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.