Dr. Martin Luther: Christian Unity needs Harmony among Individuals; however, Ecclesial Unity requires that False Teachers be publicly Admonished and Rebuked by Fellow Pastors

In commentary following a recent post by anonymous blogger "Matthias Flach" entitled, A Travesty Examined, Part Nine , it was suggested that "Matthias" contact the President of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and complain to him about all the problems he sees – the idea being that the Synod President, having enough complainers behind him, would be emboldened to, say, acknowledge these problems publicly, maybe even repudiate them... possibly, like Synod President Matt Harrison of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), even use the publishing power of his office (the only power the WELS SP really has) to consistently expose the errors of false teachers in the WELS Ministerium who are apparently prized, protected and promoted by the entirety of the WELS Praesidium, warn against them, and rebuke those fellow pastors who embrace these teachings and practices.

Maybe such would happen... Assuming the best of the WELS SP, perhaps it can also be asserted that he needs numbers behind him, not for courage, but for factual corroboration. Quite honestly, however, even having the corroboration, I don’t think that any sort of public acknowledgement or admonishment would be forthcoming. At least nothing with any sort of impact that wouldn’t be immediately overcome by a swift, unanimous and well-coordinated action of the Twelve District Presidents who evidently oppose him. One primary reason, in my opinion, is how very close-knit WELS has become. It has grown unhealthy. For instance, when a person names a given WELS pastor, the instinct (in my personal experience) seems to be toward immediately calculating ones degree of familial relation to the man, and then recalling his direct and indirect experience with him. While this is perfectly natural in small old organizations, there now seems to be an inability to distinguish between individual and Office among them. Any just criticism of a pastor’s doctrine or practice seems to be interpreted as an attack against him personally or against his extended family and classmates, an arrogant elevation of the person issuing the criticism, and a disruption of the harmony necessary for unity to persist among them. The example currently found in the LCMS, of pastors exhibiting the courage to name false doctrines and practices among them, and, increasingly, the pastors who embrace and promote those teachings and practices, seems to be a cultural impossibility in WELS, unless it is already a family squabble of some sort, a matter of personal history or conflict between individual pastors going back, say, to high-school, college or seminary, or an internal political issue within the ministerium where lines have already been drawn.

Martin Luther preached, however, that recognizing a distinction between individual and Office is necessary, that Christian duty to cherish and preserve harmony – to be “compassionate and loving as ‘brethren, tenderhearted, and "friendly" or "humble-minded"’” – extends to the manner in which individuals carry on with one another. It is not, however, necessarily characteristic of the Office, the function of which includes the preachment of the Law in a way that cuts to the bone and exposes sin – which, to the person offended by the Law, does not seem like a very friendly thing to do – and as God’s representative, even extends to the withholding of forgiveness from the unrepentant (Matt. 16:19; John 20:23) – which does not seem to the unforgiven to be a very friendly thing to do, either. He preached further that it is a function of the Office, and thus of the pastor who is responsible to “represent not [his] own but God’s dignity,” to admonish and rebuke false teachers – i.e., fellow Office holders, saying:

But if one dishonors the Baptism, Sacrament, or Ministry committed to me by God, and so opposes not me but God Himself, then it is my duty not to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season – as Paul admonishes Timothy – those who err in doctrine or faith or who do not amend their lives; and this regardless of who they are or how it pleases them.

All of this – the duty to cherish harmony among Christians, the duty to rebuke false teachers in the Church (which appears disharmonious but preserves pure doctrine, which is necessary for true harmony), and drawing the distinction between these duties – is found in his Sermon on the Epistle Lesson for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity (1 Pet. 3:8-15), pertinent excerpts from which follow:

---

From Dr. Martin Luther’s Sermon on 1 Peter 3:8-15
The Epistle Lesson for the Fifth Sunday after Trinity

On the Duty to Cherish Christian Harmony
No one has a different baptism or sacrament, a different Christ, from mine, or grace and salvation other than I have. And no individual can have another faith than have Christians in general, nor does he hear any other Gospel or receive a different absolution, be he lord or servant, noble or ignoble, poor or rich, young or old, Italian or German. When one imagines himself different from or better than his fellows, desiring to exalt and glorify himself above others, he is truly no longer a Christian; because he is no longer in that unity of mind and faith essential to Christians. Christ with His grace is always the same, and cannot be divided or apportioned within Himself.

Not without reason did the beloved apostles urge this point. They clearly saw how much depends upon it, and what evil and harm result from disregard of the commandment. Where this commandment is dishonored, schisms and factions will necessarily arise to corrupt pure doctrine and faith, and the devil will sow his seed, which afterwards can be eradicated only with difficulty. When once self-conceit rules, and one, pretending more learning, wisdom, goodness and holiness than his fellows, begins to despise others and to draw men to himself, away from the unity of mind which makes us one in Christ, and when he desires the first praise and commendation for his own doctrine and works, his own preaching, then the harm is already done; faith is overthrown and the Church is rent. When unity becomes division, certainly two sects cannot both be the true Church. If one is godly, the other must be the devil’s own. On the other hand, so long as unity of faith and oneness of mind survives, the true Church of God abides, notwithstanding there may be some weakness in other points. Of this fact the devil is well aware; hence his hostility to Christian unity. His chief effort is to destroy harmony. “Having that to contend with,” he tells himself, “my task will be a hard and wearisome one.”

Therefore, Christians should be all the more careful to cherish the virtue of harmony, both in the Church and in secular government. In each instance there is of necessity much inequality. God would have such dissimilarity balanced by love and unity of mind. Let everyone be content, then, with what God has given or ordained for him, and let him take pleasure in another’s gifts, knowing that in eternal blessings he is equally rich, having the same God and Christ, the same grace and salvation; and that although his standing before God may differ from that of his fellows, he is nevertheless in no way inferior to them, nor is anyone for the same reason at all better than or superior to himself.

...

The other virtues enjoined by Peter are easily recognized – compassionate, loving as “brethren, tenderhearted, and ‘friendly’ or ‘humble-minded’.” These particularly teach how Christians should esteem one another. God has subjected them all to love and has united them, with the design that they shall be of one heart and soul, and each care for the other as for himself. Peter’s exhortation was especially called for at that time, when Christians were terribly persecuted. Here a pastor, there a citizen, was thrown into prison, driven from wife, child, house and home, and finally executed. Such things happen even now, and may become yet more frequent considering that unfortunate people are harassed by tyrants, or led away by the Turks [Muhammadans], and Christians are thus dispersed in exile here and there. Wherever by His Word and faith God has gathered a church, and that spiritual unity, the bond of Christianity, exists in any measure, there the devil has no peace. If he cannot effect the destruction of that church by factiousness, he furiously persecutes it. Then it is that body, life and everything we have must be jeopardized – put to the stake – for the sake of the Church.


On the Duty to Admonish and Rebuke False Teachers
The lesson teaches the duty of each individual toward all other individuals, not toward the God-ordained Office. Office and person must be clearly distinguished. The officer or ruler in his official capacity is a different man from what he is as John or Frederick. The apostle or preacher differs from the individual Peter or Paul. The preacher has not his Office by virtue of his own personality; he represents it in God’s stead. Now, if any person be unjustly persecuted, slandered and cursed, I ought to and will say: “Deo gratias;” for in God I am richly rewarded for it. But if one dishonors the Baptism, Sacrament, or Ministry committed to me by God, and so opposes not me but God Himself, then it is my duty not to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season – as Paul admonishes Timothy (2 Tim. 4:2) – those who err in doctrine or faith or who do not amend their lives; and this regardless of who they are or how it pleases them.

But the censured may say: “Nevertheless you publicly impugn my honor; you give me a bad reputation.” I answer: Why do you not complain to Him who committed the Office to me? My honor is likewise dear to me, but the honor of my Office must be more sacred still. If I am silent where I ought to rebuke, I sully my own honor, which I should maintain before God in the proper execution of my Office; hence I with you deserve to be hanged in mid-day, to the utter extinguishment of my honor and yours. No, the Gospel does not give you authority to say the preacher shall not, by the Word of God, tell you of your sin and shame. What does God care for the honor you seek from the world when you defy His Word with it? To the world you may seem to defend your honor with God and a good conscience, but in reality you have nothing to boast of before God but your shame. This very fact you must confess if you would retain your honor before Him; you must place His honor above that of all creatures. The highest distinction you can achieve for yourself is that of honoring God’s Word and suffering rebuke.

“Yes, but still you attack the Office to which I am appointed.” No, dear brother, our Office is not assailed when I and you are reminded of our failure to do right, to conduct the Office as we should. But the Word of God rebukes us for dishonoring that divinely ordained appointment and abusing it in violation of His commandment. Therefore you cannot call me to account for reproving you. However, were I not a pastor or preacher, and had I no authority to rebuke you, then it would be my duty and my pleasure to leave your honor and that of every other man unscathed. But if I am to fill a divine Office and to represent not my own but God’s dignity, then for your own sake I must not and will not be silent. If you do wrong, and disgrace and dishonor come upon you, blame yourself: “Thy blood shall be upon thine own head,” says Scripture (1 Kings. 2:37). Certainly when a judge sentences a thief to the gallows, that man’s honor is impugned. Who robs you of your honor but yourself, by your own theft, your contempt of God, disobedience, murder, and so on? God must give you what you deserve. If you consider it a disgrace to be punished, then consider it also no honor to rob, steal, practice usury and do public wrong; you disgrace yourself by dishonoring God’s commandment.

---

Notice that Luther preaches the following:

However, were I not a pastor or preacher, and had I no authority to rebuke you, then it would be my duty and my pleasure to leave your honor and that of every other man unscathed.

This is a note to us laymen. We don’t have the Office of rebuking and correcting. It’s not our job. It is for this reason that I, for one (and I think, perhaps, many laymen along with me), have been very reluctant to name specific situations or pastors, and have preferred to speak in general. IT’S NOT MY JOB! This makes the silence of pastors who see the error and yet remain silent all the more distressing, as it drives the laity, of necessity, to enter in where they would otherwise have no place. And to their shame, they seem content to allow the laity to do it, unaided. IT IS THEIR JOB! But they seem to either be derelict or cowards.

And to those WELS pastors who boldly speak behind the cloak of anonymity – you help no one other than rumour mongers and gossipers. You complain, “What of my family? What of my livelihood! I can’t let anyone know who I am, my adversaries might find out and cause me grief and woe!” But you are more than willing to name them publicly, to cause them grief and woe. Luther preaches above,

“It is my duty NOT to be silent nor merciful and friendly, but to use my God-ordained Office to admonish, threaten and rebuke, with all earnestness, both in season and out of season,”

and in times of persecution,

“body, life and everything we have must be jeopardized – put to the stake – for the sake of the Church.”

Your adversaries have the courage to openly preach and promote falsehood, but you do not have the courage to correct them with the Truth, to act in the interest of preserving their disciples and the Church from the impact of their false doctrine and practice? How strong, then, is your doctrine? Indeed, how eminently valuable is it if you are not willing to sign your name to it? Is it truly Christian Conscience and Confessional Integrity that drives you to “anonymously voice your deep concerns,” or is it sport? Tinged with a touch of schadenfreude?

You saw the hurricane approaching far in the distance, and you’ve waited only till landfall to begin preparing yourselves, your families, and your congregations for the inevitable? You have only yourselves to blame for the disaster you have brought upon them: “Thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” The time to act was in May of 2010, if not before. Where were you? Still deciding to prepare? Where are you now? Just beginning to prepare? Must you “first go bury your father” (Matt. 8:21-22)? I’ve got news for you – it’s way too late now to weather the storm intact. Your Leaders are unanimous: they are busy excommunicating the likes of Rev. Rydecki, while coddling the likes of Rev. Skorzewski and publicly endorsing events like the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience. In my opinion, the only way to survive now with pure teaching and faith intact is to evacuate, to leave everything behind and start anew on higher ground.

UPDATE: A Deceptive Pamphlet from Bethany Lutheran College (ELS)

UPDATE:  Please note Rev. Moldstad's apology in the Comments below the post.

HT: Ecclesia Augustana

Maybe these things shouldn't surprise me anymore, but they still do.  The graphic below was posted last evening by Ecclesia Augustana.  It is a copy of a pamphlet being handed out at Bethany Lutheran College by their chaplain, Rev. Don Moldstad, for a presentation he was making on the papacy.

It's bad enough that this pamphlet misrepresents the Scriptural and Lutheran doctrine of justification.

But equally disturbing is the deceptive manner in which these statements have been presented.  They are listed under the column entitled "The Lutheran Confessions."  They are directly listed, in quotation marks, under "Luther's Small Catechism."  But they are not found in Luther's Small Catechism.  Anywhere.  They come, instead, from the ELS's explanations of Luther's Catechism.  A pastor who cannot distinguish between the Lutheran Confessions and the writings of his own synod is inept.  A pastor who knows the difference and still presents his synod's writings, in quotation marks, under "The Lutheran Confessions," is being deceptive.

If Rev. Moldstad is led to recognize his error, at very least his error of misrepresenting the words of Luther's Small Catechism, we will welcome his public apology and gladly publish it here on Intrepid Lutherans. 

Under the column entitled "The Lutheran Confessions":

From Luther’s Small Catechism:

“I believe in the forgiveness of sins because the Bible assures me that God the Father has by grace forgiven all sinners and declared them righteous.”

“God can declare sinners righteous because, (sic) on the redemptive work of Christ, He has aquitted (sic) all men of the guilt and punishment of their sins, and has imputed to them the righteousness of Christ. He therefore regards them in Christ as though they had never sinned.”

“I receive this justification when the Holy Ghost through the means of grace, leads me, the sinner, to believe that God has forgiven all my sins for Christ’s sake.”

The Average Layman is Defenseless!

Today, we reprise a lecture we featured twice in 2011 under the title, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Dr. Walter Martin, but with a different emphasis. After the facts exposed in last week's post, Do any Lutherans want to be Dresden Lutherans? Meanwhile, the Groeschelites continue their agenda..., it is abundantly clear that our Synod is wracked with division and, as a consequence, is in steep decline right along with the rest of the visible Church. And with the Church, so goes Western Civilization itself, whose political, legal and educational structures were built upon the framework of Christian teaching.

Stating as much in our conclusion to that post (the section entitled The Collective Descent of American Lutheranism), we submitted that the time of inaction, the time of armchair lamentation over the state of our Synod and of American Lutheranism, the time of complacent Synod watching as if it were a mere spectator sport, has come to a close. Yesterday was the time to act. Today is the time to do so feverishly. Tomorrow will be too late. After tomorrow, it will be time to separate and start over. The following will suggest one of the more potent actions laymen can take, but the reader will have to read to the end to discover what it is, and why it is among the most potent forms of action.

Dr. Walter R. Martin (d. 1989) was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises. An associate of Dr. Rod Rosenblatt and Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, Dr. Martin was, like they, an influential Christian intellectual, a man with the courage and ability to engage in public debate with his opponents, and, as a fierce defender of Christian orthodoxy in the face of truly diabolical liberal Christianity, more than equipped to defeat them.

Over the past three years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. We confessional Lutherans would be mistaken if we should think that our struggles are unique to us. Others have already gone through the struggle that is now hard upon us. We would be fools not to learn from their experience and take their advice.

---

Dr. Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

 

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
A Cue to Theological Change: A Change in the Terms used by the Church
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on...” (1hr 12min)

“They were using all of our terminology... What you have to understand is very hard... the major denominational structures on the United States today have pumped all of the meaning out of Christian terminology, and have nothing but a hollow shell. And people are attracted by the shell...” (1hr 28min 50sec and following)

Questions:

1. What happens over the course of a generation or two when the church begins to use old familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis?
2. Or, what happens when entirely new words, words previously unfamiliar in Church usage, words with less precise meaning, words with less established theological meaning, replace the old, precise, established and familiar terms? Is the deprecating declaration, “these terms are synonymous,” a sufficient explanation?
3. What happens when well established ecclesiastical terms, having widely understood meaning, are simply dropped from use?
4. What ecclesiastical terms can you identify which meet the above three conditions?
5. If we are to heed Dr. Walter Martin's warnings, ought laymen to be suspicious whenever pastors or theologians use the authority of the church to push their language games as authoritatively binding on the laity?

---

The Average Layman is Defenseless!
“You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it!...” (1hr 36min 12sec)

“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism as never before. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:14ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good...” (1hr 38min 30sec)

Questions:

1. Is it proper for the layman to assume that ALL pastors who may serve him, or that ALL theologians who may serve his church body, are orthodox on every point of Scripture teaching?
2. When St. Paul commended the Bereans for verifying his teaching by searching the Scriptures, what was he commending if it was not a cautious reception of his words? Was he commending an open and uncritical reception of his teaching?
3. How can a layman identify potential theological corruption in his pastor or his church's theologians? Unfamiliar terminology, or unfamiliar use of familiar terminology, perhaps?
4. How then does the layman examine a pastor or theologian who, by definition, by virtue of the Office he holds, is not allowed to wrong, about anything, ever?
5. How does a layman examine a Minister of the Word, whose operating assumption is that he is always orthodox and that laymen always need guidance and correction? Will a personal conversation bring about correction in the Minister's theology? Will writing a letter suffice?

---

Theological Language Games and the Destruction of Orthodoxy
“British theology was corrupted by German theology – Friedrich Schleiermacher, Albrecht Ritschl, David Strauss – and finally [it came] to America... Where do you think we got the God is Dead Theology from? From historic Christianity?... We did not! We got it from a good solid Baptist theological seminary, known as Colgate Rochester in New York, which was absolutely orthodox, but which sold out to liberalism! And when it did, they embraced the theology of Paul Tillich, and ended up with God is Dead. It was called at the time, The Gospel of Christian Atheism – did you ever hear such linguistic nonsense in your life!?” (1hr 40min 30sec)

Questions:

This is at least the third point in Dr. Walter Martin's lecture where he emphasizes the language games of theologians as evidence of changing theology.

1. How can changes in the use of language possibly result in changes to one's theology, if one's use of language doesn't change the way he thinks about theology?
2. What is the potential threat to the Christian when his pastors and theologians defend dramatic changes in the language he ought to use when contemplating and expressing his Christian convictions?
3. From what primary source might Christians be most vulnerable to subtle, or even overt, changes in language use and the threat of its impact on their theology?
4. Why is it safest to stay with historical and well-established terminology of the church?
5. If the concern is that our "contemporary generation" doesn't use historic ecclesiastical terminology in everyday conversation and therefore doesn't understand it,
   1. Was there ever a time when ecclesiastical terminology was in such wide use in everyday conversation that it was understood on the basis of its everyday usage?
   2. How might catechesis have helped people understand the church's use of language in the past?
   3. How might catechesis help in the same way, today?

Dr. Walter Martin also makes the strong suggestion here that not only can "orthodox" seminaries go liberal, but gives evidence that they have done so.

6. Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran seminary to go liberal?
7. How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his seminary is going liberal?
8. What can the Lutheran layman do to correct problems in his Synod's seminary, if he suspects, or if it is confirmed that such problems exist? Will a personal conversation bring about the desired correction? Will writing a letter suffice?

Finally, Dr. Walter Martin singled out three Germans – European liberal theologians from the era of 19^th Century European Evangelicalism – as having ruined British and American theology. Surely, these German theologians had no impact on 19^th Century American Confessional Lutheranism... did they?

---

A Declining Regard for the Scriptures: Spiritual Death and Social Destruction
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own gurus, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes its leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality. Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there.” (2hr 28min 50sec)

Questions:

1. How does the Christian's view of the inspiration, inerrancy and perspicuity of the Scriptures impact his theology?
2. How does the teaching of the church impact society in general – that is, apart from its immediate impact on the people who sit in the pews and hear it directly?
3. How might false doctrine, therefore, in addition to destroying faith, also become a social evil?
4. Given that most liberal churches have abandoned orthodoxy, and have embraced the "social gospel" in place of the "Gospel of Jesus Christ," can their fixation on issues of "social justice" be classified as precisely the opposite? Not as the "good" they would have it to be, but as an unmitigated evil perpetrated by liberal churches, which result, rather, in gross injustice?

---

Immunizing Christians against Theological Poison
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it... And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything...” (1hr 26min 10sec)

“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...” (1hr 30min 35sec)

Questions:

1. The fixation of liberals is what:
   1. Preserving sound teaching? ...or
   2. Preserving the organization as an institution?
2. The process of changing theology while maintaining the organization requires that liberals retain the laity while retraining them "gradually" – through a use of familiar terms with subtly, though increasingly, different emphasis, by introducing foreign terms and dropping common ecclesiastical terms.
   1. Why do they need to retain the laity? What does the laity offer them?
   2. Why is the change gradual?
   3. Why is changing the organization's language the best way to change the thinking of those in the organization?
3. Is it possible for an orthodox Lutheran Synod to go liberal?
4. How can a Lutheran layman know, or even suspect, that his Synod is going liberal?
5. If sound teaching is not valued by a liberal Synod as highly as the organization itself, what does the Lutheran layman have that would be so sufficiently valuable that a corrupt organization would pay heed to the orthodox advice of a layman?
   1. Merely his orthodox advice? ...or
   2. His money?
6. Can organizational change which laymen must purchase with their money be relied upon as genuine?

Real? Relational?? Relevant??? O THE HORROR OF IT ALL!!!

This is when it all started to happen. Relevance... back in the 1970's... sure ain't what it used to be. My, how the flower it doth fade... The fact is, THIS is what swiftly happens to man's version of "relevance." Thirty years from now, today's "relevant" and "relational" worship leaders are going to look just as "groovy."

"Jesus is a friend of mine (Jesus is my friend);
"Jesus is a friend of mine (I have a friend in Jesus);
"Jesus is a friend of mine (Jesus is my friend);
"Jesus is a friend of mine;
"He taught me how to pray, and how to save my soul;
"He taught me how to praise my God, and still play Rock 'n Roll;
"The music may sound different, but the message is the same;
"It's just an instrument to praise His name!"

That was "groovy," wasn't it? ...ZAP!


The sad thing is, I'm old enough to remember that stuff. I remember being tortured with it as a kid. Here's another one. This puppet-character was so "relational," I think Hollywood later made a slasher movie out of it.



This is the way it looks when you try to be "real," "relational," and "relevant." It looks like you're trying, and bless the man's soul, he is trying. Pretty obvious, too. But instead of trying to be something we're not, can we please be what we are as Lutheran Christians and do what we've always excelled at? Can we please just work at equipping the Church with competent Christian poets, composers and musicians who are trained in the Fine Arts?



And this is what happens when you try to be "relevant," but almost totally miss the mark. Sure, rap is in. It even tries to get in my house from the street on occasion. But I don't think these folks are doing it right...
(NOTE: There is evidence that this video, recently uploaded to YouTube and recently gone viral, is NOT the genuine product of a church, but is a parody written and produced by an individual to make fun of "relevant" and "relational" Christianity. If that is the case, then I personally consider this video to be a stroke of satirical genius. Yes, it's offensive, but that's the point. It is a brutal, poignant and multi-faceted commentary against a movement in American Christianity that is making Christians look like fools, and is trivializing the message they're commissioned by God to represent. Like a nerd tries to be cool, the Church Growth Movement (CGM) wants the Church to try to look like and sound like the world. But the Church can't be what it isn't. It can't be the world as well as the world can be the world -- and the world sees it just as clearly and immediately as the cool kids recognize when a nerd tries to walk their walk and talk their talk. THEY DON'T DO IT RIGHT! Sometimes it's just goofy, other times it's downright offensive.)


Yes, this guy's a pastor. A famous one, too. He also figured out the "relevance" of rap. I don't think he's doing it right, either. He's just making a fool out of himself, and out of everyone who bears the name of Christ in public.
St. Paul advises Titus: "For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain... For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine... in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us." (Titus 1:10-2:8 NASB)

Yeah, I know. "God-talk" is such a bummer. Especially when God Himself is talking. Sorry, dudes.


Being truly "relevant" and "relational" means opening the doors of the church to let the world in. To look the way the world looks as you speak the words the world speaks. This is truly the image of Christians congregating about entertainers to witness entertainers engage in entertainment -- verbatim from the entertainers of the world.



Speaking of "letting the world in," do you need to have one of those "dirty sex-talk Sundays?" You know, Divine Service where children are denied entrance to the Nave and are sent to the Sunday School room to watch Veggie Tales for an hour instead? Easily offended adults are warned not to attend? Under 17 not permitted without a parent? It would be quite a spectacle to witness wholesome Christians making a public show of lascivious thoughts and behaviour. Yeah, that'd be pretty kinky, wouldn't it. You could sell tickets. All of the sinners in the community would flock to see that! Only, you're probably not doing it right. Among other factors, the bar of "smutty relational relevance" has been raised by other forward-thinking Christians who excel at pushing the envelope, who are consistently first-on-the-scene "to do what no one else is doing, to reach those no one else is reaching." To follow their lead, you'll need professional help. This is the "real", "relational" and "relevant" way to do it, now.



I'd written a couple posts on Sunday attire, but that is apparently an entirely irrelevant concern. Attire doesn't really matter. It's best not to concern oneself with it these days.

"Reaching people no one else is reaching..."
Video Series Proposal: Being really 'Real', and 'Relational' to the Core: An Epitome


Need to talk about Stewardship? You've probably been doing that wrong, too. THIS is the way to address difficult subjects in a "relational" way: turn it into comedy. Only entertainment is "relational" anymore, and everyone loves a comedian.



But if the comedy routine doesn't work, threaten to kill them. Then threaten them with Hell. Then promise them that tithing will keep them in Heaven. And then get caught spending the money on yourself. That's amusing, too.



Contemporary Worshipers, congregating before entertainers. This is the way it looks these days. Sort of. Actually, maybe ten years ago, as they were copying out-of-style music from the late 1980's. Wait... No... This is from a church service in 2010, not 2003, twenty-two years after that wretched song was recorded (I remember it. It was cool for a couple weeks, then we all got tired of it. The radio stations didn't get the message, unfortunately, and kept playing it over and over. I wonder why?). Notice: As in the Miley Cyrus song, above, there was no need to change the words of this song, either. It's not important anymore what the text of a song actually says, what's important is whether (a) the listener can "properly understand" what the entertainer means by performing it, and/or (b) the listener subjectively feels spiritually uplifted by it. If the listener either can't "properly understand" what he sees and hears, or doesn't "feel uplifted" by it, then he is the problem, not the music or the entertainer -- whose "entertainment art" is categorically above criticism.



Yes. Some poor wretch possibly went to church that morning expecting, oh, who knows -- Law & Gospel, maybe? -- but got a bearded lady instead. Possibly... though nearly everyone in the audience surely knew that they got up that morning to congregate before entertainers...



More Circus Church. For real. This is a Church service. This is Supreme Anthropocentrism. I, I, I, me, me, me, you, you, you, blah, blah, blah. And this is, literally, how far seeker-sensitive Evangelicalism has allowed itself to sink. Why do we Lutherans insist on drinking from the same poisoned well?



Where have we seen this before? Hmmm?


Has liturgical dance EVER been "relevant" or "relational?" Other than that one time King David did it and embarrassed his wife?



Confirmed. Liturgical dance has NEVER been "relevant" or "relational." And that's NOT a good reason to do it anyway!



Yup! Me too! I think I'm gonna...

And this surely must be the Captain Underpants of contemporary praise and worship.



This isn't to say that ALL Evangelicals have sunk this low, or even want to. But in the past twenty years, I don't think I've heard of a single Evangelical congregation that doesn't "congregate before entertainers" on Sunday morning, that doesn't want to congregate before them, and that doesn't adamantly refuse to give up this model for fear that people will stop coming to church, for fear that they will be unable to attract the unchurched if they can't entertain them on Sunday morning.

This isn't to say that NO Evangelicals have seen the problem with this. I've spoken with many Evangelicals, and read of even more, who've found both practical as well as doctrinal problems with these anthropocentric practices.

From a purely practical standpoint, unless the "Preaching Pastor" is also the "Minister of Worship," there are two divergent sources of significant influence in the congregation which appear before the congregation each week. Often, these two influences, perhaps initially competing together for the approval of the assembly, find themselves competing against each other to increase or maintain their influence. And this is especially the case if these two prominent influences find themselves in disagreement, or see that disagreement is on the horizon. This is a particular problem in mid-sized Evangelical congregations, as disagreements between the "Preaching Pastor" and the "Minister of Worship" often lead to strife among leadership, abrupt dismissals of personnel, and even congregational splits. I've heard the story a hundred times, and it is always the same. Either personality incompatibility, insecurity, jealousy, and even genuine policy or doctrinal disagreements between the "entertaining minister" and the "talking minister" are at the root (even if they start out as good friends), and more often than not, it's the "boring" and "untalented" "talking pastor" whose is seen as the bad guy, even though he usually wins.

More importantly, from a doctrinal standpoint, some Evangelicals actually do see that this entire model of Church practice distracts attention from the centrality of the Word. It makes people the object, as well as the catalyst, of Christian worship, rather than Christ and their relationship with Him. To the observer, the "entertaining minister" is the apparent object and catalyst; but in truth, he's only the secondary object. Hidden under the surface, the primary and real object of the contemporary worshiper's striving is himself, is in his self-centered pursuit of a particular emotional state that he cannot reach on his own: he needs the worship team to get him there. The "entertaining minister" is certainly the catalyst, and to the extent that he generally succeeds at delivering worshipers to their desired emotional/spiritual state, he becomes an object of their adoration, as well. To the extent that he can't, worshipers complain, "They're not doing it right!" I've personally spoken with such Evangelicals who see this most clearly, some are laymen, others are pastors. When they raise their concerns, they are always defeated by the chorus of voices who've been brainwashed by CGM seeker-sensitive principles, who are literally hooked on the entertainment, and like dependent junkies are frantic to retain the source of their weekly "spiritual fix." Some even see an element of manipulation in this model of Church practice, and this is especially the case among mega-churches, whose practices are models of aspiration for smaller, growth-at-all-costs-oriented congregations.

I, personally, haven't witnessed the inner workings of mega-church practices. But over the years I've heard from a handful musicians who have. The leadership structure in these organizations is very similar to what one would find among C-level executives in any corporation. They all have contracts under which they have negotiated compensation packages and associated leadership responsibilities, performance expectations, etc., and frequently, the "Worship CEO" functions as a manager as much as anything else, managing several teams related to the execution of the entertainment each week. I've yet to hear of a situation where there is only one team of musicians. Generally, there are multiple bands. Each band is comprised of professional, or at least highly accomplished musicians, each of whom are almost always Christians. Each band doesn't play every Sunday, it seems, but instead, only every other Sunday or even just once a month. They rehearse between gigs. And this is where it gets interesting. Sometimes, it seems, the set they rehearse for a given Sunday has been planned out for them, other times, band members contribute in some way to the selections; however, it is almost always the case that they are working from either a sermon outline or an entire sermon text that has been provided for them ahead of time by the office of the "Preaching CEO." The "talking minister" appointed for the service they are rehearsing for already knows what he is going to say, or at least what he is going to talk about, and the point of the band's rehearsal is to select and practice a sequence of pieces which will adequately prepare the audience for the message he will deliver.

And here I digress for a moment to share from my own experience as a worship team musician, in much smaller venues. It is amazing to me how Christian religious people, addicted to weekly "spiritual/emotional highs," are so eager to completely give themselves over to the music. Like racehorses leaning on the gate, they chomp at the bit in eagerness for the signal to start, for the piano or the guitar to strike the first chord. It's almost like a gun going off. Even positively mediocre musicians like myself -- people who could never even succeed entertaining drunks at the local bars -- are swiftly given almost complete control of the emotional/spiritual state of worshipers before them. As the music grows louder and tempo quicker, the people jump, gyrate and stomp their feet right along with it, while smiles cover their faces and their singing turns to laughing and shouting. As the tempo and volume subside, the people follow right along -- their eyes close as they sway and swoon with their arms in the air. For cerebrally oriented folks such as myself, it is positively frightening. For reflective Christian musicians with a conscience, it is bothersome. Most musicians, it seems, simply get off on it. They have the power of music, and they like to use it.

To "adequately prepare the audience for the message of the 'talking minister'," the audience must be brought to a fitting emotional state through the preceding entertainment. That is what the band rehearses for, and the "sequence" of music they practice generally leads their religious audience -- people who are eager to give themselves over to the music -- through a cycle of ups and downs: up, up , up to euphoric highs, and down, down, down to melancholy lows; uuuuup and doooowwwn, uuuuuup and dooooowwwn, uuuuuuup and dooooowwwn it cycles until the audience has been "sufficiently prepared." And somewhere between the high and the low, either on the upswing or the downswing, is the preferred emotional state for the audience to receive the message of the "talking minister."

The musicians who have spoken to me about this over the past twenty years, all either professional musicians or very accomplished non-professionals, had, by the time they started talking about it with others, already grown bothered by this practice. It felt to them like they were taking advantage of the emotional vulnerability of their audience. It felt like mass manipulation. In nearly every case, these musicians had shared with me their concerns, in a personal way, because they'd already shared their concerns with their church leadership, and those concerns had been ignored. Rejected, in fact: "You have a negative spirit, God is not able to work through you until you repent;" or "We have no impact on the audience, we are merely instruments through which the Holy Spirit works, and what we see happening before us on Sunday morning is purely His work, not ours;" or "You're fired." In a few cases, I know that these conscience-stricken musicians eventually quit the mega-church scene (if only temporarily in at least one case). In another case, I recall hearing later that the musician even quit being a Christian over it. I no longer move in these circles, and have long lost contact with these guys. I can remember some of their faces, but don't even remember most of their names. I have no idea what they might say today. Granted, these accounts are anecdotal and, as far as the specific circumstances involved (which are irrelevant), amount only to hearsay. But I know what these musicians were concerned about back in the 1990's and early last decade, concerns which resonated with my own, and we can plainly see from the above that the worst in Evangelical practice continues to defy what even our worst imagination of poor Christian judgment can conceive, as "entertainment ministers" continue to "push the envelope". It continues to get worse.

What do you suppose might be around the corner?

And now for the heavy stuff...

"Relevance" among Emergents: Transcending our primal narrative, to live harmoniously with man in the present -- the only true reality there is -- that we may collaborate in the essential human task of creating the New Earth. Ah, Rationalism in the post-Modern age, a.k.a. "making it up as you go along." And the Bible says any of this... where? It doesn't really matter anymore. Emergents, who are largely former Evangelicals, are open about rejecting what the Scriptures plainly say in their most fundamental teachings. And they're pretty safe in doing so. Enough of Evangelical Christianity has been conditioned by nearly a generation of false practice to accept whatever the "talking minister" says -- as long as they find themselves to be sufficiently entertained by the process.



More of the same sort of "relevance" from the same kind of sources: Me... Today... and the pursuit of Ionian/Pythagorean Harmony and Wholeness. Know any Lutherans dabbling with Emergent Church theology? This is what they are being exposed to, and this is what you will be exposed to through them.




All of these videos, and MANY more, have been compiled by Chris Rosebrough in a collection he calls, The Museum of Idolatry -- "the world's largest collection of artifacts of apostasy." 1500 exhibits, and growing. They're all of the sort shown above. Whenever I need a reminder of what I left behind, and why I left it behind, I go to the Museum. I saw this coming, I knew that this is what Evangelicalism would turn into. Very little of this represents genuine Christianity. This is the direction CGM leads.

"Church and Continuity" Conference Review: Why is this Happening to Us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us – by Mr. Douglas Lindee

Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity ~ June 1-2, 2012
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ Oshkosh, WI
Why is this Happening to Us?
How the culture wars become religious wars among us
by Mr. Douglas L. Lindee, Jr.
On June 2, 2012, I delivered the paper, Why is this Happening to Us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us, to the first annual Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity. The title of the paper is not answered directly in the paper, but indirectly. To the extent that the World, as one of the Christian's great enemies, wages war against Christians, worms its way into the Church and induces compromise, culture wars have always resulted in some sort of religious contention. Being watchful for such compromise means, among other things, having a clear historical perspective as a basis for living out the present. This rationale is explicated in the introduction and reinforced in the conclusion, with the body of the essay split into two sections demonstrating the necessity of watchfulness, the first section focusing on the original "Crisis of of Word" – the early composition of the inspired texts, their collection into the Canon of Scripture, their use in the early defense of orthodoxy, and their faithful preservation and transmission to us in contemporary times – and the second section focusing on the history of the times surrounding the Early Church, and how, despite having the Word, cultural pressures resulted in compromise and error which became so deep-rooted that much of it remains unshaken even to this day. That is, a having of the Word did not, and does not, translate to a keeping of it. Keeping the Word by maintaining vigilance against error, is necessarily an historical task employed to detect change in the culture surrounding the Church of today in order to keep the World from invading and changing the Church. From the paper:

History teaches us at least two things... First, that the world or worldliness are the enemies of the Church; second, how, ultimately, the world has exerted its corrupting influence: by pressuring and goading the church into compromise. This paper will endeavor to show, by giving somewhat detailed examples from specific periods of social upheaval in the early history of the West, both that the world had conducted itself as the enemy of Christ and His Church and how its influence wormed its way into the church and induced it to compromise. Such will suggest that the same is occurring today, in our post-Modern era, the period of social upheaval in which we have been placed by God to contend for the faith. Whether this paper succeeds in these primary endeavors, the author will admit to a secondary endeavor: to equip the reader with apologetic facts and sources that will aid him in his own defense of the faith.

The two middle sections of this paper represent a sampling of research and historical facts I have collected since about 2005, perhaps with the lofty goal of an eventual publication that no one will ever read. The content of the essay is not original or unique by any means, as attested by the number of Endnotes (many people have collected these same facts and written on these same topics, though perhaps not with the same use and purpose I have), nor was it written with the clergyman in mind, as I expect that every competent pastor daily lives with such facts in the forefront of his mind. Rather, I wrote and documented as I did for the sake of today's laity, who is largely ignorant of such things, using the topic as a pretense to also "equip [the lay reader] with apologetic facts and sources that will aid him in his own defense of the faith." Finally, it should be noted that the paper linked above is slightly revised from the paper handed out at the Conference. Discussion following my delivery prompted me to add five explanatory endnotes to the main essay and expand a handful of others in both the main essay and in Appendix A, and to add a couple of quotations to the body of Appendix A. Otherwise, the revised body of the essay includes only minor grammatical changes.


Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity ~ June 1-2, 2012
Bethlehem Lutheran Church ~ Oshkosh, WI
Why is this Happening to Us?
How the culture wars become religious wars among us
by Mr. Douglas L. Lindee, Jr.
The video above was taken as I read the paper at the Conference on June 2, 2012. The sound quality is admittedly wanting, but it is audible. I should explain that near the end I sound a note of slight exasperation... Unfortunately, the previous session had gone ever by about 20 minutes, and with lunch following my presentation, I had a hard-stop. The result was a loss of about 25% of the time I had expected to have for delivering the paper. In fact, at one point in the presentation, I had to pause for a minute to determine on the fly how I was going to redact and summarize the entire second section of my paper. Ach du lieber! Oh well, lessons learned for next time... At least all the content is recorded in print!

The remaining three presentations will be posted through next week – I have it on fairly good authority that the audio of those presentation is much better!

The Shepherd As Watchman

Dear Reader,

You will notice a new picture gracing the home page of our blog. It shows Pastors as shepherds defending their flocks from the attacks of the many wolves in this old evil world. It speaks for itself. It is how we see the efforts of Intrepid Lutherans.

To go along with this new image, we are posting two other items. The first is a sermon based on a section of Ezekiel chapter thirty-three – the famous chapter dealing with what it means to be a watchman in God's kingdom. The second is a brief clarification of our purposes, objectives, and methods of working here on the blog.

As always, your comments and questions on both or either are welcome!


Ezekiel 33:7-9
So you, son of man: I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore you shall hear a word from My mouth and warn them for Me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die!’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless if you warn the wicked to turn from his way, and he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

Many of you might remember the terrible crash of a DC-10 a few years ago in Chicago, in which over two hundred people were killed. It was found that the crash was caused by a defective engine mount on one of the wings. The problem had simply been missed by maintenance workers.

Now, what would you have done if you had seen the crack in the mount and realized the dire implications? Most likely you would have warned the airline, and the people about to board the plane, of the danger. If they listened to you, you would save many lives, but even if they refused to listen, you would still know that you at least tried to warn them.

The same is true in the spiritual world. Many are crashing into Hell everyday and many more are on a collision course. God has given us the responsibility to warn others about Hell, about the coming danger if they continue to refuse to believe what God tells them in His Holy Word. And not only are we to warn people about rejecting God and His Word, but also about teaching and living falsely concerning His Word. As Ezekiel points out: We Are God's Watchmen! As such, We are to listen to Him, and We are to pass on His warnings.

First of all, it is true that Ezekiel had a special and specific divine Call, directly from the LORD, to speak to the people of Israel. In this, he is certainly a picture of all Ministers of the Gospel, the Pastors and teachers who are Called to speak God's Word publicly on behalf of His believers in a given place and time. But in a more general, yet limited way, every single believer is a messenger of the LORD in their private lives of faith. In addition, every Pastor, teacher, and member is a watchman in God's Church, "testing the spirits," and making sure that His Word is taught in all its truth and purity, and the sacraments administered according to the command of Christ. This is why we have Creeds and Confessions, to aid all of us in this essential task.

Now, if we are to be God's watchmen, then we need to listen to Him, because only He can tell us the right things to say to warn people properly. This is true because God is the only perfect source of infallible truth. For this reason the Lord says to Ezekiel, "so hear the Word I speak and give them warning from Me." Notice the word comes from God to the people. Ezekiel is only a messenger. This is always what a prophet is; a mouthpiece for God. He is someone who is to speak to the people for God and from God.

What God has to say is always important. More than that, He is always perfect and correct. As the psalmist says, "Is God a man that He should lie?" In other words, it is impossible for God to lie. The same is not true for man. Ever since the Fall into sin, when man chose to follow the devil, the "father of lies," we have all been more that capable of lying. We have all done it at one time or another in our lives, perhaps even quiet often. Indeed, lying, like many kinds of sin, can be very habit forming. But, what is especially sad is to see people lying in the name of God. Using God's holy name to back them up. People concoct all kinds of crazy religions and ultimately lead many people straight to Hell instead of the promised paradise they were shown by these false prophets.

We can trust God because He has led us to our own salvation. We have the peace of knowing all our sins, including lying, are paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ the sinless Son of God. We have felt the security of being the children of God. We have the Holy Spirit living in our hearts, guiding and moving us to serve our Lord with our lives. Therefore we have confidence in our God and in His Word which led us to Him and will lead us finally to our reward in heaven.

If we are to have anything good to say in this world at all, we must listen to God. And not just for a few years in Sunday School and confirmation classes, or once a week for a few minutes, but we must be constantly hearing, learning, and growing in the Word of life. Just look at Ezekiel. He was a great prophet, chosen of God, but even he had to listen constantly to God in order to be a true prophet. Think of Abraham, Moses, David, St. Paul, and even Jesus! Did not all of them study God's Word at all times during their lives? Where did we find the boy Jesus - in the temple! Where did we see the young man of Nazareth - in the synagogue! How can we who so often know so little do any less? None of us are too old or too young or too smart or too busy to learn more of God's precious Word of truth!

So we learn more of God's Word. Then what? What are we suppose to say? Who are we suppose to say it to? And why? What does God tell Ezekiel to say? "say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,'" So, obviously, we are to speak to the wicked. But who are they, and how are we to judge? Let's remember who God was talking about when He spoke to Ezekiel. He was talking about all those who would not obey Him, and to obey God always means firsthand foremost, to believe in Him and in what says, and to put it into practice as much as possible in your lives. There were many in Ezekiel's day who professed to believe in God, yet lived only for themselves and even followed other gods - idols. And there were some who refused to acknowledge the one true God at all. These are the wicked.

We have many kinds of wicked people around us today. Just as in the Old Testament, there are those who claim to believe in God but do not follow His Word, they are the hypocrites, and they are wicked. Then there are those who say they follow God, but their religion is a false one, and the gods they follow do not really even exists. They are false teachers leading others to Hell, and they are wicked. Finally, there are those who claim to believe in no God at all, who put their trust in man, and his science, and technology. They are blasphemers, and they are wicked.

And why should we speak to these people at all? Why not just let God deal with them. Well, He has! He sent His Son Jesus to die for their sins too! And He has given us the task of warning them that unless they believe in the salvation won for them by Jesus Christ, they will be lost to Hell. Whether they believe us or not is not our concern. That we tell them is still our responsibility. Listen again to God as He tells us, "if you do not speak out to dissuade him from his wicked ways that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself." It is clear here what our duty is. We are warn the wicked. Not that they will merely die, but that such a death will be eternal and terrible. And if we fail to do so, God will ask us on judgment day why we did not speak up. Of course, since we are believers, we will not be damned to hell along with the wicked, but even to be saved from answering such a question from our Lord is worth whatever it takes to warn the wicked.

And yes, we are also our brother's keeper. Our brothers can be many kinds of people. They can be all the believers, and they can be all the other people in the world. Can we stand by and allow any to continue down the path of unbelief that leads to Hell? Can we stand still while some hold to false teachings that may destroy their faith? Can we be silent when the world attacks the true teachings of God's pure Word, and thus attacks our faith and our God? I believe we must all answer NO!! We must not remain silent in the face of evil of any kind. We must be witnesses to the truth of God's Word. We must call sin, sin; false doctrine, false doctrine. We must warn those who would put their faith in anything but the cross of Christ that they are in danger. We must point out all the terrors of Hell to those that deny God and His salvation. Finally, we must always be ready with an answer directly from God to any question or accusation. We must be prepared to defend our faith and our teachings from those who would tear it down. And to do all this, we must ever be students of the infallible Holy Scriptures and our precious Lutheran Confessions.

How would you feel if you had seen that crack in the wing and you didn't say anything about it, and saw the plane crash? Don't we feel the same way about those whom we are sure are without a saving faith? Don't we want to warn them of Hell, and show them the way to heaven? And don't we feel the same way about those whose faith we believe is in danger because of false teachings? I believe we do, and we can, and we must, and we will warn them all, because – We Are God's Watchmen! Amen.

[Preached originally by Pastor Steven Spencer at St. Peter Ev. Lutheran Church, Brodhead, WI – September 30th, 1984]



What We're All About - And NOT
We've been getting messages about Intrepid Lutherans. Some have been quite good and complimentary, and some others somewhat worrisome. So, we wish to set the record straight. We want to clear up some misconceptions and false perceptions about our organization among brother WELS Pastors and all members and friends of our synod.

• It is not our Divine Call to preserve, repair, or create doctrinal unity in the WELS. That can only be accomplished by God working by means of His Word as it is studied, cherished, practiced and proclaimed by Believers, whether holding a Divine Call or not, all of whom possess His general call to watch out for false teachers and join only with those who are fully agreed in all matters of doctrine and practice.
• We also recognize that it is not our Call to tell Circuit Pastors, District Presidents, the Conference of Presidents, or the President of the Synod how to do their jobs. We speak according to Christian conscience. Those who believe something merits action, and who have a legitimate Call to act are certainly free to do so, or to refrain, on their own, without permission or direction from us. Again, as is true of all believers, we retain the freedom to speak passionately and confidently about sound doctrine and confessional practice.
• We are not "checking up" on Pastors or congregations. It is not our Call to nit-pick sermons, or web-pages, or worship services. In cases of questionable public and repeated statements and actions which are brought to our attention by concerned laity and others, we may address them indirectly as examples, or directly, as the case may warrant.
• We are not some kind of self-appointed “guardians” of “true” or “real” Lutheranism in the WELS. As stated above, all Christians, not just those holding office in church organizations, are under Scripture's direct injunction to watch out for false teachers, reject false teaching, hold only to the pure teaching of God's Word, and join only with those who do the same.
• We are not "militant," but rather only have a passion for the truth and a love for the Scriptures and the Book of Concord, consistent with what one would expect from within the "Church Militant" – those believers on earth who are "contending for the faith."
• We endeavor to support and encourage consistent confessionalism in every aspect of pastoral and congregational life – period, that’s it, no more, no less. And we are convinced that an internet blog can be a useful and effective vehicle for this effort.
• Just as we have truly endeavored to "put the best construction" on things we observe, we respectfully request the same consideration from those who may disagree with us from time to time.
• This is obviously a public forum and is intended to be such. Therefore, we respectfully request that if anyone has a comment, or a question, or a concern, or a complaint about anything posted on this blog, that they make it to us directly and publicly here on the blog. Please do not write to us or call us privately – again, about things written here on Intrepid Lutherans. We cannot guarantee that we will respond privately.

Christianity everywhere faces daunting difficulties, and much more than merely financial ones. Our synod is no exception. The matters which concern us all, cry out for serious deliberation, discussion, and yes, even debate. They need honest, open, and frank dialog. But they also demand patience, understanding, humility, charity, and circumspection. Intrepid Lutherans will make every effort to consistently practice these considerations and we expect the same from others.

May God guide us to fulfill His good and gracious will!

The Editors of Intrepid Lutherans

Why We Must Speak Out

Every student of World War Two history will recognize the dictum written by German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller about the silence of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power. It goes like this:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Some years later, another writer was inspired by these words to write a poem entitled "Hangman." Its concluding verses are as follows:

Then through the town the Hangman came,
Through the empty streets, and called my name --
And I looked at the gallows soaring tall,
And thought, "There is no one left at all

For hanging, and so he calls to me
To help pull down the gallows-tree."
So I went out with right good hope
To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.

He smiled at me as I came down
To the courthouse square through the silent town.
And supple and stretched in his busy hand
Was the yellow twist of the hempen strand.

And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap,
And it sprang down with a ready snap --
And then with a smile of awful command
He laid his hand upon my hand.

"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then,
"That your scaffold was built for other men...
And I no henchman of yours," I cried,
"You lied to me, Hangman. Foully lied!"

Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
"Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I.
For I answered straight and I told you true --
The scaffold was raised for none but you.

For who has served me more faithfully
Then you with your coward's hope?" said he,
"And where are the others who might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?"

"Dead," I whispered. And amiably
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me:
"First the foreigner, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."

Beneath the beam that blocked the sky
None had stood so alone as I.
The Hangman noosed me, and no voice there
Cried "Stop!" for me in the empty square.
(by Maurice Ogden)

The single point of both men's words is quite clear, direct, and simple; namely, that when people see and know that something is wrong, it is their duty and responsibility to speak up about it, raise awareness of it, and thus try to bring opposition to bear and stop it, or at least curtail its worst effects. And this is not only the responsibility of elected leaders and other important or prominent people. This is the responsibility of every person who has knowledge of the truth!

It is the same in the church. Of course, I'm speaking of the confessional Lutheran Church in the United States, and especially that part of it called the WELS.

One comment I hear now and then from brother Pastors in our synod often goes something like this: "Don't you have anything better to do? You should be paying more attention to your own parish ministry, or your family, or getting some exercise, instead of wasting your time on the internet with Intrepid Lutherans. I don't have time to get involved in synodical politics. I'm taking care of my congregation. I'll let God take care of the synod!"

OK, let's grant that perhaps that's a fair question and a legitimate point of view. In any case, it deserves a response. Here goes.

First, in my case, no, I don't have anything better to do, thank you. I usually put in sixty-plus hours a week at my parish ministry and work as a Circuit Pastor, not including private devotions and personal study. I also spend some time with my dear wife every day. My children are grown and out on their own, but even when they weren't, I managed to have some "extra" time for myself nearly every day. It just so happens that history and theology are hobbies of mine, on top of the work I do as a Pastor. So, since I'm going to spend some leisure time reading or on the internet anyway, I spend that time on things like Church History, the Lutheran Confessions, and so on. So, time spent on Intrepid Lutheran is not at all wasted as far as I'm concerned.

Now for the second main assertion sometimes raised - that other Pastors have neither the time nor the desire, nor indeed should they even, be involved in matters beyond the borders of their families and parishes. This involves the whole concept of confronting wrong - whether it be ideas, statements, or actions. Allow me to use another literary example:

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
(John Donne)

Or perhaps I may be so bold as to answer Cain's inquiry and proclaim that we are all indeed our brothers' keepers. Thus, concerning the Church, and our little corner of it, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that it is the duty and responsibility of every believer to call out false or even questionable doctrine and practice whenever they see or hear it, confront it, test, and if found wanting, oppose it. Period!

And if this is true of every believer, how much more so must it be true of each and every one of those who are blessed with a Divine Call to preach and teach only the pure truth of the whole council of God?! Again, I myself can come to no other conclusion.

Now, of course it is true that we in the WELS have a system in place to oversee doctrine and practice. We have a Synod President, District Presidents, and Circuit Pastors in place throughout our church body, whose task is expressly this. But even if that system works flawlessly - and it is the opinion of a good many that it works much less than flawlessly - but even if it works to the utmost of human ability, I see nowhere in Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, or the doctrinal statements of the WELS that removes or abrogates the responsibility of each and every Pastor to still "test the spirits."

Perhaps I've missed something. Such is not outside the bounds of possibility. But it seems clear to me that any and all of us who are Ministers of the Gospel in the Wisconsin Synod, once we have attended to parish and family duties, do indeed have very little else better to do! In fact, I would go so far as to say that WELS Pastors who don't, in some kind of public and meaningful way, engage in the discussions and debates concerning doctrine and practice now going on throughout our synod, are simply not living up to their calling.

If more of us don't get involved and stand up for true confessionalism in the WELS, then Pastor Niemöller's words might someday apply to us, and they might sound something like this: (with apologies to Niemöller)

First it was said we should make room for those who believe only in a "local" Great Flood,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't believe that.
Then it was said that "everyone's a minister,"
and I didn't speak out because that "could be understood correctly."
Then it was said we must remove all "manmade barriers to the Gospel,"
and I didn't speak out because that "sounded kind of ok."
Then I was ordered to "Change or Die,"
and there was no one left to speak out against this with me.

Stand up! Stand tall! Speak out!
Do it now! Keep it up! Never stop!
Or lose your confessional church.
Speak up now else you may not be able to speak up at all!
It's just as simple and straight-forward as that.

Pastor Spencer

Reprise: 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Walter Martin

In commentary following yesterday's post, Michele Bachmann as an Example of the Importance of Catechesis, David Kreuter suggests that certain attitudes regarding ways of thinking about or dealing with problems, or, one may reasonably conclude, "established processes" which descend from a culture described by such attitudes, could "destroy" our "ability (or Will) to think critically about the most important things."

Intrepid Lutherans has existed for just over a year now, and in that time we have "rocked the boat" by publicly discussing public manifestations of "problems" such as the following:

• pulpit plagiarism from sectarian sources
• the growth of sectarian worship
• the willingness to invite pop-culture to dominate the church's practices
• laymen ministering without Divine Call
• the increasing use of Cell Groups (Ecclesiolae in ecclesia)
• the decline of sound Law & Gospel preaching
• dangerously sloppy expression of our central teaching, "Justification by Faith Alone" (and the thinking and practice which descends from such sloppy expression)
• the abuse of overly broad definitions of "love" and "adiaphora"
• decline in respect for pure doctrine and the significance of doctrinal differences between Christians (which impacts our understanding and practice of Fellowship)

and most recently we have expressed concerns regarding

• the need for periodic examination of pastors, and
• our choice of Bible translation and the principles we employ in making that choice

In this time, we have publicly defended against the unjust excommunication of a layman – who still does not know what his error is – and we have publicly admonished celebrity WELS pastors for their very public involvement leading and promoting a conference entitled "Change or Die," an entirely wrong notion which exalts man's genius and effort in achieving numeric growth in the church at the expense of exclusive reliance on the Means of Grace. In nearly every issue we have addressed, we have done so in a way that not only “exposes the issues”, but remediates these issues through application of sound Lutheran doctrine, and we have always been willing to entertain discussion on such issues. Just check our Catalog of Intrepid Posts to read through our blog posts over the past year.

For this "boat rocking" we have been roundly criticized. Some even regard us as the greatest threat that WELS is currently facing (no kidding!). Some of those who have expressed concerns resonating with ours have been warned not to participate in our public discussion. Even outside of those who have received such expressed warnings, although there are many who enthusiastically agree with and support Intrepid Lutherans (despite our failings!), few feel free to do so publicly.

Why is this? Should we even concern ourselves with an answer to that question?

In answer to the latter question, we are re-posting our blog post from May 9, 'non rockaboatus' is an organizational disease: Lectures by Walter Martin, which features audio lectures, with some key transcriptions, telling the tale of American Christianity's demise in the last generation from the perspective of one who valiantly fought epic battles against error, and lost – and who is warning what's left of Christianity to be on guard. Error is separate from Truth, it divides people by gathering to itself adherents from among those easily beguiled and those dissatisfied with the Truth, and it divides organizations by populating established structures with its adherents and abusing their otherwise wholesome processes to serve its own ends. This is what happened to American Christianity. It did happen. It is what happens.

Are we on guard? Have we lost our will to think critically about the most important things? May we heed Dr. Martin's warnings.

---

Given that a number of our Lutheran readers may resonate more with non-Lutheran commentators than they do with confessional Lutheran authors and speakers, we thought it would be of interest for them to hear a little from a renowned Baptist of the previous generation, regarding the maintenance of doctrinal integrity in the face of liberalism: Dr. Walter R. Martin.

Dr. Martin was an expert on the occult, and from the 1960’s onward, disseminated countercultic and apologetic information through his organization, Christian Research Institute (CRI). After his death, he was succeeded as “The Bible Answer Man” and President of CRI by Hank Hanegraaff – a popular commentator who can be heard these days on many, though not all, “Evangelical” radio stations. At least one of Dr. Martin’s works, The Kingdom of the Cults, remains a very valuable resource, one which I consult with semi-regularity as need arises.

Over the past two years, several of Dr. Martin’s lectures have been featured by Chris Rosebrough on his internet radio show, Fighting for the Faith – a daily program in the lineup of Pirate Christian Radio (PCR). I remember these PCR features, since I am of about the same age as Mr. Rosebrough, and remember Dr. Martin’s voice and manner of teaching from my youth, in a way similar to Rosebrough’s reminiscences. Anyway, lest we Lutherans should fall under the mistaken impression that our struggles are unique to us, I supply links to the following lectures, along with selected quotes, in which Dr. Martin defines liberal theology as “cultic,” and makes it clear what the orthodox Christian’s response ought to be. Others have already gone through what we are approaching – it may be of some use to examine and appreciate their own assessments.


Walter Martin on the Cult of Liberalism

 

(lecture begins @~58min, 30sec)
1hr 12min, and following...
“Any person who does not know that today in the United States, and in denominational structures worldwide, we are in an accelerating apostasy, does not know, I repeat, does not know what is going on... There was a time when one could pick a Presbyterian church, a Methodist church, an Episcopal church walking down the street, send somebody into it, and be reasonably sure that he would hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Today before you'd send people into most of these churches, you would need a psychiatrist if you opened the door and just said 'Go'... because you would know what you did!

“The Episcopal church which I came from, has a rigid orthodox background. Thirty-nine articles of the church, Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed... good solid theology. Yet, the Episcopal church fell so far from its position that it let James Pike continue as one of its representatives. They didn't dare bring him before the House of Bishops – want me to tell you publicly why? Pike said so, I might as well quote him. He said, 'You will never take me to trial before the House of Bishops for my theology, which you say is heretical, because I am an attorney, and I will defend myself, and I will prove that you, in the House of Bishops, are as heretical as I am.' Do you think they listened to him? You bet they listened to him. Because Pike would have proven it. Do you realize that James Pike was an Episcopal Bishop in the United States, denying the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, Salvation by Grace, the Vicarious Atonement, and the Bodily Resurrection of the Lord, the Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, all the creeds of Christendom, and the Episcopal Church never touched him?! Know why? Because they are as corrupt as he is! They don't dare touch him... The Presbyterian denomination has suffered the same inroads. Today you can be ordained in the Presbyterian Church and deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. The Baptists have had their fare share – we’re up to our eyeballs with it! The Missouri Synod fought them to the death, and won. They said, 'We don't know how we're going to get along without you, but we're going to.' And they threw them out... The Southern Baptists are fighting the same war right now – I know, I'm in the Convention. We don't know how we're going to get along without them, but we are going to. Because if we don't, there is no such thing as a little bit pregnant... you are or you're not! Well, there's no such thing as a mild form of cancer. It's cancer. If you don't get rid of it, you don't deal with it, it get's you! We have to deal with these things today. If we don't, they'll end up getting what's left of the Church... What did the Apostle Paul say? 'They will gather to themselves teachers who will tickle their ears, and the Truth of God will be turned into mythology.' It's here!”

1hr 20min, and following
“Every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of biblical doctrine... Corrupt Bibliology led them to the next step. Theology began to be touched by it. Their view of the Cross and the Virgin Birth immediately was questioned. Then came the miracles of Christ. And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content, and simply were using the outward shell so that they could go on collecting money from the people and the churches, because they knew that if the people in the pews knew that they were apostate they'd throw them out. So the strategy was: hang on to the trust funds, hang on to the money that we've got, hang on to the properties we control, we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology. And then, finally, we will take control of everything. This is the gradual process of feeding you theological poison, until you become immunized enough so that you don't know what is happening to you. And when you wake up to what is happening to you, it's too late. They've got everything.”

1hr 28min, and following
“Look what happened... Look at the votes. We were very subtly, systematically, squeezed out. All of the positions of leadership were given to people who denied the foundations of the faith...”

1hr 34min, and following
“The Jehovah's Witness is easily detected. The Mormon has his bicycle. The Christian Scientist has the Monitor to get you to subscribe to. The religious science people are telling you that you can have health and prosperity and you can rise above all these torrents of life, floating over them as the ping-pong ball soars over Niagra Falls... You can see these people in the cults and the occult if you have any degree of discernment at all, because they are outside the church. But how do you see the Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopalian professor of theology? How do you get him in a place where you can find out what his theology really is? The moment you question him, he reverts to orthodox terminology, and then if you press him for the definitions of his terminology, he claims that you're being suspicious, bigoted and unloving. The average layman is defenseless! He's got to take what comes from behind the pulpit and recommended by his church authority because the moment he opens his mouth, he's accused of being divisive in the church, unloving, and disturbing the fellowship of the faith! When it is the devil behind the pulpit, not the victim in the pew, that's responsible for it! I've used the term ‘devil’ a couple times. That's mild. God uses much stronger language. He describes those who pervert the Scriptures as enemies of the Cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetites, and whose glory is in their earthly shame...”

1hr 37min, and following
“That is why I am concerned about the cult of liberalism. We can identify the other cults, but how do you identify somebody that looks like you, acts like you, sounds like you...? Do you want the answer? ...1 Thessalonians 5:21ff ...put everything to the test, cling tenaciously to what is good.”

2hr 19min, and following
“[Liberalism] is a cult because it follows every outlining structure of cultism. It has its own revelation, its own guru's, and its denial, systematically, of all sound systematic Christian theology. It is a cult, because it passes it's leadership on to the next group, that takes over either modifying, expanding or contracting the same heresies, dressing them up in different language, and passing them on. It is theologically corrupt, because it is bibliologically corrupt; it denies the authority of Scripture and ruins its own theology. And, it ends in immorality.

“Because the only way you could have gotten to this 'homosexual,' morally relativistic garbage, which is today in our denominational structures, is if the leadership of those denominations divide the authority of the Scriptures, and Jesus Christ as Lord. That is the only way we've gotten there. And there is a remedy for this, brothers and sisters. The remedy? Is to start asking questions! Start demanding definitions of terminology. Start insisting that people tell you what they're giving your money to before you give them a dime. Examine the people that occupy the chairs of theology in the seminaries, and if they are not given to the historic Christian faith, out with the rascals! Examine your churches, your sessions, your boards... and find out who is in the faith! You're told to do this in First Corinthians. You're told to do this in Galatians. You're told to do it everywhere in Scripture: Examine to see whether they are in the faith; test all things; make sure of what is true! I'm not being harsh. I'm not being judgmental. I am being thoroughly consistently Christian, in the light of historic theology and the Holy Bible. And I think we have a right to demand that the men who occupy the seats of learning and who preach from the pulpits either preach Jesus Christ or we cut off their pensions, their salaries, their golf club memberships, and let them go on living as social workers, because it is obvious they don't have any theology that is going to save anybody. With Luther, Here I Stand.”


Walter Martin: It's Not Unloving to Confront Error



(lecture begins @~18min)
18min, and following
“Tonight we are dealing with an extremely complex subject, we are dealing with 'positive confession' and the health and welfare groups, some of which have crossed over from merely Christian forms in their expression of theology, into the area of the Kingdom of the Cults. Ten years ago... I did a paper on the 'Errors of Positive Confession.' I was vilified, rather openly, by a large number of charismatics on the ground that I was being divisive and unloving, and because I was being 'critical of brothers'. The fact is, you can be a brother and be in very serious doctrinal error, and if you have a large ministry and a lot of people watching you on television or listening to you on radio, and if you are not responsive to your peers it is possible for you to lead literally millions of people into false doctrines – not meaning to do so, but being in ignorance yourself. And we are dealing today with doctrines which have progressed from simply ignorance to outright heresy, and finally, to blasphemy.

“If the Christian church does not address these subjects, if Christian leaders... pastors and teachers do not stand up and say 'Enough! this is what the Scripture says, and you are answerable to Scripture!,' then we are going to have false doctrine running rampant all over the Christian world, and nobody will be able to police it or stop it... [To whom is anyone accountable, theologically??]

“...So the gospel of the checkbook has replaced the Biblical Gospel of authority in the church. Now, so long as nobody insists on accountability, then it will go on; but, the church has awakened, and people are demanding accountability, and that is as it should be. No minister should be afraid to account for his theology, privately or publicly. And if he has questions about it, and he won't answer them, then we have every right to suspect him. That is not unloving, it is not heresy hunting, it is not divisive, it is not unloving, it is thoroughly Biblical. Often, when I cite people's names publicly, they say, 'But, why can't you just name the thing? Why do you have to name the person?' Because, in Scripture, Paul gave us our example; when he confronted evil in the church, he said 'Hymenaeus and Philetus have erred concerning the Truth, they are teaching that the Resurrection has passed, and they are overturning the faith of some.' He named them. And then Hymenaeus and Alexander... So, consistently through church history it has been necessary to confront evil. It doesn't make you popular, alot of people don't love you, but the people that will end up loving you are the one’s delivered because of the confrontation.”


If our Lutheran leaders and laymen won’t listen to fellow Lutherans who quote Scripture and the Confessions, maybe they prefer the testimony of the Baptists?