Intrepid Lutherans: Gaining in Popularity?

Last December, as Intrepid Lutherans progressed beyond two-and-a-half years of age and one-half-million page reads, we posted a list of the top twenty most-visited posts since our inception, Memorial Day weekend 2010, in our post Having Accumulated One-Half Million, We Continue On. Since that list of most-visited posts has changed, somewhat dramatically, since last December, I had planned to post an update following my series on the 2013 ELDoNA Colloquium and Synod. Of course, I had intended to have that series finished and posted in time to post that list for our Three Year Anniversary, this past Memorial Day. Even though Memorial Day Weekend is almost two month in the past, however, the changes in the list of most-visited posts are significant enough that I though it would be interesting to post them anyway.

At the time of that previous blog post, last December, we had posted 355 articles and were seeing an average of 900 page reads per day. Since then, according to Google Analytics, we've accumulated an additional 252,000 page reads (with some of the highest page reads per month we've ever had, approaching 50,000, occurring in February and March 2013), we've added another 65 articles, and our average visitor rate has grown to almost 1100 page reads per day – though that has tapered off considerably since May, probably due to a lower publishing rate that month, and also the lack of variety through June and July, in addition to seasonal decline in readership (historically, page reads decline over the Summer months anyway). The disparity between the figure for page-reads reported by Google Analytics and the Flag Counter is indicative of another dramatic change in readership behaviour: our bounce rate has declined significantly, meaning readers are spending more time on our blog, and are taking in more of our articles (Flag Counter only counts initial page-reads of a visitor who has not accessed a page over an extended period of time). Up until last December, Flag Counter and Google Analytics were running about the same count, in terms of page-reads. Not anymore.

Also, the article with the all-time highest page-reads was written in the time since December – an article of fairly critical importance, covering a topic that has seen recurring treatment on the pages of Intrepid Lutherans since the WELS TEC announced, at the 2011 WELS Synod Convention, their full and unreserved endorsement of the feministic NIV 2011 and emphatic recommendation to adopt it as the Synod's standard translation for all of its publishing efforts. Until the next revision of the NIV, at least. The name of that blog article is, How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?. It was published December 11, 2012, currently stands at 7267 page reads, and continues to see over 100 page reads per week.

There have been many other changes in the top twenty, as well. Some have been bumped from the list since last December, other, new articles have appeared on the top twenty, and others have moved up or down the list. I list them in the table, below, from currently most popular to twentieth. For those articles remaining in the top twenty, I (mostly) retain the summary written in December. I hope you find the list interesting, and I hope you take some time to revisit the articles featured in it.

	Page Title	Page Views	Date	Author	Comments	Observations
1.	How does one interpret language in a post-Modern Age? What about the language of the Bible?	7267	12/11/2012	Mr. Douglas Lindee	17	I am not certain as to the precise reason for the popularity of this post – those who link to it, link to it directly, so it must have been passed around via email. However, this article was unique from all the others addressing translation issues, as it makes a doctrinal case for Formal Equivalence (FE). If we say that Scripture doctrine is built from “direct positive statements of Scripture, only” then this is a grammatical definition of doctrine, which requires a faithful grammar in a translation if those who use that translation are expected to rely on it as a source of True doctrine (laymen, for instance). Just as important, in the discussion that follows, the case for Dynamic Equivalence (DE) is destroyed. In supporting DE, one commenter insisted that “the most important issue in translation is not reproducing grammar but reproducing meaning” – an assertion with which I vehemently disagreed, stating, instead, that such a position “is tantamount to establishing levels of importance within God's Revelation, and ultimately defining the source of Scripture's meaning – that which was directly inspired by God – as outside the relevant scope of what God revealed to mankind.” The Scriptures very clearly state that words and grammar are what was inspired by God, that “meaning” is only that which emerges from what God directly inspired. A translation that attempts to reproduce so-called “meaning,” while dismissing the inspired grammatical form and vocabulary from which that meaning emerges, intrusively places man between God's Inspired Revelation and the reader of Scripture, making man – the translator, in particular – the “arbiter of Scripture's meaning.” And we've covered the consequences of this “Magisterial Use of Reason” on Intrepid Lutherans, as well. No thank you. I'll take what post-Modern advocates of Dynamic Equivalence refer to as a “clunky” FE Bible – something that the rest of the world still recognizes as an avowed “Masterpiece of the English Language” like the KJV, for instance – any day of the week, because it was translated according to a far more Scripturally faithful ideology of translation.
2.	Dear Pastors Jeske and Ski: You are clearly in the wrong	6069	02/15/11	Intrepid Lutherans	13	Juicy controversy – everybody was interested, relatively few had the courage to comment.
3.	Fraternal Dialogue on the Topic of “Objective Justification”	5920	09/26/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	54	Rev. Webber (ELS) recommended “Fraternal Dialogue” on the topic, so we opened it with a position and a series of questions to debate, and attempted to keep the ensuing “dialogue” civil and centered on Scripture and the Confessions.
4.	The NNIV, the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee, and the Perspicuity of the Scriptures	4029	07/28/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	71	The catch-phrase, “There is no perfect translation,” ultimately devolves into a denial of Scripture's clarity and an affirmation of the Roman position that the literate Christian still needs a “Priest” to explain it to him. The sufficiency and authority of Scripture being one of the planks of the Protestant Reformation, this will never happen among Protestant Christians. Not directly. Translators now take on this role in the Protestant world, under the translation ideology of Dynamic Equivalence.
5.	Thoughts on Gender-Neutral Language in the NIV 2011	3978	09/15/11	Intrepid Lutherans	9	Intrepid Lutherans aren't the only ones in WELS concerned that whitewashing gender differences in the Bible, by way of imposing a feminist ideology of translation over the entire text, will lead not only to doctrinal error, but to a culture of thought among supposedly “conservative” Christians that is at war against the Nature of God itself and incompatible with His message to Man. And let's be clear, Feminism, Abortion, Gay Marriage and Communism are all intimately linked, as exposed in the following Intrepid Lutherans (sub)-article, Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin and America Today: A Very Brief Look at the Tip of the Iceberg
6.	Why I No Longer Attend My [WELS] Church	3926	02/06/11	Intrepid Lutherans	26	Cross-post from Mr. Ric Techlin's blog, Light from Light, publicly revealing difficulties he was having in his congregation, namely, the refusal of his congregation to address his concerns regarding error in doctrine and practice that was being promoted in his congregation. A handful of local pastors volunteered to work with Mr. Techlin, his congregation and district to resolve these difficulties...
7.	Luther's translation of 2 Cor. 5:19	3816	02/01/2013	Rev. Paul Rydecki	137	In this article, Rev. Rydecki warns of corrupted editions of Luther's Unrevidierte Ausgabe von 1545, that are used to defend Universal Objective Justification and the notion that Luther believed, taught and confessed this doctrine – a potent defense indeed, except that those corrupted editions change the tense of certain verbs in this passage in a way that is not insignificant to the Doctrine of Justification. The verbs in uncorrupted editions of Luther's Unrevidierte Ausgabe do not support UOJ at all.
8.	The Witch Hunt Has (Officially) Begun	3711	01/15/2013	Rev. Paul Rydecki	32	This post was issued in response to an item that appeared on the immediately previous quarterly CoP meeting, addressing not only Intrepid Lutherans, but those who have lent us their names in support of our endeavors to raise issues of doctrine and practice – even if the are uncomfortable issues – that need to be addressed. The agenda item indicated a need to begin a asserted effort to follow up with those who have lent us their names. This, of course, wasn't the only agenda item of interest to, and significant consequence on, Intrepid Lutherans, as we indicated a month later in the slightly less popular post, What on Earth could the CoP possibly have meant by THIS?. With only 2162 page reads, we nevertheless heard directly from “Certain Personages” on that one...
9.	Suspended from the WELS – Why?	3518	10/09/12	Rev. Paul Rydecki	0	More “juicy controversy...”
10.	Differences between Reformed and Lutheran Doctrines	3466	04/13/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	9	The majority of hits on this post are from Reformed and Evangelical sources, as it has been passed around and discussed in a number of different forums, and continues to be frequently read. People still comment occasionally, as well.
11.	Change or Die – Update	3424	02/24/11	Intrepid Lutherans	13	The “juicy controversy” continues, as does both interest in the controversy and reluctance to become involved.
12.	What's Missing in Groeschel's Sermons? – A brief review of Craig Groeschel, Part 2	3316	09/07/2010	Rev. Paul Lidtke	22	This one has been simmering for sometime, but has finally come to a boil. Most of the page reads we receive on this article are the result of people searching not just on “Craig Groeschel,” but on “problems with,” “errors of” and “information about” the man and his ministry.
13.	The WEB: A viable English Bible translation?	3052	09/18/11	Rev. Paul Rydecki	94	Discussion over an unsuitable version of the Bible degenerates into a melee over Universalism, and this version's mistranslation of certain sections which support it.
14.	The whole flock won't survive 'jumping the shark'	2912	02/02/12	Mr. Brian Heyer	42	Thoughtless and ridiculous last-ditch efforts to “save the congregation” by abusing the term evangelism are transparently pathetic acts of desperation, make the congregation a laughing stock in the community and bring shame upon the name of Christ. The methods of the Church Growth Movement are not methods, they are antics, and kill the church by trivializing Scriptures' teachings. Shame on Lutheran congregations who do such things! Another similar and more recent, though less popular, post on Intrepid Lutherans, exposing the same pop-church shenanigans was entitled, Real? Relational?? Relevant??? O THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!! – equally worth the reader's time to revisit.
15.	Emmaus Conference – Recap	2756	05/10/11	Rev. Paul Rydecki	17	Were some people excitedly thinking that perhaps this event represented the reunion of Missouri and Wisconsin? Most new page-reads are probably looking for updates on more recent conferences...
16.	NNIV – the new standard for WELS?	2723	07/15/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	62	Yup, it sure looks that way...
17.	Intrepid to the Last: Rev. Paul Rydecki has been Suspended from WELS	2640	10/06/2012	Intrepid Lutherans	0	More juicy controversy, lots of people interested, but no one with the courage to comment. Intrepid Lutherans remains and continues.
18.	Pietism and Ministry in the WELS: A brief review of Craig Groeschel, Part 1	2596	08/30/2010	Mr. Douglas Lindee & Rev. Steven Spencer	6	This is Part One of the slightly more read Part Two, listed above, in which Rev. Lidtke compares the Law & Gospel Lutheran preaching common WELS to that of Craig Groeschel. In Part One, we address corrosive effects of Pietism which clearly lies at the foundation of Groeschel's ministry. 'Tis too bd that many confessional Lutherans look to Groeschel as the oracle of post-Modern ministry necessity. This includes WELS Lutherans, as the following recent post illucidates: Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda...
19.	Ambivalent	2568	06/27/12	Rev. Steven Spencer	47	Does no one care about the threat of doctrinal error and sectarian practice? One might pardon the laity for not being informed, but what do we make of the silence and inaction of Lutheran clergy?
20.	The Silence Is Broken: An Appleton Update	2540	05/08/11	Rev. Paul Lidtke	29	An update on Mr. Techlin's difficulties, from one of the pastors personally involved in his defense. After formally objecting to what he was concerned were unscriptural practices and teachings in his congregation – and asking to be corrected where he might be in error – Mr. Techlin was simply removed from fellowship: no discussion with him over the issues he raised was entertained, no brotherly attempt was made to work with him through these issues, no example of Christian humility was displayed by his “brothers” which might have suggested they were themselves open to correction. Instead, without Mr. Techlin's or his family's knowledge, the congregation scheduled a meeting, and without even offering him the opportunity to defend himself, voted to remove him and members of his family from fellowship. To his surprise, he received a “Certified Letter” in the mail informing him of the congregation's action against him. Not so much as a phone call from a “concerned brother” or even from his pastor. Just certified mail. Furthermore, this letter made no mention of any doctrinal error to which he obstinately clung, regarding which the congregation collectively determined “further admonition would be of no avail.” To this day, Mr. Techlin has no idea what his error may have been, as no admonition has ever been attempted, certainly none by a “genuine brother” who was himself open to correction. Moreover, this congregation's action was openly defended by their Bishop, and formally approved by a committee he personally appointed to review Mr. Techlin's appeal, which found that “[his] congregation had Scriptural reasons for removing [him] from membership,” without, of course actually enumerating them for the benefit of Mr. Techlin and all other lay members of WELS congregations who may have an interest in knowing what their actual rights as laymen really are, “and, in doing so, acted in the spirit of Christian love.” Mr. Techlin's is not the only recent example of similar processes used to remove “undesirables” from WELS, but his is very well-documented and betrays what seems to not only be acceptable practice but one which Christian congregations are apparently not above employing. The same “We-won't-have-a-conversation-with-you-on-this-topic” approach was used in the case of Joe Krohn, and, as recounted in one of the articles above, was also adhered to in the case of Rev. Rydecki's suspension.

 

Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda...

Those of you who have been following us on Facebook and Twitter probably could have seen this coming, as you've recently been fed a steady diet of links to some of our older posts reprising topics like Pietism, Sectarian Worship, Lay Ministry, along with a few links featuring the advice of orthodox Lutherans from previous eras regarding genuine Lutheran practice that also does the job of confessing our separation from sectarians.

But they are just a bunch of old dead dudes, and who really cares about ancient history anyway. Yeah, they said stuff. So what. We say stuff, too, and what we say is what matters today.

Meanwhile, an email rather circuitously made its way to our inbox yesterday. It was initially sent to the pastors of an entire circuit in the WELS SEW District, and included a passel of attachments for their review ahead of their meeting of this Friday. They will be discussing the opening of an INTERDISTRICT MULTI-SITE CONGREGATION. The congregation, Hope Lutheran in Oconomowoc, WI (Western Wisconsin District), had been planning a multi-site effort since 2010, and, with the encouragement of their District President, had been communicating their plans with WW DMB throughout this time. In July of 2012, a conversation with Wisconsin Lutheran College (WLC) President Dan Johnson resulted in his offer to use the facilities of WLC as a "cradle to launch the second location of Hope" – in the Southeastern Wisconsin District (SEW).

Click here for the documentation.

Multi-site Congregations? Whence comest thou?
In a previous exposé on the teaching of Craig Groeschel, entitled Pietism and Ministry in the WELS: A brief review of Craig Groeschel, we critiqued the thirteen points of his Vision and Values document. Point one, along with our response to it, reads

"1. Since Christ is for us and with us, we are a fearless, risk taking, exponential thinking church. We refuse to insult God with timid thinking or selfish living.

"Interpretation: We like to tempt God.

"There is nothing laudable in casting Christian Stewardship aside, to openly take 'bet-the-farm' risks with resources God has given to us, which he expects us to wisely invest. 'Betting the Farm' is not wisdom, but foolishness."

Compare this, the FIRST POINT of Groeschel's Vision and Values statement, with THE FIRST POINT listed in the Mission Vision Values statement of Hope Lutheran, from the documentation packet linked above:

"Since Christ is for us and with us, we are a fearless, risk taking, exponential thinking church. We refuse to insult God with timid thinking or selfish living."

Already we see, Craig Groeschel is their guide – they have adopted his Vision for Ministry and made it their own, quoting from it verbatim. But it doesn't end there. Here are points four and seven from Craig Groeschel's Vision and Values document:

"4. We give up things we love for things we love even more. It's an honor to sacrifice for Christ and His church.

"7. We will lead the way with irrational generosity. We truly believe it is more blessed to give than to receive."

You can read our 2010 exposé on Craig Groeschel to see our responses to these points. But compare these points to POINT SIX listed in Hope Lutheran's Mission Vision Values statement, again from the packet linked above:

"We love to give up things we love for the things that God loves."

We did a post or two on plagiarism, did we not? Yes, I think we did. Here is the series we posted in 2010 on the sin of plagiarism. Craig Groeschel makes an appearance in this series, as well – commenting on those who do not give credit to their sources:

A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part I
A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism and Pastoral Fraud – Part II
A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point
A Superfluity of Naughtiness: Plagiarism of Sectarian Sources in the WELS – A Case in Point (cont'd)

Re-read these old posts, and read the rest of our 2010 exposé on Craig Groeschel and his connection to the WELS. What we said then still applies today, and that application is most assuredly expanding.


Recently, Craig Groeschel wrote an editorial for FoxNews.com, which was titled, Christians, here's why we're losing our religion. Aptly titled, his objective is, in fact, to lose religion. He writes:

"You see, religion alone can only take a person so far. Religion can make us nice, but only Christ can make us new. Religion focuses on outward behavior. Relationship is an inward transformation. Religion focuses on what I do, while relationship centers on what Jesus did. Religion is about me. Relationship is about Jesus... religion is about rules, but being a Christian is about relationship."

Compare Groeschel's statement, above, to POINT SEVEN in the document Mission Vision Values, again, in the packet linked above. It reads:

"We will not let our behavior or church culture create a barrier between Jesus and a person he died for."

The relationship between statements like this and Evangelical leadership emanating from the likes of Craig Groeshel is obvious. Yet, such leadership is Scripturally incompetent – a clear example of allowing an enemy of the Christian AND the Church (i.e., the World) to dictate our terms. In reality, those who separate religion from Christianity, as Groeschel suggests, have no idea what either religion or Christianity is. Sure, Christianity is a relationship between the individual and Jesus, but Scripture's testimony on the matter is clear and abundant: for as much as it is a relationship between the individual and Jesus, it is also a relationship of confessional unity between fellow Christians AND a relationship between the congregation and Christ. Christianity is NOT strictly a matter between the individual and God, in its visible manifestation, it is principally corporate in nature! One cannot separate the idea of "religion" from Christianity! To even suggest it is nonsense.


Craig Groeschel continues in his editorial:

"But in order to reach the current generation and generations to come, we must change the way we do things. That's why we like to say, 'To reach people no one is reaching, we have to do things no one is doing.'"

He is repeating, here, the sixth point of his Vision and Values statement – which we commented on in our previous exposé. Hope Lutheran echoes this thought in POINT FIVE of their Mission Vision Values statement, contained in the documentation packet linked above:

"We are committed to reaching people that churches are not reaching."

But is Hope Lutheran, or anyone else who copies Craig Groeschel, really living out this vision statement? Hardly. Following the model of those 'who are doing what no one else is doing', those so doing such only succeed in doing what everyone else is doing. It's called a bandwagon. The fact is, it is on the basis of his multi-site church model that Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv was recently named the most innovative church. Those who copy him aren't at all "doing what no one else is doing to reach those no one else is reaching," but are simply doing what everyone else is doing, as they climb on board the bandwagon to do what has apparently been "successful" for Craig Groeschel. Everyone without a shred of creativity of their own, that is. Professor John Schaller has better advice for Lutherans. Read what Schaller writes, to see what he says about doing what everyone else is doing, instead of what Lutherans, alone, can uniquely do.


Craig Groeschel continues further:

"[A]s churches, we don't have the liberty to change the message, but we must change the way the message is presented. We have to discover our 'altar ego' — and become who God says we are instead of who others say we are."

Note that by "we", Groeschel is not referring to the Church anymore. By this point in his editorial, he has already separated corporate religion from the individual. The "we" he is referring to is individual Christians, and nothing more. Thus, the change he is calling for is not change in the Church, but change in the individual Christian, beginning with the separation of the individual Christian from the Church, and continuing with a change in his focus, calling the Christian to dwell on his own behaviour. Not only is this rank Sanctification oriented Pietism (which we detailed in our post, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism, and highlighted as a problem with Craig Groeschel in our 2010 exposé), it is a "change in the message." It is a manifestly duplicitous perspective on Christianity. All he is saying here is, "We must change the message to eliminate "religion" from Christianity (yes, change), we must change the message to eliminate "labels" from our identity (i.e., to eliminate a Christian's public confession from his Christianity), we must change the message to focus on what Christians do for God or what Christians do for man in the name of God instead of what the Holy Spirit does for man through His appointed Means, and we must change the message in these ways to accommodate the demands of the unregenerate who won't listen to us otherwise (who, the Scriptures tell us, are at war against God and don't want to listen to Him anyway). Moreover, we must change the message the way others say we must change the message, we must change the way they say we must change, and become who they say we must be." Who are these "others" but Craig Groeschel and similar Evangelical leaders! Separating the Christian from his religion and from his confession, they insert themselves to take over for the visible Church.


The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism
In our post, C.P. Krauth explains how orthodox Lutheran Synods descend into heterodoxy, we quoted Charles Porterfield Krauth as he identified the Course of Error in the Church, well-known since the time of St. Augustine and operating as well as it ever had in his own time:

"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."

Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. (pp. 195-196).

For almost three years now Intrepid Lutherans have been warning of this danger, educating our readers on the differences between heterodox sectarianism and orthodox Lutheranism, and demonstrating those differences along with giving evidence of its incursion into our Synod. Some have joined us by lending us their names; though some have been threatened for this, many remain. But these few do not account for the nearly 1500 daily page reads we see on average. Many folks read our essays and informational posts, and are confronted with the stark reality: our Synod is deteriorating right along with the visible Church everywhere, which almost unanimously now invites the World and worldly influences to abide with her in determining doctrine and practice. If they would aspire to be Dresden Lutherans of any sort, it is high-time for our readers to do more than just read. It is time for them to assert their Confession, to begin acting on their convictions in a way that will bring an end to this sort of thing.

What's Missing in Groeschel's Sermons? – A brief review of Craig Groeschel, Part 2

by Rev. Paul Lidtke

Preaching is the one area of the ministry that WELS pastors receive plenty of training. Each of the three years on campus a WELS seminary student completes two sermons to preach to his classmates. During his third year of training, a vicar preaches about fifteen times. So, by the time a seminary graduate receives his first assignment into parish ministry, he's had about twenty sermons critiqued by professors, classmates, and his supervising pastor.

At times WELS preachers are criticized for the predictability of their sermons. In other words, you know what you'll be hearing in the sermon: law and gospel, sin and grace. Even well-meaning Lutheran laypeople may say, "It just always seems like we hear the same thing." Whether they realize it or not, many people who make this criticism are looking for less gospel and more law, less justification and more sanctification, less “Christ for us” and more “Christ in us."

It's taken me twenty years in the full-time ministry to appreciate it, but I'm glad that my sermons speak of the same things week after week. I won't apologize for following the pericope series that takes my congregation through the life of Christ each year. After all, pointing to Christ is what I am supposed to do as herald of the gospel. Christ for us is at the center of Scripture. So, he and his work ought to be at the center of my sermons. You should expect that in a sermon preached by a WELS trained pastor.

But, I wondered, what about Craig Groeschel, whose sermons are being consulted by an increasing number of WELS pastors? So I signed up at his website, www.lifechurch.tv, and began reading his sermons. I didn't think it'd be fair to review only one sermon. I decided to read the five sermons that make up the sermon series entitled, "The Sickness Within."

By the way, Mr. Groeschel and his associates are very gifted at giving themes to sermon series and providing interesting weekly parts to the series. "The Sickness Within" dealt with these five sicknesses: anger, envy, pride, issues of control, and bitterness. It's obvious that Groeschel follows the church growth belief that what draws people to worship are the needs they feel must be addressed in their lives.

Good Lutheran preaching addresses sin in a person's life. Each week Lutheran preachers help their listeners stare into the mirror of God's law and be convicted by what they see there. Averaging nine pages and 30-minutes of preaching each, Groeschel and his two associates in the five sermons of "The Sickness Within" focus much on how sin is a part of our daily lives. There was a plethora of daily examples to support each sin that was being exposed. Scripture was used to justify most examples. Anyone listening would certainly walk away from worship knowing that he or she is infected by the sickness within.

Yet, the one thing missing the most in all the sermons was Jesus. A good Lutheran preacher would never allow a sermon to end without a clear statement of how we have a Savior from sin who's already acted on our behalf to save us. Stressing justification (what Christ has done for us) allows sanctification (what we do out of love for Christ) to follow naturally. By not stressing the gospel, Groeschel and others like him are depriving people of exactly what they need to live their lives in Christ.

A WELS layperson told me recently about a pastor who makes use of Groeschel sermons often. On one Sunday the law had been preached long and hard. The gospel, it was said, would be shared the following Sunday. When this man and his family were leaving worship, they encountered a woman in tears in the church lobby. When asked what was wrong, she explained that she felt so guilty of her sin and hoped that God could forgive her. My friend said to me, "I just couldn't help but think, 'if the gospel had been preached today, she'd know that God forgives her through Christ.'"

Jesus was mentioned in passing in each of the first four sermons. Only in the final sermon of the series did the preacher mention – in a few words – that Jesus died to forgive us. Otherwise, Jesus wasn't made to be the Savior from sin. He was made the Savior for a better life. Sanctification overshadowed Justification.

That's what happens when you try to meet the felt needs of people. You'll end up talking a lot about earth and not much about heaven. By the way, heaven was never mentioned once in five sermons. Also missing from all the sermons was any mention of Christ's resurrection, which is truly the power for Christian living. As you might expect, the sacraments had no mention, either.

A long-time friend of mine called me the other day. He's a former WELS pastor who visits his home congregation in the Fox Valley whenever he visits his mother. His home congregation is one that has used Groeschel materials in the past. Speaking of the worship in his home church he said, "It doesn't seem like we're worshiping, it really seems like I'm being entertained."

That surely is one thing that this Groeschel sermon series had in abundance, entertaining stories. Laughter was a big part of the sermon presentation. I get it. These preachers are down to earth. They're regular guys. They're funny. Who wouldn't want to come to worship?

That's what the church growth camp wants confessional Lutheran pastors and congregations to bite on. They want us to believe that what draws people are the funny stories, the relaxing atmosphere, and the answers to everyday questions. Yet, as Bill Hybels at Willow Creek has already admitted, these things may bring people in but they won't keep the people there. Fortunately, confessional Lutheran churches have known for years what keeps people in the pews. Preaching the whole counsel of God. Highlighting Jesus in our ministry. Craig Groeschel hasn't figured that out. WELS pastors are wise to follow in the steps of their homiletics professors and not Craig Groeschel when preparing their sermons.

Here's what I mean. Since several of my members are residents at a local Methodist-owned nursing facility, I take our church organist along one Sunday every two months to conduct worship. Sunday was my day. I preached the same sermon there that I preached in the morning. On my way out I heard a gentleman say to his daughter, "You can always count on those WELS preachers."

I smiled and walked to the car happy. Not because I may have received a back-handed compliment, but because our WELS preaching is really what God's people need. It centers on Christ. You won't find that in a Craig Groeschel sermon.

Pietism and Ministry in the WELS: A brief review of Craig Groeschel, Part 1

On Tuesday of last week, in the closing sentence of the post, Public Ministry and the Divine Call, I promised that we would have more to say in coming days and weeks regarding the sources we see repeatedly surfacing among congregations implementing practices of the Church Growth Movement. One such source is Craig Groeschel’s LifeChurch.tv, which, based on personal observation and the observations of numerous laymen and pastors who maintain contact with IL, seems to be rapidly growing in popularity among various churches and schools in our Synod.

LifeChurch.tv is online Church, with about a dozen physical locations throughout the United States. Of key interest to WELS churches, however, is the numerous resources that are made available for free, as a way of “equipping churches” to “bring people closer to God” (Church Resources). Chief among these “resources” are the sermons of celebrity evangelical preacher, Craig Groeschel.

Without going much further, already we see problems. WELS churches that enter into usage of these materials are doing so under the banner of being equipped for ministry by the heterodox. Further, as proof of their heterodoxy, we have the stated purpose of these materials: to bring people closer to God. This statement does many things, two of which are as follows:

1. It attenuates the righteous severity of God’s Justice. If, apart from faith, apart from the benefits of Christ’s work on my behalf, I am separated from God, unable, because of my own inbred sin, to merit standing in His sight (Ro. 3:10-20), or to move myself closer to Him or to lay hold of Him (Is. 64:6-7), there is then a gulf between me and Him which cannot be traversed. I cannot get “closer to God. ” Any separation from Him is total separation from Him. Apart from the free gift of faith, there is no such thing as “closer to God” as if I can get closer and closer to enjoy the comfort of being “almost there.” Almost there merits eternal damnation in the fires of hell as surely as “nowhere near.” Everyone separated from God by unfaith stands equally as His enemy, and is equally doomed for eternity.
2. It cheapens the value of salvation. If, through faith, I am God’s own dear child, how much closer to Him can I get? Through faith, the gulf of separation has been traversed, I am no longer God’s enemy, but am considered by Him to be the brother of Christ. Is there a status of “extra special child of God” for me to attain to? Perhaps there are levels of standing before God? Perhaps by pining and tarrying after Christ, or by some other regimen of pious exercise or form of right living, I may be granted the position of ruling at the right or left hand of Christ? The original disciples thought such things, and were corrected by Jesus for their error (Lk. 9:46-48; Mt. 18:1-4; Mk. 10:35-45). The fact is, as children of God, we all stand equally as the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven – there is none greater or lesser, there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, all are one in Jesus Christ (Ga. 3:28-29). I do not attain “closer” standing with God than other believing Christians have, regardless of our relative “progress” in Sanctification. Once I have Faith, I have arrived – I am God’s own dear child, and immediately have the greatest standing in His kingdom. And to this faith I cling. For a Christian to speak of being “closer to God,” as if other Christians are somehow not as close to God, or as if one can gain greater “closeness” or “standing” in His sight is to view his relationship with God purely through worldly eyes.

But let’s examine Craig Groeschel and LifeChurch.tv a bit more closely. One interesting thing about Craig Groeschel is that he is not some fly-by-night, one-man-church-body with a theological perspective so unique that no one else agrees with him. He is not the non-denominational corner-church religious quack that has been so popular over the past two decades or so. He, and his online ministry, have religious affiliation with a bona fide church body, that has been in existence in the United States since 1885. He has gravitas.

The Evangelical Covenant Church
Craig Groeschel and LifeChurch.tv are affiliated with the Evangelical Covenant Church – a church body with roots in Scandinavian Lutheran Pietism:

LifeChurch.tv is part of the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) - a rapidly growing multi-ethnic denomination in the United States and Canada with ministries on five continents of the world. Founded in 1885 by Swedish immigrants, the ECC values the Bible as the Word of God, the gift of God's grace and ever-deepening spiritual life that comes through faith in Jesus Christ, the importance of extending God's love and compassion to a hurting world, and the strength that comes from unity within diversity (Beliefs).

So what does the ECC believe? Surely, given their Lutheran roots, there is much with which a WELS Lutheran might find resonance! Let’s briefly examine their claims.

From the Preamble to the ECC Constitution and Bylaws

The Evangelical Covenant Church is a communion of congregations gathered by God, united in Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit to obey the great commandment and the great commission. It affirms its companionship in faith with other church bodies and all those who fear God and keep God's commandments.

There are two problems here: the emphasis is on "obey," rather than "believe," – Law over Gospel. Also, their concept of "fellowship" is very broad and ecumenical, assuming such with all who “fear God and keep His commandments” – which is subjective and ultimately legalistic. This concept is, therefore, unscriptural and not at all compatible with the Lutheran Confession.

The Evangelical Covenant Church adheres to the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation regarding the Bible. It confesses that the Holy Scripture, the Old and the New Testament, is the Word of God and the only perfect rule for faith, doctrine, and conduct. It affirms the historic confessions of the Christian Church, particularly the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed, while emphasizing the sovereignty of the Word of God over all creedal interpretations.

This sounds reasonable - at first. However, "emphasizing the sovereignty of the Word of God over all creedal interpretations" is an open invitation to any and all weak, false, and dangerous theology. It is an expression of a quatenus subscription to the Creeds, holding them up to qualification on the basis of personal interpretation of Scripture. Lutherans require an unqualified quia subscription to the Creeds as well as the Lutheran Confessions.

In continuity with the renewal movements of historic Pietism, the Evangelical Covenant Church especially cherishes the dual emphasis on new birth and new life in Christ, believing that personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is the foundation for our mission of evangelism and Christian nurture. Our common experience of God’s grace and love in Jesus Christ continues to sustain the Evangelical Covenant Church as an interdependent body of believers that recognizes but transcends our theological differences.

Here the ECC clearly and unabashedly embraces the false theology of Pietism. Thus, the obvious emphasis is on sanctification rather than justification, again Law instead of Gospel. In addition, the "experience" of Christ becomes the standard of measurement among them, and allows their members to hold different theological beliefs and yet remain in fellowship. Once again, the Biblical doctrine of fellowship is disregarded.

The Evangelical Covenant Church celebrates two divinely ordained sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Recognizing the reality of freedom in Christ, and in conscious dependence on the work of the Holy Spirit, we practice both the baptism of infants and believer baptism. The Evangelical Covenant Church embraces this freedom in Christ as a gift that preserves personal conviction, yet guards against an individualism that disregards the centrality of the Word of God and the mutual responsibilities and disciplines of the spiritual community.

Once again personal theological interpretation and rationalism, along with a fair dose of Calvinism, runs rampant in this ECC statement. Both infant baptism, but also the so-called "believer-baptism" is employed in the same church body. It wouldn't be surprising to find both used on a single individual at different points in his life! Consistency with “believer-baptism” would require it!

The Evangelical Covenant Church has its roots in historical Christianity, the Protestant Reformation, the biblical instruction of the Lutheran Church of Sweden, and the great spiritual awakenings of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These influences, together with more recent North American renewal movements, continue to shape its development and distinctive spirit. The Evangelical Covenant Church is committed to reaching across boundaries of race, ethnicity, culture, gender, age, and status in the cultivation of communities of life and service.

By acknowledging and even exulting in the "great spiritual awakenings" of the past, the ECC clearly lays out its theological parentage. This church body was not and is not a confessional Lutheran church body, pure and simple. The ECC is thoroughly ecumenical in the worst sense of the word, and thus degrades and denigrates both its tenuous connection with its Lutheran past, and its supposed devotion to Christ and His Word. Simply put, this is a heretical church body, with which WELS churches and Pastors should have nothing whatsoever to do!

Craig Groeshel and LifeChurch.tv: The Beliefs they Pass Along to their Users

In Non-Essential Beliefs, we have liberty. Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters... Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls... So then each of us will give an account of himself to God... So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

What makes the Covenant unique from other denominations is the fact that while it strongly affirms the clear teaching of the Word of God, it allows believers the personal freedom to have varying interpretations on theological issues that are not clearly presented in Scripture (Beliefs).

Prior to becoming Confessional Lutherans many years ago, my wife and I visited an ECC Church. Upon leaving, after a conversation with the Pastor and his wife, we were handed a pamphlet describing the teachings of the ECC. The glaring error it contained, which prompted our rejection of this church body's claim to orthodoxy and guaranteed that we would never return, was the distinction of Scriptural teachings it emphasized (and I quote from memory): We divide the teaching of Scripture into two categories – negotiable and non-negotiable. My good wife scoffed: “Precisely what teachings of Scripture are ‘negotiable’?” In the reference above we receive the answer: negotiable teachings are the teachings that are “non-essential” to Salvation, i.e., the “non-fundamental” teachings of Scripture. Of these, one is advised to keep his mouth shut and his “opinions” to himself. And so we see that association with Craig Groeschel will include the teaching (whether subtly or overtly) that non-fundamental doctrines are merely matters of opinion, or adiaphora. This is the heart of doctrinal indifferentism, a hallmark of Pietism as described in our post two weeks ago, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism. But let’s examine the perspectives of Craig Groeschel and LifeChurch.tv a little more closely, from their Vision and Values document:

1. We are faith-filled, big thinking, bet-the-farm risk takers. We'll never insult God with small thinking and safe living.
   
   Interpretation: We like to tempt God.
   
   There is nothing laudable in casting Christian Stewardship aside, to openly take “bet-the-farm” risks with resources God has given to us, which he expects us to wisely invest. “Betting the Farm” is not wisdom, but foolishness.


2. We are all about the "capital C" Church! The local church is the hope of the world and we know we can accomplish infinitely more together than apart.
   
   Interpretation: We're NOT all about the "Big C" Christ. We ARE all about ourselves!
   
   This is pure anthropocentrism – man “accomplishing” for God what He as defined as purely the Holy Spirit’s work. Moreover, this is expression of deep doctrinal error concerning the “Church” itself: the local congregation is not “capital C” church, it is visible Church, composed of hypocrites and believers together. We believe that the Church Militant is among the visible Church, but the local congregation is not, properly speaking, the Church Militant or the One True Church.


3. We are spiritual contributors not spiritual consumers. The church does not exist for us. We are the church and we exist for the world.
   
   Interpretation: We don't need God to tell us or give us anything. We're the most important thing in the world!
   
   More doctrinal error resulting from a vacuous doctrine of The Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. It exists for Him, and it serves Him. It does not exist “for the World.” The principle task of the Church Militant is to contend for the Faith – to hold on to the Truth – and, having it, to thus proclaim it before all Creation.


4. We give up things we love for things we love even more. It's an honor to sacrifice for Christ and His church.
   
   Interpretation: We're very proud of our giving – boy howdy – and how!
   
   Here we have further obvious elements of Pietism emerging. Recall the quote from Professor Brenner contained in a previous blog post, Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism:
   
   
   1. Pietism’s emphasis on Sanctification over Justification resulted in Legalism, by shifting the emphasis in the use of Law from the Second Use (as a mirror) to the Third Use (as a guide) and by prescribing laws of behavior in areas of Christian freedom, leading further to Perfectionism; and
      
   2. Pietism’s elevation of religious subjectivism ...also “separated God’s Word from the working of the Holy Spirit” (breaking down the Biblical teaching of the Means of Grace), “changed the Marks of the Church from ‘the gospel rightly proclaimed and the sacrament rightly administered’ to ‘where people are living correctly,’” and “divided the church into groups according to subjective standards of outward behavior.”
   
   Sacrifice is a virtue at LifeChurch.tv. It is also a measure of individuals.


5. We wholeheartedly reject the label mega-church. We are a micro-church with a megavision.
   
   Interpretation: We are super-concerned about how people see US.
   
   The ECC is a church body, and LifeChurch.tv is a church within that church. Recall, again, from our blog post Lay Ministry: A Continuing Legacy of Pietism the phrase, Ecclesiolae in ecclesia – “little churches within the church.” LifeChurch.tv may be a “micro-church,” but it also a mega-conventicle. How much of this idea of “little churches within the church” is being passed on to WELS congregations who use Groeschel’s material?


6. We will do anything short of sin to reach people who don't know Christ. To reach people no one is reaching, we'll have to do things no one is doing.
   
   Interpretation: We have a very, very broad definition of "sin," so just about anything we can think of, we can do!
   
   Do these phrases sound familiar? Do any of our WELS pastors make nearly verbatim use of the phrase, “To reach people no one is reaching, we'll have to do things no one is doing” and not only apply it to themselves but use it as the basis of their local ministry? Do any of our WELS pastors hail as a badge of honor, almost verbatim, that they “will do anything short of sin to reach people who don't know Christ?” If so, from where might they be absorbing these ideas? Is making such prominent and verbatim use of notoriously heterodox ministry fundamentals not tantamount to pan-unionism?


7. We will lead the way with irrational generosity. We truly believe it is more blessed to give than to receive.
   
   Interpretation: Two points so far on our great giving! Have we mentioned that we're really, really great big givers, and the best and most givingest givers there ever were!?! WOW, are we good!
   
   Again with the Pietism. The Marks of the Church in these types of references are clearly “where people are living correctly” and division within the Church is established on the basis of outward behavior – in this case, outward displays of generosity.


8. We will laugh hard, loud and often. Nothing is more fun than serving God with people you love!
   
   Interpretation: We totally reject what Jesus said about serving Him in His Kingdom having anything whatsoever to do with any kind of "cross," pain, trial, or hardship!
   


9. We will be known for what we are for, not what we're against. There are already enough jerks in the world.
   
   Interpretation: Anyone and everyone who wants to talk to us about anything resembling "doctrine," or "theology," is a fat-head and a creep – not to mention, jerk!
   
   Consistent with Pietistic doctrinal indifferentism, discussion of doctrinal matters, or holding to a Confession extending beyond the so-called “fundamentals” of the Christian faith earns nothing but a pejorative reference. Indifferentism is by no means a source of peace, but a catalyst for conflict. It is the true seat of division within the Church.


10. We always bring our best. Excellence honors God and inspires people.
    
    Interpretation: We forget, have we told you how good and great and wonderful we are yet? If not, we sure are – and then some!
    
    Again with the Pietism – of comparing one’s Sanctification with others, and using that as a defining characteristic. They “bring their best” in distinction to those who don’t, or who don’t on their terms.


11. The only constant in our ministry is change. God is always doing a new thing. Why we do what we do never changes. How we do it must change.
    
    Interpretation: We think that guy in the Bible who said there wasn't ever anything new under the sun is an idiot (Ec. 1). Also, we think the way the Apostles and 2,000 years of Christianity has worshiped is dumb, boring, and stupid, and besides which – we like to have fun, remember!?
    


12. We don't recruit volunteers; we release leaders. Volunteers do good things but leaders change the world.
    
    Interpretation: It is not Jesus and His work, but our goodness and greatness that will save the world!
    
    There is no Cross in this. There is only a Theology of Glory.


13. We're living in the "good old days." We're thankful for God's blessings today and expect even more tomorrow.
    
    Interpretation: We don't believe in "tribulation," or persecution, or Judgment Day. We're getting better and better and greater and greater day by day until we reach heaven all by ourselves! Are we really something, or else?!

Use of Craig Groeschel’s material in WELS congregations and schools is a serious matter. Sure, it may be tempting to use material from a church body having roots in Lutheranism somewhere in the distant past, especially if the materials are essentially Public Domain. But it is a severe and disqualifying lapse of ministerial judgment to seek ministerial “equipping” from heterodox sources, to allow oneself to become openly associated with heterodox teachers, and, further, to willingly endanger the souls under one’s care by making verbatim use of such materials and thus expose Christians to faith killing error.

We will have more to say regarding the sermons of Craig Groeschel, and implications of their use in WELS churches, in coming days.

Mr. Douglas Lindee
Rev. Steven Spencer