Bailing Water

Life Under the Son

2011-12-17T17:18:00.002-06:00

In today's pop culture world a wonderfully theological sound book written from a Lutheran perspective has emerged just in time for Christmas.If you order it quickly it might arrive in time to be a stocking stuffer.

The author, Pastor John Parcher passed away this past year. However, before his passing he allowed a son-in-law and a daughter access to his files. They chose notes from his sermons and Bible studies on the timeless book of Ecclesiastes in which Pastor Parcher explores two key themes "Meaningless" (NIV) or "Vanity" (KJV) and life "Under the Sun." The Preacher is pointing to the folly of the creature when fixes his eyes upon the creation "under the sun" while leaving the Creator out of his life.

This book is edifying, engaging and easy to read. Pastor Parcher ends the book by stating that, "Jesus calls you to come along, as you are and where you are. Knowing everything there is to know about you, even the worst, and He still says, 'Follow me.' Even if the Bible did not teach of heaven, and even if the Bible did not teach there is a hell, I would still follow Jesus, for the sheer adventure of it."

http://www.amazon.com/Life-Under-Abkhazian-John-Parcher/dp/1619043300
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-under-the-son-john-parcher/1107168797

If there is a tidy way of summarizing the varied topics of Ecclesiastes, I do not know of it. The subject matter is too rich for small minded encapsulation. There have been countless books written on the purpose and meaning of life. This author takes us on a grand tour of all this life has to offer, and leaves it up to you to decide. What is a worthy pursuit for the Christian? John Parcher was a parish pastor for forty-two years. He began his ministry at a country church in Minnesota with his wife, Ann, at his side. They received a call to La Crosse, WI in 1968 to pastor the congregation at the corner of St. Paul St. and Avon St. He preached nearly every Sunday for the next thirty-four years. John and Ann are enjoying retirement in La Crosse with their family of eighteen children near by.

Roman Catholic Papacy fits the biblical characteristics of the Antichrist

2011-07-23T10:07:00.000-05:00

http://www.wels.net/news-events/wels-view-scripture-alone

Excommunication - An Open Letter to the Members of Holy Word Lutheran Church

2011-06-07T06:14:00.001-05:00

http://hereistand2011.blogspot.com/

Dear Members of Holy Word,

As Lutherans, we believe that the Holy Spirit is never separated from the Word or the Means of Grace. It is mentioned throughout Scripture and in the Lutheran Confessions in the explanation of the Third Article of the Apostles Creed. Note that the forgiveness of sins is here and not in the Second Article; it is a work of the Holy Spirit:

"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true."

As Lutherans we also believe this statement to be true and the hallmark of our faith:

"The sinner is justified by grace for Christ’s sake through faith."

You can not separate that sentence in any way shape or form or you end up teaching falsely.

And this from The Apology IV, 57; it talks of the object of our justification and the remission of sins through faith alone:

"57] And throughout the prophets and the psalms this worship, this latreiva, is highly praised, although the Law does not teach the gratuitous remission of sins. But the Fathers knew the promise concerning Christ, that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins. Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price for our sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great a matter [could not pay so great a debt]. Accordingly, they received gratuitous mercy and remission of sins by faith, just as the saints in the New Testament.

More on justification hence forgiveness through faith alone. Apology XII, 53 &54:

53] For the two chief works of God in men are these, to terrify, and to justify and quicken those who have been terrified. Into these two works all Scripture has been distributed. The one part is the Law, which shows, reproves, and condemns sins. The other part is the Gospel, i.e., the promise of grace bestowed in Christ, and this promise is constantly repeated in the whole of Scripture, first having been delivered to Adam [I will put enmity, etc., Gen. 3:15, afterwards to the patriarchs; then, still more clearly proclaimed by the prophets; lastly, preached and set forth among the Jews by Christ, and disseminated over the entire world by the apostles. 54] For all the saints were justified by faith in this promise, and not by their own attrition or contrition.

Nowhere in Scripture or the Confessions does it say that the forgiveness of sins/justification is imputed to anyone before they were born as Pastor Patterson preaches and teaches. The work of the Holy Spirit is working faith and the forgiveness of sins. We know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. (Rom 10:17) If we are not yet born, how do we hear it?

Since you are entrusting your spiritual welfare to the leadership at Holy Word, you are culpable to their actions on your behalf. I have stood on Biblical truth and the Book of Concord, your profession of faith.

This from the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod website concerning excommunication:

"Congregations must excommunicate members who have sinned and refuse to repent even though their fellow Christians have warned them according to the steps described in Matthew 18:15-18. An excommunicated person cannot attend the Lord's Supper or exercise any rights of membership in the congregation.

A member can be excommunicated only if his (or her) action is clearly against God's law, if it is proven that he is guilty of sin, and if he has refused warnings to repent. Scripture says an impenitent person has no forgiveness of sins. Excommunication, therefore, does not simply exclude an individual from membership in the congregation, but declares that the offender has excluded himself from eternal life since no impenitent person has forgiveness of sins and no unforgiven person can enter heaven.

The congregation excommunicates a person in the hope that this drastic step will lead the sinner to come to his senses and repent. The excommunicated person will then be welcomed back to the congregation.

Excommunication, therefore, is an act of love for sinners, aimed at saving them from the eternal consequences of impenitence.

When the case has not yet proceeded to the point of excommunication, a pastor who knows that a person is impenitent should warn him or her not to come to communion, since it offers forgiveness only to the repentant. Those who come without repentance bring harm upon themselves by misuse of the sacrament. Exclusion from the Lord's Supper has the same evangelical purpose as excommunication: to bring the sinner to repentance. The pastor can take such action only if the guilt and impenitence of the person are clearly established but the congregation has not yet had an opportunity to act on the case."

Where have we broken God's Law?

We pray you realize the graveness in all of this.

In His Grace,

Joe and Lisa

A Pastor with a backbone vs Pastor for sale

2011-06-02T05:54:00.000-05:00

http://hereistand2011.blogspot.com/

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said...

Hi Joe,

(Say, the next time you write an open letter to Intrepid Lutherans, be sure to actually send a copy to Intrepid Lutherans. Someone directed me to your letter, or else I would never have seen it.)

First, I sympathize with you and your family over the turmoil you're going through. I don't know your whole situation, but I wish the dialogue on justification between you and your pastor hadn't been so quickly taken "off the table," as it were. It sounds like there's lots to talk about and study yet.

To your letter: I disagree that my comment above was convoluted and "esoteric," and I also disagree with your answer of "No" to the question, "Was forgiveness acquired before repentance?", so I'm not sure if we're on the same page here or not. As I explained in the first part of my comment above, forgiveness was most certainly acquired by Christ for all people of all times (therefore, without respect to anyone's repentance). Forgiveness is not distributed to anyone apart from the Means of Grace. The forgiveness that Christ acquired for all is acquired by an individual through faith alone, worked by the Holy Spirit through the Means of Grace.

I think you're actually confusing the issue when you bring repentance into it. It just adds another dimension that is not necessary if your point is to keep it simple. "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Whether quoting from Genesis 15 or from Romans 3 or 4, repentance isn't brought into the picture. But faith is. Stick with talking about faith, in my opinion. This would also be in keeping with the historical Lutheran understanding of the "ingredients" of justification: 1) The grace of God, 2) The merit of Christ, 3) The promise (Means of Grace), and 4) Faith in the promise.

I think I would agree with you (not having read everything you've written on the matter) that it is not right to say that you, Joe Krohn, were forgiven before you were born. Scripture does not talk that way, nor do our Confessions, nor does Chemnitz in his Examination. Is there forgiveness in Christ for all? Yes. Did God love you before you were born and see to it that his Gospel was preached to you that you might believe and be saved? Yes. But before you were in Christ, you, like the rest of us, were still counted among "the wicked."

Again, I don't know enough of your particular situation, but speaking in general, I can't imagine why anyone would be excommunicated (from a Lutheran church) for holding to justification by faith alone in Christ, as long as "faith" is not ascribed to man as man's good work, and as long as "faith" is defined as nothing more than to believe in God's promise of mercy for Christ's sake.

Peace be with you.

Pr. Rydecki

Holy Word - 30 + year old congregation receives extensive mission dollars

2011-05-30T07:46:00.004-05:00

http://www.holyword.net/

http://scdwels.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/2011-05-dmb.pdf

http://www.holyword.net/
Vicar in Mission Setting - Sent to Holy Word-
Mission Encouragment resources sent to Holy Word North
The Antioch Foundtion looking to support Church Growth methods:

http://www.theantiochfoundation.org/index.cfm

A Pastor for Sale - WELS Pastor- for profit

2011-05-28T18:34:00.003-05:00

I may not have time to Admister the Means of Grace but for $1200 I can be your life coach..

http://www.nextdisciple.com/giaprojects/crosstraincoaching.html

Coaching fees are based on the services provided. We will meet and have follow-up sessions until you feel that you have accomplished your personal and professional goals. The fee schedule is $1200.00 for one year (a monthly webinar and personal meeting). Emails are always available between visits.

Additional meetings can be negotiated on an individual basis. 24-hour notice is requested for cancellation of a coaching session. “No-shows” will be counted as completed services. We will talk as often as needed in accomplishing your goals, typically on the telephone or via web based methodology. If possible and necessary to enhance your performance, we will schedule to meet in person. Helping you achieve greater success is always our primary objective.

-------------------------------

Here we thought - Saving souls was his business.....

Will WELS Pastor be Disciplined?

2011-05-28T17:57:00.005-05:00

Pastor Don Patterson has been making use of Church Growth methods as documented on this blog and others. Currently a WELS member is documenting his journey here: http://hereistand2011.blogspot.com/

One has to wonder if any discpline will come down on Patterson. Patterson is noterious throughout the South Central district for disciplining pastors who don't follow his lead.

Holy Word Pastor Saves Souls ?

2011-05-28T16:41:00.003-05:00

From Luther Rocks Blog...

On May 18th we submitted the following via email to the leadership at Holy Word Lutheran Church which precipitated what has been chronicled earlier on this blog.

"Pastor Patterson et al,

I have to disagree when you say (I believe you are saying this) that 1 Cor. 5:19 says that all men are reconciled to God; as in forgiven therefore justified and righteous before faith. This is certainly not the case with say for instance Cain or Edom of the OT. The two verses preceding contradict this as the context refers to those ‘in Christ’ as in ‘have faith in Christ’. I believe the Bible does speak about believers the same way whether it is before or after Christ’s passion. The trouble is that many in WELS are teaching that UOJ is in the wrong place. It is displaced from Christ and on the whole unbelieving world. Therefore in order to make the teaching work you have to change the meanings and context of words. It is confusing.

Our focus is on Christ as it has been for all believers of all time; beginning with the promise in the Garden of Eden. God was (and is) reconciling (ongoing) the world (since it is God’s will for all to be saved) for the sake of Christ so that by faith believers (who are sinners) would be saved. As Job said in the OT…I know that my Redeemer liveth! Christ possesses the forgiveness, righteousness and justification that He won (or would win) – objectively - for all and it is imputed to those who believe in Him as their Savior for all times. By Grace through FAITH ALONE. Christ stands in no one’s place aside from faith. He that believes…will be saved…He who doesn’t is damned…no belief in Christ…means you remain in your sins.

It is troublesome how you handled a meeting with my wife Lisa. You acknowledged that you did not want to hop over my headship in your email of 4-20-11 and yet you communicated with her via email on 4-18-11 unbeknownst to me. Here is the brief email in its entirety; “I have no desire to get between you and Joe on the things that he has recently taken a stand on. Just want you to know if you and Joe desire to talk to me or confront me together I am willing. Otherwise, I will leave you to follow your husband and seek God's will in the Scriptures. I trust that you are thoughtful Christians.” You did not hear from her. I told you in my email two days later that she was right with me. Instead of leaving her to me, on the 28th of April, approximately 15 minutes before arriving at her place of employment to have your vehicle serviced, you texted Lisa if you could speak to her for a minute and ended up leaving almost 90 minutes later. Needless to say it was in my opinion as well as that of Lisa and her employer (also a member of your congregation) that you took advantage of the situation. You have said more than once that these kinds of discussions are a waste of time for you; that they entangle and keep you from doing your job. It was disturbingly evident when you emphatically declared to Lisa more than once that “your job is to save souls”. She called you on it and I am thankful for that. She IS my better half. Lisa was right by correcting you that it is the work of the Holy Ghost to save souls and that your job is to merely proclaim the Word. When she pressed you as to why you would say such a thing, you changed the subject.

Pastor Patterson’s background from the Holy Word website:” In addition to serving the congregation of Holy Word, he has also served the church at large. In 1996, he was appointed second Vice President of the South Central District of the WELS, and in 2000 he was appointed first Vice President. He is currently serving on the Board of Directors for Wisconsin Lutheran Child and Famliy(sic) Services, and he has spoken at numerous conferences, marriage retreats, and seminars. He has also written several articles for various synod publications such as Forward in Christ, Meditations, Lutheran Parenting, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly, and Lutheran Leadership.” And when in the short time I was an Elder and saw what Pastor had on his plate…my first thought (sic) was, ‘Hey! He works for Holy Word!

Austin WELS Pastor becomes vindictive

2011-05-28T07:57:00.003-05:00

Holy Word Lutheran Church and WELS has broken Fellowship With Us

http://hereistand2011.blogspot.com/2011/05/holy-word-lutheran-church-and-wels-has.html

Friday, May 27, 2011Holy Word Lutheran Church and WELS has broken Fellowship With Us
Last fall Pastor Patterson again approached me about becoming an Elder for Holy Word. I had mixed emotions about accepting a nomination. So much study about worship and practice had been done and it became clear to me that Christ the Rock and Holy Word to a lesser extent did not have "quia" subscriptions to the Lutheran Confessions and the Book of Concord. From my perspective through these two churches, I wondered if WELS still had one.(Pastors and Teachers swear an oath to uphold them both in light of the Scriptures.) After prayerful considerations and discussions with my wife I accepted.

In mid-November I had an orientation lunch with Pastor. I remember him stressing that if I had any hidden agendas that I should reconsider my nomination. Since I thought what I would be bringing to the table would be scriptural...how would one construe this as 'hidden'? I also initiated a conversation about justification and brought up Becker's paper regarding Kokomo and my desire to have a meaningful discussion about it. He stressed that he came from the Wauwatosa Theology camp and that we would reciprocate papers; me sending the Becker Paper and him sending me a recent paper by Pastor Rautenberg reviewing an essay by JP Koehler regarding legalism and bravado of orthodoxy. A discussion about justification did not take place prior to election of church officers in December; though I did send a reminder.

After I became an Elder I again tried to initiate a discussion regarding justification. I had a need to know where he stood on Objective Justification. I got my answer the last Sunday of January. You can hear it at approximately 22:22 of this sermon audio (click on the second sermon for January 30th, 2011 & play it from 21:00 - 24:00+ for context):

http://www.holyword.net/site/audiodownloads.asp?sec_id=140005270

There are many flavors of this doctrine of Objective Justification being preached. It is confusing. I took exception that Pastor Patterson was preaching that my sins were forgiven before I was born. What good was my baptism? What good are the Means of Grace? What good is the Ministry of the Keys? How does this work with Old Testament believers...where they forgiven too before they were born?

Discussions ensued until last Saturday (May 21st) when we received this email from the leadership at Holy Word:

Dear Joe and Lisa,

We received your latest email and read through all of your concerns. We honestly disagree on all of your points and conclusions. All of your concerns are about practical matters over which God's people have freedom to disagree without the charge of sin - except for one. Your unbelief in objective justification is doctrinal and is not acceptable. In short, it is the deal breaker. I have talked to you about this in person on two occasions. On one of those Pastor Gurgel and Brad Johnston were also present. Pastor Gurgel has talked to both of you in person on two different occasions and elders have engaged you in emails about the very same subject. We are all convinced that your doctrine is unscriptural or unconfessional. Therefore we cannot be in fellowship with you until you repent of this. Your fellowship at the Lord's Table is therefore suspended until you recant your teachings and your writings regarding objective justification.

In addition, your ways of attacking me and the many recent decisions of our congregation are not appropriate. So, even if you repent of your false doctrine regarding objective justification, we have so much more to talk about regarding your critical spirit.

If you wish to pursue this any further, we will meet with you both. In that meeting, we will have two elders and me present. We will not discuss objective justification as if it is a debatable doctrine. We will not entertain changing our decision regarding the use of Cornerstone, we will not change Jocelyn's title from deaconess to anything else, and we will not change our plans to help lay people teach God's Word to God's people. We are convinced that all of these things are good and right in our fellowship and since you have been heard and we have decided not to follow you - you have to accept them. In short, the debate is over. No more discussion! The mission of making disciples must go on!

Our stance is firm but so is our love for you in Christ. Our highest goal is to see you in heaven some day.

To God be the Glory,

Pastor Patterson and the Board of Elders
Holy Word Lutheran Church

We responded May 22nd:

Dear Leadership of Holy Word,

Thank you for your email.

For those who may be scratching their heads as to why we are discussing all of this, it originated from a message preached by Pastor Patterson the last Sunday in January. I have attached a clip of the comment in context. It occurs at approximately 1:14.

Firstly, you falsely accuse us of unbelief in Objective Justification. (OJ) Nowhere have we denied OJ! We have rejected how Pastor Patterson teaches it along with many in the WELS. It is wrong to preach that one's sins are forgiven before they were born. It is not true for me as a New Testament believer in Christ anymore than it was for Old Testament believers or anyone for that matter. When Pr. Patterson in his email of 4-20-2011 says, “Truly, so much that we proclaim about the work of Christ cannot be said in the exact same words about the OT saints and their faith.” He is teaching a kind of dispensationalism. We sing on Easter ‘I know that my Redeemer Lives just as Job proclaimed in Job 19:25. St. Paul goes to great lengths in the 4th chapter of Romans to show us that the NT believers are the offspring of Abraham just as the OT believers are. The end of the chapter dovetails perfectly into chapter 5 to drive the point home the sinner is justified by grace for Christ’s sake through faith.

NIV Romans 4:22 – 5:2 “22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. 1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we[b] rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.”

And this from The Apology IV, 57

“57] And throughout the prophets and the psalms this worship, this latreiva, is highly praised, although the Law does not teach the gratuitous remission of sins. But the Fathers knew the promise concerning Christ, that God for Christ's sake wished to remit sins. Therefore, since they understood that Christ would be the price for our sins, they knew that our works are not a price for so great a matter [could not pay so great a debt]. Accordingly, they received gratuitous mercy and remission of sins by faith, just as the saints in the New Testament.”

When Pr. Patterson teaches that a person’s sins were forgiven (and therefore absolved and saved as Pr. Buchholz proclaims) without faith is a type of universalism. The passages used to support these teachings are always in the context of faith. Even Pastor Gurgel in his last visit left assured that our confession was Biblical. He acknowledged the way words are used regarding OJ creates confusion; in fact he opined that 'the pendulum swung too far in the opposite direction with regard to Kokomo'. I would add too that the teaching of forgiveness is flawed in the clip as well after 1:14. As the Apology quote shows, God has it in His heart to forgive those who are truly repentant. And He gladly does forgive those in faith for the sake of Christ. But there can be no forgiveness if there is no contrition. So to teach forgiveness without repentance does the offender no good any more than teaching absolution without the Law. Ironically, you are asking me for contrition and yet Patterson preaches I am already forgiven.

Secondly, to break fellowship with us would require you to forbid us at the Lord’s Table. But you say you are suspending our participation in Communion pending a recanting of alleged false doctrine. This is a mixing of processes. Please clarify for us if you are releasing/ex-communicating us pending a repentance of sin or are you retaining our membership and suspending Communion pending contrition?

Finally, there are at least two of you that are not convinced that we are unscriptural and/or unconfessional on all counts. Pastor Gurgel visited and genuinely discussed with us regarding our confession and was assured we were not in error. Brad Johnston who admitted in our meeting that ‘it was all over his head’ regarding OJ should have been disqualified.

Regarding your comment about my critical spirit I will take it as a compliment as Martin Luther would have. However I will let the Lord judge whether your inference of the assuredness of our salvation is a sin.

We will await your reply regarding our membership.

In His Grace and Mercy,

Joe

Holy Word replied back to us on May 26th:

Joe and Lisa,

If I understand all of your recent emails correctly, you wish to remain members of Holy Word only if you can convince us of the errors of our ways in regard to my preaching that "we were forgiven by God in Christ before we believed that we are forgiven" and the 8 practical matters you have listed.

Since we do not believe we have erred on any of these issues that you have sited, we cannot acknowledge that we are still in doctrinal agreement with you. Therefore, we should not commune together. In keeping with a consistent practice of the doctrine of fellowship you should mark and avoid us as persistent errorists and we are marking and avoiding you as persistent errorists as well. (Romans 16:17-18). This posture is never pleasant but necessary to protect God's people from divisive teachings.

Jack Parrish and Matt Wordell have agreed to join me in meeting with both of you to offer any clarifications you need regarding our doctrine of fellowship and the issue of your membership at Holy Word and the WELS. We will not meet with you to discuss objective justification or the 8 points you outlined as your plan to change the direction of Holy Word. You have been heard on those issues and we honestly disagree with you.

We are all free next Wednesday night, June 1 at 6:30PM or 7:00 PM, whichever time suits you. We would like to meet at church in the conference room. Are you willing to meet us?

In Him,

Pastor Don Patterson

We responded later in the day:

All,

Since the agenda would already be set; since there would be no discussion allowed and since we do not care to be subjected in such manner as previous meetings, we respectfully decline. There are many people who do not believe as you do about justification. There are many pastors who do not believe nor preach it as you do. Since you refuse discussion and have made your position clear to us, there is nothing more to say.

I pray that this explanation is satisfactory.

By Grace through faith in Christ,
Joe

I will be talking more about the other 7 issues in coming blogs.

Robert Preus in his book "Justification and Rome" talks about the vast arrays of variation on the doctrine of Justification among Lutherans. How have we become so disjointed on this pillar by which the Church stands or falls? The doctrine that our church fathers from the 16th century so eloquently exposed from the heretics of the day? I can only think of one passage that answers this question...Genesis 3:4-5, " 4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." - KJV

To preach a forgiveness of sins apart from faith is a type of universalism that some Reformed preachers are already preaching. WELS has been wistfully gazing towards the Reformed for some time now on 'how to do church'.

The demise of Church and Change -

2011-03-23T15:24:00.004-05:00

Did the blog-o-sphere help end Church and Change? For several years Bailing Water helped spur on the conversation on the net and now the Eulogy ----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Celebrate with Church and Change!

We invite you to celebrate with us! It was more than fifteen years ago that the first seeds were sown for Church and Change. God put it into the hearts of the Church and Change pioneers to find new approaches for sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with our communities and world. Church and Change brought together many WELS members; people passionate about understanding and reaching the lost and to better serving God’s people living in this changing world. Church and Change also helped the WELS stay biblically-focused as Christian leaders made the compelling case for true Christian freedom. It is our prayer that Christian freedom continue to be part of our Lutheran fabric as we “practice” our beliefs.

Many were strengthened and encouraged over the years through Church and Change. Ministry leaders improved and expanded their ministries and networked with other WELS leaders across the country. Those leaders who became part of Church and Change learned new approaches and methods to reach out and are now teaching and leading others to do the same. The goals of Church and Change have been achieved.

So, it’s time for Church and Change to make a change of its own. It’s time to let others take the lead. As of today, Church and Change has finished its run. We are confident that the “spirit of change” will continue. We believe that Jesus, who called us to share his name with as many as possible and in as many different ways, will continue to lead us. We pray that Jesus will give you strength and wisdom to march forward! It has been a privilege to get to know, work with, encourage, and learn from so many of you. We thank our Lord for the blessing of Church and Change and for you!

Please contact Pastor Ron Ash at rvash@new.rr.com.

Fellow servants in God’s church

2011-03-19T08:07:00.002-05:00

We have begun the season of Lent, with its proper emphasis on humble repentance before the cross and with its singular focus on the journey that our Savior took to reach that same destination. No one needs these reminders more than those who have the privilege of proclaiming and teaching law and gospel in the public ministry.

As we lead God’s people to acknowledge and confess their sin, how important and necessary it is that all of us examine our hearts, our actions, and our words with blunt and brutal honesty. Can we begin to encourage God’s people to godly repentance without first saying with the apostle, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24). Can we call upon sinners to acknowledge and confess their sin and guilt without first applying the words of the hymn to ourselves: “My burden in thy passion, Lord, thou hast borne for me, for it was my transgression which brought this woe on thee” (The Lutheran Hymnal 172:4).

When we do that, of course, we will find things in ourselves that we do not want to find. Pride and arrogance. Laziness. Worry. Self-love. Hateful anger. Slander and lying. Neglect of God’s Word. Thoughtless worship. Neglected prayer life. Thirst for material security. If we are honest we will see those things in ourselves—and much more. And if we are really listening to the law of God that we are called to preach and teach, we will fall on our knees with the tax collector, despairing and desperate, and say, “God be merciful to me a sinner!”

But there is more to that message that God has entrusted us to preach and teach. There is the message of a Savior, setting his face toward Jerusalem, fully aware of what was waiting for him there. There is the message of the Lamb of God, soon to sacrifice himself for rebels and prodigals and scoundrels—for us. There is the message of the One who took the world’s guilt—my guilt—on himself, paid the price demanded by a righteous God, and completed the task of crushing the head of the serpent once and for all. Can we dare to preach and teach that good news without first embracing that message for ourselves in faith and joy? Will we be able to be faithful heralds of the good news unless that good news that “It is finished!” penetrates our hearts and lives?

Let Paul’s words lead you to the cross as you prepare to lead God’s people to the cross through Word and sacrament: “So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord. . . . This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. . . . Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed” (2 Timothy 1:8-12). Throughout this Lenten season, may God lead you to humble, heartfelt repentance over your sin and to the incredible joy of knowing and believing that your sins are forgiven. And then preach that message with zeal and power, because you know whom you have believed.

Serving with you in Christ,

President Mark Schroeder

Taking up the Sword of Faith

2010-06-01T11:36:00.003-05:00

I commend to you http://www.intrepidlutherans.com/. This is a blog that takes up the sword and mantle of Confessional Lutheranism in the WELS.

Several years ago Aaron started this blog, Bailing Water, as a way to open up discussion on the inroads of the Church growth methods in the WELS. Aaron started this blog about the time the 2006 convention got underway. He gave up and I took up the mantle.

Bailing Water provided fruitful discussion on important topics and brought to surface many hidden agendas. For many the true agenda and players list of the Church and Change group was revealed.

The WELS has changed. There is disunity. Is Jeske WELS or LCMS?

As time and need arise new posts may rise to the surface here on Bailing Water. But, rest assured, for the years to come Bailing Water will remain a Confessional and historical resource.

Another point of view

2010-04-07T13:17:00.002-05:00

Anonymous --

This article is typical of so many articles on the doctrine of the ministry. It pits human writers against human writers without even one (that's right, not even one) clearly expounded scripture, leave alone a majority of scriptures which speak to the doctrine. I have struggled to fully grasp both sides of the old Synodical Conference's doctrine of the ministry for years and find flaws in both when they are carried to their logical extremes in practice (which both have been in the history of the WELS and LC-MS).

This lack of biblical evidence warps this article as it does so many others. It seems to come across that we understand the Bible in light of the confessions instead of saying we understand the confessions in light of the Bible. Which is the ultimate authority and sheds light on the other?
There is a reason why the doctrine of the ministy was not devisive in the Synodical Conference. With the wholesome tension, neither WELS nor LC-MS could carry its doctrine to its logical extreme. Now, almost fifty years after the break in fellowship, both WELS and LC-MS have factions which are taking their doctrine of the ministry to its logical extreme and the weaknesses in the logical extremes of both are showing.

At the Diet of Worms Luther asked to be shown from scripture or sound reason what was not true about his teachings. In this current case of the doctrine of the ministry, sound reason has not prevailed because there has been mostly an unending pitting of the church fathers against each other to no avail. What we need is clear and determinative exegesis of the sedes passages on the ministry, followed by clear and determinative exegesis of non-sedes doctrines on the ministry. Even there one problem will be to find unbiased exegetes on either side. It seems we are more interested in doing exegesis of Walther, Pieper, Schaller, and Meyer, rather than the scriptures. That has led to confusion and to the weakness of our arguments. If we can only "prove" a position by quoting the church fathers, but cannot "prove" the same position by quoting sola scriptura, we have gone the way of Rome.

April 7, 2010 11:06 AM

The Office of the Holy Ministry (sic) in Wisconsin

2010-02-13T11:36:00.001-06:00

http://www.motleymagpie.org/bonus_a2.htm

Faculty + Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary + Circa 1961

Oktoberfest Seminar + October 13, 2008

St. Paul Lutheran + Kewaunee, Illinois

Rev. Fr. John W. Berg

This presentation was delivered at the thirteenth annual Oktoberfest held at St. Paul Lutheran Church, Kewanee, Illinois (October 13, 2008) and is presented here in edited form. It was one of four presentations delivered by former members of the Wisconsin Synod, now members of the Missouri Synod, about the differences between the two former Synodical Conference partners.

The Office of the Holy Ministry ( sic) in Wisconsin

In 1961 it was a matter relating to church, not ministry, that was the final death blow dealt to the Synodical Conference by the Wisconsin Synod as it withdrew the hand of fellowship from Missouri - the Evangelical Lutheran Synod already having exited.

While church issues took the foreground, looming in the background were issues of ministry. Yet as late as 1948 the Synodical Conference was still able to amicably take up the issue. The joint committee assigned the task issued a majority report which represented the so called Missouri view, signed onto by two Wisconsin men, and a minority report representing the so called Wisconsin view authored by a lone Wisconsinite. Yet even in those tense times the Wisconsin minority report was still able to state with great comity

There are two marked differences in the [Evangelical Lutheran] Synodical Conference in the matter of Church and Ministry. These are not differences in doctrine as such… They are differences in application.[1]

However, freed of Missouri restraint Wisconsin forged ahead to develop her doctrine on her own. And did she! And though it was thought that the two Synod’s doctrines of ministry were not divisive of fellowship for their first 110 years, barring the intervention of the Spirit these differences present an insurmountable obstacle today. This would depend on whether Missouri corrects a WELSward drift from its confessional moorings, a drift retired Bishop Roger Pittelko observed reacting to the Council of Presidents study entitled “Holy Ministry,”

Notice the exclusion and avoidance of the definite article. This is extremely significant, I assure you![2]

Once tolerant of Missouri Wisconsin will no longer be. The Missouri Doctrine, which, frankly, the WELS does not quite understand, has received the official anathema sit. And my fellow Missourians you may not realize how heretically wrong the Wisconsin Synod finds you! The magisterially entitled booklet WELS and Other Lutherans in its summary of differences between WELS and… other… Lutherans lists eight differences between itself and ELCA and with no less than 15 differences between itself and Missouri[3] with a full fourteen of those “differences” involving ministry related issues.

To be charged a “Missourian” in Wisconsin nowadays marks you as an agitator. Those foolish enough to wear a collar remain under suspicion, the “Packer” tie or polo shirt being the clerical of choice. Indeed, as Bishop Pittelko noted in Missouri, articulating the word “ministry” will raise red flags, let alone if you accord it an uppercase “M.” Speaking of a concrete Office of the Holy Ministry restricted to qualified men was enough for the inquisitors in their bright red ties to ignite the faggots and set two of this seminar’s speakers ablaze.

As I began to associate with those outside the sect, a breech of fellowship [4] I was warned, and began to enjoy the fellowship of those in the Missouri Synod, I quickly learned that many Missourians know little more about Wisconsin than Wisconsin knows about Missouri. This was true nowhere more so than in regards to the issue of the Ministry. “Really?!” was the comment I most often heard from Missourians when I explained Wisconsin’s views. So, let me dispel any doubts or illusions you might have about Wisconsin in regards to “ministry.” As Bishop Pittelko said, the lack of a definite article is extremely significant, I assure you!

Now Wisconsin, unlike Missouri, is quite monolithic in her thinking about most things. Allegiance is demanded to their Doctrinal Statements and though accorded confessional status in its midst they aren’t always helpful in divining its teachings as they are often little more than general statements with a catena of Bible passages to “proof text” the point in question. Where true Wisconsin is found is in the Talmudic writings of its seminary professors. But to truly understand Wisconsin though you must read the seminal article from which its admittedly novel doctrine found its genesis, the Holy Grail of Wisconsin’s view of the ministry lauded as “breathtakingly bold,” and “Lutheresque”[5] Wauwatosa theologian John Schaller’s “The Origin and Development of the New Testament Ministry.” Your reading it will spare me the charge of overkill.

The Office (sic) of the Holy Ministry

The first of the official statements on the ministry which we consider today might have you wondering if poor Wisconsin is being unfairly criticized here. It reads,

Christ instituted one office in His Church, the ministry of the Gospel.

But as good Lutherans we must ask, what does this mean? Let me assure you, aside from the word “Christ,” this does not mean what you think it means. Vital in understanding Wisconsin is to know that Augustana V’s “Ministry of the Gospel,” the ministerium Evangelii, or in the mother tongue, das Predigtamt, is not the Office of Preaching, but the function of proclaiming the Gospel. As seminary professor and Wisconsin’s point man on the issue John Brug bluntly says, “The Predigtamt is the Gospel.” [6] Schaller for his part is more incarnational and finds this office incarnated in the royal priesthood,

This [New Testament Ministry] is basically nothing other than the doctrine of the spiritual priesthood.[7]

Curiously, Brug, perhaps not checking the bullet points on the issue or his own history, bristles,

We must reject [Kurt] Marquart’s opinion that the Wisconsin Statements lead to a “virtual identification of the universal priesthood and the ministry.” [8]

What is historically called the office of the Holy Ministry, the OHM as the cognoscenti say, Wisconsin calls the “public ministry” which itself for Wisconsin is not an office, but the approved carrying out of the tasks assigned it by the church. For Wisconsin, Augustana V does not create an office that Augustana XIV fills, even abstractly. Leaving the argument to the gnesio, neo, anti or pseudo Waltherians about that term, Walther says in Thesis II of Kircke und Amt

This statement [AC V] does not speak of the ministry of the Word in concreto, but only of the ministry of the Word in abstracto[9].

Schaller without naming names takes dead aim at Walther

God did not institute a ministry in abstracto, but he continually creates the ministry of preaching [Predigtdienst] through his Gospel.

Predigtamt becomes Predigtdienst for Schaller I suspect in order to completely distance any thought of an office from the amt.[10]

For Wisconsin “Predigtamt” is simply function. Typical of the attempts to cobble this view to the Confessions is illustrated in a set of Theses by a Michigan District conference of the Wisconsin Synod which was commissioned to extinguish the pernicious error of a reprobate who wrote a paper making the audacious claim that God created an office. This sacred congregation for the defense of the faith without quoting Luther or the Confessions proclaimed

Luther and the confessors understood Predigtamt as synonymous with the Means of Grace… Amt is a very elastic word.”[11]

Or one might say wax. And follow this logic closely; in explaining that the ministry is not an office they schooled the writer, who suggested that the office of the ministry is an office,

To say “the ministry is an office” is about like saying “an automobile is a car.” “Ministry” and office” are synonyms.” “Office” does not necessarily define or clarify the meaning of “ministry.”

I’m not sure how synonyms don’t bring clarity to each other, but the Tractatus (25) uses Predigtamt as preaching office, not means of grace, which of course are what the office is all about,

Christ addresses [Peter] as a minister of this office (amt) in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says “Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching (Predigt) and ministry (Predigtamt).

Now, indeed “amt” is used in this sense in the Smalcald Articles in discussing the functions of the law and Gospel, as is “ministry,” but couple Amt with Predigt, which presumes a Prediger, the Amt, dare I say, becomes quite fleshy even if the function of the office is the matter at hand. To the committee we offer Luther himself in the “Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in Leipzig-Including Some Thoughts Regarding His Companion, the Fool Murner” which would test their assertion,

Scripture, I say, calls the spiritual and priestly estate a service, caretaking, an office, an elder, an attendant, a guardian, a preaching office, and a shepherd. ^{^[12]}

The problem with Rome, as Luther so clearly points out in his De Ministerio, is that the Papists separated the evangelical functions from the office, indeed turned it into a sacrificial office. The problem with the Schwaermer on the other hand is that they unhinged the functions from the office and clandestinely snuck about. Luther spoke of such office-less functions

If a layman should perform all the outward functions of a priest, celebrating Mass, confirming, absolving, administering the sacraments, dedicating altars, churches, vestments, vessels, etc., it is certain that these actions in all respects would be similar to those of a true priest, in fact, they might be performed more reverently and properly than the real ones. But because he has not been consecrated and ordained and sanctified, he performs nothing at all, but is only playing church and deceiving himself and his followers. ^{^[13]}

The answer to the Romanism is not enthusiasm. But this is the fear in Wisconsin. So to find an office in AC V will find you suffering the calumny expressed by Professor Brug, who says about many in this crowd, I suspect,

This is why Romanizing Lutherans must battle to inject the institution of the pastoral ministry into AC V, just as they often battle to inject it into Matthew 28.[14]

Martin Chemnitz, too, must suffer this calumny as he in his Examination of the Council of Trent of all places applies the Matthew 28 citation to those in this teaching office.[15] In fact he refers to the John 20 text of Jesus breathing out on his disciples as their Ordination, though rejecting the idea that such an exsufflation is necessary today.

For Wisconsin uses of the term “ministry,” “Predigtamt” or even the “Office of the Holy Ministry” by the Confessions or Luther or other Lutheran fathers are all fair game to be considered as equal to the Gospel or the royal priesthood. On this very point John Brug in a paper entitled “The Meaning of Predigtamt in AC V” cites a passage from Apology XIII (7ff) in which he maintains its use of Predigtamt is equivalent to “means of grace.” That passage,

The adversaries do not understand the sacrament of orders and priesthood as the ministry of the Word (Predigtamt) or the office (amt) of administering the sacraments for others, but they understand it of priests who are ordained to offer sacrifices…If ordination is understood as carrying out the ministry of the Word we are willing to call ordination a sacrament. For the ministry of the Word (Predigtamt) has God’s command and glorious promises. For the church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in the ministry.

Unless you are approaching this text with a predetermined position, you cannot help but see that this passage, whose subject that ordination which can rise to sacramental status (sorry Jack), speaks of an office. Brug later chides those who view AC V or even the public ministry as an office with this straw man,

The Holy Spirit is efficacious through the gospel. It is a Romanizing trait to make the pastor a means of grace. [16]

Now who says that? But is it Romanizing to say “how can they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” Well, I guess it is Romanizing. Perhaps Wisconsin needs a gentle reminder that the Gospel and Sacraments save no one. The Gospel preached and the Sacraments administered do. But that a pious believer gives an answer for the hope he has and a parent speaks to her child the love of Christ does not put them into office.

Wisconsin hinges much on the term “public” before ministry and so without it, you just have ministry without an office. It is interesting to note that the word “public” as an adjective before “ministry,” if Larson’s concordance is reliable, occurs only once in the Confessions, although it is translated into Predigtamt or ministerium several times. The lone occurrence is in an inconsequential reference in the Apology in “The Marriage of Priests.” (Rome reasoned that since priests should always pray and since praying was an exercise of their office, they didn’t have time for “conjugal intercourse.” The lusty Lutherans said, sex doesn’t prevent us from praying.)

Augustana XIV, of course, uses it adverbially. The ministry is by nature and institution publice. One certainly can turn the Confessions and Luther on their heads if one were to say they were speaking of the witness of all the royal priesthood which Wisconsin says Predigtamt is, when they may be talking about the Office. Again, that all things belong to all Christians, yes, the ministry of the keys, does not mean there is no office of preaching. The Tractatus (26) reminds us that

The Predigtamt of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but is dispersed throughout the whole world and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ.

The lone confessional citation which Wisconsin in all of its official writings uses to prove its point is from the Formula in which the errors of the Schwenckfeldians are condemned when they

[Assert] that the ministry of the Church, the word preached and heard, is not a means whereby God the Holy Ghost teaches men and works in them saving knowledge of Christ.”[17]

However the authoritative German does not use Predigtamt here, but Kirchendienst, and the issue here with the Stink-fledians was not the office per se, but a fluttering Spirit not fettered to the word. The Formula doesn’t simply say the “Word,” but the “word preached,” and the last I heard is that they cannot hear without a preacher and he can’t preach unless he is sent. Simply ignored by Wisconsin are the many uses of Predigtamt later in the Augustana, the Apology, and the Smalcald articles, for example

Therefore the bishop has the power of the order, i.e., the ministry of Word and Sacraments.[18]

So the “office” in Wisconsin’s “Christ instituted one office in His Church” is not an office. In fact in the first explanatory comment on this thesis in the Doctrinal Statement we read, “It is the task of proclaiming the Gospel.”

Institution

Though adamantly insisting that the Predigtamt is divinely instituted, vain, in Wisconsin, is the hunt for a red citation, that is, a red lettered word of institution from Christ. Schaller says

It is clear from this in which sense we can speak of the divine institution of the New Testament ministry. God very obviously wills the preaching of the gospel. He accomplished this will by calling people to the fellowship of the gospel… Jesus commands to preach are not the original institution of the gospel ministry; they substantiate the fact that it had been instituted. He couldn’t give a command to preach if he didn’t already have preachers.[19]

Yes, the Gospel is preaching because the Gospel is the Word, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and the Hypostatic Word was inscribed for us and must as a word be preached to us. The eternal Word did not need to be instituted; it the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. So isn’t it a bit odd, then, to say as our Confession says that God instituted something that needs no institution? As Schaller himself says,

But if one wishes to speak about an institution, one must, of course, be able to cite the instituting command.[20]

Though its Doctrinal Statements cite Matthew 28, Mark 16, Matthew 16, and John 20, along with 1 Peter 2:9 and Matthew 18 under its theses, upon closer examination you see that these Apostolic commissionings are not cited as instituting words, which most would be led to believe, but as passages which confirm the “task,” that, is to “proclaim the Gospel in Word and Sacrament.” There is no difference made between Christ granting the keys to the church and to the Eleven. Wisconsin virtually equates the priesthood with the apostolate and their successors. Seminary professor Leroy Dobberstein places the Matthew 28, Mark 16 and John 20 citations under the title of “the institution of the universal priesthood.”[21] Dobberstein also owns up,

In asserting this [that there is no mandatum Dei for the New Testament Ministry] the Wauwatosa men were in fact departing from the earlier position of Adolf Hoenecke and the position held by Franz Pieper and others in the Missouri Synod. [22]

No mandatum Dei. But there you have it in AC V, “instituted.” And so “instituted” becomes “instituted in this sense” in Wisconsin’s confession “Christ instituted one office in His Church, the ministry of the Gospel.”

The “Public” Ministry

Again, Wisconsin uses the term “public ministry” for what you would call the Office of the Holy Ministry. And again, Wisconsin maintains that the public ministry is divinely instituted. And again, when you ask for the instituting word, you come up empty, again. Schaller writes,

But if one wishes to speak about an institution, one must, of course, be able to cite the instituting command. It was supposed, to be sure, that the divine institution of at least one form of the public ministry had been indirectly established. But it is certainly a questionable undertaking to try to establish a divine command, and hence a positive moral precept, by means of circumstantial evidence. Is it God’s practice in other in serious matters that directly concern our soul’s salvation to leave it to our reason to make a deduction concerning a particular act of the will?

Erling Teigen of the ELS in Logia notes that the translator of Schaller’s work gets a bit hinky here and footnotes Schaller’s comments that Scripture does speak about the necessity of a public ministry. Teigen notes, however, that there is nothing in Schaller’s essay that would lead us to believe Schaller believed that. Schaller not only says no forms are instituted, but no office is. Teigen opines whether Schaller and his compatriot August Pieper were the real but unnamed coconspirators of brother Franz’s attack on Hoefling in his Dogmatics. This view, however, is not unique to Schaller. Dobberstein writes,

The fact of the matter is that the WELS position from the time of the Wauwatosa theologians has not looked to legal commands of God to establish the public ministry.[23]

Dobberstein quotes another Wisconsinite, Peter Prange, who lauds the Wauwatosa theologians

The Wauwatosa men didn’t pay mere lip service to the power of the gospel and, therefore, never felt the need to resort to the legalistic idea of mandata Dei. They didn’t depend upon legal regulations to guide the life of the Church.

In their rush ad fontes these Wauwatosa theologians too quickly by-passed our Lutheran Confession which notes that, the public Office of the Holy Ministry,

Has God’s command, mandatum Dei, and glorious promises. For the Church has the mandatum, to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us because we know that God approves this ministry, and is present in this ministry.

Indeed, all the Sacraments, however many you have, 3, 4 1/2 , 7 or more, have the mandatum Dei. What Wisconsin misses is that the Office of the Holy Ministry is, like Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, an evangelical institution.

As regards the divine institution of the public ministry Wisconsin’s doctrinal statement rather than saying that the public ministry is divinely “instituted” says, that

The public ministry constitutes a special God-ordained way of practicing the one ministry of the Gospel.

An otherwise innocent and pious sounding “God ordained” in the absence of an instituting word is simply human presumption. Dobberstein clears up the matter so that you can see that I am not engaging in mere leptological hairsplitting,

When the WELS speaks of a divine institution for the public ministry it is not referring to a specific command of institution.[24]

Incredible, a divine institution with no divine institution! So the public ministry with no mandatum Dei is a special God-ordained way of practicing the one ministry of the Gospel, but no form of it is. This always puzzled me, forms. Preaching and administering are, by the way, its form. The WELS Doctrinal Statement enlightens us,

There is, however, no direct word of institution for any particular form of the public ministry.

What does this mean? Schaller provides the answer.

We come thus to the indisputable conclusion that God can indeed recognize something that has been established under his invisible dominion and yet also according to human decision.[25]

Also,

The pastoral ministry as such is not a Biblical, but rather in each individual case a historically developed concept. That means the pastoral ministry is for each time and in each place, what the church so says.”[26]

Talk about Voter’s Assembly’s run wild! Wisconsin says that though an instituting word for the public ministry is lacking, the public ministry and any form it devises is divinely instituted a posteriori. So, forms of the ministry developed by man are divinely instituted but no form is divinely instituted. It is here where the language of diplomacy with the ELS, Wisconsin’s little Norwegian buddy, is important. The ELS says the pastoral ministry is divinely instituted, which to maintain peace Wisconsin interprets; yes any form is, a posteriori. I won’t try to stir the pot, too much, by whispering that the ELS means this a priori.

David Vallesky former Seminary president also finds no mandatum Dei and incredibly cites Apology XIII (11) which says

The church has the command to appoint ministers, which should be most pleasing to us, because we know that God approves this ministry and is present in the ministry

And then concludes,

This Confessional Statement echoes they way the Scriptures speak. Though one will search in vain for a direct word of institution for the public ministry, e.g. for baptism, the Scriptures assume the existence of what we have come to call the public ministry.[27]

It is ironic, that Vallesky says that Predigtamt here is speaking of the public ministry, whereas Brug cites the same passage to say that Predigtamt here does not speak of the public ministry. Whatever, for Wisconsin there is no mandatum Dei, but a divine assumption.

The “divine institution” of the public ministry is, however, substantiated by the Doctrinal Statement for other three related reasons, first that a call is necessary.

The authority to call is implied (emphasis in original) in the authority to administer the Gospel given to the ‘Church.’ Hence, it is proper to speak of the derived right of local congregations to call.

So what is meant by a “divine institution” of the public ministry for Wisconsin? They assume there is such from the call to preach from which the church infers the authority to call from which the local congregation derives its right to call. So I guess we pastors should speak of being derivatively called to serve in a Divine Inference. Other reasons cited by the Doctrinal Statements are that God is a God of order, not all are equally qualified, God gave these gifts to people and who is to deny anyone their gift, even the so called gift of pastoring or pastoretting and finally that these public ministers were appointed by God.

One does sense the specter of Johann Hoefling floating about. Yet Wisconsin bristles at the suggestion, for though Hoefling did not reject the divine institution of the Gospel, he did reject the divine institution of the public ministry, which Wisconsin maintains, sort of. Kurt Marquardt of blessed memory writes that Hoefling maintained against Loehe, that

The concrete office of Word and Sacrament does not arise out of a direct divine command and institution. Rather, it emerges by an inner necessity out of the priesthood itself, that is, by the latter’s delegation [Ubertragung] of its individual member’ spiritual rights and powers to one of themselves, for the sake of good order.[28]

Marquart labels Hoefling’s later attempts to “make this scheme add up to a divine institution of the concrete preaching office,” only “cosmetic.” Or as Schaller said earlier

But it is certainly a questionable undertaking to try to establish a divine command, and hence a positive moral precept, by means of circumstantial evidence.

No one would quarrel that this is all true of a divinely instituted office, the need for a call and so forth, but does it add up to one? Is Wisconsin’s “divine assumption” with inferred rights a cosmetic cover up for a blemished doctrine? Wisconsin’s angry denials ring a bit hollow to me, such as this by John Brug in his dim review of Kurt Marquart’s book “The Church and Her Fellowship, Ministry and Governance,”

It should be emphasized that the so-called Wisconsin Synod position asserts the divine institution of the public ministry, including the pastoral ministry, every bit as fully as the “Missouri position.”[29]

Ever bit as fully? An assumption from an inference with no mandatum Dei? Ok.

Now, what does Wisconsin do with the dominical commands and institution of Matthew 28, Mark 16 to which Chemnitz appeals and most certainly the John 20 text to which the Tractatus appeals? Those have been taken off the table by Wisconsin as they are said to be spoken not to the apostles, but to the church as a whole.

Yet we see that Melanchthon cites John 20:21ff and Mark 16:15 in the Apology and in the Tractatus he cites Matthew 28 and John 21 when speaking of this responsibility given the Apostles. When speaking of the Church’s possession of the keys he uses Matthew 18 and reminds us that the Church has the right to elect and ordain ministers since it alone has the priesthood (69) which the Papists claimed for themselves.

Equally surprising to all those who long for the second coming of the Synodical Conference is the view of the Tractatus (10) as to the origin of the office, that this “Predigtamt“ proceeds from the general call of the apostles.” One such would be John Brug, who writes,

Nothing in Scripture indicates that the office of pastor or any other public ministry of the Word is derived from the apostolic office.[30]

Now that would be surprising to those who penned and subscribed with their own hands the Tractatus.

Forms

The answer to the question “What is the difference between Missouri and Wisconsin?” given by the average Wisconsinite reflects the presentations that we four apostates are giving today:

- Missourians pray at Yankee stadium with pagans; we don’t pray with our LCMS grandmother.

- Missourians base their teachings on the Confessions; we base ours on the Bible.

- Missourians let their women vote; we make our ministers, and

- Missourians say only parish pastors are in the public ministry; we say that anyone who does anything on behalf of the church is.

To illustrate, first, that Wisconsin does not understand the term “pastoral ministry” and thus Missouri, listen to Tom Nass who, on the attack, writes,

There does not need to be someone called “pastor.” The work of shepherding must be done. But the office of pastor, as we know it, is not essential. The work could be delegated and accomplished in another way.”[31]

Pastors are not needed although pastoral ministry needs to be done. Ok. Does he really think this is about titles? Or is there more to this distinction without a difference?

Now I jest not when I say that in Wisconsin anyone doing anything on behalf of the church is in the public ministry in the WELS. The issue of forms of the public ministry is at the heart of Wisconsin’s teaching. Behind this Doctrinal Statement “The one public ministry of the Gospel may assume various forms as circumstances demand” you will find lurking, Ac 6:1-6. In Wisconsin, the one Gospel ministry has expanded exponentially beyond AC V’s tasks to table service and beyond. This goes far beyond the question of whether theological professors and Synodical executives are in the Office. Staunchly conservative seminary professor John Brenner writes,

Already in apostolic times the public ministry was exercised in a variety of ways. The Christians in Jerusalem chose seven deacons to supervise charitable work in their name.[32]

Now yes, I know what you are thinking. This form of ministry was instituted by the church so that the apostles would not neglect the “ministry of the word.” That problem is generally brushed aside as here we see in former Seminary president Armin Schuetze’s little tome entitled “Church-Mission-Ministry” that such ministers

Contribute to the public proclamation of the Word so that the church may be edified. [33]

His recently retired successor David Vallesky flings open the doors left ajar by Schuetze’s ambiguous “contribute,”

Including staff ministry and member ministry, even that which supports rather than directly participates in word and sacrament ministry, under the term public ministry is biblical.[34]

A former synodical vice president and former seminary professor, Wayne Mueller delivers the WELS improbat on any contrary opinion (even that of AC V),

Christian ministry is misconstrued or torn from its biblical moorings (when) ministry is thought of too narrowly as though it included only the ministry of the keys…[35]

Mueller insists that all that a Christian does is the one Ministry given the Church, AC V a subcategory. Now years ago Wisconsin would attempt to shelter its ever burgeoning list of ministries under the tent of AC V by showing they use the “Word.” The same happens today generally only when writing for public consumption. Tom Nass, for example, in Logia says

Even the physical education professors at Martin Luther College are called into the public ministry, because they are expected to use the Word of God with students. As coaches, they may lead their teams in prayer. As faculty advisors for students, they are expected to counsel students with God’s Word.[36]

Yet Nass should know from Wisconsin doctrine such use of the Word is not a sine qua non for the Ministry.

Functions

The formlessness of this public ministry is supported by this assertion which we find in the People’s Bible book on the subject,

A list of duties outlining the responsibilities of everyone who is called into the public ministry does not exist.[37]

This would be news to the cosignatories of the Lutheran Confessions who believe such a list does indeed exist, and provided it! The Tractatus (60), for example, echoing Augustana XXVIII,

The Gospel assigns to those who preside over churches the command to teach the Gospel, to remit sins, to administer the Sacraments, and besides jurisdiction, namely, the command to excommunicate those who crimes are known, and again to absolve those who repent. And by the confession of all, even of the adversaries, it is clear that this power by divine right is common to all who preside over the churches, whether they are called pastors, or elders, or bishops.

Aside from appealing to the various titles the incumbents of the Office of the Holy Ministry are given in Scripture, pastor, bishop, elder and so forth and the Acts 6 passage the other passage always marshaled for support in Wisconsin is 1 Timothy 5:17. The NIV, not always to be confused with the New Testament, translates (sic),

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those who work is preaching and teaching.

However, the blessed Apostle literally wrote

Let the well ruling elders be worthy of double honor especially the one laboring in word and teaching.

The words “affairs of the church,” you quickly note, are not in the text. Are these presbyteroi lay ministers of the church maintaining the church’s non-Word and Sacrament “ministries?” Or is not Paul simply encouraging people - in this list of encouragements - to honor older men, which, of course, is what presbyteroi means, like the presbyteros or older man of verse one of this chapter whom Paul encourages Timothy not to rebuke too harshly. Also, the word Paul uses here proestote, is used in chapter 3 informing us that bishops and deacons must “manage” their households well. Paul undoubtedly is simply saying, “older men who manage (their households) well, are worthy of double honor, honor, for we always honor our “elders” and honor, for being good household managers, especially those (elders) who work in word and teaching.”

Yet upon these two passages Wisconsin has expanded the ministry to anyone doing anything on behalf of the church. These passages were appealed to when Wisconsin instituted its staff ministry program.

While all forms of public ministry derive their authority from the gospel, not every office of ministry in the New Testament was directly involved in teaching the Word and administering the sacraments.[38]

The authority from the Gospel not to preach the Gospel?! Vallesky notes about these non Word and Sacrament forms, that they need a divine call

Even if the staff ministry role as designed by a particular congregation does not involve direct use of Word and Sacraments.[39]

For a Synod that prides itself in its ad fontes it is surprising that Wisconsin eschewed exegetical investigation and employed the Reformed NIV’s translation. To illustrate the lengths to which this goes see this notice from the WELS run Wisconsin Lutheran College from one of its mailers,

Wisconsin Lutheran, under the auspices of the Southeastern Wisconsin District presidium, is seeking faculty candidates for divine calls in the following disciplines: anthropology, art, biology, business, chemistry, communication, computer science, early childhood education, economics, education, English, finance, German, history, mathematics, music (instrumental), philosophy, physics, political science, psychology, sociology, Spanish, theatre (sic).[40]

The Call and Qualifications

To this amorphous and atomized public ministry an equally amorphous divine call is the order of the day. An essay given to the 1965 WELS’ synod convention spoke of the call

Not all…receive formal calls, diplomas of vocation. Some are ordained, some installed, some inducted, some commissioned, some merely introduced and some are simply put to work, perhaps even without special mention. Be all of that as it may, as long as members of the church, in whatever way they have gathered to express themselves, have asked the service of these people… they all have divine calls.[41]

To illustrate the lengths to which this all can go, at Wisconsin Lutheran College the campus pastor desired to have all the students recite the general confession and absolution in chapel. But since the general absolution in Christian Worship reads, “therefore, as a called servant of Christ” the pastor, to insure that all things met Augustana XIV muster, I assume, called all the students so they could publicly absolve each other “as called servants of Christ.”

Qualifications

This broad view of the ministry will have implications when it comes to the qualifications for this ministry. When 1 Timothy 3 is examined WELS writers instinctively talk about the “form” of the ministry called the pastorate and not about all the other so called forms. Dobberstein, almost misty-eyed, writing on the “apt to teach” clause speaks of the Wisconsin Synod’s worker training program for the “public ministry” that it is “second to none” and “might well be the envy of any other church body.”[42] Of course he was only speaking of pastors and teachers. But when pressed 1 Timothy 3’s qualifications are cited as applicable for any form of this public ministry because they are said to apply to all Christians. The People’s Bible commentary incredibly notes

That [these qualifications] are stated here does not set up a unique standard for overseers or pastors. [43]

For they are found, he says in a “greater or lesser degree” in all Christians. Dobberstein writes

The longer lists of characteristics for such reliable and qualified men are nothing other than an enumeration of the characteristics God wants all Christians to have.[44]

So logic demands if one needs to be 1 Timothy 3 qualified to teach art, then one is 1 Timothy 3 qualified for the office of bishop. Everyone a bishop! To illustrate the lengths to which this goes I offer an anecdote. In a discussion of a conference paper on 1 Timothy 3’s bishop’s qualifications the presenter ultimately concluded, in a real life scenario I put to him, that a man who had been imprisoned for child molestation, who repented and was absolved and humbly returned to his church where all knew of his sin, would have been judged by him to be disqualified from serving in the form of the public ministry called the “buildings and grounds committee.” His “scandalous life” disqualified him from taking his turn mowing the grass. Just an anecdote? Noting that the WELS People’s Bible commentary says the word “respectable” means that the chap among other things “should not be slovenly in his appearance”[45] listen to, at the time, parish pastor Tom Nass in the Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly.

What is most interesting is simply to notice the sizable and well organized public ministry which existed [at St. Mary’s] in Wittenberg, and the variety of different offices. It reminds me a little of the congregation I presently serve which has three pastors and twelve Christian day school teachers, plus secretaries and janitors, who are all ministering in some sense. [46]

Women

Now I do not wish to steal the next presenter’s thunder, but if I do she will submissively endure it. But briefly, I will quote her father, a Missouri Synod pastor and friend, who when asked “what is the difference between the WELS and ELCA in regards to women in the pastoral ministry?” quipped “about 20 years.” I thought him pessimistic. However there is no theological barrier here to women pastors. The WELS addendum to the Book of Concord, “This We Believe,” notes,

We believe that women may participate in offices and activities of the public ministry except where that work involves authority over men (1 Timothy 2:11, 12). This means that women may not serve as pastors nor participate in assemblies of the church in ways that exercise authority over men (1 Corinthians 11:3; 14:33-35). (Emphasis added.)

Carefully note the wording, “Women may not serve as pastors… in ways that exercise authority over men.” Now Wisconsin is too conservative to ever call its women ministers, “pastors” though they may do the pastor things. In theology Wisconsin beat ELCA by several generations, in terminology it remains stealthily behind, in practice it is closing fast. A conference paper given at a conference I was at in California was accepted as sound theology in which the presenter told the case of a female teacher manning the paten at a pastor-teacher conference who could do so because male ushers fenced the rail. The only hubbub was that the ministerette’s red dress was on the short side. Woo-hoo!

As you know Wisconsin for a time ordained its male teachers and though David Scaer was angrily denounced for suggesting that there was no reason not to ordain its female teachers, the very angry critic in question, John Brug, wrote in a paper on the misconceptions Missouri has,

Since ordination is not a scriptural term, and Scripture does not limit the laying on of hands to the pastoral ministry, women could be installed into permitted forms of public ministry with the laying on of hands.[47]

All Equal?

Ordaining or installing men, women and children into the Office of the Holy Ministry and all the WELS forms thereof, VBS assistants, custodians, ushers, mowers, greeters, coffee servers, would seem to make nonsensical the Tractatus which reminds us that “all ministers are equal” and which citing John 20:21 says,

Christ sends forth His disciples on an equality, without any distinction [so that no one of them was to have more or less power than any other.[48]

Yet, Tom Nass in his public apologetic on Wisconsin’s revised “This We Believe” flatly denies what the Tractatus says is true of the Lutheran confession is true of the Wisconsin Synod,

So if someone says that all forms of public ministry in the WELS are equal and on the same level, that is not a fair and complete statement. [49]

As you delve deeper into the writings of the Wauwatosa theologians, you encounter one bit of irony after another. Bizarre is the kindest word I can think of to describe the harsh critique offered at their seminary’s recent symposium of Matt Harrison who wrote

I am convinced that there is an overwhelming explicit and implicit mandate for mercy as a corporate churchly task, inherent in biblical Lutheran theology.”

The author, one Tom Nass, chided Harrison for this “social gospel, and says of Harrison

Where is this mandate? As we have seen, it is not in the commission passages, nor in the apostles’ description of their work, nor in the Lutheran Confessions. I agree with Armin Schuetze: “Claiming the church is to provide ministries and services for all the needs of ‘the whole man’ places upon it responsibilities that go beyond Scripture and sidetrack it from its saving mission and the means entrusted to it by God.” [50]

Ironic in that it is Schuetze, as well as Wisconsin’s doctrinal statements, who cite the charitable act of food distribution in Acts as their sedes doctrinae for forms of the ministry! For its part, Wisconsin has invested much into its social efforts aimed at growing the church. One highly touted mission offers Starbucks Coffee and Krispy Kreme doughnuts and for those who are bored by church, they promise “fun” in learning about God. (“You learned about God, Uzzah. Having fun yet? Krispy Kreme Donut?”) Believe me, Missouri, this isn’t your grandfather’s reclusively oddball brother’s church anymore.

Summary

Our Lord Jesus Christ breathed out the Spirit from the cross in blood and he died. The stigmatized and risen Lord breathed out his Spirit upon the apostles this ministry of the New Testament in his blood. The completed sacrifice of the cross is the New Testament ministry in his blood justifying and absolving all from Adam to you and to me. This ministry did not begin in time at the cross or in the upper room as Schaller insists you teach. For the Lamb was slain from the creation of the world. The New Testament ministry in his blood was completed, instituted on the day, the holy Triduum of his death, burial and resurrection which fulfilled the New Testament in his blood by which we are crucified, buried and raised with him, the New Testament in his blood with which we are sprinkled with the aspergillum of the tongue, the New Testament in his blood which we drink. This one completed sacrifice was the substance of the Old Testament preaching and, dare I say, of its sacramental rites.

The New Testament ministry was instituted when Christ breathed out on his disciples, commissioned his disciples and instructed his disciples, go, baptize, teach, do this, forgive and restore. He did not simply repeat things but he completed things in blood on the cross which completeness covers all time, from the beginning of time to the end of time. This New Testament ministry was conducted imperfectly in regards to time in the Old Testament, completed in time in the New Testament and breathed out. It is an office given to the church, possessed by the church, filled by the church, judged by the church, accountable to the church, to serve the church. In it Christ is present among his people; it is a Christological office, a Christologically iconic office that is accordingly fenced.

Conclusion

On the surface and in practice the ministry of the WELS for the most part is often indistinguishable from the ministry of the LC-MS. In its literature you find orthodox statements as well as orthodox sounding statements. A haven for a beleaguered and weary Missourian? “Be forewarned before you swim the Mississippi, for to say that a VBS assistant was in the Office of the Holy Ministry 30 years ago would have brought guffaws of disbelief, today to say she isn’t will bring the discipline of district officials. Incarnate proof is here today.

Some, recently, have, as the 1948 Synodical Conference committee’s minority report on the issue, suggested there are just semantic differences between old mates and plead in Rodney King fashion “Can’t we all just get along?”[51] There are profound differences here and grave consequences as well. When everyone is a minister and everything is a ministry then the church’s mission is muddled. When those not properly and theologically trained assume the mantle of teacher (i.e. the proliferation of lay ministers [sic]) then the church is threatened, for the sole marks of the church, the preaching of the Gospel and the administering of the Sacraments are in jeopardy. For example, in a recent issue of Wisconsin’s lay magazine in an articled entitled “The Many Faces of Volunteering” the writer, a pastor, says of volunteering in the church’s multitudinous ministries “To have a meaningful relationship with the church and God, you need to be involved.”[52]

As you suspect Wisconsin Synod’s view of the Ministry of the Word confuses justification and sanctification. Indeed the Christological nature of the Office of the Holy Ministry is fading into the background. Recently one student embedded at their Seminary covertly reported that the editors of the Motley Magpie, whose bones are regularly dug up and burned, were wrong in stating that Christ speaks through the pastor. Rare these days in Wisconsin is an “in loco Christi” sighting.[53]

The title of this presentation was “The Office of the Holy Ministry (sic) in the Wisconsin Synod.” Now you know. Now you can judge my insouciant sic. In his apologetic published in Logia a rather sanguine and cloistered Tom Nass for his part writes

I would not be surprised if there are readers who have always imagined that the WELS is on the extreme fringe in Lutheranism when it comes to the doctrine of the ministry, based on impressions (or sometimes misinformation) that have circulated. As a person who has grown up in the WELS and preached and taught in the WELS, however, I have just the opposite impression. One could argue that the doctrine of This We Believe presents a wholesome middle ground that avoids saying more or less than Scripture on the topic of the ministry.[54]

That I argued the contrary finds me here today.

Thank you very much.

A New Year - A New Identity

2010-01-08T13:46:00.007-06:00

http://www.wels.net/news-events/forward-in-christ

It's a new year, and you'll notice some new things in Forward in Christ.

Probably the most obvious change is the new look. We've updated the inside pages as well as the cover with new styles, fonts, and photos. We've also added the synod logo and tagline, "Christ's Love, Our Calling." That message of love—from Christ to us and from us to others—is not new to FIC, but it is one that we will continue to communicate.

A Lutheran voice?

Reformation Restoration

2009-10-30T06:57:00.002-05:00

As we celebrate the Reformation, we take a moment to reflect on the power of the sacraments. The following article was published several years ago but has become even more relevant today.

Maybe we can post this on the church door.

The Art of Confessing the Sacrament

a look at Lutheran liturgical practice by James A. Frey

(This article was originally published in March of 2005 of the Motley Magpie)

It’s another one of those chicken and egg questions: What came first, bad doctrine or sloppy talk? And as with most chicken and egg questions the answer is, it doesn’t matter. Bad doctrine inevitably leads to sloppy talk, and sloppy talk inevitably leads to bad doctrine.

Because this is so, the art of confessing what one believes is an extremely difficult one. For not only must one say what is true, but he must say it in such a way that it cannot be misinterpreted. And that is no easy task. Indeed, it is one of the hardest aspects of the Holy Ministry in that it requires the minister not only to know the doctrine well but also to have a good command of the language. Yet even then many will attempt to twist and turn his words around so that they say and assert what they want to hear and not what he intended to say. We know how hard Jesus’ enemies tried to do this, and no servant is greater than his master. If they misused and abused his words, then surely the enemies of Christ will attempt the same with the words of his ministers.

Thus it is as I said, the art of confession is an extremely difficult one, and yet one that the minister of Christ must learn to do to the best of his ability, since sloppy talk leads to bad doctrine.¹ Nowhere has this proven to be more true than when it comes to the Holy Sacrament, which in a protestant country like America is constantly under attack. How we speak about it is a clear indication of what we believe about it, and what we believe about it is going to show itself clearly in how we speak about it. The purpose of this article is to compare certain ways people today are speaking about the Sacrament to the way Luther and our Lutheran Confessions spoke.

“The consecrated elements are bread and wine.”

To speak like this is perhaps more a matter of carelessness than anything else. For our Lord’s words as to what is distributed and received in the Holy Sacrament are simple and clear, “Take; eat; this is my body which is given for you…Take, drink of it, all of you; this cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” (SC). Thus in answer to the question: “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?” Dr. Luther rightly answers: “It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself, for us Christians to eat and to drink” (SC).

The Lutherans did not have a problem with the Romanists on this,² but with the Sacramentarians: with Zwingli, who saw the bread only as a picture of Christ’s body, and with Calvin, who spoke of Jesus’ spiritual presence at the Sacrament and not in such a way that we actually eat his true body and drink his true blood. And not surprising, it is their spiritual descendants today who consistently speak of the consecrated elements as “bread” and “wine.”

Now this writer does not wish to be accused of denying the presence of bread and wine in the Sacrament. And he readily admits that Blessed St. Paul at times spoke of the bread and the cup (1 Cor. 11:28), though he was careful to point out that they were in communion (koinonia) with Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor. 10:16). So to flush out the crypto-Calvinists who had infiltrated the Church in Luther’s day one simple question was asked: “What is the minister holding in his hand?” And if the person answered, “Bread,” then he was identified as a Calvinist and was promptly removed. ³

There’s the art of confessing in practice. It wasn’t enough just to say what is true, but it was to be said in such a way that it could not be misunderstood. No Lutheran denies the presence of bread and wine in the Sacrament. But confessional Lutherans realize that it is not the bread and wine that make this a Sacrament. It is Christ’s true Body and true Blood distributed to us by the hand of his minister, for us Christians to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins, salvation and eternal life. Therefore, when speaking of what has been consecrated, we say it best when we stick to the simple words of our Lord, “This is my body… This cup is the New Testament in my blood.” ⁴

Moments

A favorite tactic today is to throw the invective “you’re setting a moment of presence.” Indeed, the Church of Rome, has gone so far as to fix the precise moment of this change, claiming that it happens after the “cor” in “Hoc est corpus meum.” Before that moment if the priest should not be able to complete the statement, it remains only bread and wine. But after he speaks that syllable, then the transubstantiation has taken place and what is on the Altar is now Christ’s body and blood.

Though some of them may deny this, receptionists also tend to fix a moment for the Sacramental Union. Together with their father Melanchthon, they narrow down the presence to the communicant’s reception of the elements, and eliminate the consecration as the means through which Christ effects the Real Presence, reasoning that there is no sacrament outside of its use. ⁵

Historically Lutherans have not concerned themselves with fixing a moment, for to do so is to fall into the trap of trying to logically explain the inexplicable. Instead, listen to what our confessions have to say on this matter:

For the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ, which he spoke in the first institution of the Supper, were not only effective in the first Supper; they remain so. They retain their validity and power and are still effective, so that in all places in which the Supper is observed according to Christ’s institution and his words are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed and received on the basis of the power and might of the very same words that Christ spoke in the first Supper. (Emphasis added) ⁶

And quoting Luther they say,

This command and institution of his has the power to accomplish this, that we do not distribute and receive simple bread and wine but his body and blood, as his words indicate: ‘This is my body, this is my blood.’” (Emphasis added) ⁷

Once more,

In the administration of the Holy Supper, the Words of Institution are to be clearly and plainly spoken or sung in the congregation, and in no case are to be omitted… so that the elements of bread and wine are sanctified and consecrated in this holy practice whereby Christ’s body and blood are offered to us to eat and to drink, as Paul says (1 Cor. 10:16): ‘The cup of blessing that we bless…’ This of course takes place in no other way than through the repetition and recitation of the Words of Institution. (Emphasis added) ⁸

To sum this up, while Lutherans refuse to fix a moment as to when the Union takes place - and even believe it foolish to do so - nevertheless, we believe, teach and confess that because Christ does not and cannot lie, when he through the voice of his minister says, “This is my body,” then it is his body. We don’t know how; we don’t know when. We just know and believe that it is.

Perhaps this would be a good time also to discuss the question of the reliquiae, what to do with the body and blood that are left over. Are we to just throw them back in with the unconsecrated, as if they are no longer Christ’s body and blood?

Why the obsession with fixing moments? Just as our Lord was silent as to when the Sacramental Union takes place, so he is silent as to when, or even if, it ever ends. Those who deny this statement I challenge to show me where he does.

What I can relate to you is how Dr. Luther dealt with one Simon Wolferinus, who, being a disciple of Melanchthon, was found mixing the consecrated with the unconsecrated. It is reported that such a practice caused Luther “great grief” and that he labeled it “a scandal.” Finally, he felt compelled to ask this man if he wanted to be considered a Zwinglian and even suggested that he was perhaps afflicted with the insanity of Zwingli. And what did the great Reformer instruct in regard to the reliquiae? “Therefore see to it that if anything is left over of the sacrament, either some communicants or the priest himself and his assistants receive it, so that it is not only a curate or someone else who drinks what is left over in the chalice, but he gives it to the others who were also participants in the body of Christ.” ⁹

What of shut-ins? Can they be regarded as part of these “others” who are to consume the reliquiae? I see no reason why not. Indeed, this would include them in the Service that they are not physically able to attend and quite frankly is to me much more in accord with what Luther proclaimed as an appropriate practice than simply putting them back in with the unconsecrated, which Luther clearly saw as encroaching Zwinglianism.

The Distribution Formula

For all my life the churches of which I have been a member, have used for their distribution formula the Words of Institution, and yet a study of this practice reveals that it is of relatively recent origin, and that it originated in the Union Churches of Germany! Indeed, it became a compromise to the members of these churches, as the Reformed could take these words in light of their false interpretation of them - that Jesus is spiritually present, and the Lutherans in light of their literal meaning: “This is Christ’s body and blood.”

But once again, I direct you to the art of confessing: that one must not only say what is right but say it in such a way that it cannot be misinterpreted. For that very reason we at St. Paul’s Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Belleville observe, and most appropriately so I believe, the old formula of distribution that was in use in Luther’s day and is still in use throughout most of Christendom today. It is as follows:

The Pastor holds the consecrated Host before the communicant’s eyes and says: “The Body of Christ.”

The communicant may respond as a confession of faith: “Amen.”

The pastor then puts it into his mouth, saying: “Given for you.”

After which he holds the consecrated Cup before his eyes and says: “The Blood of Christ.”

Again, the communicant may respond in agreement: “Amen.”

The pastor puts it to his mouth, saying: “Shed for you.”

Let’s face it. No Zwinglian or Calvinist can accept such a formula, for it states in such a way that cannot be misinterpreted what is distributed in this Sacrament, the body and blood of Christ given and shed for you.

Women Communing Women???

It’s a question that is being asked by some within the WELS, and how it is being answered makes me wonder if we are not leaving the door open for women pastors in the future. Here’s what Blessed Dr. Luther had to say about this and about passages like 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim 2,

For to the pastor is committed the pulpit, baptism, the sacrament (of the Altar), and he is charged with the care of souls… A parish pastor can claim that he possesses the office of the ministry, baptism, the sacrament, the care of souls, and is commissioned, publicly and legally. Therefore the people should go to him for these things. (Emphasis added) ¹⁰

Also,

The church is recognized externally by the fact that it consecrates or calls ministers, or has offices that it is to administer. There must be bishops, pastors, or preachers, who publicly and privately give, administer, and use the aforementioned four things (preaching, baptism, communion, the keys) or holy possessions in behalf of and in the name of the church, or rather by reason of their institution by Christ, as St. Paul states in Ephesians 4(:8), “He received gifts among men…” – his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some teachers and governors, etc. The people as a whole cannot do these things, but must entrust or have them entrusted to one person. Otherwise, what would happen if everyone wanted to speak or administer, and no one wanted to give way to the other? It must be entrusted to one person, and he alone should be allowed to preach, to baptize, to absolve, and to administer the sacraments… ¹¹

And what of women? The blessed Reformer continues:

But in the congregations or churches where there is a ministry women are to be silent and not preach (1 Tim. 2:12). Otherwise they may pray, sing, praise and say “Amen,” and read at home, teach each other, exhort, comfort and interpret the Scriptures as best they can. ¹²

And even more succinctly:

It is, however, true that the Holy Spirit has excepted women, children, and incompetent people from this function, but chooses (except in emergencies) only competent males to fill this office, as one reads here and there in the epistles of St. Paul that a bishop must be pious, able to teach, and the husband of one wife - and in 1 Corinthians 14:34 he says, ‘The women should keep silence in the churches.” In summary, it must be a competent and chosen man. Children, women, and other persons are not qualified for this office, even though they are able to hear God’s word, to receive baptism, the sacrament, absolution, and are also true, holy Christians, as St. Peter says (1 Peter 3:7). Even nature and God’s creation makes this distinction, implying that women (much less children or fools) cannot and shall not occupy positions of sovereignty, as experience also suggests and as Moses says in Genesis 3 (:16), “You shall be subject to man.” The gospel, however, does not abrogate this natural law, but confirms it as the ordinance and creation of God.¹³

And lest you write all this off as a man who couldn’t fully rid himself of his papistic past or whose writings are not confessional, I conclude with this simple statement from our confessions:

Because Dr. Luther must deservedly be regarded as the foremost teacher of the churches that subscribe to the Augsburg Confession, since his entire teaching in sum and content was set down in the articles of the Augsburg Confession and presented to Emperor Charles V, the actual intention and meaning of the Augsburg Confession should not and cannot be derived more properly and better from any other place than from Dr. Luther’s doctrinal and polemical writings. (Once more, emphasis mine) ¹⁴

Something to think about, seriously. §

The Reverend James A. Frey is pastor of St. Paul Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Belleville, Michigan.

Kind opts out

2009-09-25T07:09:00.002-05:00

http://www.jsonline.com/news/

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind's decision to stay out of the 2010 governor's race came after a poll showed that few Wisconsinites knew him, Democrats said Thursday.

WELS members could face-off in battle for WI govenor

2009-09-02T18:54:00.005-05:00

Two WELS members with differing worldviews could could square off against each other for the office of Wisconsin governor.

Mark Neuman -
http://markforgov.com/
www.issues2000.org

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Kind

http://www.wsaw.com/politics/headlines/53430922.html
http://www.ontheissues.Ron_Kind.htm

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will a WELS pastor lead the state legislature in prayer?

If my wife doesn't follow my lead and vote for my WELS candidate of choice is she sinning?

Homerun

2009-07-28T08:27:00.003-05:00

I finally had time to listen to President Schroeder's address. I believe he hit a homerun tie tge score. He made continual reference to being a confessional Lutheran church body. It made me wonder if he is a Confessional crusader. You could tell his staunch position against the Church and Change crowd. Practice does influence doctrine.

It is unfortunate that the elected VP is a supporter of Church and Change.

Pres. Schroeder also laid out the financial disaster that faces the WELS. It will be interesting to see how the rest of the convention goes. Right now it looks like the score is tied.

Oktoberfest papers

2009-07-23T18:12:00.001-05:00

Dear Mr. Administrator,

Sorry to interrupt this thread but it seems that it has come to its usual end. I was alerted a while back to a thread on the Oktoberfest conference held in Kewaunee, IL last October at which four former, now LCMS, members spoke. They were asked to give presentations on four topics which usually enter into the "differences between the WELS and LCMS" discussion.

The Bailing Water thread was quite entertaining! You might want to reread it. Anyway, two of the papers were just posted on the Motley Magpie web site. www.motleymagpie.org

Only those presentations which were given by Motley Magpie editors are posted there as they are the only ones to which we have rights.I thought, since you were looking to post them, that you would give us this plug on your site, especially in light of the calumny which we suffered on this site (which we quite enjoyed, miscreants that we are!)

Of all the comments posted on that thread discussing our motives etc. there were several that actually spoke the truth, the following:"They [the Motley Magpie types] call themselves catholics!""Ditto.

They talk about the Mass and private confession and call themselves 'father.'"

And I might add, so do the Confessors!Pax vobiscum,

Rev. Father John W. Berg

Civil War in the WELS ?

2009-07-13T21:58:00.002-05:00

Greetings!

I've been following this blog since its inception, most of the time in general amusement, and often in perplexity. However, I have decided to weigh in on a comment I read recently - actually, a couple. The individual surmised that perhaps the WELS is heading toward a "civil war." Others then made reference to the incorrectly-named conflict among the states of the United States. As the Confederacy was in no way interested in taking over the U.S. Federal government - that conflagration was not a "civil war" per se, i.e. Wars of the Roses. However, what we're looking at in the WELS is a "real" civil war, or more correctly - we have already been at war for at least the last 20 years, with a good many small battles before that. The WELS is hopelessly (and I say that admitting that God can do anything) divided into 3 camps. One camp consists of the C&C folks and their hangers-on. Then there's another camp made up of the "Issues in WELS" men and various allies. But by far the largest camp is right in the middle, most of whom want little or nothing to do with the war at all. The battle is for the hearts and minds of this third group. The camp that convinces them that their way is best will win - pure and simple. I should add that there is a very small group who basically feel - "a pox on all your houses!" This then leads to my last observation concerning the comment about whether or not doctrinal issues will be dealt with at the convention. Most WELS Pastors, and a lot of laymen, know that the "real" actual work of the convention is done in the floor committees. In turn, the Presidium has pretty much carte blanche in deciding who chairs these groups and also their make-up. Thus, if the SP has done his work well - and I believe he has - the issues will be dealt with in those meetings, and the memorials which come out of those committees will tell the tale. Also, the recent Ad Hoc Committee obviously dealt with doctrine and practice and called it like it is. I believe the same will be true in the floor committees. Regarding elections: The C&Cers are on the run and hoping to get a man they can depend on into the 1st VP slot. As to finances, it really won't matter too much what is decided since our nation's leaders will continue horrible policies and the economy will not recover any time soon - with the result that more cuts will be needed anyway, regardless of how the convention goes.So, in short, a nasty little quiet war has been raging in WELS behind the scenes for decades. While LCMS and ELCA often do their fighting out in the open, that is seldom, if ever, the case in WELS. I don't see any reason for this pattern to change. I seriously doubt any group will arise at Saginaw and "walk out" of the synod, and I don't think any group will be "thrown out" either. Thus, it may look to many as though very little was done. But I believe our SP will most likely get 75 to 80% of what he needs done, and we will be on our way to fixing many problems that have accumulated over the past 20 years. From my keyboard to God's ear!

Deo Vindice!

Fr. Spence

New Blog

2009-06-25T15:50:00.002-05:00

I would like to share with you a new blog that has entered the arena.

http://freddyfinkelstein.blogspot.com/

I think that it is important to invite more voices into the discussion. This summer could be a pivotal point in Lutheranism as a new direction maybe chosen.

An open letter to WELS laymen in advance of the synod convention

2009-06-22T15:17:00.003-05:00

The letter below was sent to me for discussion...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Dear Friend in Christ],

[A number of folks] and I have been corresponding for some time regarding pressing issues of Church Practice in the WELS, issues which are potentially revealing doctrinal disunity, and which with all certainty, are going to surface during the 2009 WELS Synod Convention. Although I doubt these issues will be agenda items, they will undoubtedly surface in conversation among laymen, in committee discussion, and possibly in floor discussion resulting from committee reports, motions or even Memorials. I have been in contact with many individuals across Synod. I know that these topics will be raised, whether on the agenda proper, or not. Indeed, one internet source has proclaimed, "This 2009 convention will be the great divide. The laity will have to do their share -- and more than their share -- to move toward sound doctrine."

[Someone] informed me that he had briefly spoken to you regarding these issues, and he has asked me to share these issues with you by having me to forward to you pertinent information. There is a lot of it. I hope you don't mind reading. I will list the internet and attached document sources below, in order, providing a developing picture of the issues. My intent is to provide you with a reading of source material so that you can come to your own understanding of the gravity of these issues, can develop your own opinions, and be prepared for what may well be one of the most important Conventions since the amalgamation debate. I will provide an overview, and then only brief summaries for each source I link to.

Summary

Briefly stated, there seems to be a growing rift in our Synod's unity resulting from decades of tolerating the aberrations of the "Church Growth Movement" (CGM). While those who have imported these teachings from sources in greater American evangelicalism, and have promoted them among us, claim to have "cleaned them up" and "made them Lutheran," the damage created by these teachings is now surfacing in the form of divergent and sectarian practices within our congregations, especially worship practices, which are in turn not only exposing possibly divergent theological convictions of those in WELS who engage in these practices, but are most certainly exposing our people to heterodox perspectives as the practices themselves teach them, are watering down our public confession as our distinctiveness from the sectarians becomes less acute, and are eroding the consistency of our Fellowship standards, and thus also the firm testimony against doctrinal error that Fellowship is intended to communicate. This trend has not gone unnoticed by Synod. As a result of growing, and vocal concern, the WELS Council of Presidents (CoP) has recognized such influences among us, declaring under the "Doctrine" heading of its January meeting minutes:

5.D.03 Establishment of "non-traditional" ("new style") congregations We feel that the underpinnings of this "non-traditional" type of worship cannot be ignored. We also feel that the issue is extremely complex and will take great care to be careful to walk the "narrow Lutheran road" between legalism and ignoring and failing to admonish where practices are contrary to or a danger to the principles of gospel proclamation and the efficacy of the means of grace. We move that an ad hoc committee be convened that can study and address this issue and produce a study document that can be shared with circuits and also congregations for study and careful evaluation of practices in worship, sacraments, outreach, organization, music selection, etc. Motion carried.

5.D.05 C & C and outside speakers We recommend that our Synod President and District President(s) continue to work with the representatives of Church and Change to come to an understanding of our desire for them to withdraw their invitation to the speaker proposed for their next conference.

The speaker referred to by the CoP, in 5.D.05 above, is Baptist "Church Growth" expert, Ed Stetzer -- and this specific issue has been a lightning-rod of controversy in the WELS for almost a year. But this is nothing new for the group Church and Change (C&C) -- an external group of WELS laymen, pastors, and theologians who seem to thrive on such controversy. In 2005, they invited the Methodist "Emergent Church" expert, Dr. Leonard Sweet, to instruct them, in order to disseminate his advice directly to WELS congregations through their organization. C&C was asked at that time by Synod to cancel their Conference because of their invitation, but C&C ignored this request. Because of the political positions in Synod occupied by those associated with this organization, C&C seems to have had free reign to "largely ignore them" (a quote from one of the papers I source, below). This year, it seems, they have finally been effectively pressured to "uninvite" the heterodox teacher, Ed Stetzer, but it remains to be seen whether the inclination to invite similar experts has also been reversed. In addition, many of our wealthy members seem to have gravitated to C&C leaders, perhaps because of their celebrity status, perhaps because of the “success” that their meticulously researched marketing plans seem to guarantee. As a result, several individuals have set up large endowment funds to finance the efforts of C&C -- perhaps without realizing the theological compromises and dangers of the Church Growth Movement that they are supporting. The fact is, C&C and its constituency have been active doing this sort of thing for decades, exposing laymen to "Church Growth" theology/methodology by sponsoring trips to evangelical Mission events, like the Exponential Conference and the Drive Conference, by holding their own Conferences celebrating heterodox keynote speakers, by encouraging our pastors and professors to attend grossly heterodox institutions (like Fuller in Pasadena, CA) to learn and import these practices into our Synod, by erecting supporting power structures within Synod (the Board for Parish Services, for instance), and by ultimately implementing these -- often very expensive -- CGM practices in their own congregations and by encouraging others to do the same. The sad fact is, even the statistical measures by which CGM promises “numeric growth,” CGM has instead proven to be an utter failure in those church bodies that have believed in its statistical promises and practiced its methods over the past generation. No evidence of growth in the Church can be found as a result of the methods promoted by CGM. Even Barna Research -- a Christian research firm founded many years ago with the purpose of providing congregations with marketing data and various other forms of research as they seek to implement the methods of CGM -- has declared CGM a statistical failure, showing that over the past generation of its use in greater American Christianity, despite over $500 billion invested in CGM methods over the past 30 years, no evidence of growth is discernible. At most, all that can be seen is denominational shift. Barna, almost five years ago, publicly has given up on CGM. If you think that the decline in numbers we face in WELS today is bad, the fact is, American Evangelicalism is in precipitous decline, the youth are leaving in droves for either liturgical churches, for the open apostasy of the Emergent Church (which seems to be overtaking Evangelicalism), or for nothing at all, and the ineffective Church Growth missions and mega-churches are closing down. CGM, far from helping, has ruined Evangelicalism in America. It has ruined most of Lutheranism in America, and threatens us, now.

Many are tempted to say, "Since false teaching is not tolerated among us, the 'Church Growth Movement' must be orthodox." The first problem is that CGM falsehoods are subtle yet insidious, and when cloaked in otherwise wholesome evangelical zeal, these subtleties (which expose horribly false foundations when they are closely examined, such as the decentralization of the Marks of the Church and the replacement of the Means of Grace with the means of man) are easily overlooked. The second problem is that CGM, in order to bring about the results it promises, requires an organizational power structure, and creates this power structure for itself as its "programs" are carried out. Thus the vaunted role of Parish Services. The Church Growth Movement has transformed WELS into a political institution (this is shown in one of the papers sourced, below). The fact is, several of our pastors and theologians have reportedly come out against the errors of CGM, and as a result have been forced out of their positions and parishes through political pressure. Others have left for reasons of conscience. Reportedly, many pastors are reluctant to say anything as a result. But the struggle continues. One of the papers sourced, below, is a paper received by the 2008 Michigan District Convention -- a sweeping condemnation of CGM, and a call to repentance issued to those who have been deceived by it.

What follows is a listing of the sources I have found compelling, and which I invite you to read in order to be up to date on the issues as they are being considered today, and in order to understand how the "Church Growth Movement" has negatively impacted not only doctrine and practice and created division in our Synod, but is in large part responsible for our current financial situation (outside of ambient economic conditions that effect everyone equally, that is).

The Details

What is the "Church Growth Movement?"

Read the attached paper, Tendrils of the Church Growth Movement. (also reproduced online, here)

This is the paper that was delivered to the 2008 Michigan District Convention. It was commissioned by the MI District Convention in 2003, and represents five years of research by a team of WELS pastors and laymen. Presented in 2008, it is a comprehensive analysis, and sweeping condemnation, of the "Church Growth Movement." As I understand it, Rev. Aaron Frey (who was principal author of this paper), is active on C&C lists calling "Church Growth" adherents to repentance. He has been doing this for a number of years now, but it is unclear if there has been any change of heart among them.

The Plague of "Contemporary Worship" and the Role of the Lutheran Confessions

So-called "Contemporary Worship" is one of the hallmarks of CGM theology/methodology. In order for man to "grow the church," he must make it inviting for the unregenerate, by presenting worship in a way that is entertaining. It is easy to promote among us, since the prevailing thought is that "worship practice is adiaphora without qualification." The fact is, there are bounds to worship practice -- Scriptural bounds which are elucidated in our Confessions. The Lutheran church, as our Confessions inform us, is not only evangelical, it is also catholic, apostolic, and orthodox, and these facts underly the use of traditional hymnody and liturgical forms. Worship practice is not merely and entirely a matter of personal choice. Among the leading voices against the "Church Growth Movement" in WELS is a layman who writes under the name of "Freddy Finkelstein." He has contributed mainly to the blog, Bailing Water, a blog created and maintained by another WELS layman that is dedicated to discussing issues in Confessional Lutheranism, particularly in the WELS.

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2008/11/traditonal-service-contempo-service-rob.html

Read Freddy Finkelstein's post in response to "Ben." The links he provides to other blog entries and articles on Bailing Water are quite important, so follow those links and read their content. Some of the blog entries he links to are quite extended with commentary, so search these pages for "Freddy," and specifically read his contributions. Read the surrounding material too, if you've got the time.

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2008/10/reformation-and-restoration.html

Read Freddy's light commentary regarding Confessionalism, and his response to those supposed Lutherans who find the Lutheran Confessions irrelevant -- especially since they restrict supposed adiaphora in practice. Read also a full and authoritative Confessional assessment (by Rev. David Jay Webber, ELS) regarding Communion frequency, here.

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2008/10/crusaders-unite.html

Read Freddy's quote from C.P. Krauth's Conservative Reformation. It was reposted on Bailing Water (here) and elsewhere on the internet. Also in this blog entry, read Freddy's response to "Mr. Seeking Truth, not Hysteria."

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2008/12/christmas-miracle.html

Read the "extended reparté" between Freddy Finkelstein and Rev. Tomczak (WELS). Read the articles referenced by Freddy, as well -- especially the list of articles in his final comment.

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/01/anything-that-isnt-unbiblical-is-fair.html

This is an excellent commentary, as Freddy sounds off on an "alternative WELS church" that is running a coffee shop and calling it Divine Worship (now known on the internet as "Latte Lutheran"), and is then grilled by C&C Church Growth advocates. Worship is not a Means of Grace. Worship is not evangelism. Sectarian worship is not catholic worship. Profane amusements have no place in an Ecclesiastical worship setting. Etcetera. Of great benefit, is the old worship resource he points to: Dr. P.E. Kretzmann's 1921 book, Christian Art, in the Place and in the Form of Lutheran Worship (this is a full length book, worth perusing if you have the interest -- it is not necessary reading to get a grasp of the issues at hand).

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/04/they-sold-their-soul-for-rock-and-roll.html

This blog entry started off with a commenter warning of the inherently pagan nature of modern entertainments, and on this basis, questioning their use in the Divine Service. Freddy chimes in somewhere in the middle with two back-to-back posts, one addressing "Cultural Discernment" in our selection of forms, and the second, a lengthy quotation from C.P. Krauth defining the Confessional Principle, particularly "the independently normative nature of the Lutheran Confessions."

The Lutheran Church is a Liturgical Church, according to the Lutheran Confessions...

http://www.blc.edu/comm/gargy/gargy1/liturgical_church.html

This article is linked to at least twice in Freddy's commentary, above, but I link to it directly for the sake of this email, because I agree with Freddy regarding its importance and helpfulness. An anthology of statements from the Book of Concord, this article was compiled and edited by Rev. David Jay Webber of the ELS, and was published originally in 1992, in their theological journal, Lutheran Synod Quarterly. This online version includes an addendum that has since been included, indicating the suitability of certain Byzantine Rite liturgies in addition to the Western Rite, based on the recent experience of the Ukrainian Lutheran Church. Liturgical worship forms and traditional hymnody are antithetical to the objectives of the "Church Growth Movement," hence its insistence on so-called "Contemporary Worship". The Confessions very clearly indicate, however, that rites are necessary, that the liturgy belongs to the Church, not to individuals or to single congregations, and that catholic practice by definition is to embrace the expression of the Church, not that of the sectarians.

What is "catholicity"?

http://four-and-twenty-something.blogspot.com/2008/12/congregational-catholicity-pastoral.html

This is a good blog entry on Lutheran catholicity from a conservative LCMS pastor (Gene Veith pointed this one out on his blog). He starts out defining and describing catholicity, and indicates how it is manifest in both doctrine and practice (first several paragraphs). He then goes on to apply it to the specific political problems in LCMS -- which may or may not be interesting. This, in combination with the previous link and with Freddy's numerous quotes from C.P. Krauth, should provide clarity on this term regarding how it is used in reference to Worship practice.

What is "lex orandi, lex credendi"?

http://pastorstrey.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/lex-orandi-lex-credendi/

This is a blog entry from Rev. Johnold Strey (WELS), defining and defending the latin liturgical term lex orandi, lex credendi, which seems to pop up frequently in these discussions. He recently wrote an article that appeared in WELS' theological journal, Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly(WLQ), to which I link, immediately below. Another excellent resource discussing this phrase, and sound Confessional Lutheran practice in general, is a recent book by Rev. Klemet Preus (LCMS) entitled, The Fire and the Staff: Lutheran Theology in Practice. It is a very accessibly written book, suitable for consumption by laymen and clergy.

"Contemporary Worship" teaches that Worship is a Means of Grace

Read the attached paper, Proclaiming the Gospel in Worship. (accessible online, here)

This is the paper that Rev. Johnold Strey (WELS) wrote and which was published in the Fall 2008 issue of WLQ. It can also be accessed online via his blog, here. In it, he examines the worship practices of the sectarians, especially the phenomenon of so-called "Contemporary Worship" and insists that the false teaching of "Worship as a Means of Grace" is at the root of it. Freddy Finkelstein, in many of the links, above, observes this same fact. Not only is "Contemporary Worship" rooted in false doctrine, it teaches these same false doctrines through its use (lex orandi, lex credendi).

"Church Growth" is not Lutheran evangelism

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/01/calling-all-confessional-pastors.html

This is another Bailing Water blog entry, highlighting the recent sermon by Rev. Webber (ELS) in which he calls out and condemns "Church Growth" by name. More of our pastors need to do this. In the course of discussion, it became clear that there was confusion regarding how to interpret Christ's statements in the Great Commission. Freddy Finkelstein offered two posts, one of exceptional importance which explained the Great Commission, and further demonstrated how Church Growthers, for all of their evangelical zeal and despite the fact that they use the Great Commission as their clarion call, are in reality teaching and acting contrary to Christ's Commission.

http://web.me.com/trinityh/Site/LCMS_Convention_Blog/Entries/2007/7/15_Pastor_Henson_Blog.html

The issue of Evangelism is central to "Church Growth" theology/methodology, but it is a wrong approach to evangelism. One of the hallmarks of CGM practices is to turn the Divine Service into an Outreach Event -- to turn Worship into Evangelism. Freddy sounds off on this at length, multiple times, in the links, above (especially, here). But this is not unique to Freddy. It is a legitimate concern in greater Confessional Lutheranism. The link at the head of this sub-section is to "Day One" of Rev. Henson's (LCMS) 2007 LCMS Convention blog. His congregation memorialized the Convention, calling the LCMS to repentance for many of the issues also outlined by Freddy. One of these issues is the nonsense that "Worship is Evangelism." Read through "Day One" -- it is relatively benign -- and at the bottom, click "Next." It will take you to "Day Two." Read through "Day Two", etc., through "Day Five." Pay attention to "Day Three", however, where Rev. Henson points out that "[t]here are some in the LCMS who maintain that by 'natural knowledge' non-Christians can worship the true God, though they are not saved." This is the rationale used by Church Growthers to justify the ordering of worship around the preferences of the unregenerate. Needless to say, Rev. Henson's congregation left the LCMS. Many others have followed him, most recently, and notably, Rev. Heimbigner's Texas congregation (his bio is here). Most LCMS congregations who leave under these circumstances continue as independent Lutheran congregations.

The Political Nature of "Church Growth" in WELS

Read the attached paper, Fifteen Years Under the MOV. (also reproduced online, here)

This is a paper that was (presumably) written by Rev. Marcus Manthey (WELS) and delivered to an "Issues in WELS" conference in 2005, prior to that year's Synod Convention. He traces the development of Synod reorganization with respect to Strategic Planning efforts that are necessary for the "success" of CGM, and centered on the creation of the Board for Parish Services. This Board subsequently declared for itself in 1992 that "Parish Services has primary responsibility for carrying out the goals of the synod's Mission-Objectives-Vision Statement". Naming many of the names associated with the Church Growth Movement in our Synod, he examines their statements in light of the Scriptures, in light of the WELS Constitution, and in light of the scripture doctrines of Church and Ministry, and very politely deprives CGM advocates of sound foundation. He expresses grave concern over the unbiblical and unbrotherly centralization of power (which is called for by "Church Growth" programs), noting that it bypasses the local congregation and deprives the Pastor of his Divine Call. Further, he emphasizes, the creation and centralization of distinct power structures has transformed WELS into a political animal, into something that, twenty-five years ago, it was not.

Read the attached paper, Reflections, Concerns, and Questions about our Beloved WELS. (also reproduced online, here)

This is a letter written by Rev. Kurt Koelpin (WELS) in 1992. Originally meant for internal consumption among the clergy only, this letter has since seen fairly wide public dispersal. In it, Rev. Koelpin clearly recognizes aberrations caused by the Church Growth Movement in WELS, even at that time, and warns against them. Shortly after writing this letter, Rev. Koeplin suffered a stroke. In an apparent effort to protect the designs of CGM, its proponents in WELS allegedly responded by referred to Rev. Koelpin as having been “brain damaged” when he wrote the letter, and thus successfully kept his concerns from being regarded seriously enough to prevent CGM from advancing among us.

http://randomintolerance.blogspot.com/2009/01/promised-rant.html

In this blog entry "Random Dan" (a WELS layman of some connection, it seems), complains, first, about the C&C Ed Stetzer invitation, mentioned above. Then, he goes on to detail some of the internal politics involved in the recent call of Rev. Paul Kelm (WELS) back to the Board for Parish Services, to serve (again) as a BPS consultant. He was called from St. Mark in DePere, WI, where he was serving with Rev. John Parlow. For your information, St. Mark seems to be “the seat of Church Growth" in our Synod - "contemporary" or "new style" congregations in our synod almost universally look to St. Mark as their model. Other hotspots that I am aware of include southern Ohio, Texas, Arizona, and the West Coast -- with the leaven of "Church Growth" teachings working just about everywhere nowadays. In this blog post, Random Dan makes plain some additional issues. One of them is the infamous practice among "Church Growth" congregations of "borrowing" from heterodox sources, verbatim. Often, entire sermons are regurgitated nearly word-for-word, and heterodox "outreach resources" are used verbatim and without qualification. This has happened at St. Mark more than once, and even though these issues have been brought before their DP several times, nothing has been done. More importantly, in one of the final paragraphs of Random Dan's blog post, he points out that St. Mark DePere is a member of the Willow Creek Association (WCA). Read WCA's "About Us" section, and you'll see that WCA is an ecumenical ministry, and that its members are collaborators and beneficiaries of this ministry. Further, members are required to subscribe to WCA's Statement of Faith. WCA, in describing membership, states:

"While we do not oversee the ministry expressions of individual churches, WCA Membership is intended solely for churches that hold an orthodox understanding of biblical Christianity. All WCA Member Churches have affirmed the central doctrines of the Bible reflected in the WCA Statement of Faith and also presented in the historic creeds of the Christian faith. WCA Membership is open to churches of any size or denomination that are marked by a deep commitment to furthering the cause of Christ."

St. Mark stands in "ministerial association" with WCA, and is in clear violation of the Bible's teaching on Church Fellowship (and, yes, their membership in WCA has been widely reported and is well-known in WELS). Their union with WCA unites the congregations of WELS with all "Christian groups" in WCA (this is called pan-unionism), including the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, the ELCA, LCMS, various Reformed and pop-church Evangelical groups, and Pentecostals. In addition, there are Unitarian congregations (congregations that reject the teaching of the Trinity) which are also members of this Association -- if you recall from the Athanasian Creed (which we confess without reservation) such congregations cannot be regarded as Christian. St. Mark unites us in fellowship with them. Click here to view all of the churches on the WCA roster. The commentary accompanying Random Dan's blog entry illustrates the purely political nature of continued tolerance toward St. Mark, and other WELS congregations who follow them.

http://together.wels.net/2009/1/19

This is President Schroeder's 1/19/2009 entry on the WELS Insight blog, a WELS news service, in which he addresses the resolutions of the CoP, mentioned above. President Schroeder is a strong, confessional leader, and is, by all reports, working against the inroads of the "Church Growth Movement." Because of the institutional power structures erected by "Church Growth" advocates over the past two decades, this is by definition as much a political task as it is a Confessional and doctrinal one. He needs the help of the laity -- the WELS ministerium, while not powerless, seems to have been rendered impotent with reluctance or fear (apart from a few who are outspoken and bold). Here is an example of his attempt to communicate with the laity and build support.

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-kind-of-pastors-do-we-need.html

In case you hadn't received your February issue of Forward in Christ (and oddly, at mid-February, many people still had not received it...), you can read President Schroeder's article at the head of this blog article. Apparently, Bailing Water received an advanced copy of Schroeder's article, and published it online. It is tremendous, and represents a frontal assault against the "Church Growth Movement." Several C&C Church Growthers responded on Bailing Water by jeering at Schroeder, and at those who support him and sound Confessional Lutheranism in WELS. Several "Confessional Crusaders" responded by expressing relief, as if their job is finished. Freddy Finkelstein wrote two responses illustrating the doctrinal complexities involved, and indicating that the real work has only begun.

The Great Financial Cost of "Church Growth" Spending

Read the attached paper, The Kuske Report. (also reproduced online, here)

This paper is a research paper that Rev. Paul Kuske (WELS) wrote and posted on the "Issues in WELS" website in February of 2007. This site has been taken down (since the "Issues" were seemingly resolved with the change in Synod leadership), but the document is available from various individuals in WELS. This is the paper which exposed the extent of mind-boggling and irrational "Church Growth" spending and financial mismanagement that WELS has suffered over the past 20 years, and which is in many ways responsible for our Synod's current financial condition. It covers the same period of history as Manthey's Fifteen Years Under the MOV, above, and together they paint an interesting picture of how "Church Growth" power structures and financial control seem to go together.

http://together.wels.net/2009/2/16

This is President Schroeder's 2/16/2009 entry on the WELS Insight blog. While his article paints a bleak financial picture, he echoes key points made by Rev. Manthey and Rev. Kuske in the papers referenced above. Here are some excerpts (emphasis mine):

We are faced with the simple and painful fact that the level of funding available to support our synod's mission and ministry will be significantly less in the next two years than it is today. While support from congregations has been commendable and steady in these difficult times, expected support from other sources has dropped significantly. The blunt reality is that we will need to reduce our synod's budget by approximately $8 million, from about $38 million today to approximately $30 million in the next fiscal year. When the Synodical Council presents a balanced budget to the convention in July, which it is required by the constitution to do, significant reductions will need to be made in all areas of our synod's work.

...Our desire to proclaim the gospel to more and more people has led us to adopt ambitious plans across the synod. That is a noble goal, but we have often looked to support those plans on anticipated gifts from foundations, individuals, and other sources. We are now in a situation where some of those large gifts have been suddenly reduced. As commendable as our plans may have been, we simply do not have the financial means to continue at the same level as before.

...the Synodical Council will not simply be wrestling with the short-term reduction in the budget. It will also be looking to the need for providing long-term stability to our finances. The Synodical Council will be considering at least one proposal to achieve this goal. This proposal for long-term stability will not enable us to avoid difficult cuts now, but it will seek to provide a new approach to budgeting and planning that will greatly reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future. One main element of the proposal is a commitment to planning our ongoing ministry based primarily on our most stable source of funding (Congregation Mission Offerings) and using large donations from other sources for one-time or limited-time programs.

The first paragraph I cite, above, is a straightforward high-level explanation of the reality. However, the second paragraph I cite admits that the funding priorities and methods of Church Growth have gotten us to our current situation (as the The Kuske Report obviates), and the final paragraph I cite indicates the currently favored solution as one which restructures budgeting and planning -- from one dictated by centralized Church Growth priorities to one reflecting our congregational polity. Elsewhere in Schroeder's article, he admits that sweeping Administration cuts and changes will need to be made, reminiscent of the concerns expressed in Manthey's Fifteen Years Under the MOV.

There are other, more salacious, internet sources detailing the massive costs of CGM methods, the extent to which many congregations in WELS have given themselves over to such ideas, and the willingness of our Synod's wealthy to underwrite these efforts through the establishment of external Trusts and Foundations devoted to the issuing grants for these purposes. It is too bad that this money, given in good faith, is used to support efforts founded on such ill-conceived financial notions as those expressed in The Kuske Report. Just because you build it, doesn't at all mean that they will come...

Conclusion

It is amazing that, in a church body such as WELS, which upholds purity in doctrine and true confessional unity, CGM has gained such a foothold among us, and now poses such a threat. After years of failed action in some cases, and of inaction in most other cases, Confessional Lutherans in the WELS stand exposed, organizationally, financially, ecumenically, and doctrinally. Today, there is a suggestive lack of unity in Practice among us as a result of "Church Growth" teachings/methodologies, a lack of unity that is, more-and-more, exposing a growing divergence of opinion among us regarding Scripture teaching. Left unaddressed and uncorrected, the result can only be a rank disunity of the sort tolerated in LCMS -- even celebrated among them in some quarters. Yet, it is tempting for our pastors, in an effort to emphasize our unity, to downplay the reality of these threats. After all, to admit the reality would only prove disturbing for lay members who may not have the capacity to fully understand or appreciate the issues, and would only erode confidence in their leadership and in the Synod's guidance. Regardless, these issues are real, they are serious, and they are going to surface one way or the other. I would encourage you to read the documentation above. Do so without interference from others, and draw your own independent conclusions. I would also encourage you to send this information, along with the attachments, to your fellow laymen, whether delegates to the 2009 Convention or not, that they, too, may be prepared for the 2009 WELS Synod Convention and will be prepared to respond to these issues as they may arise in their own congregations.

In Christ,

[Your Friend]

Open Thread

2009-06-16T17:58:00.002-05:00

I am happy use this post to expand our discussions. In this thread you may open discussion on synod cuts, convention proposals, the Anti-Christ, NWO, contempo worship, or any faith-based issue or concern.

I would ask that the discussion on UOJ remain in the thread below. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the semantics involved in that discussion.

Synod Convention

2009-05-26T13:46:00.003-05:00

I would like to point you to the official convention website for information regarding the upcoming Synod convention.

Convention-2009

Because of pressing duties, BW will be on a hiatus for awhile. You may post comments or provide unfiltered information as you desire.

May we remain ever-vigilant and soldiers of the cross.

Think You Don’t Like Ceremony? Think Again!

2009-05-21T12:21:00.003-05:00

Johnold Strey | May 20, 2009

think-you-dont-like-ceremony

Please, let us change the topic.

2009-05-21T11:48:00.001-05:00

------------------------------------------
Please, let us change the topic.

A relative was getting his vicar assignment from Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary. I watched the service on the web. The preacher, whom the bulletin said was a Prof. Hartwig did not preach the Gospel other than a passing reference or two to the word. He obviously then did not preach Christ crucified, in fact he went on at great length about the training of young ants by older ants, yes, ants. I learned more about ants than I did about Christ.

Is this typical of seminary prof's preaching (since this was a grand affair, I assume so.) If you don't believe me, check it out.

Oh, and as I heard from my relative, 11 seniors will not get calls.

Fabio

Called Worker reductions

2009-04-30T19:18:00.003-05:00

Massive budget slashing occurred last weekend. One has to wonder if all the grants to the Rock and Roll missions will be cut.

http://together.wels.net/2009/4/28

The Synodical Council (SC) met last Friday and Saturday to adopt a proposed budget that will be recommended to the synod convention in July.

President Schroeder

The WELS constitution requires the SC to submit a budget proposal that is balanced and in line with the anticipated financial support from all sources. A budget that would call for spending greater than anticipated support is not an option. The projected support for the next two years made it necessary for the SC to reduce the synod's ministry program by more than $8 million (from $38.4 million to just under $30 million). As it considered this situation, the SC was very much aware of the painful and difficult choices confronting us. It was clear that significant budgetary reductions in all areas of ministry will be necessary. Recognizing that, the SC made every effort to find ways to limit the size and scope of the reductions that will need to be made.

Some of these reductions will involve the loss of called and hired positions in our mission fields, at our schools, and at the Synod Administration Building. Since the boards and groups that oversee these ministries will be responsible for communicating with the called workers, congregations, and mission fields that will potentially be affected, the budget information in this communication is in summary form only; details will be released in the coming weeks. This will give those responsible the time to speak personally to those that will be affected. Complete financial information will be included in the Book of Reports and Memorials and will also be posted online.

They sold their soul for rock and roll

2009-04-17T13:47:00.001-05:00

TIMiAM said...

"This is why we can't use contemporary worship, it was designed by Enthusiasts to carry out the goal of Enthusiasm."

Agreed; yet I'll see your Enthusiasm and raise you Satanism. Anyone who is not capable of identifying the SATANIC roots present in contemporary musical forms is either too engrossed in the culture to notice or is willingly turning a deaf ear.

The former was the case in my personal experience. I always despised my parents for taking away my tapes/CDs for what they saw as inappropriate lyrics and for what I saw as their lameness. I always assured myself (and my parents)that I was capable of listening with a critical ear.

The documentary "They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll" changed my perspective entirely. Please search for this "Rockumentary" on Youtube. The full version is 10 HOURS long, which is a testament to the extent that pop/rock has been infected by satan.

I implore anyone with children, anyone who listens to and enjoys pop/rock music, and particularly those individuals who want to see more "contemporary" music in worship to watch this documentary.

If this doesn't challenge the way you think about what forms of music are appropriate for worship, then it will at least (hopefully) challenge what you download onto your ipod and what you are programming into your brain.

Ad Hoc Commission Report

2009-04-07T10:57:00.002-05:00

I would be interested in opinions on the recent WELS Ad Hoc Commission study (available from this page:
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2601&collectionID=1743)

http://together.wels.net/2009/4/6

I would hope that commenters would read and consider its recommendations before commenting.

Thank you very much!

Rule Breakers

2009-04-03T13:31:00.005-05:00

In a blog post below I mention how Rev. Jeske is promoting a Lutheranism that is encouraging leaders to be "Rule Breakers." A recent Jeske presentation was posted on Ichabod. In this presentation Jeske quotes the idea of breaking rules from a reformed author. Listen carefully to all of Jeske's words about Germanizing and Lutheranizing. The premise being promoted is that anything goes in worship.

Below is an editorial comment from Freddy Finkelstein about Jeske's friend Ski....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He's (Jeske) not the only one on record saying this, of course. I recently visited Ski's Drive '08 blog, and on his Day_5 entry, he has some very telling comments regarding "Rule Breakers," and the influence they ought to have in directing ministry.

Here's the link: http://web.me.com/pastorski/Site/Day_5.html

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. Our school kids would have loved it. I’m not sure that they would have believed that it was church though.

When Andy began his session. He started by saying that he was not going to follow his notes in the Drive ’08 Journal Book. Instead he was going to do something that he called, “Recent Random Thoughts On Church Leadership.” He shared 5 points and 5 takeaways. I think that he was at his absolute best this afternoon. Here are the 5 point & takeaways:

To reach people no one else is reaching we must do things no one else is doing. (Question: "What is the measure of 'reaching people not yet reached?'" Numeric Growth in the church? Numeric growth from among the unchurched? Who's to say that they haven't already been reached with the Gospel, and that the Holy Spirit hasn't been doing His work all along?" Stanley's first point, here, unquestionably arrogates credit for the Holy Spirit's work to Man and his efforts.)

Takeaway - Become preoccupied with those you haven’t reached as opposed to those you keep. This is easier said than done. (Church Growthers are not concerned with back-door losses -- just perpetual growth. It is part of the program. Those who stay for awhile and contribute, but later leave, are nothing but throw-away "scaffolding" anyway, according to Church Growth theories.)

Wow, it seems so simple. And yet so hard.

The next generation product almost never comes from the previous generation. (In other words, every new generation re-invents itself, makes its own mistakes, learns from them etc. In response to this, the single word "catholicity" comes to mind -- a word which a Church Growth sectarian like Andy Stanley would never think to utter or contemplate. The New Testament Church has made mistakes and learned from them for 2000 years. What has been handed down to us in terms of public practice is the result of trial and error over this entire period. Human nature has not changed over this period, making such wisdom entirely "relevant," especially given that it is primarily the nature common to all men to which the Church must address itself -- not man's culture, whimsical and fleeting as it is.)

Takeaway - Be a student not a critic.

What more can be said? How do we approach things? When things are different & involve change are we scared? Do we criticize or do we look to learn and implement? (What? Critical reception of change is necessary, especially among those publicly confessing catholicity and orthodoxy -- doubly so among those who consider themselves to be Berean!)

What do I believe is impossible to do in my field? But if it could be done it would fundamentally change my business. (Everything we are in Christ is impossible for man to accomplish -- this is the fundamental truth of our "business." Nothing we do can change this fact. The making of a Christian is a miracle from start to finish. It is the Holy Spirit's work, not ours. We employ His Means, according to the command of Christ, and the Holy Spirit does the rest.)

Takeaway - Pay attention to the people who are breaking the rules. (What rules? The "rules" of public practice handed to us in the Western Rite and embraced in the Confessions? The few strictures of public practice placed on us by the Scriptures? The voluntary and brotherly "setting aside of personal preferences" in favor of unity in practice? As if there isn't great enough freedom within these boundaries, now we are to regard them as "rules which need to be broken." The entire Church is called to a mind of adolescence by such statements, called to regard "The System" with disdainful suspicion, and to cast aside the sound wisdom of our fathers. Indeed, Church Growthers make a joke out if it -- "It's not your father's church, anymore!" But we are called upon in the Scriptures to exercise sound wisdom in our freedom. Catholicity offers such wisdom as it has been gathered over two millenia. Will the "unhistorical spirit of our times" cause us to disparage and forget such wisdom? Looks like it...)

Crazy sounding isn’t it? We can fight technology and change, but in the end it will pass us and we will become archaic and irrelevant. Not our Message, but the manner in which we present it. Who would have ever thought texting would be as big as it is? How about multi-site church? Video church? These are all things that have changed how we worship. (The use of "new technology" is not "breaking rules" of any sort. There is, however, great wisdom in exercising caution in our use of it, as certain usages may well carry us outside of acceptable practice. It is also unwise to invest in fads, but only in those aspects of "new technology" which are going to remain a fixture.)

If we got kicked out & the board brought in a new CEO what would they do? Why shouldn’t we walk out the door & then come back in & do it ourselves?

Takeaway - Acknowledge what is NOT working & own up to why you are unwilling to change it. (Again, what is the "measure of what is working?" Numbers? If a given congregation doesn't have what "central command" defines as "positive stats," then the Holy Spirit is not working? Hogwash.)

Some thoughts on this - rarely does the church (in general) get concerned about change until they run out of money. What if we asked some questions before it was too late? (As in, "Why are we spending so much money on needless changes?")

What’s in decline? (According to whose standards of decline? Why is all decline considered to be evidence of something wrong? At one point, as a result of hard teaching no less, almost all the disciples abandoned Jesus until only the original 12 were left. What a failure He turned out to be...)
Where are we manufacturing energy? In other words pretending something is important. An example would be if I continued to say that Bible Study was important, but never attended. I’m blowing hot air, “manufacturing energy.” I don’t believe that anyone wants to stand behind that or get involved in something like that.
Finally, when are we going to unearth all underlying assumptions? Sometimes, what we assume, is not the reality. Are we willing to dig to find out the truth or are we happy with assuming. ("Underlying assumptions," as in, "If my stats aren't 'good' then the Holy Spirit isn't working, and it's all my fault?")

When your memories exceed your dreams the end is near.

Takeaway - Don’t let success or momentum overshadow your vision. Keep the out front. (Again, what is success, and how does one know he has momentum? Given that it is "your vision" against which these are compared, I would assume measures of success and momentum are rooted in some aspect of man.)

How quickly can we be satisfied? How often do we look at things and say, “Well, it’s not great but it is better than such and such church.” Scary, but we sometimes fool ourselves into thinking like this. Some questions to ponder:

What the burden on your heart?
What breaks your heart?

(I stated above, "...rooted in some aspect of man." Yup. Look to yourself and into your own heart.)

That was it. After that Andy just ended and prayed for all the people there & for there ministries. As you can see from the pictures above, Buske & I got to get a picture with Andy, pretty cool. He is way down to earth. His wife Sandra was there also and she is just great. We actually got to talk to her a little more than Andy. You also notice John with the North Point member who played Bender in one of their sermon series called “Twisted”. The series was all about how Satan twists God’s Word. Finally, there is a photo of Buske & Todd Fields.

Declining School enrollment

2009-03-17T20:11:00.003-05:00

On the current WELS internet site, there is an article regarding the continuing decline in the enrollment in WELS elementary schools. The link is posted below.

http://together.wels.net/

Here is my question to you and the other users of this blog...

Over the past several years I have met several WELS families who, while financially able, prefer to homeschool their children rather than send them to the local WELS school.

Why is this, and is this at least partly responsible for the decline in WELS grade schools? I know it probably also has a lot to do with the lower birth rate among white families in general (which compose the majority of the WELS population).

Does anyone care to comment on what the short comings of WELS grade schools might be? One family I talked to, who actually send their children to a public school (although it is in a very nice section of town), said our local WELS school was too much like a one room school house, with multiple grades being taught by a single teacher.

Can someone else share their perception or experience with their local WELS grade schools?

Gods Blessings.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I have posted this as a new topic. I do feel that the 10% figure is a drastic decline. I would be interested in finding out what impact home schooling has had on enrollment.

I do know that in Lutheran schools there are effective teachers and there are teachers in Lutheran schools that simply followed the family pattern. I wonder if MLC is effectively addressing the needs of the Lutheran schools and teachers? I do know that the smaller the schools get the less attractive they become. This does not necessarily mean that they are becoming less effective.

There is a charter school push that is rising up in the WELS. It will be interesting to see what impact this has on enrollment also.

Making a stronger and clearer Confessional stand ?

2009-03-14T19:24:00.007-05:00

One cannot deny that over the last two years the tide of the Church growth movement has been slowed in the WELS. For the past decade the Church and Changers had free reign in the synod. Those that sought to discuss and question what was occuring in the synod were tossed out and others had to hide in the weeds. The battle continues and progress is slow.

The Church and Change crowd believes that the WELS confessional position has only been trying to Germanize rather than Lutheranize people. A leading changer said that, "in order to get things done one has to break a few rules and look for mentors outside of the Lutheran circle." Yet this rule breaker is the current spokesperson for the WELS (although he only identifies himself with the WELS by saying that's "my tribe.")

This type of attitude leads a few pastors to take a trip down to see Stetzer and contract him for the next C&C conference. The grants are drying up and the battle lines have been drawn.

Can the WELS maintain its Confessional integrity?
1) by denying the importance of the Holy Supper,
2) tossing aside the Church calendar,
3) looking outside of Lutheranism for mentors,
4) funding the ministry of the Word with "alternative sources?"
5) ....

As we look to uphold our Biblical principles we must ask - is this wise? is this beneficial? is this brotherly?

Time of Grace - new hire

2009-03-02T13:41:00.006-06:00

Rev. Bruce Becker resigns to take a position at Time of Grace.

http://together.wels.net/2009/3/2/bps-administrator-hired-for-new-position

http://www.timeofgrace.org/

Interesting that this comes not long after Rev. Paul Kelm accepted a postion as a Parish Assistant at WELS headquarters

Wisconsin Lutheran College plans layoffs

2009-02-28T08:25:00.001-06:00

By Erica Perez of the Journal Sentinel
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/40462407.html

Posted: Feb. 27, 2009
Faced with a roughly $3 million budget shortfall, Wisconsin Lutheran College has notified 18 faculty and staff and two contract employees they will be laid off - a move that will eliminate the political science department at the small Christian liberal arts college, officials said.

Among those laid off are five faculty members, including the only two political science faculty and three educators in the theater, history and Spanish departments, college spokeswoman Vicki Hartig said. Altogether, the layoffs affect 10% of the workforce and will save $1 million.
College President Daniel Johnson said administrators were "mission-focused, market aware" in their cuts.

"We did a thorough review of our budget, and we looked at all . . . academic areas, and several objective criteria were used, one being demand by our students for a particular major or its courses, and we worked to minimize the impact on our students," Johnson said.

Wisconsin Lutheran is among a growing number of colleges and universities facing tough choices amid a national recession. Beloit College announced in fall it would eliminate 40 employees to make up for a drop in enrollment and a $1 million deficit.

Wisconsin Lutheran officials learned in December that donations would be down by an estimated $3 million, Hartig said. That's 9% of the college's revenue, according to the 2008 annual report.
The college tried to avoid layoffs by trimming special events and contracts, but it wasn't enough. Trustees voted this month to approve the staff reductions, which are effective in May.

Wisconsin Lutheran officials did not provide names of the employees being laid off. But associate professors Jerry Poppe and John Freese are the only political science faculty, according to the school's Web site. Assistant professor of theater Chris Kurtz said he was one of those tapped to leave. Other faculty members declined to comment or did not return calls.

The cuts are already reverberating on the 700-student campus. Students and alumni have expressed opposition, including launching campaigns through Facebook.

"This is for all of those WLC Poli Sci Majors who won't let it go down without a fight!" one 50-member page reads. Another page urges students to write letters to Johnson and board members.

A "Save Our Profs" page boasts 166 members and includes messages from students, parents and alumni upset with the way the college handled the decision.

Hannah Picchiottino, a 2006 alum who majored in political science, wrote a letter urging administrators not to shutter the department.

"My greatest fear in WLC losing the Political Science Department is that future WLC Warriors will not have the opportunity to learn about the responsibility that Christian leaders have to participate in our government," she wrote.

Five political science majors will have to change departments, Hartig said. Student Matthew Phillips, a junior political science major, said he felt blindsided.

"Here I am in my third year, doing my darnedest, and they kind of pull the rug out from under me," Phillips, 21, said Friday.

Phillips' new adviser told him he could finish his degree by taking courses in history or business, but that's not what he envisioned.

In other departments, the college plans to hire adjuncts to fill vacancies. School officials are unsure whether they will continue to offer a theater major, but they will keep a minor and continue productions, Hartig said.

Kurtz, one of three faculty members in theater, works on design and technical direction. He foresees major changes in the department, including reductions in technical classes or the number of productions.

After teaching at the college for four years, he has started looking for production work.
"I've loved it," said Kurtz, 36. "The rest of the faculty are fantastic, and the students are awesome. . . . I'm hurt, I'm sad, but I'm not angry."

Lutheran Schools ?

2009-02-26T12:05:00.003-06:00

As many Lutheran churches work to shed their Lutheran identity, it is interesting to see how quasi-WELS schools are following suit.

http://www.eagleprep.org/

http://www.thehopeschools.org/

Lutheran schools are dying. What I'm wondering is if Lutheran synods are dead.

WELS woes

2009-02-07T00:00:00.002-06:00

It seems the financial crisis has hit the WELS between the eyes. Drastic budget cuts are necessary and it will be telling for all as to what gets cut.

As financial gifts are pulled and school enrollments continue to drop the WELS staggers in response. Someone recently told me that the WELS will not exist in the way that we have known it in five years.

The synod president struggles to meet budget yet parish services calls a new consultant as the financial crisis unraveled.

Think back to almost two years ago when Rev. Mark Schoeder presented a vision for the WELS titled:
Reclaim the MissionA proposal to foster renewed unity in purpose and direction in WELS
Mark Schroeder May 16, 2007

Look back at this document and see if things are changing....

-----------------
5B. Re-visit synodical salaries and staffing
5B-1 Since many qualified lay people would desire to serve in the church if the opportunity were given, the synod shall adopt a policy that states that, as a general rule, lay employees of the synod will be compensated at roughly the same levels as called administrative workers, not at rates dictated by the secular market place.
5B-2 The salary of the president should be established by the synod in convention, not by the Synodical Council.
5B-3 We shall publish all salaries or salary ranges for all synodical workers; we shall publish regularly the number of positions employed in the administrative areas of the synod.
5B-4 We shall explore whether outsourcing work is an economical alternative to permanent staffing.
5C. Incorporate and coordinate para-synodical efforts into the overall priorities of the synod

Calling all Confessional Pastors

2009-01-28T22:06:00.005-06:00

I believe that President Schroeder has laid down the gauntlet. Behind every confessional Church is a confessional pastor.

Here is a recent sermon by Rev. Webber denouncing the CG movement:

http://www.lutheransource.net/Redeemer/jan2509.wav

I wonder if other WELS or ELS pastors are following the lead of Pres. Schroeder and speaking out against Church Growth from the pulpit.

As we look to continue this grass roots movement I ask laymen (or pastors) to please post any sermons or articles speaking out against church growth (church and change).

What kind of pastors do we need?

2009-01-22T13:29:00.003-06:00

As we may be approaching another crossroads in the history of the WELS I found the following article in the most recent FIC very interesting.

What does determine success? It would seem to me that we need pastors who proclaim the Word and uphold the sacraments.

For your contemplation and thoughts.... <><
-----------
How do you define success?
President Mark Schroeder

By most standards, his ministry was not much of a success.

Becoming a pastor or a missionary was never in his plans. In fact, it was the farthest thing from his mind. Preparing himself for a high-powered secular career, he attended a prestigious university. But sometime later, in spite of his reluctance, his mind was changed. God called him into the ministry.

From almost the beginning he was embroiled in public controversies and disagreements with his co-workers and fellow believers. He never stayed long in any one congregation. No matter where he went, there were those who had no use for him and who did all they could to make his life and work miserable. Often he would leave for his next congregation quickly, painfully aware that not everyone appreciated his efforts.

He never viewed himself as a particularly gifted preacher; he often stated that he was not up to the task either in terms of his speaking skills or his ability to craft well-reasoned and logical arguments. He looked at his own personal failures and remarked to himself and others that he was not worthy to be doing this work. He struggled continually with some kind of ailment, either mental or physical or spiritual, that made his life and work difficult (although he didn’t mention what it was). In one congregation he served, some of the members reinforced his views of himself, making it clear that they much preferred the pastor who followed him.

Throughout his ministry disagreements with co-workers would continue. They would argue and disagree about the strategy and direction that the ministry should take. Sometimes the disagreements were harsh and personal. Some of his closest friends and co-workers actually abandoned him when he needed them most.

One congregation seemed to fall apart shortly after he left, with members becoming tolerant of open immoral behavior, quarreling with each other, and easily adopting teachings and doctrines that were not true.

In the end, he died alone, and the world did not much notice.

His was not a very successful ministry -- unless you measure “success” in ministry by other standards. The pastor and missionary whose career had little going for it on the surface was, in fact , the greatest missionary that this world has seen. This pastor, judged to be a failure by any human standards, was the Apostle Paul.

Paul would agree that his personal abilities and accomplishments were few and far between. But he did not – nor should we -- measure the success of his ministry in those terms. This was the man who recognized that the words he preached were not his words; they were the words of God himself. He recognized that the power of his message was not in himself, but in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He had no desire for his ministry to be measured in terms of human glory or accomplishment ; his was a ministry of the cross, proclaiming that God’s way of saving people through the cross, while foolish to the world, was nothing less than the wisdom and power and love of God. Paul’s purpose was not to meet the “felt needs” of people, but to lead them to see their real need: the need for forgiveness and redemption from a Savior who bled and died on the cross. His mission was not to make the church grow in terms of numbers; his mission was to pummel hardened sinners with God’s law in all its condemning force, and to follow with the precious news of forgiveness bought and paid for with the blood of the Son of God. He knew that his role was to plant the seed with the Word of God and that others would water the seed the same Word. But his confidence rested in knowing that it was God and God alone who would make it grow.

What kind of pastor do you want to serve as the shepherd of your congregation? A powerful and dynamic speaker who draws people by the sheer force of his personality? Someone with fantastic organizational skills? Someone who is up on all the latest techniques for connecting with people? Someone who seems to be “successful?” Or would you prefer someone like the Apostle Paul: always preaching Christ, always pointing to the cross, always demonstrating a love for souls by faithful proclamation of law and gospel?

Success, I suppose, all depends on how you define it.

COP addresses important issues -- A prayer of thanksgiving for Pres. Schroeder

2009-01-19T19:37:00.006-06:00

What a blessing Pres. Schroeder is to the WELS.

-------------------------

http://together.wels.net/

The Conference of Presidents (COP) held its quarterly face-to-face meeting last week. Here's a recap of the most important matters discussed. Doctrine and practiceOne of the most important roles of the COP is to oversee doctrine (what we believe and teach) and practice (what we do in applying our beliefs). When it met, the COP had a lengthy discussion about the importance of retaining our unity in both areas.

Some congregations, in a desire to reach as many people as possible with the gospel, have been considering some new and different approaches and methods, especially in the areas of worship and outreach. Cautions and concerns have been voiced about some of these trends. Expressing the commitment to maintain our synod's faithfulness to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, the COP concluded that "the underpinnings of 'non-traditional' type of worship cannot be ignored" and that we need to be careful to "walk the 'narrow Lutheran road' between legalism—and ignoring and failing to admonish where practices are contrary to or dangerous to the principles of gospel proclamation and the efficacy of the means of grace."

As a result of this concern, the COP resolved that "an ad hoc committee be convened in consultation with the [COP] doctrine committee that can . . . address this issue and produce a study document that can be shared with circuits and also congregations for study and careful evaluation of practices in worship, sacraments, outreach, organization, music selection, etc."

Anything that isn't unbiblical is fair game

2009-01-13T18:26:00.003-06:00

“The most important thing is determining what it is going to take to reach people that aren’t coming to us,” says Hunter. “Anything that isn’t unbiblical is fair game. Let’s just try it! It’s up to our churches to step up and see what we can do to get the gospel out there.”

http://coffee hour is now church time

I thought readers might find this article interesting. Instead of going to the coffee house. Rev. Randy is bringing the coffee house to church. After the sermon the folks gather for a little coffee clutch.

If you look closely you don't find any mention of holding up the sacraments.

Planned Givers ?

2008-12-26T20:20:00.003-06:00

Below is question from a reader about planned giving counselors? You might recall about a month ago I posted about Rev. JD Liggett's annual plea for money. Maybe another reader can give insight as to the historical development of these "fund raisers."
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=828&contentID=557&shortcutID=14621

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the views of WELS having "planned gift counselors" to help write wills, etc. ? I am middle age, and I never remember planned gift counselors existing 35 years ago or so...

Sometimes I think it is a good idea; other times it sounds kind of like a "hard sell".

I think WELS has a lot of money issues, but I am not sure this is the solution...on the other hand, the younger generation does not seem to be making up for the older generation that is passing away.

Keep the Mass in Christmas

2008-12-18T18:37:00.002-06:00

We so often hear about the need to keep Christ in Christmas which is well and good. The focus of this season does need to be on the birth of our Savior. But what about the Mass in Christmas? On this the Nativity of our Lord what a blessing to have a church that celebrates the Holy Supper. The call to keep Mass in Christmas is what should ring out. The term "Mass" has fallen out of use in our circles (lest you be deemed a magpie). However, the confessions do refer to the divine service as the mass with the focus on Christ crucified and the Holy Supper. As pointed out below it is hard to offer communion when a church service is not even held. That Christmas morn Christ came in the flesh..."take and eat this is my body.."

I wonder if Ed Stetzer will be telling the WELS pastors to keep the Mass in Christmas?

"We do not abolish the Mass but religiously keep and defend. ... We keep traditional liturgical forms' (Apology to the Augsburg Confession, 24)"

A Christmas miracle

2008-12-05T19:20:00.004-06:00

The Christmas miracle is the birth of our Lord and Savior. Yet at some WELS churches it might be a miracle if you find the church doors unlocked. I am curious as to why a WELS church would not want to celebrate this holy day of Christmas with a divine worship service (with communion too). As some travel to church on this holy day we might just hear the women respond, "the church is empty."

It seems to me that this Holy Day should be set aside for the church family to gather and worship the birth of the King. Yet search a bit and you will see that the very WELS churches that don't admit they are Lutherans are the same ones following the evengelical trend of not having a worship service on Christmas Day. They love the pregame Rock show on Christmas eve but don't show up for the actual event on Christmas Day.

This trendy thing to do started in the non-denominational churches several years ago. These churches say they will meet you where you are. That is as long as you don't go to their church on Christmas Day.

Heb. 10.25 "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another-- and all the more as we see the Day approaching."

These Rock and Roll churches of course balk at the liturgy and the liturgical calendar. They scream we don't have to go to church on Christmas. We don't have to use the liturgy. We don't have to follow the liturgical calendar. Again the identity of the Lutheran church is lost as they follow the trend of the non-demonational church down the road.

Full disclosure ?

2008-12-03T16:51:00.003-06:00

I am wondering why the Church and Change group is not proudly and loudly advertising their upcoming conference with Ed Stetzer as the keynote speaker.

http://www.churchandchange.org/

Ed Stetzer has revealed on his blog that he is in fact coming to this conference.

Last spring a covert group of WELS pastors swam down to the exponential conference in Orlando. http://www.exponentialconference.org/

Not long after that Ed Stetzer was contracted to speak at the WELS conference.

The Board for Parish Assistance issued several calls for a consultant and finally landed a whale, Rev. Paul Kelm. The synod now must make drastic cuts due to a large budget deficit. hmmm...

Rev. Bruce Becker is asked to clarify a recent statement: http://together.wels.net/2008/12/1/clarification

So what is happening? All is not well in the WELS.

Justifiable concern

2008-11-29T15:08:00.003-06:00

Here is any interesting comment from a WELS blog: There is a concern — and I would argue a justifiable concern — that some segments within WELS are flirting too much with methodology that leave the proclamation of the gospel behind just so we get people in the door.

http://pastorstrey.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/wels-president-gets-issues-etc-thumbs-up/

Self-analysis and self-criticism for a church body, LCMS and WELS included, are healthy exercises these days when church growth methodologies abound and the gospel seems to be shrinking out of more and more pulpits and classrooms.

It seems that the concerns pointed out on this blog and elsewhere are justifiable and valid. It is interesting that Pastor's Strey's blog has not received comments about how "unloving" his concerns are. His concerns are shared by many. Yet during this economic crisis Paul Kelm was called back to 2929 as a leading Church growth expert.?. Ed Stetzer is still coming to Milwaukee next November. Mission churches have been asked to not hide their Lutheran identity yet the Rock and Roll churches persist.

It's re-energizing to read Pastor Strey's words and to especially note that Pres. Schroeder is going to make a confessional stand. But I wonder about a house divided.

A time for Thanksgiving

2008-11-26T20:13:00.002-06:00

It is time to pause and reflect on the blessings our Lord has graciously given to us. I am especially thankful that our Lord has provided a remnant of confessional Lutherans both pastors and laypeople for such a time as this. It is my prayer that the confessional voices have the courage to speak and those promoting Reformed practices would have the courage to listen. I pray that our church would be "different" than the culture surrounding us: a place of refuge and peace. I hope that those promoting Ed Stetzer might see that to be relevant to this culture we need to be different. We need to be a light shining in darkness rather than blending in with the non-denominational melting pot that Ed Stetzer represents. There needs to be a place for those who desire a confessional, orthodox, and liturgical church.

"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

Growing our churches

2008-11-22T12:34:00.004-06:00

This past week a group of individuals from over 30 "growing and thriving" WELS churches met in Milwaukee to discuss the various methodologies and activities that have seemingly led to church growth in numbers. http://pastorrickjohnson.blogspot.com/

I'm interested in hearing more about this analysis meeting. What was discovered? What have the rest of the WELS churches been doing wrong?

Freddy says

2008-11-17T19:35:00.002-06:00

Thank you for sharing Freddy...well put!!!

Freddy said...

Ben,

It is good that you are investigating these things. I take your posts to be those of genuine interest (and, I think, from one who has been exposed primarily to Church Growth perspectives). Much of what you bring up in your post has been directly dealt with, relatively recently, on this blog. I’ll briefly answer some of the points you make, and then forward you to several posts that deal with these points more fully. If my tone seems sharp, don't take it personally -- I am speaking to the ideas, not at you.

You Question: Are electric guitars evil? How about drums…

My Answer: In your statement you make the fundamental assumption that forms, including music and instrumentation, are amoral. This is a false assumption, and the liturgical principle of lex orandi, lex credendi informs us of this. You further (apparently) assume no distinction between Ecclesiastical and Secular forms, that they are (or ought to be) equally nothing but worldly reflections of popular culture. This is also wrong. Just as the Church is distinct from the World, so are its forms and its culture, reflecting our true citizenship in and of the Kingdom of Grace. Moreover, under these false assumptions, you draw the conclusion that popular forms taken from Secular pop-culture apply without negative consequence in an Ecclesiastical setting, that lyrical content alone constitutes the “substance” of worship. Again, this is wrong. Forms are of great substance, which is why we confess in AC XXIV that Rites are necessary to teach the people what they believe. The corollary is that we avoid practices that do not teach what we believe, especially those that overtly teach what we believe to be false. The fact is, “contemporary” worship forms, which Lutherans are increasingly guilty of borrowing from Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Pentecostals, including their music and instrumentation, have been carefully chosen and developed by these heterodox to teach their false doctrine – namely, Worship as a Means of Grace, and Religious Experience as Assurance of Salvation. Since, for them, overt zeal in worship is no small factor, the music they have developed for the worship setting is chosen in a calculated attempt to manufacture and manipulate powerful emotions. Worse, under a (now defunct) Church Growth paradigm, such forms have been further exploited to “draw the un-churched” by transforming the Divine Service into entertainment-grade performances, thus taking the focus off of Christ (christocentrism) and placing it on man (anthropocentrism). While many among us are becoming entranced and seduced by these powerful gimmicks, the rest of us are active sounding the alarm and feverishly working to reverse the damage, before we ourselves are compelled run in horror. Here are some previous entries from this blog that you may find interesting: Alternative Missions (or, Tim’s Debut) & Liturgical vs. non-Liturgical

You Question: What about the pure joy that people feel after hearing the Gospel? Is it sinful to express that joy during a service?

My Answer: Of course it is not sinful to express “pure” Joy in the Gospel! By asking this in the context of a defense for contemporary forms, however, you erroneously equate the use of contemporary forms with the expression of “pure” Joy. “Pure” Gospel Joy bubbles uncontrollably out of a true Christian, with or without musical accompaniment. In the context of the Divine Service, such expression is present in his Worship sacrifice (as it would be in all expressions of his faith), as he joins those with whom he shares Unity, and in unison with them confesses his faith and expresses his Joy and Gratitude in word and song. In such a setting, the emphasis in worship expression is not on the individual; rather, it is on the unified and corporate expression in which the individual takes part. This corporate expression, which cannot function outside of the context of unity, is guided by a liturgy addressing two parties, the Minister and the Congregation, and carries them together through the Divine Service, keeping them together centered on Christ, rather than themselves or the antics of others. An orthodox hymnody is essential support to the objectives of the liturgy, likewise is accompaniment to serve the liturgy and hymnody without interfering with it. Accompaniment should not be used as a catalyst for emotions which ought to already be present “purely” as a result of the Gospel, nor should it be allowed to develop into such a crutch for Christians in any congregation. In such a case, accompaniment replaces the Gospel, and is employed to artificially manufacture what true Lutherans place their faith in the Holy Spirit to produce through the Gospel alone. Here is a previous entry from this blog that you may also find interesting: Difficulty in Rooting Out Church Growth

You State: The world is diverse, therefore worship forms ought to be equally diverse (my summary from your first paragraph)

My Answer: You seem to be unaware of what our Confessions mean when they define Lutherans as “catholic.” By this, we certainly do not confess that we are “Roman Catholic,” but that we are a church which “remembers” and “imitates” (Heb. 13:7-9) those who have faithfully served the Gospel throughout the church’s history. Dr. C.P. Krauth describes it best, I think, when he declares that the church catholic thus represents the outflowing of 2000 years of Christian faith and practice into the present, and projects it into the future (in his context, he is speaking of the utter necessity of well-educated Pastors, fully trained in Church History and Classical Studies like Western Civ., etc., and that those without such rigorous training are not fit to be Pastors, because they are incapable of effective catholicity). And so, in terms of our Rites, our Confessions inform us that we use nothing that has not been with us since the earliest of times (and this excludes, of course, what may have existed in earliest of times, but has been since rejected and is no longer “with us” – such as supposed “Apostolic Rites” dredged up by those who despise the Western Rite). In context, this applies directly to the Western Rite, but by extension, also to modified forms of the Eastern Rite (which is also a catholic Rite). In terms of our hymnody, catholicity is an aggregate of expression from across all cultures over the history of the Church. And so, worship cannot be said to be “catholic” if historic forms do not dominate, especially if there is disproportionate representation from strictly “contemporary” sources or modes of expression. Since the heart of Lutheranism has historically been Germany and Scandinavia, it makes sense that hymns and musical settings from these parts of Europe will have greatest representation in orthodox Lutheran hymnody. Over time, this will (and has been) change(ing), as Lutheranism spreads and as influences of orthodox Lutheran expression from a broader cultural spectrum find their way into our hymnody. In short, practices derived exclusively from, or dominated by, either “contemporary” influence or “local culture,” are not catholic and therefore, not Lutheran.

Here is a useful article addressing this topic (along with others): Why is the Lutheran Church a Liturgical Church?Related to this point, you also seem to define “culture” as “what is contemporary” – which isn’t true at all. In fact, the reverse is true. Those who understand and benefit from culture are not so narrow as to insist that “culture” is what’s “contemporary,” but have and express an active knowledge and appreciation for what makes a culture what it is: its history. Thus, a cultured individual can appreciate a performance by local (contemporary) talent at the corner establishment on Friday night, can enjoy a Saturday evening Classical concert, and arrive at Church on Sunday morning eager to engage the Rites of the Divine Service in distinctly Ecclesiastical musical forms. A cultured person is one who understands and appreciates artistic expression for what it is in its native context, but doesn’t demand that all artistic contexts coexist in some sort of shared artistic hegemony, or worse, as a lowest common denominator of pluralistic equivalency. Those who make such demands are neither wise nor “cultured,” but ignorant and narrow.

The point is, the Church is distinct and separate from the World, just as the local bar (and the musical entertainment it provides) is distinct and separate from a concert hall. There is every proper expectation for the Church to have its own “other worldly” culture and forms of expression. On the other hand, it is individual Christians, in the Domestic Estate, who are in both the Kingdom of Grace and the Kingdom of Power, not the church; but, while we are in both Kingdoms, we are only of the one Kingdom, not the other. Our expression, including our forms, ought to represent this fact unreservedly and most pointedly – especially when we are on our home turf (at church, that is). Here is another pertinent blog posting: CG vs WELS ContemporaryIn your final paragraph you make the assumption that the Divine Service is, or ought to be, focused principally on Evangelism and/or Outreach. This is a false assumption and an abusive redirection of the purpose of the Divine Service that is being promoted by C&C Church Growth advocates. Evangelism is specifically not the purpose of the Divine Service, nor should any self-respecting Lutheran allow it to become the purpose of the Divine Service. The Divine Service, as a worship setting, is a forum in which the believer is focused on Christ and His completed work on our behalf, is guided in responsive expression that only believers can offer to God, and which climax’s as Christ is joined with the believer in a most intimate way, as he receives His Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins in Holy Communion. Reducing the Divine Service to (the now defunct theories of) Church Growth anthropocentrism, by refocusing the service on the pleasure drives of the unregenerate and concealing the Sacrament to spare them offense, is nothing short of tragedy. If you have followed any of the above links, you, no doubt, have already read the following, but I think it is worth repeating: “‘Any practice which elevates worship experience as an Evangelical tool, to a status anywhere near equal to the proclamation of Law and Gospel, is abusing both Worship and the preaching of Law and Gospel. Worship is a forum in which those with faith in the objective promises of God's Word offer their sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to Him on the basis of His completed work on their behalf. Those without faith have nothing to offer in such a forum. In fact, their offerings are offensive to God -- the Bible states directly that He turns Himself from such offerings, and rejects them. To draw unbelievers into the church on the pretense of worship experience is to sinfully draw them in on the false pretense of the efficacy of their worship sacrifice. The fact is, God hates the worship offerings of the unregenerate...’ Worship is not evangelism. Worship is what those with faith in the objective promises of God do, it is not what the unregenerate do, nor is it a forum which God has provided for them. We should avoid giving such indications in our worship practice.”

Just Trying to Help,

Freddy Finkelstein
November 17, 2008 4:47 PM

Treasure Trove ?

2008-11-14T20:54:00.002-06:00

Some of you are new to these parts. I would invite you to peruse through the older posts for some interesting reading, valuable insights, and some worthless comments.

Posted below is just a sampling of the treasure trove hidden inside BW. Of course, you will need to plow throught the muck to find the context of these statements:
----------------
#1 : ) I nominated 'Bailing Water' as the 2007 blog of the year. I said that you generated many comments and that you must be read by many persons.

Cheers,
Norman TeigenELS layman(I am not Mr. Anonymous)
------------------------
RTMM said...
The office is instituted.
-----------
C.L. Merts said...
If all of you are so scared of your synod, why are you still in it? "Come to the WELS" to live in abject terror of setting a toe out of line!?
------------------------------
Never, ever read Luther, Chemnitz or the Lutheran Confessions, you will be floored.

------------------------------
With the holidays fast approaching plus a wedding, I'll be brief, but you ask excellent questions. In all seriousness, I would recommend that you read The Motley Magpie (no, I'm not a relative of any of the editors, but I am a reader and really found it helpful personally). The editors dealt with many of the questions you have raised. They use Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions in their explanations and criticisms, which are very helpful to those of us who grew up not really being taught the Lutheran Confessions. Some of the back issues can be found at MotleyMagpie UP
--------------------

Rev. Fr. John W. Berg said...
Kind bloggers,

And if anyone would actually wish to discuss/refute etc. what we wrote, even show us how nasty we are (which no one has, to date), they are welcome to e-mail me at jwhberg@juno.com. We will print your letter in our next reissued Magpie, with our reply, of course.
Pax,
Rev. Fr. John W. Berg, a.k.a.The Most High and Mighty Berg
(but don't look behind that curtain!)
--------
Anonymous said...
The Magpie advocated communing infants.That's false doctrine.Case closed.
September 11, 2007 6:45 AM

---------------
A few words for the "brave" soul who hides behind the skirts of "anonymous" and who charged the Motley Magpie with heresy for its advocacy of the practice of infant communion: If you haven't read Fr. James Frey's excellent article on the subject, then shut up.

If you have read it, then grace us with a scholarly rebuttal. Better yet, wait for the two-part article on the subject in the next two issues of the MM soon to be put online (www.motleymagpie.org).

The piece deals with the demise of the practice in the West, and offers an analysis of the objections to this ancient catholic practice (which are all specious and in the end lead to a denial of infant faith). Incidentally, your namesake did not call the practice heretical, but then again Luther wouldn't pass a colloquy into the wels if he were alive today.

Until then, Anonymous, hoist your skirt and stay off the playing field.

Rev. Peter M. Berg
September 12, 2007 11:51 AM
------------------------
The inaccurate claim that President Schroeder is excited is now gone from the Church and Change website.
---------------
Think Green. Drink Wine. Go to Mass. Read the text. Read a bike -save the world. Vote for me.The B.
--------------------------------------
Thanks for the compliment. And thanks for all your work running this site--I do appreciate it.
----------------------------------
To signatory "Pax,"And shalom to you.

Considering this forum a short answer will have to suffice. The article penned by Fr. Peter Berg was apparently labeled false doctrine by the WELS conference of presidents. Paul Janke wrote to me and said little more than it was not WELS, he did not provide any Scriptural or Confessional proof or analysis, really (You can ask him to see his March 11, 2004 letter to me if you do not believe me).

For example Fr. Berg took issue with the use of the word "public" as it is used in WELS literature. Janke countered that the WELS uses the word, period. (Oh, the Magpie offered him the pages of our journal to respond, he didn't even respond to that offer.) He said it was "classic" Missouri teaching. Good enough, I guess.I was asked to disavow that article and I declined. I repeatedly asked him to show me where the errors were in that paper and in what I personally wrote in the Motley Magpie. He never showed me where I was in error. The Magpie found the soft spots of WELS doctrine and practice and it had to be silenced. There were a couple attendant matters that are really immaterial to discuss at this point and you would not believe it unless you saw all the letters and witnessed the meetings.

Fr. Berg's article as well as his "lutheran lady lectors" and "lutheran lady celebrants" will help you begin to understand. The WELS does not look ontologically at these matters but centers all its prohibitions in the law. As the relationship between Christ and the church reflects the ontological reality of the Holy Trinity, so the Ministry of Christ continues through his called and ordained men who serve His Holy Bride. That Christologically iconic relationship (Christ and his Bride) is created in man, this is a part of the image of God, the husband-wife, giver-receiver relationship. All authority which Christ has, he has given to his church to be exercised through those who stand in his stead and give mouth and hand in service to the church. This is not the authority of the world, to boss about, bind wills and so forth (per the WELS) but the authority to serve with the blessed mysteries.

This a man must do who stands in an iconic relationship to Christ, thus the prohibitions in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2-3. And yes, the women stands in an iconic relationship to Christ, but not in this manner - as husband or pastor as one in stead of Christ in this relationship. Look at 1 Timothy 2. She must be silent for Adam was formed first. Eve's sin was not simply that she got the command wrong, that too, but that she spoke. Pastor Adam had that job, failed and so the second Adam came, and men born of Adam must speak in the stead of the second Adam (no estrogen here) to the Bride, the Church.

The WELS does not understand that these Christologically iconic relationships do not exist outside of these relationships that God has given. Where those relationships exist, the husband or pastor loves his wife or church as Christ the Bridegroom and Shepherd loves the Bride or church. The pastor/Christ serves the church/Bride of Christ with the blessed means of salvation. This is the office. That is the authority. No women. Yet outside of those relationship the law or reason reigns. The WELS sends her women out to be subservient to men with whom they do not have these relationships. The WELS rightly appeals to the order of creation, but they miss the ontological underpinnings of the relationship and they miss the scope of the relationship. In short, my wife gives her submission (which means to receive) to me and to her pastor, oh that would be me, too. She doesn't have to submit to any other man, other than constituted authorities, be they men or women. She is polite and demur and too good for me (like I had to say that), and like many Christian women she has had authority over men, and votes.

The article by Fr. Peter Berg discusses these things and the WELS would have none of it for it saw the implications. This too is the short answer. But it will give you something to chew on. There are other matters that we took issue with the WELS and you can read all about it in the Motley Magpie.
Cordially,
Rev. Fr. John W. Berg
October 18, 2007 9:43 PM

--------------------

The post receiving the most comments and attention: (316 comments)

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2007/11/how-lutheran-are-you.html

------------------------

Feel free to post your all-time highlights or lowlights...

Traditonal Service - Contempo Service - Rob

2008-11-14T17:06:00.001-06:00

This is probably opening up a can of worms here, but isn't that what blogs are all about?

So here goes:

I'd wonder about a pastor who felt comfortable conducting a traditional service and then following it up with a contemporary service. I'd question how true to the confessions the traditional service was if the pastor turned around and did a contemporary service later. It seems to be a contradiction to me - and a "why would you even want to" type of thing.

I guess that hits at the heart of Tim's, JK's and now Ben's argument for the concurrence of both. I haven't had to decide about something like that to date, but we don't have a lot of options around here so I don't know that I'd have a lot of options.

Have at it, fellas.

Rob

A few thoughts from awhile back

2008-11-14T15:16:00.002-06:00

John 4:24 "God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Romans 12:1-2 "Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God - this is your spiritual act of worship."

Philippians 3:2-3 "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh."

Hebrews 12:28-29 "Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our 'God is a consuming fire.'"

The Augsburg Confession, Articles in Which an Account is Given of the Abuses Which Have Been Corrected also has this to say:

“For Your Imperial Majesty will undoubtedly find that the form of doctrine and of ceremonies with us is not so intolerable as these ungodly and malicious men represent. Besides, the truth cannot be gathered from common rumors or the revilings of enemies. But it can readily be judged that nothing would serve better to maintain the dignity of ceremonies, and to nourish reverence and pious devotion among the people than if the ceremonies were observed rightly in the churches.”

And from the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, VII and VIII:

“But just as the dissimilar length of day and night does not injure the unity of the Church, so we believe that the true unity of the Church is not injured by dissimilar rites instituted by men; although it is pleasing to us that, for the sake of tranquillity [unity and good order], universal rites be observed, just as also in the churches we willingly observe the order of the Mass, the Lord's Day, and other more eminent festival days. And with a very grateful mind we embrace the profitable and ancient ordinances, especially since they contain a discipline by which it is profitable to educate and train the people and those who are ignorant….”

"Freedom from debt" Details enclosed

2008-11-13T16:40:00.005-06:00

I opened my mailbox today and tossed aside what I thought was another credit card solicitation.
The glossy envelope screamed: "Freedom from debt" Details enclosed..

As I flipped the envelope over I realized it was in fact a mailing from the WELS to its members from the "Ministry of Christian Giving." The giving note is the annual plea from the office of JD.

The letter outlines the need to eliminate $22.4 million in debt during this year of Jubilee.

What is surprizing is the slick "credit card" like mailing. I wonder how many WELS members are going to toss this solicitation aside or how many will view it as a bait and switch.

We all need to look at how we give to the Lord. I just wonder if JD took the right approach with this cheezy mailing.

Augsburg Confession on Worship

2008-11-12T18:27:00.005-06:00

I would like to point the many readers to this fine article by a WELS pastor on worship (you will certainly note that Rock and Roll is not apart of this WELS view). Yet mission dollars seem to be pouring into the Rock and Roll churches. I wonder if this will stop with the renenewed financial crisis? Is this a call to repentance?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Words In Lutheran Liturgical Worship
By Charles L. Cortright

For many of us the study of language and its meaning has been a large part of our education and is a large part of our work. As we gather for this seminar on worship in our Lutheran Church, I would like to focus briefly with you on what is meant by the phrase “Lutheran liturgical worship,” and what it means to appreciate such worship.

Please note that I say “appreciate,” which is not synonymous in every instance with “like.” Appreciation involves awareness and sensitivity towards its subject; it involves recognition of values that have established themselves over time. Appreciation transcends the sometimes narrow confines of our individual tastes. Unfortunately, it happens all too often that people assess the worship practice of the church on the subjective basis of their likes and dislikes with little appreciation for the heritage they have received as Lutherans. But the corporate worship of the church ought not be determined by whim and fad, but upon solid, scripturally consonant, confessionally consistent principles and practices. So we look briefly at the key words “Lutheran,” “liturgical” and “worship” with an eye to being renewed once again in our appreciation of such worship.

Worship

Our first task is to understand what we mean by “worship.” Most often we use this word to label the corporate activity of a congregation, but we must remember that corporate worship flows from that worship which encompasses the entire life of the believer: “Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). Thus, our Lutheran Confessions (particularly the Augustana and the Formula of Concord) profess on the basis of Scripture that the true worship of God is essentially faith in Christ. If our lives are not rooted and grounded in this faith, then any corporate worship we do becomes a form of hypocrisy. Remember the Lord’s indictment of Israel’s worship because of hypocrisy: “I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies .... Away with the noise of your songs!” (Amos 5:21ff). And so also that of our Lord Jesus: “They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” (Mt 15:9).

When the Holy Spirit gathers believers together into the Church, he also gathers them as the body of Christ in the outward activity we call worship. It is interesting that we often refer to the corporate worship of the Body as the “service.” But whose service? and for whom? Lutherans use the word “service” in English as a clipped form of the German Gottesdienst, “Divine Service.”

“Divine Service” does NOT refer to a worship service that is sublime in its language, or aesthetically beautiful in its celebration, or emotionally moving in its effect. (“How was the service?” “Oh, it was simply ‘divine’!”) Indeed, such criteria belong to the Reformed concept of worship with its emphasis on the feelings, emotions, needs, etc. of people. Yes, we Lutherans certainly do hope that corporate worship among our people is moving; and we should place a high premium on the competency and grace of the celebrant, preacher, and musician, but these things do not constitute the substance and worth of our worship. Nor is “Divine Service” to be thought of as service rendered to God as something that is owed, a duty exacted by a demanding God, or worse, as something which is meritorious before God. Such is the Roman concept with its emphasis on law works and sacrifice. Yes, we do owe God our heartfelt adoration, this is a First Article truth to us—but that is not the essential aspect of the Divine Service.

Divine Service is rather that service which God graciously gives to us. Lutheran worship is focused on the Means of Grace, on the blessed gospel proclamation in Word and sacrament that comes to us from the holy Trinity. God speaks to us his words of absolution and comfort; he reminds us of the blessed covenant of grace granted through Holy Baptism; he feeds us with the precious body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper. God comes to us and serves us (!), and only afterward comes our response. So we characterize our worship properly as theocentric as opposed to a focus on ourselves, and as evangelical as opposed to a focus on the performance of certain functions or law duties.

Liturgical

We modify our understanding of corporate worship with the description “liturgical.” What does that mean for our worship? “Liturgical” does not mean simply “having a liturgy” or following a certain so‑called “order of service.” Many Protestant sects that eschew the characterization “liturgical” nonetheless follow a regular pattern or order in their worship. Nor does simply utilizing a form of the historic liturgy necessarily mean one is liturgical.

Lutherans usually understand liturgical worship in terms of following the historic liturgy of the western Church, but liturgical worship especially emphasizes the ecclesiastical year with its cycle of seasons and celebrations. And it needs to be said in this regard that the church year is greater than a mere rehearsal of the life of Christ as we move around the cycle—Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Passion Week, Easter, etc. The liturgical celebration of the church year is more than the rehearsal of history and more than “sanctified nostalgia”; it is walking with Christ via the liturgy: celebrating his grace, sharing in his sorrows, exulting in his victory by means of the rich rites, practices, and propers of the liturgy.

In that connection, and perhaps somewhat tangentially, we should stress how false the notion is which some advance that theological conservatism is best expressed (and preserved) by liturgical minimalization, that is, by ignoring the seasonal emphases of the church year and scorning the rubrics of the liturgy. Proponents of this notion sometimes like to recall a romanticized version of the “primitive simplicity” of the early church’s worship, citing it as the paradigm of “true worship.” Limitations of time do not permit us to look more closely at this notion now; a corrective to this point of view may be found in the first chapters of the Manual to Christian Worship.

But by the same token and for the sake of balance (since we are already on this tangent), equal care needs to be taken lest emphasizing the form and practice of the liturgy becomes an end in itself. The liturgy is rightly treasured as a time‑tested vehicle for celebration, but it is only a vehicle. The proclamation of the gospel through the means of grace is the substance of the Divine Service. If liturgical minimalization is wrongly conceived of as a hallmark of orthodoxy, liturgical maximizing can lead to the sad state of affairs in which form obscures orthodox content altogether!

To return to our main point, in the Lutheran Church worship practice that is determined to be liturgical traditionally conceives of itself in terms of a form of the Common Service of the Western Church. It celebrates the Divine Service of the Lord through Word and Sacrament in accord with the church year and by means of the order and rubrics of the “holy mass” (CA, Art. 23) as developed in history under the Lord of the Church. And it does so in accord with the meaning of the third key word before us, that of “Lutheran.”

Lutheran

Calling our worship “Lutheran,” of course, is not meant by us as merely a label or simply to distinguish our liturgy from that of other traditions (e.g., Lutheran vs. Anglican). We use the designation to mark our worship as being consonant with the Confessions of the Lutheran Church.

In this connection the name Lutheran as applied to the liturgy first denotes a tradition that is free under the gospel. As mentioned earlier, the Lutheran Confessions carefully distinguish the true worship of God—faith in Christ—from the man‑made forms of the liturgy (FC, ThD, Art X, 8). Thus, “the congregation of God of every place and every time has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and authority to change, to diminish, and to increase them [i.e., liturgical ceremonies] . . . as . . . may be regarded most profitable, most beneficial, and best for preserving good order, Christian discipline, and the edification of the Church” (FC, ThD, Art X, 9). Lutheran worship is worship undertaken in this gospel freedom. In Lutheran liturgics there is no sense of a “divinely ordained” form of worship as in Orthodox or Roman liturgics. Confessional Lutheranism, in fact, will always strenuously oppose any such notion as being contrary to our freedom in Christ. But having declared and affirmed that freedom, it is interesting to note the example of the Lutheran Confessions with respect to the liturgical heritage which the Lutheran Church holds in common with the Western Church. Indeed, the Augsburg Confession points to the retention of the customary ceremonies of the western mass—purified of Roman dross—as evidence against the charge of sectarianism (CA, Conclusion.) Martin Luther founded no church of his own; by God’s providential grace, he sought to reform the one he loved. As a result, the Lutheran Confessions uphold everywhere the understanding that the Lutheran Church is the purified “Church Catholic” (CA, Art 24, Concl; Ap, Art 24) and points to her liturgy as prima facie [primary fact]evidence of this.

A contemporary understanding of what it means to be Lutheran in terms of the liturgy, then, assiduously arms the freedom that is ours under the gospel on the one hand. On the other, Lutheran liturgical understanding regards highly the liturgical heritage of catholic Christianity, in its freedom adapting it as necessary to the changing exigencies of history and culture, but treasuring and conserving it with all deliberateness for its time‑proven utility and for the continuity it visibly proclaims with the Church catholic of ages past. To borrow a phrase from Charles Porterfield Krauth, the continuity of the Lutheran liturgy is one of the most visible aspects of the grace given the “conservative reformation.”

So, what is Lutheran in liturgical worship? I believe it is precisely the dynamic of this tension: freedom that seeks to celebrate the Divine Service meaningfully, culturally, and relevantly in the context of the liturgical heritage of the historic liturgy. It is this dynamic that has produced the significant and distinctly Lutheran alterations and additions to the liturgy such as hymns, the corporate confession, and the like, all the while preserving the rich, time‑proven order of the service: Kyrie, Service of the Word, Preface, etc. for the celebration of the ecclesiastical year. Speaking of Lutheran liturgical worship in terms of a “dynamic tension” leads us to view the practice of the liturgy as one that demands an on‑going investment of our time, understanding, awareness, and sensitivity. In a word, it means appreciating it!

May our praise in our Lutheran liturgical worship remain a fit response to the One who has served us and continues to bless us through Word and sacrament in Christ Jesus.

When this article was written, Charles Cortright was a professor at Northwestern College, Watertown, WI. In the Summer of 2000 he began serving St. Paul, North Hollywood, Calif.
This is an adapted version of an address given at the WELS Christian Worship seminar at Calvary Lutheran Church, Thiensville, WI, on July 15, 1994.

CA: Confessio Augustana, The Augsburg Confession (1530)
Ap: Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531)
FC: Formula of Concord (1577); ThD: Thorough Declaration (also called Solid Declaration), part II of FC.

WELS seeking advice from Ed Stetzer

2008-11-09T22:06:00.004-06:00

It looks like the scientific results are in: The number 1 issue facing the WELS is the Church and Change group. This is the group that recently sent a group of rogue pastors down to the church planting conference in Orlando, FL. At this conference these pastors sat at the feet of Baptist Pastor Ed Stetzer.

http://www.exponentialconference.org/

http://www.churchandchange.org/

It wasn't much later that the C&Cers contracted Stetzer to present at the 2009 fall conference.
http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/08/little-love-for-the-lutherans.html

I guess we can all recognize why the C&C group is the synod's number 1 issue (according to the readers of BW)

Reformation and Restoration

2008-10-31T17:42:00.003-05:00

On this Reformation Day I though it would be fitting to meditate on an article that sought to begin a Reformation in the WELS..
http://www.a rag journal/

The Mass is the Heart and Life of the Church

A dedication by Peter M. Berg

+ In the Name of Jesus +

The Mass is the heart and life of the Church, and the Holy Supper is the heart and life of the Evangelical Mass. For centuries the Mass, and its apex, the Supper, have been the center of Christian life, for the Supper is Jesus and he is the Life of the Church. All of God's graces are poured out in the preaching and in the Supper, because Jesus, who is Grace, is Word and Meal. All Christian verity and all heresy are revealed in one's understanding of the Supper. All ecclesiastical structures, church programs, and cutting-edge ideas may cease to be, but as long as the Church has the Mass with its Supper it has Jesus, and Jesus is the heart and life of the Church. Jesus, the Incarnate God, is truly and really present with His Church in the Mass. Preaching and the Sacrament are the new "signs and wonders" of the New Testament, and how wondrous they are! The incarnation of the Son of God was so stunning to the ancient world, and the Real Presence so mystical, that the pagan Romans accused the early Christians of secretly devouring their deity. There is often a bit of truth in every calumny. The Mass is the heart and life of the church because here the incarnate Son of God comes to his mortal - flesh and blood - people, giving them his immortal flesh and blood to eat and to drink, saving them, body and soul. We know of no other Son of God than the incarnate Jesus, and apart from him, God is an unknown horror. No flesh and blood Jesus, no God. In the Mass this God comes in all his humanity and sinful human beings can approach him without fear. "The glory and mystery of the incarnation combine there (in the Supper) as they combine nowhere else."¹ Therefore the Mass is finally all that matters. Indeed, all other sacred things, whether Holy Baptism, Holy Absolution, preaching, catechesis, the daily office, the occasional services, etc. only have their full relevance in their relation to the Mass. This is the conviction of those who publish this modest journal, and this is what we teach. However, before this conviction is brushed aside as the ramblings of some fussy high-church types well on their way to crossing the Tiber, we would ask you, dear reader, to give us a hearing. Before you write off what is written in these pages, please read what is written.

The Manner of our Lord's Coming

The Mass is not important because it happens to be a part of our Lutheran culture, just one culture among many other equally valid Christian cultures. The Mass is important because it is the way in which God comes to his people. How does he come? It goes in the way of incarnation and it follows the pattern of speak and eat. It is the visible Lord visiting and eating with Abraham as he reaffirmed the Promise of the Savior and announced his intentions for the Sodomites. It is the Passover meal with its annual rehearsal of God's saving presence and act. It is the Lord speaking and eating with the elders of Israel on the mountaintop. It is Jesus teaching and miraculously feeding the multitudes. It is the Savior eating at table in fellowship with tax collectors and sinners. It is the institution and celebration of the Supper on the night of the Lord's betrayal. It is the revelation of the Lord as he opened the scriptures and broke bread at Emmaus. It is the early Christians devoting themselves to the apostles' didache and the breaking of bread (the koinwniva). The Mass is speak and eat, the only two things that matter - the words of the Word Incarnate poured into our ears and the pouring of the Incarnate Word into our mouths. As the Son of God was conceived in the hearing of the Virgin Mary, and the finite contained the infinite, so through their hearing and their eating the Incarnate One dwells within the entire being of his people in a way beyond comprehension. Christ's Christians become His body, and they are nourished by his body.

These two things - speaking and eating - are bound together in the Mass and one without the other leaves something missing. The Supper without preaching can lead to mindless mysticism. The preaching without the Supper can lead to pedantic moralism. Without the Supper, Herman Sasse once observed, "the proclamation of the Gospel could be understood as just one of the many religious messages in the world." And all we preachers can claim a mea culpa when it comes to short-changing our listeners. The Supper must, at times, save the preacher's neck, just as it saves the communicant in body and soul. Yet, astonishingly, the "dry mass" is still the common practice in all too many churches of the Augsburg Confession, in spite of the confessors' steadfast assertion that the Mass was retained for the consolation of troubled souls (AC XXIV.7). "We have preaching, that's the Gospel, that's enough. We'll have the Supper another time." But isn't that our very own version of concomitance - If you have one thing (e.g. preaching) you pretty much have the rest. Yet the Lord did not come only in word, but in word and deed. He came not only in water, but in water and blood (1 Jn. 5:6). Word and deed. Promise and Body and Blood. The mysteries of God - preaching, Absolution, Baptism, the Eucharist - share things in common, but they also have things unique to each. To omit one is to omit what is unique to it.

The Mass is Heaven on Earth

Preaching is many things, and some of these things are what the Supper is and some are what it is not. Unlike the Supper, preaching is Law, it must be. The sinner is to be convicted. Like the Supper preaching is Gospel, it must be. The sinner is to be consoled with the forgiveness of sins. Preaching is didactic, it must be. Christians are to be instructed in true doctrine, warned about heresy, and urged to be helpful to their neighbors in every need. But most of all, the preacher preaches his people to Heaven; therefore, he preaches to the Supper, he preaches sacramentally (not just about the sacraments, but sacramentally), for the Supper is Heaven on earth. The Supper is the parousia of our Lord now - just as it shall be - only then with the scales fallen from our eyes. Therefore, the Supper is the apex of the Mass, for Heaven is the consummation of the believer's life. We confess this, not because the Holy Communion conveys a better Gospel than preaching, but because preaching is not only about the things to come, but also about the things that are passing. "And now abide faith, hope and love, these three; but the greatest of these is love" (1 Co. 13:13). Preaching, and the faith and hope which it instills, will one day pass away, but Jesus (who is Love) and His feast of love will never pass away.

There is something more. Consider how wonderfully the Holy Liturgy on each Lord's Day tells the story of how our Lord came to us in Word and deed. Whether by Divine providence or happy coincidence, the western rite tells the story of Jesus. In the Gloria in Excelsis we have the song of the Christmas angels, "God incarnate! Peace on earth!" Through the reading and preaching of the scriptures, the Liturgy of the Catechumens tells us about Jesus' ministry of spoken word and miraculous deed as he journeyed to his destiny in Jerusalem. To this we say, Credo. As the gospels are Passion narratives with long prologues (thus, Martin Koehler), so the Liturgy of the Faithful takes us to Holy Week. In the Sanctus/Benedictus we join the Palm Sunday throng and sing, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."² As He came upon a lowly donkey, so He also comes now in the lowly species of bread and wine. The Words of Institution take us to Maundy Thursday, and the Agnus Dei to Good Friday. In the elevation, the Son of Man is lifted up as Moses lifted the serpent in the wilderness and all who behold him in faith are healed. In the consumption, doubting Thomases and weeping Marys actually get to touch their risen, flesh and blood Lord, for the Mass is the continuation of our Lord's post-resurrection appearances. And then, together with aged Simeon, the faithful are ready to "depart in peace." Listen to old Simeon, he's got it right. In the Mass, we achieve the hope of all Christians: We go to heaven. For the Mass is heaven on earth - and not just a foretaste of the Feast to come - but the Feast itself right here on earth! Here, the whole Christian Church on earth and the saints of Heaven are joined together spiritually, sacramentally, Christologically, and mystically. In the Lamb's high feast, the grateful dead, your grateful dead (!), are in communion with those yet on earth. Indeed, we become the "one bread" of which the Apostle Paul speaks (1 Co 10.17). If you don't have the Supper, you can't attend the Feast, for the Body and the Blood of our Lord are the Feast. He is host and meal.

The glory of the Supper is that it is purest Gospel, the very forgiveness of sins. Here, as noted above, preaching and the Supper differ. Preaching must be Law and Gospel. Yet, how many times haven't we preachers slighted our people with one or the other, or even both. It must be noted that Law and Gospel are not on even footing. Both are the Word of God and are to be believed as such, but the Law is God's alien work, the Gospel is His proprium. Even in the best-crafted sermon, with the proper distinction between Law and Gospel observed, there is no guarantee that our hearers will hear it that way. No matter how clearly we preach the Gospel, some weary saints will hear only the Law on any given Sunday. The Supper is the safety net, which catches them before they leave church, and before they fall into despair. The Supper (like the liturgy and pericope) is the layman's protection against his own poor hearing and against the preacher, in spite of the preacher's best intentions.

"We must never regard the sacrament as a harmful thing from which we should flee, but as pure, wholesome, soothing medicine that aids you and gives life in both soul and body."³ Here is our "daily food and sustenance,"4 our "Tree of Life," our "divine Armory,"5 and "the medicine of immortality, the remedy against having to die." (Ignatius of Antioch) Until we end our earthly trek and join in the Feast of the Lamb in heaven (Rev 19), this Supper is our viaticum, our provision along the way. With St. Ambrose we say, "Because I always sin, I ought always to take the medicine."6 Here also is our guarantee of "the resurrection of our entire frame."7 In the Supper, the Savior comes to his own in the manner in which He came to earth: Incarnate, in flesh and blood. And now he gives that divine flesh and blood to His own to eat and to drink, vivifying them in body and soul. Whatever role we give John 6 in the discussion of the Eucharist, it still remains true that Christ's "flesh is food indeed, and (Christ's) blood is drink indeed." (v 55) No Supper, no holy flesh and blood to eat and to drink. Then with Zwingli, we must by faith fly up into the "fiery heavens" and somehow apprehend Jesus, seated on his throne. "No!" the earth-bound, sin-laden, flesh and blood Christian cries out, "Come from on high to me; I cannot rise to Thee" (CW 34).

The Current State of Affairs

In view of this great gift, how do we account for the current state of affairs? The truncated service continues to claim half of the Sundays during the year in a majority of our churches; also serving to truncate the Holy Ministry. One can give a historical explanation for the situation. The list of suspects is well known: Melancthonianism, Pietism, Rationalism, Prussianism, the frontier experience of North America, etc. However, permit this author to propose another idea. There seems to be a concern within our clerical ranks that preaching in our midst is not what it could be. The publication Preach seems to be directed to this need. There have been murmurs for some time now, that there is too much emphasis on sanctification in WELS preaching, on the pages of Forward in Christ, and in our educational materials. The editors of this journal believe that this is definitely the case, and they also believe that the heart of the problem is the status given the so-called Third Use of the Law, or to state it in a slightly different way, the problem lies in the goal which we have established for preaching. It seems to us that our shared goal has become growth: growth in Bible knowledge, growth in holiness of living, growth in stewardship, and quantifiable, numerical growth of new members. The means to attain this goal? Is it an over-simplification to say that the way to attain this goal is revealed in this paradigm: Law/Gospel/Law. The Third Use of the Law in the minds of some, in one way or another, seems to be key to this growth, and the final step in the process of preaching.8 Many will cry foul, but listen carefully to our preaching and to what we publish. The result of all this is that an almost imperceptible transformation takes place, with up-beat exhortations to busyness around the church and the affirmation of everybody's ministries to the church are now seen as the proclamation of the Gospel, when in reality, it is the Law. However, this goal and these means to attain the goal are wrong. We must never forget that the "Law always accuses." The preacher may think that he is using only the Third Use of the Law, but lex semper accusat, and some, even many, may be crushed, and without the Supper, may remain so. We must also remember that the Christian's goal is not the well-ordered life, but to go to heaven, period. The forgiveness of sins, distributed in Gospel and Sacrament, assure him of his salvation, and they are powerful pardons which move him to help his neighbor in every bodily need. Indeed, the believer consumes the Supper that he might be consumed in service to his fellow man. Good deeds follow as a matter of course, for faith is a living and active thing, and the Christ, who lives within, continues to carry out his ministry of compassion here on earth through His believers.

Still, the Savior suffered just as much for our righteousnesses as He did for our sins. When the true goal of the Christian faith and the means to attain the goal are not properly understood, then the life of the church is fundamentally affected, and this is especially true of the Mass. When the goal is wrong, the Sunday service easily becomes a quasi Bible class, a casual, warm, friendly time for sharing, caring, and dealing with "managerial and therapeutic concerns" which become the new sacraments by default. In this environment, preaching and imparting information will be seen as the most "effective" tools and the Supper will continue to be a bi-monthly addendum and incongruities will abound. When the sacred Body and Blood are not on the altar and in the minister's hands, because it is a "non-communion Sunday", and when the goal is information for godly living, then, I suppose, some won't see it as an incongruity when the power point screen scrolls down from the ceiling at the end of the service (or in the middle!) and strains of "Come to the WELS" begin to meddle into Divinum Mysterium (CW 35) or Herzlich Lieb Hab' Ich Dich, O Herr (CW 434). If the sermon is seen as an inspirational talk, then there is no incongruity between it and the upbeat "WELS Connection" piece on the success stories of other franchises of McChurch. However, there are those who see the incongruity and they cry out, Kyrie elieson!

It is the Real Presence which sets the stage on Sunday morning. When Christ is upon the Lord's Table, which incidentally assures that bread will be on our tables at home, then the entire atmosphere is changed. This is sensed even by those who never seem to tire of creating new "liturgies," which bring their people something new (and mediocre) every Sunday. Yet, even these folks have never been known to insert the "children's application" or the WELS Connection between the Sanctus and Verba. At least here they demonstrate a measure of propriety. Why they can't demonstrate it elsewhere is a mystery. The Real Presence carries the freight. It is the Gospel. It is the manner in which the Savior came and comes to His own.

Reformation and Restoration

With this in mind, one is compelled to ask is there an appreciable difference on a "non-communion Sunday" between the average WELS church (or any Lutheran church for that matter) and the conservative Presbyterian church down the block when it comes to what is heard in the way of preaching and hymnody and what is seen with the eye? If they are not appreciably different (granted, that's an "if"), then why should visitors "come to the WELS", especially when the minister down the block probably does the children's sermon and the power point presentation better? There is much hand-wringing in our circles today about growth; a kind of Arminian angst fills our hearts when it comes to assessing how we're doing in "sharing the Gospel." If evangelism techniques are all the rage, then let us consider the winsome force of the Holy Liturgy and the Real Presence of Christ in the Supper. When the conduct of the Holy Liturgy transcends the mundane of everyday life and the pallid commonness of Protestantism, when Sunday morning is an encounter with the divine, then those we seek to reach will say, "I've never witnessed anything like this before, I've truly entered the House of God." Unless we reconsider the Real Presence of the Incarnate Son of God in the Mass and see the Mass as the heart and life of the Church, I'm afraid that we will continue to morph into a general kind of Protestantism. We have noted and eschewed our Pietist roots, or at least we think we have. Could it be that we've taken more with us from the past into the present than we would care to admit? Could it be that we are the way that we are, because we were the way that we were? From the time of the Lutheranism's betrayal by Philippism, to this day, the drift of the Lutheran Church has not been toward Rome, but to Geneva, with side trips to Herrnhut and Gettysburg. The solution to our problem has been under our noses since the night our Lord was betrayed: Gospel, Mass, Real Presence, Jesus.

What is the point of all this? This: The Mass is the heart and life of the Church, for Jesus is the Mass and He is the Church's Breath and Life-Blood. This is the reformation of the Church. The reformation of our little bit of Holy Church will not come about by a top-down edict, but with a bottom-up reformation of Sunday morning. The restoration of the Supper to the weekly life of the Church, and the appropriate ceremonia which support it, will not be accomplished by legalistic dictates, or appeals to historic Apostolic and Lutheran practice, or to matters pertaining to liturgical aesthetics, but rather to what the Lord Himself has said about His Supper and what He has said about His people. When we see our great need, and the Savior's great aid in preaching and the Supper, then the unfortunate discussions which have attended this issue will be moot. There will be no more talk about our "glorious gospel freedom" to withhold the Supper, which is purest Gospel, from our people. Every Sunday there will be those in attendance who are "weak and heavy laden" (which is everyone) and who are in need of preaching and Jesus' true Body and Blood. These people do not schedule their guilt, woes, fears, and hopes for heaven to align with the off-and-on again schedule of "communion Sundays" and "non-communion Sundays." As the old rule goes: Where there are communicants, there is the Mass, there is the Supper, and there is the Heart and Life of the Church. And there will be communicants if our preachers preach about the Blessed Supper and preach their people to the Supper. Then the dream of Doctor Luther will come true for the people of God: ".they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the sacrament."9 §

The Reverend Peter M. Berg is senior pastor of Saint Peter Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Plymouth, Michigan. He also serves on the Board of Directors of Lutheran Liturgical Renewal, Inc. which publishes The Bride of Christ: The Journal of Lutheran Liturgical Renewal. He has also contributed to the journals Gottesdienst and Logia.

1 Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology Philadelphia: General Council Publication Board, 1871, p. 655.

2 This nuance is lost in the treatment of the Sanctus in the "Service of Word and Sacrament" (Christian Worship, p. 34) where the Benedictus has been replaced with the work of the communicants. This, together with the loss of the Gloria in Excelsis and the misplacement of the Kyrie and the Lord's Prayer, lessens the appeal of this liturgy.

3 Large Catechism, V 68, The Book of Concord, Kolb-Wengert, Augsburg Press, 2000, p. 474.

4 Ibid, V.24, p. 469.

5 C.F.W. Walther, Gnadenjahr Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1890, pp. 209f; quoted in Marquart, "The Word As Life," pp. 51-52.

6 Augsburg Confession XXIV.33, The Book of Concord, Kolb-Wengert, Augsburg Press, 2000, p. 71.

7 Coxe, Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries, p. 566.

8 We would be better served if we remained with Luther's two-fold use of the Law.

9 Small Catechism, Introduction, The Book of Concord, Kolb-Wengert, Augsburg Press, 2000, p. 351.

Journalism

2008-10-28T15:45:00.002-05:00

A commenter, a self-identified journalist, posted about journalism. I believe his intention is to shut down this blog. Yet he doesn't share his own writing or his own blog.

The blogger format has opened a whole new journalistic perspective. This journalist is looking for facts and proof. Who - what - where - when - how - and why. Yet this journalist didn't tell me who he was.

Yes the readers of this blog need to read with discernment. More importantly, the WELS laity need to apply critical discernment to the wisdom of novelties that are introduced into their church. The journalist begs for us to use discernment according to God's command. Yet this same journalist will scream adiaphora at me when I use God commands.

I would ask this journalist to continue to read FIC for a somewhat filtered view of what is happening in the synod. However, many are interested in what is happening to our churches. Why are we losing our Lutheran identity? Mr. journalist reveal your identity. No, more importantly, help me to reveal the identity of our WELS churches.

Are we ashamed of our Lutheran identity? I fear so. (opinion) New mission churches are not identifying themselves as being Lutheran (fact). We are not proud of our sacraments (opinion). The Lord's supper is hidden from the visitors (fact). Our Lutheran heritage is not being studied by many WELS pastors (opinion). A group of WELS pastors venture off to see Ed Stetzer (fact). More WELS pastors want to hear what Stetzer has to say (opinion). Church and Change has invited Ed Stetzer to be the keynote speaker at the '09 conference (fact).

Mr. Journalist I hope that you can see the facts and opinions clearly presented. Drop me your email and I will fill you in more clearly on the details.

Fundamental - non-fundamental

2008-10-27T13:34:00.002-05:00

Freddy said...

Years ago, I read an essay by Dr. P.E. Kretzmann: Fundamental and Non-fundamental Doctrines — and Church Fellowship. In this article, Dr. Kretzmann quotes from Dr. C.P. Krauth regarding the "Course of Error in the Church." It was this quote that inspired me to find a copy of Krauth's Conservative Reformation and it's Theology, and read it (this was before CPH started reprinting it). This is the quote:

"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. (p. 195 f.)."

This is wise insight from a man who witnessed the decline of Lutheranism first hand, who had the courage to publicly fight against the error which was causing it, and to work toward unity. His effort not only made him a celebrated figure of his time, but a largely credible one as well.

Making application to our own time, Rev. Paul Kelm and company were asking for toleration two decades ago, and, using much the same “gee, they're so full of evangelical zeal, and such good Christian men” reasoning displayed by “WELS Pastor,” they were granted it. Some in our midst are still asking for toleration. Strident agents of "change," such as "WELS Pastor," it seems, are long past asking for toleration, however. They are demanding equivalency. It's obvious they intend to run a parallel church before moving to Krauth's final step of asserting supremacy. This is, after all, the objective of “change.”

But, while Krauth was addressing doctrine, are we not, in our case, looking at Lutheran practice? Yes and no. We are rightly concerned with practice as it is a reflection of what we Confess, and we see evidence of doctrinal error in the practice of the C&C crowd. When those who confess doctrinal unity with us engage in practice that is confusing or offensive, we have every right to demand of them an explanation, and they have every obligation to render one. Drawing the C&C or CG crowd into explanation of their practice, more and more, it seems, exposes their divergence from us and their disregard for anything more then rhetorical unity. So, while we take our queue from confusing and offensive practices endorsed by the C&C church-growthers, our concern is Confessional integrity.

As I continue to read and study, I am growing convinced that earlier discussions on this point are correct: WELS is facing a Confessional crisis.

My thoughts,

Freddy Finkelstein

Crusaders unite

2008-10-26T19:17:00.004-05:00

October 26, 2008 7:42 AM
Anonymous said...
As a WELS pastor, what I'm afraid of is printing my name on your blog and others, and then getting my reputation crucified on a public forum. I have heard the charges and insinuations of your blog and others; but when I talk to the men you have demonized, I realize they are Scriptural, orthodox teachers and preachers of the Word. They may feel there is nothing wrong with blended worship services--they may even utilize contemporary worship forms. They may even (gasp!) administer the Lord's Supper separate from the regular worship service. If you have ever lived outside the friendly confines of the Midwest, you know visitors can get very put out with the practice of closed communion. The early believers celebrated it privately among themselves. All of these things do not make them heterodox. These men have a love for the Word and a love for people, and they want to see their people in heaven someday. I have never attended a Church and Change conference, but there have been several presentations over the years I would have loved to sat in on. C and C offers a great deal when it comes to the nuts and bolts of practical every-day ministry. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! And no, I will not give you my name!
October 26, 2008 6:53 PM

Mr. WELS pastor,

I wonder if Luther had the same fear as you do. I have talked to the men I have listed on my blog (yes I have). How have I demonized these men? I could say you are breaking the 8th commandment. I have listed what is happening at their churches. These are things that I have witnessed. You might have me confused with another blogger..?..?

If you were to talk to Robert Schuller, Rick Warren, and Ed Stetzer you might also find them to be loving and caring men. But misguided and certainly not Lutheran. I have lived almost half my life outside of the friendly confines of the midwest so you can't use that argument. That is one of the reasons I know well what is happening in the far flung regions of the WELS too. Gasp..hiding communion. Does this privilege and treasure need to be hidden? Did the early church do this? Do you want to sit at the feet of Ed Stetzer? Will you? Several of your fellow WELS pastors did and do. So Mr. WELS pastor if I came to you as a member with my concerns about C&C, I take it you would tell me to hit the road.

I guess I am, as Mr. Tim has characterized me, a confessional crusader. As we approach the Reformation hour I wonder what I shall do next. I have used this blog to spark discussion and open some eyes. I will continue to hold the cross high.

P.S.

Some of you have wondered about the recent conference that was held (where I heard BW got some notice). I will say that I have contacted the Oktoberfest organizer and have not yet been given consent to post their writings. I hope that they can stand tall and share their thoughts.

WELS Pastors on Board - laity continues to bail

2008-10-26T07:53:00.002-05:00

Anonymous said...

>>Notice how quiet WELS pastors are as the Church and Change pastors filter back into 2929.<<

Maybe they're quiet because maybe they agree with C&C. Perhaps your outrage with it is a little outrageous?

October 26, 2008 7:42 AM

-------------------------------------------------

So is silence golden for the changers? It is my hope that a WELS pastor or pastors will rise up and follow the example of this LCMS Lutheran manifesto:

http://www.petitiononline.com/luthmani/petition.html

Issues in WELS ? aren't there still issues?

2008-10-25T15:30:00.005-05:00

Anonymous said...

I talked with my pastor who is and has been outraged with what has been going on. He is not strong enough (or perhaps outraged enough) to publicly take a public stand ALONE. He would like to see a large group of pastors take a stand TOGETHER against all this stuff.

The beginnings of taking a stand together was happening in the Issues in WELS group...but they have disbanded or suspended for some reason. It makes it appear that all is well in WELS.Our District President does not seem opposed to the Church and Change stuff.

I will try to talk with him once more.Can we all get our pastors together so they can take a public stand?

QUESTION: If a pastor leaves WELS before retirement age, does he lose his entire pension? Is it $$$ that is preventing some from leaving or taking a chance that taking a firm stand against things will get them ousted?

October 25, 2008 3:11 PM

--------------------------------------------------

Most pastors are still afraid to put their neck on the line. Yes it is interesting that since the financial issues in the WELS is no longer a crisis the ISSUES IN THE WELS group has disbanded and is not holding forth on their original concerns.

I don't believe that a pastor will lose the retirement money that has been put away if he does leave (although the pension plan is very small).

Righteous indignation

2008-10-24T21:16:00.000-05:00

Anonymous said...

I was wondering how to respond to the blogger who advised we should shut up about C&C and take his word for it that everything is OK and we're wrong for even questioning it. We're causing people to fall away by discussing it. We're creating a bigger problem by asking questions.

Righteous indignation, John? Not bad. Not bad at all.The bloggers comments are not unlike liberalism in any other aspect of society, a kind of gnosticism that aggressively condescends any challenger. Discussion, if it is dissension, must be stifled. He/she showed their cards though, which is honest enough. They are of them. And we should trust this anonymous poster because they have researched it for us, confirmed the commitment of its promoters to Lutheran confessions and we are sinful to oppose it or them. Liberalism feigns tolerance, but is anything but in reality. "Do not worry. Everything is OK here. You can have yours and we'll have ours. We are not affecting anything. It is only to save those who don't know about Lutheranism or are offended by it. You have no love for the lost..."

It reminds me of the scene in The Naked Gun when the fireworks are exploding and all kinds of chaos ensues behind the detective as he shouts, "Move along. There's nothing to see here. Move along."It reeks of deception and hypocrisy. Oh, yes, all are welcome ... as long as you believe as they do. How is that any different than what we confessional crusaders are accused of? C&C is trying to accept everyone, except, of course, you relics. Liberalism hides its intolerance behind crafty words. I don't know what affect C&C is having on WELS, but it is bound to have some.

That is their goal. I've heard a WELS mission counselor speak the exact same things as C&C. And comments on this blog in support of it are not unlike what is being heard in this current political environment. Maybe it is only a small portion, but the theology of glory spreads like a cancer - slowly and quietly. And before long, it is too late.

Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy. Lord have mercy.

Rob
October 24, 2008 8:34 PM

--------------
well said...j

WELS making use of ELCA's faith program

2008-10-24T17:37:00.012-05:00

The WELS has formed a quasi-partnership with an ELCA program: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?2617&collectionID=1147&contentID=57776&shortcutID=20408

Faith stepping stones: It is a reformed program with a dash of WELS flavor added.

http://www.wlcfs.org/equip/fss/fssfaqs.asp

Meet the ELCA leader of the stepping stones: http://www.faithink.com/About/richmelheim.asp

ELCA churches love it:

http://www.peacelutheranweb.com/plc/faithtoolbox/ftbstepstones.asp

WELS pastors and others that have given consent to this program: http://www.wlcfs.org/aboutUs/boardOfDirectors.asp

And these reformed leaders like it also:

http://www.steppingstonesministry.org/html/aboutus/news_acknowledgments.html

It has evolved from faith inkubators:
Faith Incubators pushes the new Gospel of Social Transformation
http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/peter_drucker_&_rick_warren.htm
“Faith Inkubators” was started by Rev. Rich Melheim (ELCA) who started a mentor-based program at Trinity Lutheran Church in Stillwater, MN. By the Fall of 96 over 1000 congregations were experimenting with the program as living laboratories. “The movement currently involves 2/3 ELCA and 1/3 LCMS congregations and has its first UCC, Presbyterian, Methodist and Catholic test sites.” Yes, “Faith Inkubators” is a pan denominational, globalist, relational, catechism.

“Faith Inkubators” strives for transformation through “PROCESS”. Each child is assigned an adult mentor or “Guide” on their learning, serving, playing, praying, and growing journey. Pastors still teach content but a third of everything is taught through interactive small group learning activities. This writer evaluates the programs as enlisting spiritual guides, values clarification, and spiritual gift assessments. Melheim says he developed the program’s small group structure from Carl George’s Meta Church Model; its philosophy from William Glasser (a secular humanist and an expert in behavior modification); its business sense from MIT’s Peter Senge (author of “The Fifth Discipline”) and his own research. Theological “tips” come from Dr. Pat Keifert of the Leadership Network (www.leadnet.org).

The Leadership Network, who endorses Willow Creek as a model for American Churches of the 21st Century, is also advising the LCMS Council of Presidents on how to restructure congregations and the LCMS.

Seminary training

2008-10-24T17:14:00.003-05:00

Awhile ago a WLS alumni wondered about the changes taking place in the Seminary curriculum. The curriculum developers are looking to make sure that the sem and its students are kept current on the cutting edge methods that are being used by "others" are also studied and used by new WELS pastors.

The president of the sem, faculty, students and others sat at the feet of the leading Church and Change promoters to hear what the Baptists are doing and how we should be following their lead.
http://www.wels.net

and I quote:

Seminary faculty, the school presidents, representatives from current students, from pastors, from teachers, from laypeople, from various areas of ministry, from governing board members, and from district presidents will all gather on these two days to discuss these presentations given by Pastor Paul Kelm, President Paul Prange, and Pastor Don Patterson.

If you pal around with Baptists you become Baptists

2008-10-24T15:35:00.007-05:00

Anonymous said...
Blogging also inadvertently creates hysteria and this is what I see happening in regards to C&C.
Many readers take the opinion of a few bloggers as fact, when in reality it is just that - an opinion.

It is my opinion that the Church and Changers are using methods that deny the Word and Sacraments because they are stealing ideas from the Baptists (ie Ed Stetzer). I believe that Martin Luther held the same opinion on the importance of the Word and Sacraments.

I have regular dealings with many of those involved in C&C. My pastor has also attended their conference. None of them have separated themselves from our WELS in their actions or their beliefs. I have no doubt of their Lutheranism. I have no doubt of their abidance to God's truth.C&C doesn't seek to abolish our Lutheranism. It encourages additions to it, in the manner in which we present God's true and saving grace. .......I suspect you will not find that.I do support C&C, both in my prayers and my givings.

Mr. Anonymous, ~ I will continue to disparage the Church and Change movement. I have visited a conference and walked out. I have studied it and thrown up. I have visited the C&C churches and I have found them anything but Lutheran. The hysteria should be greater than what it is. The C&Cers have denied the importance of the sacraments. Therefore, by doing this they are denying the word. This is not Lutheran sir. Our worship life is tied to our doctrine and the Word. The changers read this blog and try to quiet the discussion. They didn't want the invitation to Ed to become public knowledge. They don't like to be exposed.

Yet what pastor will stand up to this??? Are there any??? One WELS pastor recently told me that this won't happen because of the confessional witch hunt atmosphere. I will acknowledge that Pres. Schroeder has been working to stop this hunt. But they (C&Cers) are working against him. I hope and pray that some WELS pastor will have the courage to stand up and publically denounce this movement.

Hebrews 13:7-9 -- The author of Hebrews warns us about the Church and Changers. I implore you to study these verses. The liturgy does not reflect 16th century Germany it is our faith from earliest of times. Remember the Augsburg confessions which talks about novelties that did not exist in the ancient church. This is what the changers are doing to the catholic church. Be warned, be aware, and be afraid of what is happening. Do not give your offerings to this movement. This is not your grandfathers church any longer. This is becoming a radical movement. Yes radical. That is how the C&Cers describe themselves on their own website as they shun the historical context of Lutheranism.

***************************************
October 24, 2008 11:03 AM
Anonymous said...
Well, I have mis-givings about C and C. They tried to stay under the radar for a long time. As soon as this blog exposed the Church and Change invite to that Dunker Stetzer, the C and C began filling their catapaults with mud and firing away. The Confessions are not a tradition. Lutheran doctrine is not a tradition. We follow Lutheran doctrine because it is faithful to the plain meaning of the canonical Scriptures. The non-Lutherans make fun of Biblical, Lutheran doctrine. That is their tradition. Lie down with Baptists, get up with headaches.

Church and Change funding

2008-10-23T09:33:00.011-05:00

=

the cross that doesn't

Anonymous said...

Who foots the bill for C&C, is it independent or supported by synod money?

Rob

------------------------------------------------------------

Board of Directors- Select a name to read a Bio:

Pastor Ron Ash Chairman

Jeff Davis Vice Chairman

Sarah Owens Secretary

Barry Spencer

Caleb Cordes

Pastor Bruce Becker

Pastor John Huebner

James Skorzewski

Innovation in methodology is yesterday's news in the WELS. Pastors, teachers, synod administrators, worker training leaders, home and world missionaries, worship leaders, computer buffs, and countless local laymen and laywomen, have been tweaking (and/or radically changing) ministry methods for years. In every WELS generation God has raised up men and women, for reasons known only to Him, who are interested in pushing the envelope of "gospel delivery systems." And this, long before concepts like "English" or "radio ministry" or "Parish Assistance," or "paradigm" or "long distance learning" entered WELS thinking or culture.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Where do you get these radical ministry methods...http://www.firstorlando.com/ This is where the 2008 Exponential Conference was held. This is where your WELS pastors went to soak in these radical ideas. Who do you think paid for this trip?

They must have their own budget. Although I'm sure you will notice that over the years many Synod sponsored grants have been and are given to the innovative thinkers in the WELS

------------------------------------

Anonymous said...
Church and Change is not a part of the synod structure and doesn't receive synod funding.
October 23, 2008 11:20 AM

------------------------------------

What is the Year of Jubilee offering? -- How did the debt come about?

2008-10-22T19:28:00.002-05:00

Year of Jubilee offering Q&A
From the office of President Mark Schroeder

Last week, the Conference of Presidents held its regular fall meetings in Milwaukee. Among the items on the agenda was the Year of Jubilee thank offering. The presidents are encouraging all congregations within their districts to participate during November and December, the months designated for the celebration.

Many people, including some congregational leaders, still have questions about the offering. Here are answers to some of those common questions:What is the Year of Jubilee offering?The offering was authorized by the 2007 synod convention as a way to address our synod's $22.4 million debt. Every congregation and individual is being encouraged to participate in this offering.

How did the debt come about?Most of the $22.4 million debt is capital debt that has been incurred as a result of various building and improvement projects over the last 12 years:
* building projects at synod schools during the amalgamation of Dr. Martin Luther College and Northwestern College in 1995;
* heating plant at Martin Luther College;
* science wing at Michigan Lutheran Seminary; and
* dormitory addition at Luther Prep.

About one-third of the debt is the result of expenses exceeding support in the 2001-03 biennium.Most of the $22.4 million was borrowed internally (from various synodical funds) and was being repaid in a variety of ways and at different interest rates. In the fall of 2007, the debts were all combined into a single synodical debt. This debt has a single interest rate and is to be fully repaid in ten years. The combining of all these into a single debt enables us to present a clear picture of the debt, and it also enables us to reduce the annual payments required.

Why is it important for us to reduce or eliminate this debt? How will this help?There is nothing inherently wrong with borrowing or with debt. But the fact is that each year $2.7 million is budgeted for the repayment of this debt. The convention believed that this money would be better used if it were spent on opening missions and operating our ministerial education schools. If we can eliminate or significantly reduce the debt, dollars will be available to carry out ministry rather than making debt payments.

What is the timeline on the offering?The offering will take place during November and December of this year, but congregations will have the ability to be flexible in how they carry it out. Some congregations are conducting the offering over four Sundays; others are having a single special celebration. Other congregations will start the offering this fall and continue to encourage and gather gifts over the next six months. The offering itself will end at the time of the synod convention in July 2009.How will the gifts be gathered?Congregations have been furnished with offering envelopes for every member. These can be gathered by the congregation and submitted to the synod. Individuals may also send their offerings directly to the synod or give a gift online.

To access Year of Jubliee resources online, go to: www.wels.net/jubileeworshipHow will this offering benefit our shared mission as a synod?We pray that the elimination or reduction of this debt will enable those dollars now being used for debt service to be used to expand our efforts to proclaim the saving good news of Jesus Christ to the world. For every $100,000 saved, a new home mission can be established. Additional funds would enable our world missions efforts to be maintained and expanded. Additional funds would help to stabilize the funding of our ministerial education schools and to keep tuition costs from rising. In short, the less we have to dedicate to repaying our debt, the more we will have available to carry out our shared mission.

Why should I participate in this offering?Our purpose and motivation in this offering is not simply to be free of debt. Our purpose is to unite in the faith and joy that God has given us in Christ, walking and working together to proclaim the gospel to more and more people. We gather this offering as a means of expressing our thanks to a God who has given sinners like us every reason to be joyful. We trust that God will bless these efforts conducted in his name and for his glory.

Serving in Christ,

Mark Schroeder
http://together.wels.net/

Stepping into the political realm

2008-10-22T12:13:00.002-05:00

WELS politicians speak their mind:

WELS Republican for congress:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_el_ho/minnesota_congresswoman

WELS Democrat for congress

Ron Kind on Abortion

2009 Church and Change Conference = Exponential conference

2008-10-20T09:41:00.003-05:00

You might recall that a group of heavy hitting WELS pastors attended the http://www.exponentialconference.org/ This past spring.

http://bailingwater.blogspot.com/2008/04/wels-pastors-attend-exponential.html

The pastors that attended this exponential conference are involved in Church and Change.

Drawing upon the wonderful ideas they gained sitting at the feet of these theologians, they have tapped the main conference presenter, Ed Stetzer, as their own:

http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/speaking.html

Follow Ed's WLC link and it takes you right to wels.net. Will wels.net once again provide a registration link to this reformed Church and Change conference? Ed Stetzer thinks so...

Losing my Religion ?

2008-10-18T18:15:00.006-05:00

As we wait for author consent on the various Oktoberfest papers, I would like to ask the readers about what you feel are the most pressing issues facing the WELS today. I would hope that this could open up a synod-wide discussion. I also would hope that more of the laity would feel free to discuss these theological issues with WELS pastors.

Here is my short list:

1) Losing our Lutheran identity

a) Contemporary worship - worship gatherings
b) the belief that liturgy usage is behavior modification
c) the use of evangelical methods

2) The public ministry and its forms...?

3) Sacrament of Holy Communion

a) close(d) / open
b) frequency
c) confirmation age requirement

4) Seminary training

5) Promotion of Church and Change leaders throughout the synod

Oktoberfest ?

2008-10-15T13:20:00.001-05:00

Anonymous said...

Sorry to interrupt, but did anyone hear about how the LCMS conference in Kewaunee, Illinois for the "Oktoberfest" at which four former WELS pastors gave presentations about the WELS went? (I heard that at least one of Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary professors was going to go to defend the WELS.)

October 15, 2008 11:24 AM

He's Back

2008-10-15T06:40:00.000-05:00

Rev. Paul Kelm accepts the call to be a full-time consultant for WELS Parish Assistance.