as a Trojan Horse.

One of the tragic notions peddled in WELS is this: "That could be understood correctly," with could drawn out into three syllables. That one often alternates with "That is a gray area of Scripture," with gray drawn out with philosophical gravity.

Most statements in my favorite Roman Catholic dogmatics book are correct by themselves, but they are not correct in the context of Roman theology. So I see Kelm using the satis est* of the Augsburg Confession to make the world safe for Calvinism, which he adores.

Picking one statement and saying, "Isn't that correct?" is disingenuous, but I appreciate the chance to say a little more.

*Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough [satis est] to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Augsburg Confession

How The Liturgy Killed Pentecostalism in One Assemblies of God Minister

This quotation is from The Lutheran Witness:

"How I Come to Be a Lutheran: The liturgy had a lot to do with it," by Robert Shreckhise. ”Christ–centered, Gospel- centered, Word–cen-tered worship. These phrases sound familiar to people who've grown up in The Lutheran Church … But I didn't grow up Lutheran.

From my childhood, until only a few years ago, the only kind of worship services I had ever attended regularly were the fundamentalist and pentecostal kinds (emphasis added).

I had been a minister in the Assemblies of God for 16 years when my family and I came to St. Louis three years ago, so that I could pursue further studies in the Concordia Seminary graduate school. Our plan was to locate a congregation of our own denomination after we had settled into our new home.

As things turned out, though, our apartment was only half a block from a Lutheran congregation, Concordia, in Maplewood, Mo. So on our first Sunday in St. Louis, mainly for the sake of convenience, we attended services there. What a surprising, captivating and revolutionary experience it was for us!

My initial impressions of the Lutheran liturgy were that God's Word and the Gospel of Jesus Christ were honored and given primacy within the servics. The promise of the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake came in many different forms.

Kneeling in confession, I heard the words, "Almighty God in his mercy has given his Son do die for you and for his sake forgives you all your sins.

We sang in the Kyrie, "Lord, have mercy," and in the Gloria, " O Lord God, Lamb of God, ¼ who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us."

The sermon spoke of my sins and Christ's forgiveness. In the Apostle's Creed we confessed together our faith in the Triune God, who gives us salvation. Even though I was not yet confirmed, the Words of Institution [of the Holy Communion] and the words of distribution that I heard promised forgiveness "— shed for you for the remission of sins."

In the Agnus Dei, we sang again, "O Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world." The several hymns during the liturgy, the Pax and Benediction added to the overall impact of the liturgy, reaffirming that all who believe are forgiven for Christ's sake and have peace with God!

The forms of the liturgy of the Word and of the liturgy of the Lord's Supper, which are as old as the church itself, are alive and full of meaning! What our [Lutheran] forefathers held to be true may be considered by some to be unimportant today. However, as one who has recently come to appreciate the Lutheran liturgy with its richness of history, meaning and comforting hope, I am convinced that the Lutheran church is in possession of a great treasure.

God, in His mercy and grace, has brought my family and me to this richness. After … adult [catechetical instruction], we now call The Lutheran Church … our home." The Lutheran Witness, Dec. 1998.


Question from Pastor Jackson – Then why did President Al Barry and His assistant Paul McCain allow the LCMS to have 500 or more Pentecostal LCMS pastors? View the Renewal in Missouri website: Renewal in Missouri.