What is the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience?

What is the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience?
by Mr. Vernon Kneprath

2015 Christian Leadership Experience has been a topic of posts and comments on at least two other blogs in recent days:

• Read, Weep
• Money Changers at the Religious Conference
• Build a Customer-Centric Church Business To Make More Money... Even Better - Listen to Pagan Gods Teaching You How To Be Rich!

The topic is no longer new, and some of the information and conclusions presented here may sound familiar. But the topic is significant enough to merit a post on Intrepid. I will strive in this post to make clear, conclusive statements about Experience, and provide supporting evidence, some of which may not have yet been touched on at other blog sites.

If the information at the website for the 2015 Christian Leadership Experience (www.christlead.com) is to be considered representative of the event, I would conclude that Experience:

1. is ecumenical, interfaith, and interdenominational, even though it specifically targets WELS and those in fellowship with WELS.
2. is theology of glory; with its primary focus on man’s works, not the Gospel or the Means of Grace.
3. is endorsed by some high-level WELS and ELS leaders and pastors, as evidenced by their participation and roles in the event.
4. bears no standards of or identity to Confessional Lutheranism.

I will explain some of the reasons for my conclusions shortly. But before that, consider the information taken from the FAQ section of the website regarding the target audience and the claims of Experience.

The 2015 Christian Leadership Experience and its organizing partners are specifically inviting the people who make up our constituency, which is primarily WELS/ELS or CELC. However, the event is open to whomever is interested in building their leadership skills.

As the objectives of the Leadership Experience were identified, we committed to identifying and presenting the best possible speakers on each leadership topic. A few of the speakers who are well-regarded as experts in their field are from outside the CELC (WELS/ELS) fellowship. We pray these speakers will bring value to attendees which has not been previously available to leaders and aspiring leaders in our fellowship.

Conference attendance is not an act of fellowship. The one "fellowship" activity is the worship at devotions and the closing service. Just as we welcome our friends and visitors to our congregations' worship services so also we welcome them to the conference's devotions and closing service.

As shown by these statements, Experience:

1. specifically targets WELS and those in fellowship with the WELS for the purpose of teaching skills pertaining to ministry.
2. involves worship and prayer.
3. involves speakers both inside and outside of WELS fellowship.
4. includes the prayer that those outside WELS fellowship bring value to those to whom Experience is targeted.

Regarding the latter point, since this prayer is for secular and interdenominational participants to "bring value to", that is, have an influence on the attendees, this is arguably a violation of what Scripture teaches regarding fellowship, even though the claim is made to the contrary.

Returning to my conclusions regarding Experience, I will refer the reader to hyperlinks of various locations on the website www.christlead.com, and to other websites. In some cases, I will provide some of the content found at the hyperlinks I provide, to save the reader the time and trouble of having to search those hyperlinked webpages. These hyperlinks will provide what I consider to be supporting evidence for my conclusions.

1. Experience is ecumenical, interfaith, and interdenominational, even though it specifically targets WELS and those in fellowship with WELS.
   
   There is much evidence for this. I will provide two examples.
   
   Example 1 -
   Refer to http://www.christlead.com/speakers.php and find “Speaker - Dr. Ravi I. Jayakaran.”
   
   Now refer to http://www.christlead.com/jayakaran.php for more information regarding Dr. Ravi. Here you will find the following:
   
   Dr. Ravi I. Jayakaran has more than 37 years of experience in poverty reduction and strategic development programs. Currently he is Vice President of Global Programs for MAP International (medical assistance programs), providing supervisory oversight and strategic support for all of MAP’s global programs. Dr. Jayakaran is also currently the Senior Associate for Integral (Holistic) Mission for the Lausanne Global Movement.
   
   The Lausanne Global Movement, as evidenced by the “Lausanne Covenant”, is an effort to “enter into a solemn covenant with God and with each other, to pray, to plan and to work together for the evangelization of the whole world”.
   
   Example 2 -
   The speaker web page,http://www.christlead.com/jayakaran.php, has the following footer:
   
   ©2014 Global Leadership Summit: All Rights Reserved.
   
   The Global Leadership Summit is associated with the Willow Creek Association. Read about the Willow Creek Association at http://www.willowcreek.org/aboutwillow/willow-creek-association
   
   Founded in 1991, the Willow Creek Association (WCA) is a not-for-profit organization that exists to help local churches thrive. The WCA stirs up and calls out the core leadership of churches around the world, encouraging them to follow their "holy discontent" as they build life-changing communities of faith. The WCA serves pioneering pastors and leaders around the world by curating inspirational leadership, intentional skill development, and experiences. Each year, the WCA serves more than 18,000 churches in 90 countries with vision, training, and resources.
   
   Experience is laced with references and linkage to ecumenical evangelical organizations and people.
   
   
   
2. Experience is theology of glory; with its primary focus on man’s works, not the Gospel or the Means of Grace.
   
   Again, there is much evidence. I will provide two examples. Both examples relate to designated speakers of Experience. Refer to http://www.christlead.com/speakers.php.
   
   Example 1 -
   Keynote Speaker - Ann Rhoades
   Ann is a Corporate Executive with over 25 years experience in a variety of service-based industries, is President of People Ink, her consulting company that helps organizations create unique workplace cultures based on values and performance and author of “Built on Values”.  She held the position of Vice President of the People Department for Southwest Airlines, and EVP for Promus Hotel Corporation and most recently, JetBlue Airways where she currently remains as a Board Member.
   
   Ann has a respected reputation in the industry for her creative approach to creating customer-centric cultures and is a popular speaker on the subject of customer service and how to build a strong high-performing culture.
   
   Example 2 -
   Speaker - Sharon Buck
   Sharon will discuss the perks and pitfalls of leading others when you have NO authority in their business/career. She will also discuss the importance of GODLY leadership and how it affects relationships for now... and in eternity. Truly, leading a volunteer army is challenging, sometimes frustrating but always rewarding. The lessons discussed will be helpful for ALL leaders!
   
   Notice the focus of these speakers:
   
   
   1. “customer centric” cultures, as if the Church can be treated as a business with the chief concern of satisfying customers.
   2. discussing “Godly” leadership, with no confession defining the basis of that Godly leadership.
   
   Experience is not about using God’s Word or the Means of Grace. This becomes very apparent when you view the event schedule. The presentation topics do not focus on what God has done for us, the true Gospel message, and the theology of the cross. “Experience” focuses on business techniques as if the Holy Spirit, through the Means of Grace, can no longer be effective in today’s culture.
   
   
   
3. Experience is endorsed by some high-level WELS and ELS leaders and pastors, as evidenced by their participation and roles in the event.
   
   Again, there are many examples. I will provide three. Refer to http://www.christlead.com/speakers.php (worship leaders)
   
   Example 1 -
   Rev. Jon Buchholz is District President of the CA-AZ district of the WELS.
   
   Example 2 -
   Rev. Charles Degner is District President of the MN district of the WELS.
   
   Example 3 -
   Pastor Don Moldstad is Chaplain, Director of Campus Spiritual Life at Bethany Lutheran College (ELS).
   
   As evidenced by representation from the high levels of leadership in WELS and ELS, this event implies the full backing of these synods’ leadership.
   
   
   
4. Experience, based on the information provided on the website, bears no standards of or identity to Confessional Lutheranism.
   
   Why do these event organizers and participants, WELS and ELS leaders and pastors, choose to use things other than God’s Word to train leaders of the church? The evidence of the conclusion that this event is non-confessional is found in the absence of the Word and the Means of Grace. Evidence abounds of Church Growth and fund raising objectives, but there is no evidence of God’s Word.
   
   Perhaps this can be explained by the “bait and switch” technique commonly used by Church Growth advocates. That is, focus on what culture values, and sometime later, once the subject has been “hooked”, the Gospel will be revealed and the Holy Spirit can then be allowed to do His work.
   
   

According to the information at the website www.christlead.com, Experience is a gold mine of man-made business techniques, but a barren landscape of Scriptural truths.

LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) recommends against NIV 2011

In December of 2011, a similar headline appeared on Intrepid Lutherans: ELS doctrine committee recommends against NIV 2011. In that post, we reported that the Doctrine Committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), “based on preliminary study of the NIV 2011” upon which they found “significant changes to the text of the NIV (1984)... diminish[ing] the accuracy of the NIV,” proceeded to publicly “recommend against the use of the NIV (2011).”

In August of 2012 – coincidentally, shortly following the last of the WELS 2012 District Conventions – the Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) issued a similar, though more lengthy, statement expressing their opinion on the strength of the NIV 2011 as a suitable translation for use in the congregation, specifically with reference to its rendering of the Biblical texts in gender inclusive language. The statement was issued at the request of LCMS Synod President Rev. Matt Harrison. The name of this document is CTCR Staff Opinion on Inclusive Language in the New International Version (2011). They conclude on page four:

...[W]e find the NIV's Committee on Bible Translation [CBT] decision to substitute plural nouns and pronouns for masculine singular nouns and pronouns to be a serious theological weakness and a misguided attempt to make the truth of God's Word more easily understood. The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind. Pastors and congregations of the LCMS should be aware of this serious weakness. In our judgment this makes it inappropriate for NIV 2011 to be used as a lectionary Bible or as a Bible to be generally recommended to the laity of our church. This is not a judgment on the entirety of NIV 2011 as a translation – a task that would require a much more extensive study of NIV 2011 – but an opinion as to a specific editorial decision which has serious theological implications.

(NOTE: in all quotes from this Statement, emphasis is mine)

Leading up to this conclusion, the August 2012 CTCR Statement makes plain that the issue of Gender Neutrality is not one that hasn't already been thoroughly investigated by the LCMS. Unlike WELS, they are not just beginning to discuss it as a Synod, but took the issue of gender neutral Bible translation seriously when it first emerged in the 1990's. Responding to gender neutral editorializing of the Bible, such as that taken up by the translators of the New Revised Standard Version, the CTCR examined the issue closely and at length, issuing in 1998 a document entitled, Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language (BRIL). The August 2012 CTCR Statement on the issue of inclusive language in the NIV 2011 quotes at length from this 1998 document. It states that, while BRIL “recognizes that 'language evolves' and so takes no position with regard to the propriety of inclusive language in everyday life,”

[t]he concern that led to [BRIL] had to do with the removal of gender specific language from translations of the Holy Scriptures... and the substitution of gender inclusive language that is not present in the original languages and texts of Scripture. In this regard [BRIL] takes a clear position grounded in the understanding of revelation itself that is held by us as Lutheran Christians:

This raises a different set of difficulties, for the Scriptures are not merely the rendering of a culturally based understanding of God. They are to be regarded as revelation whose author is finally God himself. Moreover, not only the concepts of Scripture but the very words of Scripture have been given to the biblical authors to write (1 Cor. 2:9-13; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:19-21; Jer. 30:2). While the church will certainly wish to accommodate modern sensibilities and translate anew where the language of the Scriptures allows, the church is not free to alter the language of revelation.

Quoting from BRIL, the August 2012 Statement of the CTCR goes on to say,

It is in the Word made flesh (John 1:14) that God has fulfilled “his purpose for humankind's eternal destiny.” This purpose, in one particular Person born of Mary at a particular time and place, is revealed in the particularity of Holy Scripture and most specifically “in the written testimony of the evangelical and apostolic writings of the New Testament.” The specificity and particularity of the Word made flesh and the sacred Scriptures compel the church to “resist demands to change the words of Scripture or to replace them with words derived from common human experience, cultural predilections, or the ideas of philosophers and lawgivers.”

Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language considers two aspects of the debate about masculine language in the Scriptures: the language that is used to refer to God and the language that is used to refer to humanity (both Christians and humanity in general). With regard to biblical language about God, the CTCR concludes: “If one wishes to translate accurately the words of the Scriptures, the language of both the Old Testament and the New Testament is clear enough concerning the terminology about God. God and his Spirit are consistently referred to in masculine terminology.” With regard to language about people, BRIL asserts that whenever the Scriptures speak about people, the texts should be translated in a way that is consistent with “the language which the biblical authors in fact use.”

While merely interpreting concepts and rendering them “with words derived from common human experience, cultural predilections, or the ideas of philosophers and lawgivers” (the way that NIV 2011 does), instead of translating the actual words and grammar “which the biblical authors in fact use,” doesn't adversely affect the meaning of a translation in every case, the August 2012 CTCR Statement stresses that this ideology of translation itself violates our understanding of Biblical revelation in principle, and that this is sufficient grounds for rejecting it, and thus also the NIV 2011. Nevertheless, this brief statement goes on to give two “very significant” examples where the meaning of Scripture is, in fact, adversely affected by the gender inclusive principles espoused by the translators of the NIV 2011. Rather than reproduce the entire Statement here, I leave it to the reader to download and digest its contents. Again, those documents are as follows:

CTCR Staff Opinion on Inclusive Language in the New International Version (2011)
Biblical Revelation and Inclusive Language (BRIL)

It should not escape the readers notice that, based on the CTCR's appeal to the Lutheran understanding of the very nature of Biblical revelation, for WELS to continue embracing the NIV 2011 as a viable translation that is not only suitable but recommended for use in our pulpits and in the homes of our laymen for private study, and which will serve as the Standard translation in all WELS publications – from devotions to hymnals, catechisms and commentaries, and even theological works published by Northwestern Publishing House (NPH) – is to invite a rift with nearly all other confessional Lutherans in America over the nature of Biblical revelation itself, including the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy and perspicuity.

Emmaus Conference - Recap

I’ll attempt a short recap of the Emmaus Conference that wrapped up last Friday afternoon. Bottom line up front: all three synodical presidents displayed an unprecedented commitment to confessional Lutheran doctrine and practice, and also to humble, fraternal dialogue.

Let me begin by thanking our ELS brothers in the Pacific Northwest for organizing this event. They rendered a significant service to Lutheranism in America by hosting this conference, and they should be commended for their foresight and zeal for this kind of necessary discussion among the three largest confessional Lutheran church bodies in the United States.

The Lecture

Pres. Schroeder’s 48-page essay was entitled, “Walking Together with Jesus: Church Fellowship and its Implications for Confessional Lutherans.” It will soon be posted on the Emmaus Conference website, but until then, it has just become available on the Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary Library essay file. (Note: The WLS essay file, while useful, is not a storehouse of official WELS doctrine.)

Schroeder's essay is, in my humble opinion, brilliant. It’s insightful, engaging, evangelical, historical, and honest, but the honest evaluation of the matters that brought about the demise of the Synodical Conference is presented with the utmost humility and tact.

The essay tells the story of church fellowship beginning on Easter Sunday and continuing through the Lutheran Reformation and Lutheranism in 19th century America. It goes into detail regarding the matters that caused the split with Missouri, which, in the words of Harrison, "you had to do when you did, and so you avoided the next 40 years of turmoil that we faced in the Missouri Synod." Then Schroeder clarifies some aspects of the WELS teaching on church fellowship that have been misrepresented or misunderstood. Finally, Schroeder offers some suggestions for moving forward in our discussions with the LCMS, including the suggestion, "Is a 21st century 'Formula of Concord' effort possible?"

Schroeder's final admonition is especially poignant:

As we strive to apply the scriptural principles of fellowship faithfully, remaining separate when we must on the basis of our confession, we should just as energetically seek to determine where doctrine and practice are one, to trust in the power of the Word for results, and to rejoice in a unified confession if and when God brings it about.

I strongly encourage all our readers to take the time to read and digest the essay for yourselves. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

The Reactions

Pres. Moldstad was the first reactor. Since so much ground had been so thoroughly covered by Pres. Schroeder already, it seemed like there would be little left for Pres. Moldstad to say, except for “I concur.” Still, he presented a fine evaluation of the lecture and the state of the fellowship discussion from the perspective of the ELS. One important point he made was the reason why the ELS (and presumably also the WELS) declined former LCMS Pres. Kieschnick’s invitation to dialogue among the three synods in 2003. It was pointed out that this was soon after the fateful “Yankee Stadium event,” at which an LCMS district president participated in a unionistic and even syncretistic public service. I believe it was even called “A Prayer for America.” Although DP Benke was briefly suspended for this action, he was later exonerated and his suspension lifted by the leadership of the LCMS (as I understand the situation from Moldstad’s reaction), signaling that the leadership of the LCMS was, at that time, unwilling to submit itself to the Word of Christ in the area of church fellowship, although several confessional men in Missouri, like Kurt Marquart, denounced Benke’s actions and the official rationalization of them.

It was important, I think, for Yankee Stadium to be brought up in a discussion on fellowship. This is exactly the kind of situation that the WELS teaching on prayer fellowship addresses. Too often WELS sources turn the issue of prayer fellowship into an individual, private matter, almost characterizing any table prayer with one’s Christian (but non-WELS) relative as a denial of Christ and His Truth. This is ridiculous. The issue of prayer fellowship should be taught as a public matter between churches or representatives of churches. President Schroeder did make those distinctions in his essay, although I wish he would have spoken even more strongly on that point in order to move the discussion entirely out of one’s dining room and into the public forum, where it belongs.

Unlike Pres. Moldstad, Pres. Harrison did not have a written reaction, but spoke from notes, and did not exactly react to the essay as much as he simply talked in general terms about Lutheranism in America and the value of discussing doctrine and pursuing at least the possibility of unity with the WELS and the ELS. One might have wished that he had commented more directly on President Schroeder’s essay, but there was nothing disappointing in anything he said. This was the first time I had heard Matt Harrison speak. He has a presence that simply fills a room. He comes across as very intelligent but very down to earth and friendly, with a genuine sense of humor. He admitted having much work to do in his own synod before real progress can be made in doctrinal discussions with other synods. But that was not to imply that these doctrinal discussions ought to wait for in-house business to be completed. He insisted, “We have to do both.”

Harrison expressed a bit of confusion over the issues WELS emphasizes about prayer fellowship. He admitted that it was an issue that had simply never been on the radar for him personally. He joked disarmingly, “We’ve had to concentrate on questions like, ‘Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?’ and ‘Should women be ordained?’ and things like that.” But in saying that, he made it clear he was not dismissing the WELS concerns over this issue. “It’s something I realize now I have to study. You’ve given me much to think about.”

President Schroeder, President Moldstad and President Harrison are to be commended, among other things, for their gracious demeanor. There was not even a hint of arrogance or an attitude of superiority among the three presidents. President Schroeder quoted Missouri Synod sources favorably (including Matt Harrison himself) over a dozen times in his essay, along with other WELS and ELS sources. Each president spoke of repentance in his own self and in his own synod as the first step toward fruitful discussion.

My Prediction

Here is my (very conditional) prediction, as well as my prayer. If the pastors and congregations of the WELS, ELS and LCMS will adopt the humility and doctrinal commitment of their respective presidents, then I have no doubt that the fellowship of the former Synodical Conference will be restored.

Why? Because the ruling authority of the Scriptures and the ruled authority of the Lutheran Confessions form the foundation of all three church bodies. The authority of the Scriptures was being attacked from within the LCMS 50 years ago, but by the grace of God, such is no longer the case. Church Growth theology has infected all three church bodies to some degree, but all three presidents have spoken out against this false theology, expressing trust in the Means of Grace rather than in human methodology. So there is no reason why church bodies that are committed to the Scriptures and the Confessions should not be able to work out their differences through fraternal dialogue, unless 1) contrition and repentance are lacking on either side, or 2) the external preservation of the institution supersedes the confession of the truth.

If contrition and repentance are lacking in either the WELS or the LCMS, then puffed-up egos on one side will always treat the other side with indifference, condescension or even contempt. If the primary goal of the institution is to preserve the status quo or keep from losing numbers, then truth will take a backseat to expediency, and what is expedient for one synod will likely be unacceptable or even detrimental to the next.

But if the leaders of the synods approach one another in a spirit of contrition and repentance, then egos will not get in the way of God’s clear Word and the Church’s historical interpretation of His Word. And if the primary goal is faithfulness to the truth of Christ rather than to preserving the status quo at all costs, then the Spirit of Truth Himself will fight for the unity of His Church. May God grant it!

Emmaus Conference 2012

• April 19 and 20
• Parkland Lutheran Church, Tacoma, WA
• Lecturer: The Rev. President Matthew Harrison
• Reactors: The Rev. President Mark Schroeder and the Rev. President John Moldstad