First VP of WELS, James Huebner, Fuller-trained consultant.
This was a sermon? I must be dense, or perhaps the good Reverend is just a little too nuanced for me, but I missed the message of Justification – I'm a simple Lutheran after all, and expect that the message of Justification be central, not a sideshow. This was essentially a Sanctification message, was it not – all about what we should do and think? Although Law and Gospel was discussed, I entirely missed its application. Law was not preached – it was preached about. I heard something about the Gospel as well, but I can't say that the Gospel was preached either. Then again, perhaps today's Lutheran pastors are so well trained, and their delivery so highly nuanced, that they can sound just like Evangelicals while in fact being entirely Lutheran...
Judging from what I see in the words, rather than from what I wish were in the words, or assume must be in the words since the good Reverend is a confessing Lutheran, this "sermon" seemed to me to be just an excuse to put the following phrase in the minds of its hearers: "haughty confessional Lutheran." An almost equal number of words on either side of that phrase, this seemed to be the central point as well, given that the true doctrine of Church Fellowship was driven into the shadows. Apparently, we only separate from “those who aren't promoting [God's] cause at all.” Only from those who fail completely to “promote” His cause. The good Reverend preaches that we indeed ought to be indignant, ought to cut out false teaching and separate from false teachers – but only for certain kinds of “wrong teaching,” i.e., wrong teaching that would “trap [His] people in the prison of unbelief and hell.” On the other hand, if folks are merely “leaning in the right direction,” why then, we adopt an approving attitude. Perhaps this means that we also join in ministerial association with them! That would certainly be approving! Perhaps we join the Willow Creek Association – after all, they lean in the right direction. Perhaps we sign up with the Purpose Driven Church – a ministry so popular that it certainly must “lean in the right direction.” And who could argue with its “effectiveness?” Perhaps we should all work harder to get the LCMS to recognize us, and secure RSO status for all of our outreach ministries. The message seems to be that as long as Christians are all leaning in approximately the same direction, why then, there is really no “wrong teaching” to be concerned about, indignant over, or to remain separate from.
What would a “haughty Confessional Lutheran” confess? Certainly not what the good Reverend seems to be saying. He would, instead, teach the whole Council of God on the subject of Fellowship, including the following points:
Mark and Avoid
"Now I beseach you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Romans 16:17-18)
Anyone, Anything
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8-9)
Full Agreement
"Now I beseach you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
I don't pretend that these verses are the beginning and end of the matter. Additional references would include 2 John 9-11, Philippians 1:27-2:11, Ephesians 4:2-16, etc., none of which I heard emphasized, “promoted,” or even echoed in the good Reverend's sermon.
Someone questioned on another blog entry whether a split in WELS is imminent. A split will occur, with costly, bitter, and embarrassing lawsuits over who gets the property, unless issues of false teaching and practice are decisively and swiftly handled under church doctrine, namely that of Fellowship. The legal authorities won't touch internal church issues handled under established doctrine – it is referred to in legal circles as “Cannon Law.” If, however, it can be shown or suggested that such doctrines are not consistently followed, such as would be the case in protracted delays in effectively dealing with false teaching, “Cannon Law” protection disappears and it becomes a matter for the courts. If you want the sordid and ugly history on how these matters progress, and the devastation wrought by them, read Nelson & Fevold's The Lutheran Church among Norwegian-Americans and pay attention to what happened in the late 19th Century. The COP recently looked into the status of our Synod's assets in the event of a split, and our Synod's Constitution was found lacking (read here). There would definitely be lawsuits in the event of a split. False teachers need to be disfellowshipped before they can gain a following large enough to bring about a split and open court battles over Synod assets.
Freddy Finkelstein
PS - For readers who may have missed it, I'll add the following comment. Rev. Huebner's theology of Church Fellowship, as clearly preached in his sermon, excludes all but Fundamental Doctrines as those regarding which disagreement requires separation. WELS, and Scripture, exclude no doctrines. This is a serious departure from long-held WELS teaching on the matter of Fellowship.
PPS - My faithful editor, Mrs. Finkelstein, usually proofreads my posts before I actually post them, even reading background material to make sure I am responding appropriately. This is why my posts usually come off sounding so polished. Tonight was different. I posted without her second look at my writing. After I had posted, she examined my post along with Rev. Huebner published sermon. She was offended by his sermon to the point of tears. In her words:
“The text he uses does not at all support his assumptions. He admits that we know nothing about the man driving out demons other than that he was not one of the twelve. How then can he assume that this man was someone who was not in agreement with Jesus' teaching, and equate the difference between the twelve and this man with the difference between WELS 'haughty confessionalism' and, say, the teachings of the Ev. Covenant Church? How do we know that, at that point, the disciples themselves were in full agreement with Jesus' teaching? I believe that there is reasonable evidence from Scripture to conclude otherwise! If we accept his assumption that the man driving out demons was heterodox, Rev. Huebner says we must accept and imitate this heterodox, while Jesus only says, 'don't stop them.' If we believe, as a matter of Christian conscience, that Lutheran doctrine is correct doctrine, then why does he encourage us to imitate the heterodox!”
Yes, even a WELS woman can tell that Rev. Huebner's sermon is rubbish... If our esteemed First VP reads this blog, I would seriously suggest to him that he publicly retract his sermon. Second, I would suggest to him that his orthodoxy is now in question, and recommend that he issue a public clarification, not only of the points in his sermon, but of his position on the WELS “Unit Concept” of Church Fellowship. Third, I would even go so far as to suggest that merely admitting “I adhere to all WELS doctrines, etc.” is not sufficient, but that a full explication of this doctrine, from his perspective, is in order, that we might all measure his orthodoxy, rather than merely rely on his admission that he is orthodox.
***
GJ - WELS is already divided, polarized by the crafts and assaults of Church and Change. The question is where the pieces will fall in the end. I predict Mark Jeske taking his group out, which will be a partial exit. Some may end up LCMS. Others may be more honest and join the Evangelical Covenant Church or its clone, the Evangelical Free Church (nicknamed E-Frees). ECCs and E-Frees are both Pietistic and growthy to the max. Like the ELS and WELS, Missouri has always been troubled by Pietistic Enthusiasm. Under Kieschnick the Enthusiasts are in total control, but the Confessionals continue like a nasty rash. Shrinkers hate being rebuked so that would encourage a non-Lutheran landing zone.
Recent remarks lead me to believe that Chicaneries often read Ichabod, but without edification.
Has Huebner ever retracted his published false doctrine? Has Valleskey? Kelm? Olson? Ski? Parlow? Witte?
Someone noted that Grace has two pastors and the sermon has no name on it. But the congregation's website featured the sermon on its main page and also on its sermon page. They are walking together at Grace.
---
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Fuller-Trained WELS First VP Reveals His Lack of D...":
Psst, Greggie: Jim Huebner didn't preach this sermon. Get your facts straight.
***
GJ - Poor anonymous. Huebner put this wretched sermon on his congregational website--which he brags about--so he displayed his agreement with the content. In essence, that is his sermon, or the congregation's sermon, on the website. Besides, if he allowed such a bad sermon, what does that say about his doctrinal supervision? He allowed it and approved it, yet he is the First VP of WELS. Surely the Wisconsin Synod can find a Lutheran to represent them - one who has never trained at Fuller, never mocked the efficacy of the Word in print.
