Intrepid Lutherans: Moving into the Future

For those of our readers with an interest, we are pleased to announce that Intrepid Lutherans is in the process of reorganizing with a new Board of Directors. This will take some time, and we expect that some changes will result in terms of direction and purpose. We expect to make comparatively swift progress, however, and will keep you all apprised as developments proceed.

In the meantime, we will resume publishing with semi-regularity, beginning later today with the first installment of an analysis project proposed by Intrepid Lutherans in September 2013, in our post Church Growth Project. A brief description excerpted from that post is as follows:

That the CG movement has made inroads in the WELS there can be no denying. Sadly, the emphasis on buildings and programs and methodologies has become so prevalent, that it is increasingly difficult to recognize the Scriptural purpose of the church in many congregations in the WELS. This can be observed by simply looking at the home page of some WELS church websites. The prominence of CG methodology on these websites can be a good indicator of CG practices within the local church itself. The home page of any church website gives a unique view into the purpose and mission of a church. The website home page does, and must, speak for itself. It is a unique opportunity to provide a message for visitors to the website who might never consider walking into the physical church building or calling on the telephone to inquire about services. What message will the website visitor find on a church’s home page? With that question before us, a project is being undertaken, and is described in this proposal, to characterize websites of WELS churches to assess the message found on the website home page. The analysis is limited to only the home page of WELS church websites, and the intention is to have the analysis be simple and straightforward and factual. The home page of a WELS church website will be assessed by looking for clear evidence of the Gospel, the Means of Grace, and confessional Lutheran standards. Specifically, the analysis will look for clear evidence of 1) the Gospel message, 2) God’s Word, 3) the Sacraments, 4) the name “Lutheran”, 5) the Lutheran Confessions and 6) the liturgical service.

Following our September post announcing this project, a number of volunteers joined Mr. Vernon Knepprath, over the past several months, have conducted a rather extensive survey of WELS Congregational websites. Their results are most interesting. Stay tuned, and visit again later today for the first installment of their study results.

Changes on the Horizon

Since "nobody reads Ichabod," it may come as a surprise for some of our readers to hear that there are some changes in the works for Intrepid Lutherans. Then again, it may not. Likewise, if everyone reads Ichabod, it may come as a surprise for some to learn that the changes being considered are not nearly so dramatic as is rumoured. Then again, it may not.

The past year or so has seen some significant changes for us, personally, professionally and as a group. It is no secret that Rev. Rydecki, after making independent study of the Doctrine of Justification and having publicly raised some simple questions of exegesis from the floor of a Pastors conference in his District, was eventually labeled by his Brothers a heretic and cast out from among them without the honest review of his concerns for which he pleaded at length. No longer WELS, he has since colloquized into the ELDoNA, which was concerned and objective enough to give him an honest hearing, and to carefully consider and deliberate his arguments before receiving him. But this is not the extent of the personal changes many of us at IL have faced. I, for one, have been in the midst of some fairly significant business changes over the past several months, that have altered my availability to write with the frequency to which many may have become accustomed. And I know that shifting responsibilities and personal circumstances have impacted the others, as well.

But there have been other changes – changes in attitude toward our initial "objectives." In our recent, and very popular post, What on Earth could the CoP possibly have meant by THIS?, we identified two "primary precipitating situations behind [the] formation" of Intrepid Lutherans in 2010:

(1) the appalling treatment of the layman, Mr. Rick Techlin, by his pastor and congregation, and the incomprehensible support publicly granted them by the praesidium of the Northern Wisconsin District; and

(2) the continuing existence of "Time of Grace Ministry" as a manifestly non-denominational and unionistic evangelism Ministry conducted by WELS and other Lutherans, and the continuing support of the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District enjoyed by "Time of Grace Ministry."

Regarding the first situation, it concluded most unsatisfactorily, while related issues either pre-existing or descending directly from it seem to continue unabated. Regarding the second situation... that liberalizing juggernaut continues – with an endless supply of independent funding and a multitude of supporting voices both within Synod, especially among its leadership, and among the laity as well.

The result is no small level of disenfranchisement among a majority of Intrepid Lutheran editors, and a resulting shift in personal interest and priority. Of all the friends they thought they had, very few have stood with them publicly. With no significant public voice to oppose the abuses that brought us all together in 2010, such abuses are now normative in WELS. There is no stopping it, there is no changing it, indeed, there is no referring to it as somehow "wrong" anymore. That is because WELS has changed. If, three and a half years ago, we very naïvely thought such things could have been stopped, curtailed or at least turned toward reformation (and some of us did think such could happen), that naiveté has been sucked from us as the hot desert sun draws moisture from a naked body; publicly deserted by those who privately supported us, we, along with our remaining stalwart public supporters, have baked alone in the sun.

For these and a variety of other reasons, the majority of Intrepid Lutheran editors have found that their enthusiasm with respect to our purpose regarding these precipitating situations has left them, that current circumstances have driven them to focus on other priorities.

The only two who are willing to continue are myself and Rev. Rydecki – although going forward neither of us will have the time to publish as frequently as we have in the past, with Rev. Rydecki's involvement reducing to moderator and occasional blog posts.

This leaves us with a dilemma of sorts. Currently, Intrepid Lutherans is incorporated as a non-profit religious and educational institution, so that we can collect revenue in the form of donations and use it to host conferences. Believe it or not, we were in the midst of planning such a conference for next Spring, a conference that would have included not only the results of a systematic study of Church Growth trends in the WELS, but an in depth examination of translation ideology – of Dynamic Equivalence versus Formal Equivalence – of the "Critical Text" Greek apparatus that stands behind DE, and the "Historical Critical Method" that props it up. In addition, this conference would have provided an academic defense for the adoption of the "New King James Translation" of the Bible. There were other topics on the docket for exploration as well. If Intrepid Lutherans were to continue with such endeavors, it would need to remain incorporated. But it would also need qualified Board Members. Though Rev. Rydecki is willing to continue as an author, he simply does not have the time to devote to the duties of a corporate officer. And corporations require at least two officers.

Likewise, even if Intrepid Lutherans were to continue as just a Blog, we simply need more qualified writers. Between Rev. Rydecki and myself, maybe two or three entries a month are all that could be expected, which is not nearly enough to maintain a dedicated readership.

If we were to continue in either case, the purpose of Intrepid Lutherans would necessarily change. First and foremost, we would entirely cease to be a "WELS blog", or an organization that defines its existence or purpose with reference to ANY Lutheran synod or church body. We have very definitely entered a post-Synodical Era, and it will do the scattered remnant of genuine Lutherans little good for Intrepid Lutherans, or for any Lutheran group, to conduct itself with an imbalanced and unrealistic devotion to earthly organizations. In order to provide a balance of Lutheran perspectives, the hope would be to attract regular contributors and/or leadership candidates from additional sources in American Lutheranism.

Second, since it would not be defining itself relative to any Lutheran synod or church body, Intrepid Lutherans would end that aspect of its mission which continually addressed itself to the political issues of WELS, or those of any Lutheran synod or church body. That isn't to say that such issues won't be pointedly discussed from time to time, particularly as Intrepid Lutherans continues to warn of growing corruption in, and encroaching worldliness upon broad segments of American Lutheranism – a warning that is relevant to all Lutheran church bodies in America, even if they (think they) have separated themselves from the rest of Christianity, or even if they (think they) have sequestered themselves from the rest of the World.

Third, rather than addressing ourselves to Lutheran clergy and laity, we would be focusing on primarily equipping and engaging Lutheran laity. We would do this not by insulting them with condescending "bubble-gum," but by providing what seems be disappearing from the main Lutheran publishing houses: the highest quality writing we can muster, sufficiently sourced so that the layman can continue to investigate as interest would lead him, and have confidence in what he passes on to others. The equipping we would hope to offer Lutheran laity would be a preparation, not to stand as confessional Lutherans before similarly confessing "brothers" and family members who don't really want to live up to the label they apply to themselves, but to stand as confessing Christians in a Western Society that has swiftly grown shockingly and openly hostile to Christianity.

Fourth, there would be a more deliberate effort to cover Lutheran teaching and practice from a more broadly and historically orthodox perspective, rather than elevate peculiarities of recent American innovation that have supplanted those perspectives. To this end, and in the interest of equipping the laity, there would also be a more deliberate effort to cover Lutheran teaching and practice not only as current issues in American Christianity give rise to questions regarding, or a need to defend, historic and orthodox Christianity, but from the standpoint of balance from the four categories of preparation in the Christian religion: Exegetical & Historical Theology (the so-called "historic" disciplines), and Systematic & Practical Theology (the so-called "constructive" disciplines) – where we would also recognize that Systematic Theology is more than just dogmatics, but also includes apologetics and ethics. In other words, our goals would be set so that there could be no mistaking – on our part or anyone else's – that rather than set out to "achieve" any particular result (impossible, since these goals include no arrival point), we are merely proceeding in a direction that we are convinced it is proper to go, trusting that the Lord will make fitting use of our "going."

What would not be changing? Our "What we Believe" statement would not be changed. We would continue to be a forum in which friendly and productive discussion on the article of Justification may be engaged by genuinely interested and concerned Lutherans. We will continue to herald confessional Lutheran practice – historic, liturgical and catholic practice, that is – as the proper form of worship for confessing Lutherans, and we will continue to vigorously oppose all forms of sectarian worship which boasts of its separation from the Church catholic and heralds its union with worldliness, and which disparages the Holy Spirit who works exclusively through the Means of Grace and arrogantly augments or even supplants His work with the efforts of man. We will continue to oppose the encroachments of Truth-killing post-Modern thought upon our pre-Modern system of theology, we will continue to oppose post-Modernism as a foundation for contemporary translations of the Bible, and we will continue to reject the NIV as a viable translation for the serious Christian. All posts would remain as they are – without editing or removal. The efforts of editors and Board members would continue to be rendered gratis.

We have given ourselves until the end of the year. It's up to our readers, now. If there are those who would be interested in becoming a regular essayist, or in having more substantial involvement with IL, please make yourselves known to us (privately, if you desire). If we don't know you, we may ask you to submit a CV and provide references. If, by the end of the year, we have not made any progress toward increasing our number of active authors, or in acquiring additional qualified leadership candidates, we will de-incorporate and mothball the blog. In this event, all blog posts will remain as they are and continue to be available for public access into the foreseeable future, for as long as we are able to maintain our domain name.

Intrepid Lutherans: Gaining in Popularity?

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

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

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

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

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

 

What on Earth could the CoP possibly have meant by THIS?

A few weeks ago, in our post, The Witch Hunt Has (Officially) Begun, Rev. Rydecki highlighted section PD.02, entitled "Intrepid Lutherans" (yes, we have our own category of discussion now! We're not being ignored.), from the Minutes of WELS Council of Presidents' (CoP) most recent quarterly meeting. Further down in the notes, however, we read another bit of information germane to not only recent discussion on Intrepid Lutherans, but discussion that has been ongoing since our inception. That section from the CoP's notes reads as follows:

PD.06 Time of Grace board membership

President Rutschow did not have anything new to report on the issue of Time of Grace Ministry and its board membership. The SEW district is continuing to work with TOG to resolve any issues that remain.

What on Earth could this possibly mean?
What's Wrong with the Board Membership of Time of Grace Ministry?
Some may recall that a Memorial to the 2011 WELS Convention addressing "Time of Grace Ministry" was signed by pastors and laymen numbering on the order of one hundred. That Memorial read as follows:

Synod Convention Memorial - Time of Grace
Memorial to the Synod in Convention Re: Time of Grace Ministry

Whereas (1) Time of Grace Ministry has actively sought and obtained the status of a Recognized Service Organization (RSO) from the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS); and
Whereas (2) Time of Grace is listed in the Yearbook of the LCMS as a Recognized Service Organization; and
Whereas (3) Leaders and representatives from Time of Grace regularly appear at LCMS events and congregations to promote the ministry of Time of Grace; and
Whereas (4) The administrative board of Time of Grace includes at least one member of the LCMS; and
Whereas (5) The LCMS, according to its official bylaws and policies, considers its RSOs to be “valued partners of the LCMS,” views the services of its RSOs as “a profound extension of the LCMS’ mission and ministry,” and expects its RSOs to “respect and not act contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Synod” and to “foster the mission and ministry of the Synod and engage in program activity that is in harmony with the programs of the boards of the Synod;” and
Whereas (6) An organization cannot truthfully and honestly carry out joint mission and ministry with two synods that are not in fellowship with one another, pretending to “walk together” with both; and
Whereas (7) The practices of Time of Grace are examples of the very unionism over which the bond of church fellowship between the WELS and the LCMS was formally severed in 1961; and
Whereas (8) The speaker and chief writer for Time of Grace is Pastor Mark Jeske, who with his congregation, St. Marcus Evangelical Lutheran Church of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is a member of the WELS; and
Whereas (9) Time of Grace maintains that it is not affiliated with any denomination or part of any denominational structure; and
Whereas (10) Such an arrangement implies that it is possible to be a member of the WELS while leading a religious organization which will confess no denominational ties; and
Whereas (11) Time of Grace has established a presence in most (if not all) of the Twelve Districts of the WELS; and
Whereas (12) Time of Grace has pursued the introduction of its services and ministry into the world mission fields of the WELS; and
Whereas (13) Scripture instructs us to present a clear confession of our doctrine and practice and to affiliate ourselves only with those church bodies whose doctrine and practice conform to the entirety of God’s Word (Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 4:16); and
Whereas (14) The Southeastern Wisconsin District presidium is charged with oversight of doctrine and practice of the pastors, teachers, congregations and other entities of our fellowship within its district; and
Whereas (15) Time of Grace has not provided to the Southeastern Wisconsin District presidium documentation from the LCMS regarding the non-RSO status of Time of Grace; and
Whereas (16) The Southeastern Wisconsin District presidium, in two years of dealing with Time of Grace, has been unable to convince Time of Grace of the need to withdraw its RSO status or change its unionistic practices; therefore be it

RESOLVED (a) That the Synod in convention recognize Time of Grace’s relationship with the LCMS as unionistic, confessionally unclear, and therefore unscriptural; and be it finally
RESOLVED (b) That the Synod in convention encourage the presidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District to take immediate measures of loving Christian discipline toward Time of Grace and its leaders, calling on them to terminate their LCMS RSO status and to return to biblical practices and a clear confession regarding their walk together with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

Notice Whereas (1) and Whereas (4). It is unfortunate, but this Memorial did not make clear that these two Whereas' directly involved each other. When news of its newly designated status of Recognized Service Organization of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) was announced by the LCMS Board for Communication Services (BCS) in January of 2009, the Minutes of the January meeting of the LCMS BCS indicated that Time of Grace Ministry actively sought RSO status from LCMS and that RSO status was granted, contingent upon

1. the presence of an LCMS clergyman,
2. as a voting member of the ToG Board of Directors (a decision making role, not just an "advisory role"), who was
3. approved by LCMS BCS to sit on the ToG Board of Directors (directly tying LCMS to the authority structure of ToG).

The January 2009 Minutes of the LCMS BCS reads as follows:

Request of Time of Grace Ministry for LCMS Recognized Service Organization status

M/S/C to grant Time of Grace Ministry the status of Recognized Service Organization of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod contingent upon its inclusion of an ordained clergyman of the LCMS, approved by the BCS, as a voting member of its board of directors.

(Minutes: Board for Communication Services, January 27, 2009 – emphasis mine).

Time of Grace Ministry objected to these conditions, but not in the way one would expect from a Ministry, conducting itself as "Church," led by laymen and served by clergymen of the WELS, having respect for the WELS Doctrine of Fellowship. Instead of saying, "We can't have membership of our Board of Directors controlled by the LCMS," or "We can't partner in Ministry endeavors with those who are not agreed with us in doctrine and practice," they chose, instead to inform the LCMS BCS that they could not have an LCMS clergyman on the ToG Board of Directors, since the Ministry of Time of Grace was intended to be a strictly lay-led endeavor. They already had an LCMS layman on their Board of Directors, so Time of Grace Ministry countered LCMS BCS by requesting that the contingency of LCMS clergyman be lifted, which LCMS BCS granted on the condition that at least one LCMS layman serve on ToG Board of Directors instead. This was carefully explained in the Minutes of the April 2009 meeting of the LCMS BCS, as follows:

2. Time of Grace

The program hosted by Pastor Jeske remains the only Lutheran television program available nationally. RSO status was granted in January by the BCS, contingent upon the ToG board’s including a clergyman of the LCMS. At least one LCMS layman is currently on the board. The organization is adamant about maintaining a lay board and has resisted including any pastors. Given that RSO status is revocable if necessary, the board took the following action:

M/S/C to remove the contingency of LCMS clergy presence on the board for LCMS RSO status for Time of Grace Ministry. [The operative assumption, however, is that the board will continue to have LCMS lay presence.]

(Minutes: Board for Communication Services, April 27-28, 2009 – emphasis mine)

These facts became widely reported and discussed when Time of Grace Ministry replaced Issues, Etc. at KFUO AM. Blogs, like Brothers of John the Steadfast and Ichabod: The Glory has Departed, and other news resource reported KFUO's newest program, along with the fact that Time of Grace Ministry was a Recognized Service Organization of the LCMS, supplying hyperlinks to the LCMS BCS documents detailing the conditions under which Time of Grace Ministry sought and was granted RSO status with the LCMS and, consequently, their evident willingness to allow the influence of the LCMS a permanent seat at the table of their decision-making body.


Is the pot calling the kettle black?
By merely pointing out that "Time of Grace Ministry" has a non-WELS member on its Board of Directors, as if this fact suggests that there may be negative implications with regard to the WELS doctrine of Church Fellowship, Intrepid Lutherans may be accused of "calling the kettle black," as a simplistic pretext for dismissing the significant points at issue. But let's pre-emptively address this likely accusation head-on: Is Intrepid Lutherans "calling the kettle black?" Answer: The question is irrelevant, and a childish attempt to deflect the real issue. The proper and relevant question to ask is this: Is the kettle black, or isn't it?

But still, it may be useful at this point to draw comparisons between "Time of Grace Ministry" and Intrepid Lutherans, Inc., to make clear how vastly different we are and how the negative implications aptly suggested of "Time of Grace Ministry," are vastly more serious than any such implications that may be suggested of Intrepid Lutherans, Inc. – if they could be applied, at all.

Intrepid Lutherans, as an organization, is an association of five men having similar concerns regarding doctrine and practice in WELS, and in broader confessional Lutheranism, who, having exhausted all other means we can conceive of bringing attention to the issues we consider important, have opted to collaborate in an attempt to bring these issues into the realm of public discussion, in hopes of contributing to a wider recognition of what we consider critical issues and that such recognition may, finally, draw the concerned and deserved attention of laymen and clergymen such that the process of resolution to some of these issues might finally begin. By the name we have chosen for ourselves, by the statements contained on our What We Believe page, it is clear that Intrepid Lutherans wants to be known not merely as Christian, and not only as Lutheran, but as Lutherans in unmistakeably full harmony with the doctrine and practice of those who've made their public Confession that of Lutheran Book of Concord of 1580, because it is in full agreement with the Holy Scriptures. In an effort to assist in the solicitation and management of donations, Intrepid Lutherans incorporated in August 2011 as a religious, non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. Intrepid Lutherans has maintained that it is NOT "Church": we do NOT bear the Marks of the Church; we do NOT participate in the work of the Gospel together; we do NOT take upon ourselves the exclusive privilege of the Church to issue Divine Calls to anyone to serve us or serve on our behalf; having no legitimate Divine Call to serve Intrepid Lutherans, we do NOT, in the name of Intrepid Lutherans, bestow upon ourselves the title "Minister". In short, Intrepid Lutherans is NOT Church, it is NOT Ministry, nor are we in any way, shape or form "Ministers" engaged or participating in any kind of "Ministry" on behalf of Intrepid Lutherans. We are on record multiple times openly and forcefully rejecting any such notions, one notable example being the opening paragraphs of our post, The 'Tone' of polemics: Thoughts regarding vigorous public discourse, where we state directly: "We don’t bear the Marks of the Church. We don’t commune one another, neither have we selected from among ourselves a ‘pastor’ or ‘overseer’. Intrepid Lutherans is strictly a Universal Priesthood endeavor – all five of us are equals." If any negative implications regarding Fellowship are to be suggested, the cut-and-dried applications of "Church Fellowship" are completely off the table. Ours is a voluntary individual association – the only "standards" which might apply are those of so-called "Christian Fellowship,"¹ which are very loose, if there are any at all, and would apply to any group of individuals who've gathered to discuss doctrine and practice, whether all in attendance pretend to be in full agreement on every matter they discuss or not.

Time of Grace Ministry, on the other hand, is a much different matter. "Time of Grace Ministry," having offices in Wisconsin, was incorporated in Wisconsin as a foreign agent in 2001, as "Time of Grace Ministry." Its home incorporation state, however, is Virginia, where it was initially incorporated in 2000, again with the name "Time of Grace Ministry." It is clear, "Time of Grace Ministry" wants everyone to immediately know, by putting the term "Ministry" in its name, that it aspires to be "Church," and that, in its corporate endeavors, it intends to take on the function of "Church" in the execution of its "Mission." What Miission? The use of technology driven media to "share the good news of Jesus Christ with as many people as possible" (according to the ToG "Who We Are" page). That is Evangelism. That is the Ministry of the Church, conducted by an organization that enjoys the exclusive privilege of the congregation, of calling a Minister of the Word to be its Evangelist – in this case, WELS pastor Rev. Mark Jeske. That there are non-WELS Lutherans working alongside WELS Lutherans in the Ministry of Time of Grace, means, principally, that they are working together in the Ministry of Evangelism.

Moreover, "Time of Grace Ministry" has no desire to be known as Lutheran at all. This is clear not only from the name it has chosen for itself, which completely omits any reference to any public Confession it may hold, but by it's Statement of Faith as well, which reads:

We believe in the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that God has revealed himself to us through his word, the Holy Bible, that the Bible is divinely inspired and without error. We believe that all human beings are terminally sinful and that only through the innocent life and death of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. We believe we are here on this earth to spread the good news of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible.

In this public Statement of Faith, "Time of Grace Ministry" conspicuously avoids giving any hint that the Christians involved are Lutheran, or that the public Ministry they engage in together makes any confessional subscription whatsoever, whether Lutheran or otherwise. In other words, not only are those who work together in the Evangelism Ministry of "Time of Grace Ministry" of differing Confessions (unionism), they are working together under the banner of a manifestly non-denominational Ministry.

Finally, "Time of Grace Ministry" actively recruits fellow workers in the Ministry of evangelism through the efforts of partner Ministry Grace in Action. The network of Fellow Ministers recruited by "Time of Grace Ministry" through "Grace in Action" are referred to as Time of Grace Ambassadors. It is unknown how many Fellow Workers have partnered with "Time of Grace Ministry" in the work of evangelism, or how many of them are non-WELS Lutherans, but the documentation provided by "Time of Grace Ministry" via "Grace in Action" makes no mention whatsoever of restricting such "Fellow Ministers" to WELS, or even to a Lutheran confession, for that matter.


Attempts to correct "Time of Grace Ministry," over years, are ignored
This situation is not new. While it has only been generally known since "Time of Grace Ministry" came under broader scrutiny by concerned confessional Lutherans following public revelation of its RSO status in 2009, it had been known prior to this. Not only prior to, but especially subsequent to this public revelation, countless concerned WELS Lutherans have contacted Rev. Jeske, his overseers in the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District, and even "Time of Grace Ministry" itself, to either correct or end this offensive "Ministry." They were ignored. Indeed, regarding Intrepid Lutherans itself, there were TWO primary precipitating situations behind its formation in 2010: (1) the appalling treatment of the layman, Mr. Rick Techlin, by his pastor and congregation, and the incomprehensible support publicly granted them by the praesidium of the Northern Wisconsin District; (2) the continuing existence of "Time of Grace Ministry" as a manifestly non-denominational and unionistic evangelism Ministry conducted by WELS and other Lutherans, and the continuing support of the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District enjoyed by "Time of Grace Ministry." Both prior and subsequent to our formation, Rev.'s Rydecki, Spencer and Lidtke have been in direct contact with Rev. Jeske, the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District, and the corporate representatives of "Time of Grace Ministry." All to no avail. Many others have made contact with them as well – indeed, searching the pages of Intrepid Lutherans will reveal several instances where individuals have admitted doing so out of grave concern over the conduct of WELS Lutherans involved with "Time of Grace Ministry," with similar results. Continued inaction resulted in the creation of the Memorial above, which garnered around one hundred signatories. Although some have suggested that Intrepid Lutherans was responsible for this Memorial, in truth, this author has no idea who composed it or who launched solicitation for signatures, having only found out about it some time after it had been published and after many signatories had already signed on. Intrepid Lutherans had nothing to do with it. It was a genuinely deep and broad concern of WELS Lutherans all over Synod.

Swiftly following the publication of this Memorial, supporters of "Time of Grace Ministry" wrote a counter-Memorial, and in the relatively short time they had to gather signatures, were able to demonstrate support in WELS for the evangelism Ministry of "Time of Grace Ministry," support which completely dismissed its non-denominational character and demonstrated unionism. Synod President Rev. Mark Schroeder could have elected to disallow either of these Memorial; instead, he allowed both to be considered by the Synod in Convention. He recognized that the issue of "Time of Grace Ministry" was one which could no longer be ignored, but which must be confronted.


"Time of Grace Ministry," Convention "Gift Packages," and... political influence?
Unbeknownst to many WELS Lutherans, politicking is a vital aspect of Convention preparations, and the 2011 WELS Convention was no exception. Apparently, "Time of Grace Ministry" had gained access to the names and addresses of the Delegates to the 2011 Convention, and mailed "Gift Packages" to each one of them prior to the Convention. While these "Gift Packages" contained nothing which directly addressed the Memorials which concerned them, we thought it odd that (a) they had these addresses to begin with, and (b) someone thought that sending such packages would be a good idea, since most reasonable folks would see this as a rather transparent attempt to garner favor from voting delegates. Our suspicion grew when Intrepid Lutherans tried to get the same address list, in order to send "Gift Packages" of our own, but we were unable to get that information. But still, such was only suspicion. Maybe we just didn't ask the right people.

A week before Synod Convention, however, we understood the real reason for the "Gift Packages": having the address list of all delegates to the Convention meant that they also had access to the addresses of the Delegates of the Floor Committee which would consider the Memorials concerning "Time of Grace Ministry" – Floor Committee #21. A week before the 2011 Convention, each member of this Floor Committee, and only the members of this Floor Committee, were secretively sent a special letter by "Time of Grace Ministry" specifically rebutting the Memorial calling for the termination of their RSO status with the LCMS.² One of the members of Floor Committee #21 was from Rev. Rydecki's Circuit, and being Circuit Pastor, he was informed of this rebuttal the day it was received, Monday July 18, 2011. By Wednesday, July 20, 2011, Rev. Rydecki had composed a rebuttal to the document distributed by "Time of Grace Ministry," and sent it to his Circuit delegate, to the Floor Committee Chairman, to SP Schroeder, and to DP Bucholz. Since, from his perspective, it was an issue limited in scope to his Circuit, he felt that distributing his rebuttal beyond these individuals was not reasonable. Whether his rebuttal was considered by Floor Committee #21 or not, is unknown to us. What we do know, is that not only did Floor Committee #21 have Memorials to consider that were officially and publicly submitted to the Convention for consideration, they had additional non-Convention documents privately submitted to them by interested parties for consideration, documents which materially impacted the Committee's consideration of only one of the publicly submitted Memorials. Since this documentation was submitted to them outside of channels, its submission was neither generally known nor governed by an equitable process, thus depriving other interested parties the opportunity to supply additional documentation of their own. We also know that representatives of "Time of Grace Ministry" arrived at the Convention on Monday, July 25, 2011, with "stacks" of copies of the rebuttal they had sent to Floor Committee #21, and were actively handing them out to Convention delegates. We know that no other organization or interested parties had the opportunity to address the contents of that rebuttal, since it was distributed outside official channels and since, by the time it was discovered, there wasn't time to assemble any kind of organized effort to respond to it and distribute that response. We know (from a private email sent to us by a Convention delegate) that by Thursday of the Convention (July 28, 2011), it was suggested from the Floor of the Convention itself that the rebuttal document distributed at the Convention by "Time of Grace Ministry" be the basis for considering the Memorials which concerned them, rather than just the Memorials themselves. We know that the following day, as the Resolution concerning "Time of Grace Ministry" that was finally offered by Floor Committee #21 was being considered by the Convention, Rev. Rutschow, President of the Southeastern Wisconsin District, publicly offered support for "Time of Grace Ministry," indicating that the SEW District praesidium didn't really have a problem with "Time of Grace Ministry." And we know what the Resolution was that the Synod in Convention finally adopted:

Subject: Time of Grace Ministry
Reference: Unpublished Memorials 2011-06U and 2011-07U
Resolution No. 01

WHEREAS 1) Time of Grace Ministry is serving a valuable purpose in the spreading of the gospel around the world and serving our WELS constituency with doctrinally sound, Bible-based materials, television programs, and Internet resources; and
WHEREAS 2) some in our fellowship are concerned with the relationship between Time of Grace and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), possibly resulting in an unclear confession and/or cases of offense within our fellowship; and
WHEREAS 3) the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District, the constitutionally appointed body tasked with overseeing doctrine and practice in its district, has been working with Time of Grace in order to address the issues causing the controversy and confusion; and
WHEREAS 4) Time of Grace is cooperating with the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District in order to address these concerns; therefore be it

Resolved, a) that the synod acknowledges, thanks, and encourages Time of Grace to continue in its ministry for the edification of WELS members and the spreading of the pure gospel message to thousands of others; and be it further
Resolved, b) that the synod supports the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District as it works with Time of Grace (and will report to the Conference of Presidents in October 2011) toward a Godpleasing, scriptural resolution to this matter; and be it finally
Resolved, c) that we praise God the Holy Spirit for the precious unity of faith and brotherly love we enjoy in WELS and pray that through the Word he keep us steadfast in the same.

Those who watched the 2011 Convention live on the internet know exactly what was intended by the parenthetical in Resolved (b), which reads "and will report to the Conference of Presidents in October 2011": the expectation of those who contended for the inclusion of this provision was that the matter would have been resolved by October 2011, and that the praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District would report to the Council of Presidents in October 2011 what that resolution was. The praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District interpreted this provision, after the fact, to the contrary, reading in that parenthetical only that they were required to report to the CoP regarding resolution to the issue with "Time of Grace Ministry." And report they did: "While considerable progress has been made, the matter has not yet been fully resolved, and the Southeastern Wisconsin District presidium will continue its efforts to bring about a resolution" (2011-10-18 edition of Together).


On and on it goes
The authority granted to the Office of Synod President is rather all-encompassing, placing on him the responsibility for the execution of all resolutions and the conduct of all Synod officials according to written standards of WELS doctrine and practice. The Synod constitution reads:

OFFICERS
Section 2.00
President

(a) The president shall officially represent the synod and promote the best interests of the synod. He shall exercise supervision over the official conduct of all officials of the synod, supervise the execution of synodical resolutions, and oversee the total synodical operation, particularly to insure that it is true to its mission and objectives and that it is being conducted within the framework of the synod’s stated standards for doctrine and practice. He shall function in every way as the synod’s pastor and chief executive officer of the synod. He shall be responsible for reporting to synod and district conventions.

Synod President Rev. Mark Schroeder knows this provision well, as this writer knows for a fact that he has been reminded of it on more than one occasion by concerned WELS Lutherans. While dramatic action under this provision, such as removing a District President who is unable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities, is technically within the power of the Synod President, such action would also be unprecedented. No action from President Schroeder, of this sort, has been forthcoming. Unable to tolerate an endorsement of "Time of Grace Ministry" by continued RSO status, many concerned Lutherans of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS) petitioned their leaders for action. LCMS finally acted. At the invitation of LCMS Synod President Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison, WELS Synod President Rev. Mark Schroeder became involved, being asked by Harrison to attend a meeting with LCMS leadership and the SEW Praesidium in Spring of 2012. SP Schroeder reports from that meeting:

The praesidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin District, along with President Mark Schroeder, met with leaders of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (LCMS) to clarify how the LCMS defines and understands the Recognized Service Organization (RSO) status. The LCMS explained that the published guidelines defining the relationship are intended to be used by the LCMS in evaluating organizations for this status and that the guidelines do not require an organization to change its message or its program to comply. It was this understanding that led Time of Grace and the presidium of the Southeastern Wisconsin district to conclude that the RSO status did not represent a violation or compromise of biblical fellowship principles.

The LCMS officials also reported that they are currently in the process of reviewing the entire RSO program with the intention of developing new requirements and guidelines. From what was said, the new guidelines may include requirements that would make it no longer possible for a WELS organization to have RSO status. Once those requirements have been adopted, Time of Grace has indicated that it will evaluate what is being required and take the appropriate steps. (2012-04-03 edition of Together)

Here we see a shift in the language employed, obscuring the fact that non-WELS members sit on the Board of Directors of "Time of Grace Ministry," and fully function as partners with them in that Ministry. The language employed directs concerned WELS Lutherans to imagine that "the relationship between Time of Grace and the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS)" – as described in WHEREAS (2) of the Resolution adopted by the 2011 Synod in Convention – is limited to the RSO status LCMS granted "Time of Grace Ministry." Quite the contrary, it was news of the RSO status which revealed the unionism which concerns many in WELS. The months dragged on, while concerned WELS Lutherans continued their gape-jawed observation of ongoing inaction, leadership evidently waiting for LCMS to bring the matter to resolution for them. And so, it would seem, they did. Last Autumn, SP Schroeder again reports:

Time of Grace, a media ministry affiliated with WELS, is no longer considered to be a "Recognized Service Organization (RSO)" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS). "RSO" is the designation that the LCMS gives to organizations it considers to be consistent with its aims and can be utilized and supported by LCMS members.

The LCMS informed Time of Grace of this change in status because its board of directors does not meet the criteria necessary for Recognized Service Organizations. One of those requirements is that a significant number of RSO board members must be members of Missouri Synod congregations.

Even though it no longer has RSO status, the LCMS still considers Time of Grace to be a useful Gospel-media company that LCMS members and congregations may utilize and support. (2012-10-02 edition of Together, emphasis mine.)

The language here is pure subterfuge, a continuing pattern of de-emphasizing the fact that "Time of Grace Ministry" already enjoys a relationship with LCMS by virtue of its direct Ministry partnership with the LCMS layman on its Board. But that fact seems to have disappeared from public view. As we reported at the head of this post, in January, the notes from the January meeting of the WELS Council of Presidents informs us:

PD.06 Time of Grace board membership

President Rutschow did not have anything new to report on the issue of Time of Grace Ministry and its board membership. The SEW district is continuing to work with TOG to resolve any issues that remain.

Yet, this tidbit of information never made it into SP Schroeder's January report on the meeting of the CoP. WELS Ministerial partnership with LCMS via "Time of Grace Ministry" continues, and SEW Praesidium continues what by all appearances can only be called inaction.


The iniquity of inequity
Dear readers, compare this lethargy to the vigor displayed by WELS' "Holy Order of the Guardians of Blog Fellowship." They sniffed out and cornered poor David Porth like Artemis Hounds, and threatened his career. Why? (1) Rev. Rydecki posted some comments on their Facebook page. (2) Other authors on his blog are non-WELS Lutherans. (3) One of the WELS Lutheran authors wrote an article that was "a little out there." Why is this such a big deal? Luther Academy is a partnership between WELS and non-WELS confessional Lutherans who've been "promoting confessional theology since 1991." They host two conferences a year in cooperation with confessional Lutherans of every stripe. One of those non-WELS confessional Lutherans is a former WELS clergyman, who was suspended from our fellowship. Sound familiar? Yet, there's no problem there.

The continued recommendations to put things off, or to "continue working with '[insert favorite Ministry of the Month here]'," sound very much like the exasperating tolerance of Church and Change through the last decade. Remember the CoP report from January 2009? It read, in part:

5.D.05 C & C and outside speakers

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

In An open letter to WELS laymen in advance of the synod convention that was passed around in June of 2009, an anonymous author singles out this section from the CoP's January 2009 meeting minutes, and expands on it, writing:

The speaker referred to by the CoP, in 5.D.05 above, is Baptist "Church Growth" expert, Ed Stetzer – and this specific issue has been a lightning-rod of controversy in the WELS for almost a year. But this is nothing new for the group Church and Change (C&C) – an external group of WELS laymen, pastors, and theologians who seem to thrive on such controversy. In 2005, they invited the Methodist "Emergent Church" expert, Dr. Leonard Sweet, to instruct them, in order to disseminate his advice directly to WELS congregations through their organization. C&C was asked at that time by Synod to cancel their Conference because of their invitation, but C&C ignored this request. Because of the political positions in Synod occupied by those associated with this organization, C&C seems to have had free reign to "largely ignore them" (a quote from one of the papers I source, below). This year, it seems, they have finally been effectively pressured to "uninvite" the heterodox teacher, Ed Stetzer, but it remains to be seen whether the inclination to invite similar experts has also been reversed. In addition, many of our wealthy members seem to have gravitated to C&C leaders, perhaps because of their celebrity status, perhaps because of the “success” that their meticulously researched marketing plans seem to guarantee. As a result, several individuals have set up large endowment funds to finance the efforts of C&C – perhaps without realizing the theological compromises and dangers of the Church Growth Movement that they are supporting. The fact is, C&C and its constituency have been active doing this sort of thing for decades, exposing laymen to "Church Growth" theology/methodology by sponsoring trips to evangelical Mission events, like the Exponential Conference and the Drive Conference, by holding their own Conferences celebrating heterodox keynote speakers, by encouraging our pastors and professors to attend grossly heterodox institutions (like Fuller in Pasadena, CA) to learn and import these practices into our Synod, by erecting supporting power structures within Synod (the Board for Parish Services, for instance), and by ultimately implementing these – often very expensive – CGM practices in their own congregations and by encouraging others to do the same.

And this was just the tip of the iceberg. Many pastors and laymen went to great effort to expose WELS congregations that had joined Ministries like the Willow Creek Association or Purpose Driven Church. To what end? Some have disaffiliated from these organizations, but not all. St. Mark's DePere is still listed as a member of Willow Creek Association! And the methods, priorities and ministry objectives of the Church Growth Movement are now ubiquitous in the thought patterns of WELS Lutherans, from the leadership on down through the clergy to the laity. The solution to the issue of Church and Change? Do nothing, and wait for the organization to simply peter out on its own – which it did, finally, in 2011 – leaving nearly a generation of devastation behind them, and a generation of clean-up ahead of us, if it is even possible to do. The solution to the Church Growth Movement, to the importation of heterodox theology through their sectarian practices and their Arminian study materials? Do nothing, just "wait for the fad to go out of style". Only it didn't. Among the most critical issues facing WELS Lutherans today is that of the Word of God itself. Many leaders have convinced themselves that the egalitarian NIV 2011 is the only suitable Bible for today's layman. A non-Bible as much as the Living Bible, it masquerades as the authoritative and genuine Word of God, just like the evangelism methods of CGM masquerade as the Holy Spirit's work through the Means of Grace, just like the Emergent Church Movement masquerades as the True Visible Church on Earth. That's masquerades – who can tell the difference? Not many anymore.

But compare the "do-nothing-and-let-the-controversy-die-on-its-own" approach, enjoyed by Church Growth advocates since the 1970's, enjoyed by the egalitarians from St. James Ev. Lutheran Church and elsewhere through the decade of the '80s, to the "hunt-them-down-and-silence-them" approach taken with regard to those who've signed on to Intrepid Lutherans as an expression of joint concern over the issues which threaten us. No doubt, readers have noticed the dwindling count of names. Many had to be "helped" into making that decision,³ and in many ways, it's difficult to be critical of them for eventually making it.

Compare the lethargy in dealing with apparently preferred aberrations, like the egalitarianism of St. James, the CGM of Church and Change, the unionism and manifest non-denominationalism of "Time of Grace Ministry,"⁴ to the uncompromising vigor employed in dealing with Rick Techlin (terminated without the discussion he requested), in dealing with Joe Krohn (terminated without the discussion that he requested), in dealing with Rev. Rydecki (terminated without the genuine discussion of the issues that he requested). Is it not evident that those leadership figures responsible for these terminations are cut from the same cloth? Have the same priorities and objectives?

For how long can the inequity be endured?

---

Endnotes:

1. And we can thank the Rev. Mark Braun (WELS, WLC) for his recent works on Fellowship in the WELS, in which he enlightens us with the fact that there is, indeed, a significant difference between "Church" and "Christian Fellowship" and between the relative "standards" governing them. Two sources to start with include the following. He also wrote a series of articles in WLQ (2004?), but this author had borrowed the copies he read from, and no longer has access to them to provide a citation.
   
   Braun, M. (2001). A Tale of Two Synods: Lessons from the Dissolution of the Synodical Conference. Charis: A Journal of Faculty Scholarship 1(1)
   
   Braun, M. (2003). A Tale of Two Synods: Events that Led to the Split between Wisconsin and Missouri. Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House.
   
   
2. If one reads ToG's Rebuttal document carefully, one will note
   
   1. "Time of Grace Ministry" does not view the non-WELS status of its Board Member as legitimate, even though he makes a public heterodox confession through his membership in the LCMS
   2. "Time of Grace Ministry," in fact, defends itself as a non-denominational Ministry.
   
   
3. "Helped" may seem to be merely suggestive. In point of fact, the emails we've received from former subscribers have specified, yes, several have been singled out and pressured to request removal of their names.

 

The Witch Hunt Has (Officially) Begun

The following paragraph is from WELS District President Doug Engelbrecht’s summary of the recent meeting of the WELS Conference of Presidents, sent out to the pastors of his district:

PD.02  Intrepid Lutherans

·         Another item involved the Intrepid Lutheran website.  There is a concern that those who still wholeheartedly support this group by being “signers” are also supporting a pastor who has been removed from the ministerium of the WELS for doctrinal reasons, because he has been given a forum on their website.  The consensus was that each district president should approach pastors in their district who are listed as “signers” on the website and determine whether or not they are in support of the false doctrine that the suspended pastor espouses.   

As for me being "given a forum on their website,” the fact is, it’s our website.  I am still part of it (actually, still the chairman of Intrepid Lutherans, Inc.), much to the chagrin of the WELS leadership.  No one is "authorizing" my posts here.  Each of us posts independently, sometimes running our articles by one another for input, sometimes not.

Also, I don’t know how much clearer we can make this so that the COP will understand, but “being signers” on this blog has never meant anything more or less than what we have stated from the beginning on our Stand With Us page:

In what do we invite you to join “with intrepid heart, willing to appear before the judgment seat of Christ?” To what do we ask you, with great consent, to subscribe your name? To the Biblical and Confessional contents of What We Believe. We are not asking you to subscribe to the contents of every post and comment that will appear on this blog.

No error or false doctrine has ever been identified or pointed out to us on our What We Believe page, which has not changed since the first day Intrepid Lutherans rolled out.

The only change we have recently made to our Stand With Us page is to remove the reference to ourselves and our signers as “members of WELS.”  This was never entirely accurate in the first place, because, technically, even lay members of a WELS congregation are not “members of WELS,” since only pastors, male teachers and whole congregations can be “members” of the synod.  As it now stands, there is at least one fully and unmistakably non-WELS member who is an Intrepid signer:  Yours Truly.

Of course, it was not my choice to be a non-WELS member.  That decision was made for me by DP Buchholz back in October.  During one of his visits to my congregation in which he labeled me a heretic and tried to convince my flock to rescind my call (before my suspension), one of my members told him point blank, “This sure seems like a witch hunt.”

DP Buchholz was visibly agitated by that comment, and referred back to it several times over the following weeks.  He assumed that it originated with me, but it didn’t.  My members—most of them, anyway—could see with their own eyes what was going on.  He was indignant at being accused of orchestrating a witch hunt.  The truth hurts, as they say.

Now the witch hunt has become official.  I don’t know what else you call the above “consensus” that was reached by the WELS COP.   Apparently there is some new doctrine of “blog fellowship” lurking around out there in the shadows.  Apparently, since DP Buchholz has labeled me a heretic to be “marked and avoided” (Rom. 16:17), the entire COP has reached a consensus that every WELS pastor must “mark and avoid” me and my "false doctrine," even in the blogosphere, on threat of interrogation and other more sinister repercussions.

Let’s remember what, again, they would have me “marked and avoided” for.  What was that wicked heresy that I was teaching—that unscriptural, unlutheran, “novel” doctrine?

That sinners are justified before God by faith in Jesus Christ, and only by faith in Jesus Christ.  Grace alone. Faith alone. Scripture alone.  Sola gratia. Sola fide.  Sola Scriptura. 

Luther has surely turned over several times in his grave.

But since the COP apparently wants to continue the discussion about justification with WELS pastors, I will assist them by attempting, over the coming months, to make my position crystal clear here on this blog, so that they can judge for themselves whether “the suspended pastor” espouses “false doctrine,” or whether the suspended pastor is the one proclaiming the true Gospel, the doctrine confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, the faith once delivered to the saints.  Then readers of this blog will have all the information necessary to make an informed judgment about whether I am someone to “mark and avoid” or someone with whom to stand in solidarity.

In either case, although being a signer of Intrepid Lutherans doesn’t mean you agree with everything I say or write, it has, nonetheless, just become a little more dangerous.  Dear WELS reader, you should be outraged at the witch hunt that has been enacted by the COP.  This is no time for fear.  It’s time to be intrepid!

Having Accumulated One-Half Million, We Continue On

This past Wednesday, exactly two years and six months since our inception, Memorial Day weekend, 2010, our humble little blog ticked past one-half million page-reads. That may not seem like much compared to other blogs, but given the type of content we offer, and the relatively small audience who might take an interest in it, we are pleased to have passed this milestone in only two and a half years. So, we thought that we would close out this Church Year, reflecting on the past thirty months.

In the past thirty months, Intrepid Lutherans has published over 355 articles, the majority of which are substantive essays covering a wide range of topics from Christian doctrine and practice, to history, philosophy, education and the arts, from the technical and ideological aspects of Bible translation to politics and culture, from apologetics to devotions and homilies, altogether having attracted over 2660 comments from readers who comment under their own name, discussing and debating the various points and issues raised within them.

The “Categories” section at the bottom of the right-hand column indicates the most frequent categories treated in these articles.. As of the writing of this post, the top ten most frequently covered categories are as follows:

Church Growth (45 posts)
Evangelism (41 posts)
Outreach (34 posts)
Law and Gospel (33 posts)
Justification (32 posts)
Bible Translation (30 posts)
Confessional Lutheranism (28 posts)
Worship (27 posts)
Lutheran Practice (23 posts)
Apologetics (22 posts)

Our content has attracted a regular readership from all over the world, most of whom link to us directly (evidently from a bookmark) or from RSS or Facebook. Others find their way to us from links on other blogs, whether links to Intrepid Lutherans appear on their blogrolls or are contained within their own discussion of the content found in our posts. A great many of our readers find their way to us via search engines, as they specifically seek out the content we offer. Fifty percent of the page-reads our blog has attracted represents the number of unique visitors, over twenty percent of whom have visited over 200 times.

As one can imagine, our daily page-read count has fluctuated over the past thirty months, but on average has steadily increased. Today, we attract an average of approximately 900 page-reads per day, with Monday through Wednesday easily topping 1200 page-reads, while traffic tapers off through Sunday. Over 75% of these page-reads come from return visitors.

As a result of our expanding readership, Intrepid Lutherans incorporated in 2011 as a non-profit tax-exempt religious and educational organization, in order that we could more easily manage donations that we wished to solicit to help finance conferences and other events. Many generous contributors responded, and continue to do so.

Thus, in June of 2012, we held the first Annual Conference of Intrepid Lutherans: Church and Continuity. It was held on June 1-2, 2012, at Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Oshkosh, WI, and attracted over seventy attendees. In that short time, five fantastic papers were delivered, as follows:

Gender Neutral Translating – by Rev. Robert Koester
Why is this Happening to Us? How the culture wars become religious wars among us – by Mr. Douglas Lindee
In Bondage to Expectations – by Rev. Luke Boehringer
The Beauty of the Western Rite – by Rev. Michael Berg
Do We Want to Be Dresden Lutherans? – by Rev. Paul Rydecki

We can only say, Church and Continuity was an enormous success, especially given that it was our first Conference – and we simply could not have pulled it off without the generous support of our donors, to whom we offer special thanks. As a result of this success, a second Conference is certainly in the works, which our readers can expect to hear about shortly after the turn of the New Year.

Of course, it will be asked, What has attracted our readership? What had attracted interest in attending our Conference in 2012? The answer: our content – substantive and compelling, and sometimes controversial. Over the past thirty months the following twenty posts have been the most popular:

	Page Title	Page Views	Date	Author	Comments	Observations
1.	Dear Pastors Jeske and Ski: You are clearly in the wrong	4830	02/15/11	Intrepid Lutherans	13	Juicy controversy – everybody was interested, relatively few had the courage to comment.
2.	Fraternal Dialogue on the Topic of "Objective Justification"	3681	09/26/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	54	Rev. Webber (ELS) recommended “Fraternal Dialogue” on the topic, so we opened it with a position and a series of questions to debate, and attempted to keep the ensuing “dialogue” civil and centered on Scripture and the Confessions.
3.	The NNIV, the WELS Translation Evaluation Committee, and the Perspicuity of the Scriptures	3549	07/28/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	71	The catch-phrase, “There is no perfect translation,” ultimately devolves into a denial of Scripture's clarity and an affirmation of the Roman position that the literate Christian still needs a “Priest” to explain it to him. The sufficiency and authority of Scripture being one of the planks of the Protestant Reformation, this will never happen among Protestant Christians. Not directly. Translators now take on this role in the Protestant world, under the translation ideology of Dynamic Equivalency.
4.	Change or Die – Update	3194	02/24/11	Intrepid Lutherans	13	The “juicy controversy” continues, as does both interest in the controversy and reluctance to become involved.
5.	Why I No Longer Attend My [WELS] Church	3148	02/06/11	Intrepid Lutherans	26	Cross-post from Mr. Ric Techlin's blog, Light from Light, publicly revealing difficulties he was having in his congregation, namely, the refusal of his congregation to address his concerns regarding error in doctrine and practice that was being promoted in his congregation. A handful of local pastors volunteered to work with Mr. Techlin, his congregation and district to resolve these difficulties...
6.	The WEB: A viable English Bible translation?	2746	09/19/11	Rev. Paul Rydecki	94	Discussion over an unsuitable version of the Bible degenerates into a melee over Universalism, and this version's mistranslation of certain sections which support it.
7.	Emmaus Conference – Recap	2607	05/10/11	Rev. Paul Rydecki	17	Were some people excitedly thinking that perhaps this event represented the reunion of Missouri and Wisconsin?
8.	Suspended from the WELS – Why?	2527	10/09/12	Rev. Paul Rydecki	0	More “juicy controversy...”
9.	The whole flock won't survive 'jumping the shark'	2448	02/02/12	Mr. Brian Heyer	42	Thoughtless and ridiculous last-ditch efforts to “save the congregation” by abusing the term evangelism are transparently pathetic acts of desperation, make the congregation a laughing stock in the community and bring shame upon the name of Christ. The methods of the Church Growth Movement are not methods, they are antics, and kill the church by trivializing Scriptures' teachings. Shame on Lutheran congregations who do such things!
10.	NNIV – the new standard for WELS?	2325	07/15/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	62	Yup, it sure looks that way...
11.	Thoughts on Gender-Neutral Language in the NIV 2011	2310	09/15/11	Intrepid Lutherans	9	Intrepid Lutherans aren't the only ones in WELS concerned that whitewashing gender differences in the Bible, by way of imposing a feminist ideology of translation over the entire text, will lead not only to doctrinal error, but to a culture of thought among supposedly “conservative” Christians that is at war against the Nature of God itself and incompatible with His message to Man.
12.	The Silence Is Broken: An Appleton Update	2269	05/08/11	Rev. Paul Lidtke	17	An update on Mr. Techlin's difficulties, from one of the pastors personally involved in his defense. After formally objecting to what he was concerned were unscriptural practices and teachings in his congregation – and asking to be corrected where he might be in error – Mr. Techlin was simply removed from fellowship: no discussion with him over the issues he raised was entertained, no brotherly attempt was made to work with him through these issues, no example of Christian humility was displayed by his “brothers” which might have suggested they were themselves open to correction. Instead, without Mr. Techlin's or his family's knowledge, the congregation scheduled a meeting, and without even offering him the opportunity to defend himself, voted to remove him and members of his family from fellowship. To his surprise, he received a “Certified Letter” in the mail informing him of the congregation's action against him. Not so much as a phone call from a “concerned brother” or even from his pastor. Just certified mail. Furthermore, this letter made no mention of any doctrinal error to which he obstinately clung, regarding which the congregation collectively determined “further admonition would be of no avail.” To this day, Mr. Techlin has no idea what his error may have been, as no admonition has ever been attempted, certainly none by a “genuine brother” who was himself open to correction. Moreover, this congregation's action was openly defended by their Bishop, and formally approved by a committee he personally appointed to review Mr. Techlin's appeal, which found that “[his] congregation had Scriptural reasons for removing [him] from membership and, in doing so, acted in the spirit of Christian love.” Mr. Techlin's is not the only recent example of similar processes used to remove “undesirables” from WELS, but his is very well-documented and betrays what seems to not only be acceptable practice but one which Christian congregations are apparently not above employing.
13.	"Walking Together Sunday" - The Sermon	2255	09/25/10	Rev. Paul Rydecki	58	Walking together under Law, cooperating in evangelistic efforts because we are commanded to do so. From a commenter on this post: “The unfortunate thing about the 'Walking Together Sunday' sermon, and the entire event, is that Evangelism is the only emphasis. Yet, our 'walking together' is predicated on our standing together. Despite this, there was no emphasis given to our full agreement in all matters of doctrine and practice, nor any mention of our Confessions or Confessional Unity. No explanation or celebration of our 'togetherness' as fundamental to our walking in this togetherness. The clear and sole emphasis was the command of Evangelism followed by an appeal for money. This is entirely the wrong emphasis, in my opinion, leading to the wrong notion that our working rather than our confessing is the essence of our togetherness.”
14.	Issues with the NIV 2011: "The saints" are no more	2197	08/15/11	Rev. Paul Rydecki	12	Another example of Biblical and Ecclesiastical language being stripped from the Christian lexicon by liberal feminist and sectarian translators...
15.	What Part of the Word "Wrong" Don't We All Seem to Understand These Days?!	2180	12/10/10	Rev. Steven Spencer	47	Is someone who, or something which, is wrong, merely suffering from a misunderstanding? A fantastic series of thoughtful comments follows from this post.
16.	Ambivalent	2176	06/27/12	Rev. Steven Spencer	47	Does no one care about the threat of doctrinal error and sectarian practice? One might pardon the laity for not being informed, but what do we make of the silence and inaction of Lutheran clergy?
17.	Law and Gospel: What do they teach? – Part 1	2164	10/26/10	Mr. Douglas Lindee	79	The message of Law and Gospel teaches the saving message of Justification, a message which is central to all of Lutheran doctrine and practice, “affirming that, through faith, men obtain remission of sins, and through faith in Christ are justified (AC:IV:1-3).” Thus, Christ is the object of faith: “In order for Justification to be taught correctly, in order for man to make Christ the sole object of his faith... the Law must be stripped from [the Gospel] entirely. That isn’t to say that the Law is not to be taught. On the contrary, in order to understand Justification properly, it is necessary that the message of the Law precede it. In other words, Justification cannot be preached properly unless Law is distinguished and kept separate from the Gospel, and the Gospel has no application unless it follows the message of the Law.”
18.	Differences between Reformed and Lutheran Doctrines	2142	04/13/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	4	The majority of hits on this post are from Reformed and Evangelical sources, as it has been passed around and discussed in a number of different forums.
19.	The NIV 2011 and the Importance of Translation Ideology	2049	08/02/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	25	Functional Arminianism is at the root of observing “The Great Commission” so slavishly as to labour under it as “The Great Law.” As a result, the adoption of translation ideologies like Dynamic Equivalency, which are derived directly from dangerously anti-Truth and thus also anti-Christian post-Modern philosophies, are observed as equally imperative.
20.	C.F.W. Walther: Filching from sectarian worship resources equals "soul murder"	2017	03/23/11	Mr. Douglas Lindee	26	Practice and doctrine are not independent of one another. This post saw wide circulation and commentary on the internet, and opened the eyes of many people to the connection doctrine has with practice. They are not independent. They impact each other.

So,what shall our readers expect from us in the next two-and-a-half years? We'll start with this: we don't plan on quitting, that's for sure. And we'll proceed with this: we plan to continue speaking and writing from the convictions of Christian conscience, fully trusting that God will use it to the benefit of His Bride, the Church.