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.
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.
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!
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a popular apologetics ministry that is considered by many Lutherans, as well as other Christians, to be a reliable source of information related to defending the content of the book of Genesis – the most attacked book of the Bible. It is also a popular and well-respected resource among Christian home educators, who are generally concerned with the quality of educational materials that they choose to use, and specifically concerned with the doctrinal integrity of those materials. As a result, AiG founder and CEO, Ken Ham, along with many other well-credentialed AiG lecturers, routinely speak before large audiences, and are highly sought-after by homeschool convention planners due to the interest AiG generates among prospective attendees. Most of these conventions are planned and operated by smaller, independent non-profit organizations. But not all of them are non-profit. One such for-profit organization, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc., has unwittingly struck the sparks of what has swiftly grown into a raging controversy among home educators, one which includes all the salacious elements of a public scandal: money, influence, truth, censorship, falsehood, and “love.”
The principle characters in this controversy, other than Ken Ham of AiG, may not be known at all outside of the home education movement. Within that movement, however, the characters are mostly iconic figures: Dr. Jay Wile, who has been well-known as a young-earth Creationist and defender of the literal six-day Creation account, is founder and former president of Apologia Educational Ministries and respected author of many of their science textbooks, he sold Apologia in 2008, was retained as author for a short time, but made the decision to leave in 2009 for what appears to be doctrinal reasons; Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer, a leading proponent of Classical Education, co-author of The Well-Trained Mind (widely considered to be the guide to Classical Education for home educators), author of The Story of the World (a very popular read-aloud, grammar-stage world history curriculum) and The History of the World (a new, rhetoric-stage world history), and owner of Peace Hill Press; and Dr. Peter Enns, author of the book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, and the now controversial religion curriculum, Telling God’s Story, published by Olive Branch Press – the “religious instruction imprint” of Bauer’s Peace Hill Press. There are other individuals involved, of course, but in the interest of keeping things simple so that we can focus on the core issue, these names will suffice.
False doctrine, influence and ministry Ken Ham had a contract to speak at the 2011 Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. conventions – which are located mostly in the South and East. He delivered his presentation in Memphis as scheduled in early March, but prior to his speaking engagement in Greenville, SC, he was made aware of Dr. Enns, his association with the Biologos Foundation – a group which is aggressively promoting an old-earth “incarnational” interpretation of the book of Genesis – and of Dr. Enns’ contract to speak at the Memphis convention. Understanding that such a view impacts more than just the story of the creation of man and the universe, but also the Image of God in man, man’s fall into sin and loss of that Image, and God’s promise of reconciliation and restoration through the work of the Messiah, Ken Ham resolved to include in his Greenville presentation published statements of Dr. Enns and the Biologos Foundation, along with statements of others, in a regular portion of his presentation in which he provides examples of statements from prominent people and organizations who compromise and reject the Genesis account. Anyone who is familiar with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis knows that this is what they do. Prior to the Greenville convention, Ken Ham published the blog entry, Another Compromiser—Speaking at Homeschool Conventions pointing out the position of Biologos Foundation, using their published words, as follows:
In my last post I suggested that the Adam story could be viewed symbolically as a story of Israel’s beginnings, not as the story of humanity from ground zero. But some might ask, “Why go through all this trouble? Why not just take it literally? The Bible says Adam was the first man. That’s the end of it.”
It’s not that simple, and if it were, people wouldn’t be talking it about it so much. First of all, reading the Adam story symbolically rather than as a literal description of history is not a whim, and it is certainly not driven by a desire to undermine the Bible. Rather, as we have seen, the Bible itself invites a symbolic reading by using cosmic battle imagery and by drawing parallels between Adam and Israel (to name two factors).
There is also considerable external evidence that works against the “just read it literally” mentality.
The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few thousand years before Jesus — roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person.
This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural sciences and cultural remains. (http://biologos.org/blog/pauls-adam-part-i/)
Further, Ken Ham in his blog entry, linked to the following YouTube lecture – to which Dr. Enns himself proudly links from his own blog – as representative of his teaching, so that readers could draw their own conclusions:
Finally, knowing that they were going to warn conference attendees of false teaching promoted by the Biologos Foundation, and that a representative of Biologos (Dr. Enns) was going to be present at the Greenville convention, Mark Looy of AiG personally spoke to the president of Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc., informing him that Ken Ham and AiG would be doing so, to which the president responded: “We would expect nothing less from Answers in Genesis” (listen to the YouTube interview with Ken Ham, below, for this quote and other details). And this is exactly what Ken Ham did at the Greenville convention.
What do you suppose happened?
Hey! Ken Ham!! YOU’RE NOT BEING LOVING!!!
Dr. Wile, Dr. Enns, and the twin coordinate powers of Church statesmanship And now for the “love.” Aware of Ken Ham’s blog post warning of the teaching of Biologos and Dr. Enns, Dr. Wile, formerly of Apologia, issued a response to Ken Ham’s warning, entitled, An Opportunity for Critical Thinking!, in which he asserts that there is room for disagreement in the interpretation of the first three chapters of Genesis and that there are multiple equally valid positions on the “inspiration of Scripture,” and then decries Ken Ham for offering public assessment of Dr. Enns’ published materials and public statements, claiming that such is unloving and unChristlike. Then, two days later during the Greenville convention itself, Dr. Wile published a glowing review of Dr. Enns, following Enns’ lecture, The Dark Side of the Old Testament and What We Must Learn from it. This review focused mostly on ‘how Christian Dr. Enns is’ and early in the commentary section of this post, Dr. Wile defends his public approval of Dr. Enns on the basis of his identification with the man as his “Christian brother,” even though he personally disagrees with Enns’ (apparently) perfectly valid theology.
But this is nothing new for Dr. Wile (formerly of Apologia). Beginning at least since his departure from Apologia, Dr. Wile has been guilty of propping up error alongside the truth, naming the Biologos Foundation and extolling their version of theistic evolution not only as compatible with biblical Christianity, but as equally valid with his own views. For example, in 2009, he writes:
Since the early church was not unanimous in taking the days of Genesis as 24-hour days, I fail to see why the modern church should be. Indeed, given the fact that many in the early church viewed the days of Genesis to be something other than 24-hour days, I think the modern church is free to believe that as well. Thus, if some Christians want to postulate that the days were something else (not an attempt at order, but instead, long ages of time), I can’t see how you can suddenly say they don’t believe the Bible. (Clement of Alexandria on the Days of Genesis)
By 2010, we read such things from Dr. Wile as:
I strongly disagree with the idea that Old Earth Creationists aren't Biblical. Are you really willing to say that people like Norman Geisler, Gleason Archer, and J.P. Moreland aren't Biblical?
The young-earth view of creation is one orthodox interpretation of Scripture, but there are others. Even many in the early church, such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria , Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, and Hilary of Poitiers, didn't think the Genesis days were 24-hour days. Why do modern young-earthers believe that they MUST be 24-hour days.
For the record, I am a young-earth creationist. I prefer that term, however, because I think old-earth creationists, as well as some theistic evolutionists, are also Biblical. (Young Earth Creationists or Biblical Creationists?)
or,
...I would agree with you that the philosophical underpinnings of evolution are religious in nature. They end up relying on assumptions that can’t be tested. Thus, that makes them religious. However, I don’t think they are necessarily opposed to the Christian worldview. PZ Myers is clearly opposed to the Christian worldview, and he is VERY religious in that opposition. However, I don’t think his opposition comes from the philosophical underpinnings of evolution. Instead, it comes from his application of evolution. He uses evolution as an explanation for a universe without a Creator. That is clearly opposed to the Christian worldview, but that is just his application of evolution. Others, such as the folks at Biologos, apply evolution differently, and as a result, they do not oppose a Christian worldview.
I don’t agree with the folks at Biologos, but I understand where they are coming from. They think God organized the physical laws of the universe so that evolution would produce everything we see today, including people. This keeps God’s hands “clean” of the “messy” business of creation. In their mind, this elevates God. Thus, their application of evolution leads to their Christian worldview. (This Isn’t Evolution – It’s Lunacy)
More analysis of Dr. Wile’s theological incontinence since leaving Apologia can be found here, if the reader is interested.
Indulged in for this time, Error goes on to assert equal rights...
From this point Error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy.
And here, in the case of Dr. Wile, formerly of Apologia, we see this process playing out, as plain as day. The fact is, Dr. Wile attacks Ken Ham and protects Dr. Enns because he has been making propaganda for the false perspectives of Dr. Enns for years now. He attacks Ken Ham as “unloving,” rather than address the content of Ken Ham’s warnings, because he, and those who follow him, have progressed to Krauth’s second stage: truth and error are equivalent. He thus has no basis for criticizing Ken Ham’s content – agreement or disagreement with it is irrelevant – so he resorts to attacking Ken Ham’s “tone” as unloving, and the fact that he fails to see equivalency in mutually exclusive positions as “unchristian.”
As one can imagine, Dr. Wile’s aggressive and public pursuit of “big-tent orthodoxy,” and retreat from the young-earth positions he is well-known for defending, has sent Apologia Educational Ministries into a virtual tizzy. Inundated with letters and calls from deeply concerned home educators, they have had to issue their own reply in an effort to assuage the concerns of current and potential customers. ‘Don’t worry folks, Dr. Wile does not work here anymore!’ But just how much of what Dr. Wile (formerly of Apologia) currently reveals as his true doctrinal perspectives have seeped into the textbooks he has written over the years? We are assured by Apologia that on their face, nothing has, directly. But what about indirect influences? What would he have written differently had he not been wrestling with his own doubt regarding what he had been publicly defending – as we are now forced to presume he was? What about further patronage of those works? By purchasing the textbooks he had written for Apologia, is the concerned Christian home educator, or Christian day-school, financing his continued attempts to stand truth up next to error? These are critical questions for those looking for Christian teaching, or doctrinal reinforcement, from a science textbook, and for those selling such textbooks on this basis.
For the love of... ??? Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer just wants it to go away Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer is considered by many to be the poster-child for the success of home education. Herself a first generation home school student, she’s been referred to as the quintessential whiz-kid, and is regarded today as a high-power intellectual among home educators. Based on the education she received in the home, Dr. Bauer and her mother, Jesse Wise, wrote The Well-Trained Mind, launching Dr. Bauer’s career, and her curriculum publishing business, Peace Hill Press. Like Dr. Wile (formerly of Apologia...), she has been a well-known figure and trusted source within the home education movement for a long time, and today is widely known and respected outside of it, particularly in academia.
Up to this point, Dr. Bauer, who is herself a professing “American Christian” and whose husband is pastor of a rural, non-denominational church near their home, has wisely stayed away from religious issues in her world history curriculum and other publications meant for consumption by home educators. As a result, her curriculum has appealed to a very broad market, and has been very popular.
The connection between Dr. Bauer and Dr. Enns in the unfolding drama briefly outlined here, is her decision to enter the religious publishing market with a new publishing imprint of Peace Hill Press – Olive Branch Press. As stated above, this is the publisher of Dr. Enns' now-controversial Bible instruction curriculum for young children. One may wonder at Dr. Bauer’s decision to publish a Bible curriculum that promotes “big-tent orthodoxy:”
...is this her confession? (it might be...)
...was this merely a business decision, to appeal to the broadest possible religious-publishing market? (maybe... with the implosion of Evangelicalism, it is no longer the profitable religious publishing demographic that it once was... Liberalism, with the aid of the Emergent movement, has replaced it as the new profitable demographic for publishers... the new reductionist, gender-neutral NIV is evidence of this demographic change...)
...or does it have something to do with the professional connections she has with Dr. Enns, such as the fact that he was a professor at the college from which Dr. Bauer received her M.Div, or that she has publicly supported him through other controversial publications? (seems reasonable...)
One is reduced to wondering, since Dr. Bauer has been very reluctant to speak publicly about this issue. However, she did issue at least one public statement in a Well-Trained Mind forum post entitled, With reluctance, trying to set the record straight, in which she quite clearly avoids connection with Dr. Enns and Olive Branch Press – the “religious instruction imprint” of Peace Hill Press – stating among many other things that:
“I have absolutely no connection with Biologos. At all.”
“Peter Enns, who has written a book for the Olive Branch imprint of Peace Hill Press, sometimes blogs for Biologos. To my knowledge, he has a publisher-author relationship with them. He has a publisher-author relationship with Olive Branch Books.”
“I support every parent's right NOT to use the Bible curriculum published by Olive Branch Books. However, it is absolutely untrue to say that this curriculum attacks the Bible. Please read it before making such accusations. That seems to me to be the most basic requirement for critiquing materials.”
Experienced home educator and homeschool blogger, Robin Sampson, is correct to characterize such statements as “sidestepping” in her blog post Homeschool Controversy: Anti-Bible, Bible Curriculum!, and reinforces this characterization by offering several quotes from Dr. Enns' Bible curriculum that is published by Bauer:
“The Flood was an attempt by God to set it right, but it didn’t work.” (Page 70)
“For many parents, the Bible looks a little bit like my child’s room. It’s a mess. Names, places, events are all over the place, and you hardly know where to start cleaning up. It’s such a mess, in fact, that if someone ripped twenty pages out of Leviticus or 1 Chronicles, you might not even notice it was missing. And if your aim is to teach the Bible to your children, the mess isn’t just confusing. It’s stressful.” (page 10)
“If our expectations are modern instead of ancient, we will get ourselves into a bind. Before we can ask the hard questions — for example, 'Is Genesis 1 in harmony with scientific thought? Or does Genesis 1 trump scientific thought?' — we must ask a more foundational question: 'What do we have the right to expect from God’s word as a book written in an ancient world?'” (pages 18/19)
“The issue is that I read him a very complex and intricate biblical narrative — the story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent — as if it were a child’s story. This biblical story was meant to convey something profound, mature, and foundational to ancient Israelites. Sitting down and reading this story with my son set him up to receive it as one tall tale among others. The Garden narrative is deeply theological and symbolic. Despite the neat talking snake, it is not the type of story that we should toss casually to our young children. When, at a more mature age, children are asked to revisit this story and begin dealing with it in earnest, many can hardly refrain from snickering. ('I outgrew talking animals years ago!') Or consider another Bible story commonly taught to children: the story of the Flood. The boat, the animals, the rain, the drama — all lend themselves to videos, snappy tunes, macaroni art, flannel graphs, and furry friends. What is obscured is the simply horrific notion that God would bring down such drastic destruction on the earth, rather than finding some other solution to humanity’s rebellion. And that is a question young adults should ask.” (page 44/45)
Yet, there is more to Dr. Bauer’s connection to Dr. Enns. In 2006, Dr. Enns wrote a book entitled, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, the content of which reportedly resulted in his dismissal from Westminster Theological Seminary. In that same year, Dr. Susan Wise-Bauer wrote a glowing review of Dr. Enns’ book. She titled it Messy Revelation: Why Paul would have flunked hermeneutics. Ken Ham, in a recent blog entry (Susan Wise-Bauer, “Why Paul would have flunked hermeneutics”), reviews several quotations from Bauer’s review, some of which follow:
So how can we claim that the Old Testament — and it alone from all the texts of that pre-Christian age — is divine communication from God to man? It’s an interesting question, but it turns out to be small potatoes compared with the next problem that Enns, professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, sets before us: It seems as though the Old Testament was also puzzling for Matthew and Luke and Paul. In fact, from where we sit, it looks as though the apostles were lousy at exegesis...
Enns gives us a number of startling New Testament passages that use the Old Testament by wrenching the original words violently out of context and even altering them … In other words, Matthew is shamelessly proof-texting, in a way that would get any student enrolled in Practical Theology 221 (Expository Skills) sternly reproved...
Changing the words of Scripture to suit your own purposes? Paul wouldn’t get past the first week of New Testament 123 (Hermeneutics) like that. He is breaking every rule of thoughtful evangelical scholarship, which holds that the proper way to approach inerrant Scripture is with careful grammatical-historical exegesis: painstaking analysis of each word of the Scripture and its relationship to other words, the setting of the sentence in the verse, the verse in the chapter, the chapter in the book, and the book in the historical times of its composition.
Of course Paul breaks those rules, Enns says; they are our rules, not Paul’s. Inspiration and Incarnation offers us passages from such extrabiblical texts as the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Biblical Antiquities in order to show that, far from doing something extraordinary and super-apostolic, Paul and Matthew were doing exactly what most of their contemporaries did. Both apostles had been trained by the scholars of their day, the so-called “Second Temple” period, to come to a text looking for the “mystery” beneath the words: the deeper truth that an untrained reader might not see. Both of them came to the Old Testament already convinced that they knew what that mystery was: the incarnation, death, and resurrection of God in Jesus Christ...
For the interested reader, more analysis of Dr. Bauer’s connection with Dr. Enns and its impact on AiG and Ken Ham, along with links to additional resources on this topic, can be read here. Regardless of such further analysis, at this point we are left to speculate what her true motivations for publishing Dr. Enns’ bible curriculum are. But three things are certain:
there is a definite theological resonance between Bauer and Enns,
their theology is not to be trusted by any Christian who desires to be orthodox,
her “reluctance” to be forthright with her customers and her apparent desire to struggle against those who would publicly critique her published materials and those of Dr. Enns is very suspicious – and has nothing whatsoever to do with a concern over “being loving”.
“Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc.” to Ken Ham: We reject your spirit! Affirming their agreement with Ken Ham and his position, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. nevertheless folded under pressure – presumably from Dr. Jay Wiles, Dr. Peter Enns, Dr. Susan-Wise Bauer and other interested parties – officially terminating their contract with Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis, and permanently prohibiting him and AiG from any further involvement in any future conventions that they may host – and this after the president of Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. was informed by Mark Looy of AiG that Ken Ham would warn conference attendees of compromises and error in Dr. Enns’ materials, and affirmed to Mark Looy his support for Ken Ham: “We would expect nothing less from Answers in Genesis”.
In announcing their termination last week, AiG published the email they received from Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc., along with their own response, in this blog post: Kicked Out of Two Homeschool Conferences. In their letter, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. equated AiG’s public critique of Dr. Enns’ published materials with terms such as “slander” and “attack” – but most peculiarly, as having an “unScriptural spirit.” In the public announcement on their own web site, Great Homeschool Conventions, Inc. state as much directly: “Ken Ham was removed for his spirit, not for his message” – whatever that means.
In their commentary, Answers in Genesis quite correctly observes:
We often find today that if we speak against someone’s theological compromise, we are accused of being “un-Christian” or “unloving.” This is a bigger topic for another time, but for the moment let us state that we need to understand what the Bible means by “love.” It does not mean one doesn’t publicly stand against error.
Being kicked out of these conventions is sad, but AiG notes this is not the major issue here. What is troubling is that more and more churches have been infiltrated by academics who compromise God’s Word, and many Christians are simply unaware of the danger.
Indeed, getting “kicked out” for issuing public critique of published materials and public statements, is a sad thing – but it is a trivial concern next to the soul-killing error that is spewed by false teachers, and the obligation of Christians to sound the warning. And it is likely to happen to most Christians who are thus filled with Truth’s conviction. Many, as in the case of Ken Ham and AiG, will be the object of “organizational solutions,” of political retaliation floating on cockamamy foundations like “We agree with what you say, but reject your spirit” – and this rather than to show the fortitude to engage the debate publicly, rather than to take a public position and defend it.
Todd Friel of WRETCHED Radio interviews Ken Ham Interveiw begins about 1:45 into the recording...
Our Conclusion The situation with Ken Ham and AiG is not unique, and it is quite illustrative of situations we all face. It is unfortunate, but more often than not these days, the phrase, “Speak the truth in love!” is levied as a threatening warning against those who, with hearts full of love and gratitude for what Christ has done for them, do the hard work of actually speaking the difficult truth. Such threats warn of impending retaliation from rivals or organizational authorities; or they warn that, ultimately, the value of truth is only proportional to the subjective standards of behaviour which accompany it.
And this is what has happened to this perfectly good phrase. Repeated ad nauseum and used as a weapon, the thrust of this phrase is no longer that Truth flows from a foundation of love, but that Truth has no objective value and that it is only as effective as the “method” employed by the truth-teller. Often, it seems, the pious theologian who gives arbitrary instructions concerning “loving discourse” is only posing as a psychologist or sociologist as he points the truth-teller to the results he desires from speaking the truth, rather than to the value of the truth itself, and insists that the truth-teller observe certain rules of discourse if he would be effective. Thus, the perfectly good phrase, “Speak the truth in love” has been ruined.
The fact is, speaking the Truth is love. That is what has made the other well-known, and much older phrase, “The truth hurts,” so poignant; and it is especially the case when the Truth exposes cherished falsehoods and demolishes the strongholds of Satan. For this reason, speaking the Truth "in love" should never have anything to do with whitewashing the Truth, or remaining silent, in order to avoid ‘hurt feelings’; all it means is that we don't offend for the sake of offending, or for the sake of sport. Furthermore, the impact of standing on the Truth and sounding warnings against error should never be an object of anticipated measure, but of trust in God’s providential working. Each person has been given unique characteristics by God. Personality, for instance, is a product of God’s genetic gift to the individual and of His gift of life experiences through which that individual’s character is developed, for His hidden purposes. Likewise, an individual’s conviction comes from God’s gift of faith to that individual, where the individual's portion of faith meets his personality and is expressed accordingly. Such expression has the impact God desires, and has already planned.
We are called to live by conscience, and this means speaking and acting according to our convictions as we have been equipped by God to do so. As a wise man, caught in a difficult situation, once said, It is never safe to go against conscience. And in giving advice for living according to conscience, this same man recommended that Christians Sin Boldly! – that is, that they do what they do because they are convinced as a matter of conscience that it is the right thing to do. Even if it turns out that in the end it isn’t the right thing to do, that’s ok, because we can deal with that – it’s called repentance and forgiveness. But a fear of possibly being wrong should never prevent us from confessing and living according to the convictions of conscience, indeed such fear robs us of conviction; and it is never safe to violate conscience at the behest of those issuing threats and demands, or to attenuate Truth and squelch warnings of error because someone declares that in merely doing so “YOU’RE NOT BEING LOVING!!!” In this sense, we at Intrepid Lutherans will continue to speak and live according to conscience, to “sin boldly,” and encourage our fellow confessional Lutherans to do the same.
Note: Intrepid Lutherans cannot endorse all the content found at the following links, and expects that the visitor accessing them will exercise mature Berean judgment in assessing and making use of them.
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.
Many of you might remember 
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.
