Not long ago I pointed out to the pastors at St. Mark's that their published sermons had a reformed flavor. Or as some might say they were plagiarized. The St. Mark's pastors then began to use footnotes to cite their reformed sources.
Recently St. Mark's has pulled written sermons from their web site.
no more printed sermons
But you can view the video of this cutting edge church:
http://stmarkpartners.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=121
and the indentity audio:
http://stmarkpartnersindentitycrisis
28 comments:
First there was "Pastor wears a rob".
Now we have "Indentity in Jesus".
Does forsaking the Means of Grace somehow lead to forsaking spelling? Or does bad spelling really attract visitors somehow? Or does this tell us that those who are into contempo worship aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer?
I'm sure the ancient church would also recite their mission and vision statement each sabbath during their liturgical free gatherings.
Rick Warren
I think that your conservative Wisconsin Synod people should quite picking on St. Mark's. Their theology is no different than yours. All WELS churches teach the same thing. My pastor told me that.
Kris
Kris,
As a former member of St Mark, I strongly disagree.
ex-St. Markian,
A. What are the differences? and
B. Why hasn't the pastors been confronted?
Kris
Kris,
I do not have the time to elaborate to the extent that would give your questions justice. May I suggest that you attend this church (more than a few times) and speak with the pastors first-hand and draw your own conclusion based on Scripture and the Book of Concord?
1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
Acts 17:11 "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
God bless you, dear sister in Christ
Sis,
You write, "I do not have the time to elaborate to the extent that would give your questions justice."
Then don't take the shot.
Kris
Anon 11:29
Your statement would be a clear example of slander (cf. Luther's Catechism, 8th commandment - What does this mean?)
If such unsubstantiated comments are allowed to continue about any church or person, this blog will need to change its name to "Swimming in Slander". Let's all make sure that doesn't happen.
If there is false doctrine in a WELS congregation, a member has many avenues through which to bring this to the attention of the leaders and Synod. I suspect this is a case of personal preference. Personal preference is debatable; doctrinal error is not. Let's not give the devil a foothold.
Baseless bomb-throwing does not help this discussion continue in a God-honoring manner (cf. Eph. 4:25; 1 Peter 2:1; 3:8-10). Those who engage in such are slanders no matter what side of the liturgical aisle you sit on.
"Your statement would be a clear example of slander (cf. Luther's Catechism, 8th commandment - What does this mean?)"
Ugh. No. How many times do we have to go over this? Public false teaching merits public rebuke.
You can't be serious when you write,
"How many times do we have to go over this? Public false teaching merits public rebuke."
How many times do we have to go over this? A charge of false teaching requires PROOF. Otherwise you are guilty of sin. Repent.
"A charge of false teaching requires PROOF."
Read this blog. There has been a plethora of proof supplied.
"There has been a plethora of proof supplied."
Plethora? Plethora? If so, it shouldn't be hard for you. But it it obvious you do not the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions for it you did you would not make this charge without proof and you probably are not capable of doing so even if there were, for then you would.
The Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary is guilty of teaching false doctrine. Read the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly. There is a plethora of proof.
"you probably are not capable of doing so even if there were"
Oh, and as proof of that I offer your refusal to do so.
"Plethora? Plethora? If so, it shouldn't be hard for you. But it it [sic] obvious you do not [sic] the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions for it [sic] you did you would not make this charge without proof and you probably are not capable of doing so even if there were, for then you would."
Plagiarizing Baptist sermons.
Case closed.
(And once again we have this strange inability of contempos to use proper spelling and grammar. It can't be a coincidence.)
"Plagiarizing Baptist sermons."
Proof, please. You really are a foolish person. You once again simply make a charge without supplying the proof. Simply repeating or stating a charge does not make it "case closed." You are guilty of breaking the 8th commandment. You should repent and apologize.
I don't know that my WELS pastor plagiarizes Baptist sermons, so it's too broad a stroke to paint WELS as such. I do know he has been trained in the Wauwatosa way, so that definitely has an effect.
Aren't the pietistic and anti-Roman roots more of the problem? In another blog on this site, I noticed that someone said WELS turned and headed in the right direction for a while years back. What does that mean?
Rob
My understanding is that St. Mark didn't list their sources in the past and after being contacted do now. If there was a problem, it has been solved. If unsure, ask for a copy of a recent sermon.
When I ask my pastor for his sources he always provides them but doesn't print them out on his written copy either.
Just a side note, did anyone notice that Issues In WELS has disbanded? I believe they said they have "their man" as the Synod President and the Ad Hoc report will address their concerns and turn the WELS in the right direction again. Any one else hear that?
Yes, I heard the IIW has disbanded for now . . . unless things go south or "left"?
concerned one
"My understanding is that St. Mark didn't list their sources in the past and after being contacted do now. If there was a problem, it has been solved."
No that's not the problem. The problem wasn't that the pastor used a sentence or two from a Baptist sermon without citing his source (that could be understood I suppose). The problem was that he used a Baptist sermon, word-for-word, in its entirety. No real Lutheran pastor would ever dream of doing such a thing.
The problem was that he used a Baptist sermon, word-for-word, in its entirety. No real Lutheran pastor would ever dream of doing such a thing.
Herein lies the problem. This pastor was never formally confronted by his DP or the synodical president. Although several WELS pastors did contact him. He didn't even get a slap on the wrist or produce a public retraction.
"This pastor was never formally confronted by his DP or the synodical president."
True. But we have a new president now. Since President Schroeder has taken office, things seem to have settled down at St. Mark and around the C&C world.
"Since President Schroeder has taken office, things seem to have settled down at St. Mark and around the C&C world."
Right! Nice "dream world." If there is no doctrinal error, there is no need for him to do anything. He hasn't done anything and he won't do anything -- for he won't find doctrinal error there. Then what are you going to say? If you really have a problem with St. Mark and its pastors or other churches you don't like, contact them. That's the biblical thing to do. St. Mark (and others in the "C & C world") continues to strive to reach more and more lost people with the Gospel (weekly communion too) in various ministries. That's all any of us can do. The Holy Spirit decides what happens next.
The WELS SP can't find doctrinal error in a Baptist sermon??? That's quite an insult to his intelligence!
"The WELS SP can't find doctrinal error in a Baptist sermon??? That's quite an insult to his intelligence!"
Well, apparently none of the officials did.
Issues in wels was all about $.
Please define "all about S". What is "S"?
The font is not clear $ is (Money) not S.
Post a Comment