Spewing the Doctrines of “Christian Hedonism”

Earlier today, “Matthias Flach” of the blog, Polluted WELS posted an article critical of a Contemporary Lutheran Church in Minneapolis, MN – Pilgrim Lutheran – its praise band, SON Band, and of lay pastor Dr. Scott Gostchock (WELS), who preaches during the band's worship performances. Says “Matthias”:

Most concerning is a "SON Message" in which Dr. Scott Gostchock (who is not a pastor) preaches a "sermon" in which he states the following:


• It isn't good enough to preach God's Word from the Bible because that's just “words on a page”.
• We must somehow “experience” God's presence apart from those words on a page.
• It's not the job of the church to condemn sin.

The entire “sermon” is pure enthusiasm -- the teaching that one must experience God's presence apart from Word and Sacrament.

Keep in mind that the good Doctor is from the Twin Cities, Minnesota, home of Dr. John Piper (of the former “Baptist General Conference,” which has adopted a “new missional name, Converge Worldwide”) and his theology of Christian Hedonism. We briefly reviewed the theology of Dr. Piper, and its connection to the requirements of Christian worship and Christian experience, in our post, Post-Modernism, Pop-culture, Transcendence, and the Church Militant :

In some circles, however, the pursuit and experience of “pleasure” is a measure of whether a person is saved or not. In Dr. John Piper’s Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, he makes precisely this connection, first noting from philosophy that happiness is not only the deepest longing of human nature,¹ it is also a command from God that we are required to obey,² then suggesting that Scripture could have more poignantly read, “‘Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God’”³ and eventually stating most directly that “The pursuit of joy in God is not optional …Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith.”⁴ Of course, this non-optional pursuit of ‘the joy that is to be had in God’ is tied to worship experience as well. After first denigrating liturgical worship as “empty formalism and traditionalism... [which] produces dead orthodoxy and a church full (or half-full) of artificial admirers,”⁵ and later reiterating his disdain for traditional worship as “the empty performance of ritual,”⁶ “the grinding out of doctrinal laws from collections of biblical facts,”⁷ and “misguided virtue, smother[ing] the spirit of worship,”⁸ we are informed by Dr. Piper that, in fact, human emotion is the ends for which a worshiper strives; that is, that the worshiper ought to achieve affective experience through his acts of worship: “Happiness in God is the end of all our seeking”⁹; “All genuine emotion is an end in itself”¹⁰; “God is more glorified when we delight in His magnificence.”¹¹ According to Dr. Piper, the worship that true Christians are commanded to engage can be described as follows:


Now we can complete our picture. The fuel of worship is a true vision of the greatness of God; the fire that makes the fuel burn white hot is the quickening of the Holy Spirit; the furnace made alive and warm by the flame of truth is our renewed spirit; and the resulting heat of our affections is powerful worship, pushing its way out in confessions, longings, acclamations, tears, songs, shouts, bowed heads, lifted hands, and obedient lives.¹²

Although I am quite certain that Dr. Piper himself is no card-carrying post-Modernist, the highly charged experiential language used by him, and his use of that experience as a soteriological and axiological point of reference, drives his readers to their own experience as a source of confirmation regarding their own salvation and certainty in living out their faith, and into a post-Modern worldview.

It is not surprising that Dr. Gostchock and “SON Band”¹³ would be echoing Dr. Piper's theology, even if only in some muted and truncated fashion -- I live in the same area, and having friends and relatives deeply involved in the Contemporary Worship scene in the Twin Cities, I know for a fact that (a) the Christian entertainment racket is a fairly close knit group of people¹⁴, and (b) if they have one at all, Piper's Christian Hedonism is their Confessional document. Piper is very influential around here -- indeed, I've long considered the late Rev. Klemet Preus' book, The Fire and the Staff, (whose church was actually fairly near to Piper's), as a highly needed Lutheran rebuttal to Piper's Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. More rebuttal is necessary, in my opinion.

Dr. Piper's experientialist doctrine of “Christian Hedonism”, like the doctrine preached by the lay pastor Dr. Scott Gostchock (WELS), is not only enthusiasm, as Rev. “Matthias Flach” points out, it is also rank synergism. It is also a fundamental aspect of what seems to be the greatest and most insidious worldly threat to invade the Church in our day, one that attacks objectivity in all forms, and empties language of all definite meaning: Post-Modernism. We've blogged about this in the past, as well:


Experientialism: The post-Modern Church's way of “Becoming the Culture”
(from The Health of the Church has more than just religious significance)
The philosophy of Materialistic Rationalism, with which Western man was equipped as he entered the 20^th Century, was a very optimistic philosophy – the pinnacle of Modernistic thought. Declaring the future equivalent to progress, and limiting reality to the scientifically observable, it confidently identified man's capacity for scientific achievement as the source of that progress, and with this as foundation for the ordering of society, held high-expectations for cultural advancement. Yet, the 20^th Century is on record as the bloodiest in history. Indeed, it took less than two decades for serious doubt to develop, as the destruction and human suffering of World War I simply galvanized the sensibilities of modern Westerners. Man was indeed powerful, yet demonstrated that he was not powerful enough to restrain his own inbred evil. The horrors of World War II sealed the fate of Modernism, and the West has increasingly advanced beyond it, into post-Modernism – an essentially experiential philosophy questioning the adequacy of formal language as a vessel sufficient to carry the message of Truth, which is thus utterly dismissive of objective truth-claims and ambivalent toward the future...

It was stated above, that the Church “has struggled mightily and in various ways against the withering onslaught of man's great enemy – the World – yet has been forced into retreat.” Following this, a litany of false teaching, in which some truth and great struggle is evident, was produced to show how the Church has conducted its struggle: from within the context of having “become the culture.” In point of fact, the recent history of the Christian Church is littered with the theological ruins of Christian movements which have, in a flailing desperation for the “survival of the church,” become the culture, either not realizing, forgetting or rejecting the fact that the World is one of the Christian's Great Enemies. In the modern West, doing so has meant adopting one of two perspectives: that of rationalistic Empiricism or of mystical Existentialism. In reality, neither perspective is acceptable; both place mankind at the center of truth, and argue their way to God and for man's relationship with Him from (a) the intellectual (objective), or (b) experiential (subjective) attributes of man's existence – the historical record of God's Special Revelation of Himself to mankind no longer being relevant for this purpose, by the World's standards...

That the Church must “become the culture” is a lie. That it has increasingly “become the culture” is the manifest reason Western Christianity has slowly disintegrated over the past three centuries. Taking on the culture of the World has produced a vacillating imbalance between emphasis on intellect and emotion in the Church, between reason and experience, objectivity and subjectivity – and not just an imbalance, but a thrashing between these emphases that has drawn the attention of the Church away from the saving events and message of the Gospel, away from the centrality of Christ, and instead upon man and the dual fundamental characteristics of his existence. No, Christianity must not “become the culture” any more than it should it cut itself off from society. No, the Church must not abdicate in the face of its great enemy, the World, either by joining it or by running from it. Rather, as an historical institution, with an historical and saving message, it must stand and face the World on the basis of its confession, it must earnestly contend for the faith (Jude 3), by (a) holding on to the specific and historic truths of Scripture in its doctrine, and (b) defending and proclaiming this truth in its practice...


post-Modern Experientialism and Doctrinal Ambiguity
(from “Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part One)
Man naturally pursues a “Theology of Glory.” The consequences of this with respect to God’s many gifts to mankind are clearly stated by Dr. Martin Luther, who stated in his 24^th Thesis at the Heidelberg Disputation, “without the 'Theology of the Cross' man misuses the best in the worst manner.” It should come as no surprise, therefore, that where man permits himself the freedom and authority to arbitrate God’s Revelation, he does so with the force and finality of God Himself. It should also come as no surprise that man, according to his nature, does work toward this very end – whether deliberately or quite unconsciously – and that he revels in the glory assigned to him for his efforts.

It seems most charitable to assume that no confessing Christian would deliberately seek a place of judgment over God’s Word, and to leave it at that – remaining oblivious to its likelihood and limiting ourselves to the messy job of first recognizing when it happens and then reacting to it long after the fact. This is, however, a dangerously pollyanna attitude, since the tactic of arguing for the abstruseness of Scripture, in order to deliberately accumulate authority and glory to man, is not unknown in the history of the Church. In fact, this is exactly how, and why, Erasmus, in his Freedom of the Will (a.k.a. De libero arbitrio diatribe sive collatio, or Diatribe), and later supporting works, argued for the ambiguity of the Scriptures – to maintain the freedom and authority of man over against Scripture. And Erasmus’ arguments have remained active as a dominant force in Western Society and, through it, the Christian Church – more so today, perhaps, than ever before.

(from “Pursuing freedom from Scripture's clear teachings, by arguing for their ambiguity, results only in tyranny” – Part Two)
Dear reader, we ought to thank Dr. Nestingen for alerting us to the tactic of asserting Scripture’s ambiguity as opportunity for supposed liberty, and for locating the modern source of this tactic in Erasmus – who opposed Luther in this regard. It seems, in our post-Modern age, when ALL truth and meaning are self-referentially experiential, that the “discovery” of ambiguity in the Scriptures, having become great sport, has accelerated to an alarming rate!


post-Modern Experientialism governs Ideology of Language... and Bible Translation
(from The NIV 2011 and the Importance of Translation Ideology)
As Mr. Peeler pointed out, Dynamic Equivalency (the translation ideology of the CBT) is related to post-Modernism in its understanding of meaning in language as a social construction (“grammar follows usage”) – an understanding which is a very recent innovation. According to it, social experience is the vehicle for, and social context the arbiter of, meaning. Language is merely a social experience by which meaning is conveyed, and it is the immediate social context which dictates both usage and meaning, not the structure of the language itself. As a result, post-Modernism teaches that meaning is always subjective and relative (resulting in a lack of clarity... terms and phrases of otherwise objective meaning become “slippery”). This is why post-Modernists will insist that there is no truth – not because there actually is or is not Truth, but because even if Truth does exist, it cannot be expressed since language is insufficient to convey it.

But what is “Dynamic Equivalency?”

To use a very widely used (and seriously discussed) example, the post-Modern adherent of Dynamic Equivalency will complain that the passage in Isaiah which reads “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow,” cannot be understood by a person who has never seen snow. It has no meaning because it is not part of his experience. As a result, instead of actually using the word “snow” to communicate “white-ness,” a more effective translation for, say, a resident of the Caribbean may be “the sands of St. Thomas Beach.” But that wouldn’t communicate to someone outside the Caribbean, so another translation would be needed for those groups of people who have seen neither white snow nor white sand, but which is common to their unique experience – fields of cotton, for instance, or even milk. These are all naturally occurring examples of the color white, and communicate the idea of “white-ness” just as effectively. It doesn’t matter that the word in the original is “snow.” This is Dynamic Equivalency, and the job of the translator under this ideology is to (a) interpret the meaning of the source language, and (b) choose his own words in the target language that communicate this same idea.

Only, notice in the case of “snow” used above, that the translator, while communicating “white-ness” through the use of alternative words, fails to communicate the idea of a “covering” which descends from above, and also fails to communicate the idea of “cleansing,” which is precisely what snow does for the landscape as it melts (and is also part of the meaning directly intended by Isaiah). Thus, under the ideology of Dynamic Equivalency, the translator, in choosing his “alternative phraseology,” is said to “pick and choose” from the source language what meaning he will include in his translation – not because he is forced by inadequacies in either source or target languages, but because he is ideologically (a) given license to do so in order that he may engage in the task of interpretation, and (b) constrained by his own ideas of what constitutes “meaning” within a given social or cultural construct and of what patterns of words can be legitimately used in association with that meaning...


Experientialism always a Bridge to Open Ecumenism, accelerates in the post-Modern Era under Church Growth Movement
(from The Church Growth Movement: A brief synopsis of its history and influences in American Christianity)
A primary purpose of the Evangelical Movement, as a reaction against Fundamentalism, was ecumenism, and this Evangelical purpose was seriously supported and engaged at Fuller. Enter “Mr. Pentecost,” David J. du Plessis, who had been active through the 1950’s as an ardent proponent of ecumenism on behalf of the Pentecostals, convinced that the Pentecostal “experience” could serve as an effective ecumenical bridge to non-Pentecostals (namely, the historic mainline denominations) and help bring unity to Christianity worldwide.

That “experience” had its modern genesis partly in the Brethren movements of Europe¹⁵ in the early/mid-1800's (the left-overs of Scandinavian and German Pietism), but especially in the practices of the Scottish Irvingites with whom John Nelson Darby (Plymouth Brethren) spent much time during their outbreaks of agalliasis (“manifestations of the Holy Spirit,” which, among the Irvingites at that time and place, included practices such as automatic writing, levitation, and communication with the dead¹⁶) and whose practice and theology (including the foundations of Dispensationalism) influenced him greatly. Passing from Darby to James H. Brooks and Cyrus I. Scofield in America, his teaching has continued to see development over the years and is still disseminated by Dallas Theological Seminary, Moody Bible Institute, Bob Jones University and others.

These experiential practices began finding their way to America at about the same time that a charlatan known as Charles Finney exploited the use of these “New Methods,” as they were called, during America's “Second Great Awakening,” fueling the fever of “revivalism” and captivating Christians with the allure of the “Anxious Bench” as a means of saving souls¹⁷. Widespread use of such practices strengthened the Brethren movements and touched off the Holiness Movements within Methodism (which later developed into [and at Azusa Street, Los Angeles in 1906, was confirmed as] full-blown Pentecostalism). By the mid- to late-1800's, such radical practices defined “American Worship” – and it was precisely these forms that Walther notoriously condemned. Even the Old Norwegian Synod, in the 1916 edition of its Lutheran Hymnary, Junior stated its warning against Sectarian “American Worship” forms... By engaging in such forms, the Old Norwegian Synod insisted, Lutherans will wind up singing their way out of their own Confession. A sound application of lex orandi, lex credendi.

With widespread criticism against these experiential “American Worship” forms, and, let’s face it, their rather shallow substance, infantile antics, and transparently manipulative purposes, such practices fell out of fashion by the early 1900's (as “contemporary” forms have a habit of doing anyway). Nevertheless, Pentecostals continued to cling to them, and continued to develop them alongside their theology. Accordingly, such worship forms have come to mean much of the following:

• the actions of the worshiper are themselves Means of Grace, or means through which the Holy Spirit supposedly comes to, and works in, the worshiper;
• the Holy Spirit's work in and through the worshiper’s actions is generally regarded as a function of the zeal with which the worshiper engages in them;
• the purpose of these acts is human centered, “to draw near to God in the act of worship,” that He would reciprocate by drawing near to the worshiper and experientially confirm for the worshiper that the Holy Spirit is with him, and that he is therefore accepted and loved by God;
• these acts of “drawing near to God” are really acts of man's yearning, tarrying, and striving, of wrestling with God through worship and prayer with the expectation that He give the blessing of spiritual experience in return;
• the assurance of one's salvation is measured by the magnitude of the blessing which proceeds from successfully wrestling with God – in the experience of God Himself through worship;
• such experience of the Holy Spirit's presence in worship or prayer, or “the Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” is public confirmation of an individual's “spiritual anointing,” of his salvation and approval before God, and serves as divine qualification and appointment for ministerial authority in the congregation (creating levels of Christians in the congregation based on relative “spirituality”);
• apart from such visible experiences, the individual is naturally prompted to introspection regarding why God does not bless him with His presence (with the usual explanations being sin or doubt, or not really being saved, or even demonic possession), and is looked upon with suspicion by fellow worshipers as one who is not visibly accepted and blessed by God – both factors leading individual worshipers who lack spiritual experiences to guilt and dismay;
• as a result, many of those who have habituated themselves to the “Pentecostal Experience,” also have a keenly developed ability to whip themselves into a frothy lather (to avoid introspection and the suspicion of others, and to vaunt their spirituality in the eyes of others); if they cannot, or do not, or are unable to reach a pinnacle of spiritual euphoria according to their own expectations, or those of their peers, they just blame it on the band for “not doing it right;”
• worship accompaniment must therefore serve the need of the worshipers to have particular spiritual experiences, by manufacturing those experiences for them;
• and these experiences are referred to as “the working of the Holy Spirit,” even though they are little more than the cooperative effort of human worshipers seeking hard after emotional/psychological “spiritual experiences,” and of human entertainers, mounted on stages in classic entertainment-oriented venues, who are skilled at providing those experiences for their audiences;
• thus, the “Pentecostal Experience,” and all of its derivatives (including contemporary “Sectarian Worship”), are the epitome of anthropocentric worship practice, which, as stated above, remove Christ and His service to man from the center of the Divine Service, and instead place man, his interests and his entertainment needs at the center... and blaspheme God by crediting the results of man’s work, outside of and apart from the direct use of the Means of Grace, to the Holy Spirit..

post-Modern Experientialism, and its experiential language forms, thriving in WELS
(from A Sermon for Sunday of Holy Week, or 'Palm Sunday': “Stand Ye in the Ways, and Find Rest for Your Souls” — Dr. Paul E. Kretzmann)
There is much value in the words of those Christians who've preceded us, particularly these days, as those words come down to us from a time when post-Modernism was unknown, from a time when language still carried objective meaning. In such words, we find the full force of objective conviction and confident passion, words that are chosen for their direct and unequivocal clarity – as well they ought to be, given that the receptor of language is the human mind. This is in contrast to words chosen by contemporary Christian writers and speakers, who are apparently under the illusion that words are not received principally by the mind, but by the entire human body. Words, even the words of Scripture, result not principally in thought from which meaning is derived, but primarily in a human experience from which meaning is derived. One prominent contemporary Lutheran has even stated as much, in writing, regarding the public reading of Scripture:

“We expect that the primary way in which most WELS people experience most of the Bible, most of the time, is by hearing it read in the context of the public worship service.”¹⁸

The speech patterns of post-Modernism are unmistakable in references such as this. The message of the Bible is to be primarily experienced not contemplated; it is more important that the masses have a feeling for what the Bible says, and have a positive experience in relation to that feeling, rather than understand the Scriptures as precisely as possible, especially if the process of understanding is a negative experience of mental struggle.

In the words of Christians who've preceded us, we also find the comfort of discovering that they faced the same issues we face today. Christians have always been concerned about the health of the Church, and, certainly, this is not necessarily a bad thing; but in connection with this concern, they have also been known to take great pride in counting their numbers as a show of growth, as a show of power and influence over others, and as a show of what they've accomplished for Christ...

18: Wendland, P. (2011, December). Evaluating Translations. Forward in Christ 98(12). pg. 29

NOTE: President Wendland is here naming and defending criteria for the choice of a new translation for Synod. This particular criterion plainly trumps the claim that Synod's choice of standard translation is only meant to be the translation used by NPH in its publications, that it does not represent the Synod's recommendation or requirement for use in the local congregation. On the contrary, by establishing this as a relevant and primary criterion, President Wendland directly states “it is expected” that Synod's choice of standard translation will also be the standard translation used in every congregation, will be the translation generally read in public during the Divine Service. It is “expected,” and is therefore a primary criterion in the selection of a standard translation.

Some may be tempted to dismiss President Wendland's emphasis of the term “expectation” in connection with the translation used in WELS parishes, yet, even this month, this point was again emphasized Rev. John Braun, who writes:


“Which Bible should you choose? ...We may prefer to use the translation we have used most often, but which Bible will be the best choice for the next generation? ...My pastor had a good answer to that question. He suggested that we purchase the Bible our children have used in their instruction classes [presumably, he means 'catechism classes' here, but that is a big word that no one uses anymore -DL]. That makes good sense. Passages that were memorized came from that version. Most of today's confirmands have grown familiar with the NIV 1984 in the same way I became comfortable with the King James Version. God willing, they will continue to read their confirmation Bibles and treasure them for the truths of God's Word.”

Braun, J. (2013, March). Translation 103: Which Bible?. Forward in Christ 100(3). pg. 29.

Hence, it is known, indeed, it is “expected,” that the version of the Bible used in catechism materials and other publications distributed by NPH will be the version from which WELS children, and members of all WELS congregations, will be indoctrinated; it will be the version they memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another for the rest of their lives. If Synod in Convention chooses the NIV 2011 this Summer as the “translation used in WELS publications,” then “IT WILL BE EXPECTED” that (a) an egalitarian version of the Bible, that is (b) rendered at the sixth-grade reading level, will be that which our children will (c) “memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another” for the rest of their lives. For the rest of their lives, they will be “memorizing, contemplating and repeating to one another” a translation of the Bible rendered in terms that are (a) twisted to comply with the cultural standards of militant feminism that has been in a state of open war against the Church and Christian teaching from the start, in (b) terms no more sophisticated than a sixth grader.

This is the form of indoctrination that awaits our children, should the NIV 2011 be chosen this Summer by Synod in Convention, and it will impact them long into adulthood. Their thinking in matters of religion, as they will have been taught from childhood, will not equip them for their lives as adults, it will only equip them with the thinking capacity of twelve-year-old child. At the same time, they will receive instruction in the ideas of the world from their schools, colleges and workplaces, and from the acquaintances and friends they meet through their lives, in terms suitable for adults. Moreover, the word patterns they repeat to one another from childhood will prepare them to receive with gladness the false teaching of the feminists. The juvenile thinking patterns taught them by their NIV Bibles will render them impotent against not only worldliness, but from direct attacks of the World. We see it now, among those adults who've been taught to think about their faith in the simplistic terms of the NIV 1984. Indeed, I am convinced that blame for the appalling state of American Christianity today can be attributed, at least in part, to the popularity of the NIV 1984 over the past generation. It's users are notoriously unprepared for anything but an “experiential” religious life, and decry anything that is not a “positive experience” as false, or of the devil. They are helpless, and mostly worthless as defenders of the Truth. What else is to be expected? Clumsily wielding a dull Sword, they're not dependable partners in battle. I've witnessed the shamefulness of their easily-avoided defeat many times. They look like fools, and make all other Christians look like fools right along with them, for the sole reason that they transparently think and reason like fools, they articulate their thoughts with the shallow predictability of children. To prepare children for adulthood, they must be prepared with thoughts and words that will actually serve them in adulthood, as adults. They must be prepared for adulthood by equipping them with words and thought patterns with respect to their religion that are suitable for adults. This is accomplished by having them “memorize, contemplate and repeat to one another” the Scriptures according to the standards of adult literacy -- adult speech and thought patterns, not those of a sixth grader. The difference between childishness and adulthood that is suggested by St. Paul in this regard is stark:


When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. (1 Cor. 13:11)

Likewise, the Proverbs tell us:


Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. (Pr. 22:15)

The Bible says in these verses, and in others, that childish ways and thinking are habits and behaviours which the adult IS EXPECTED to put behind him, not retain throughout his life, and which he must be trained to put behind him from childhood. Training Christians to think and speak like twelve-year-olds for the rest of their lives is no way to prepare them for the rigours of Christian adulthood. The NIV, whether the 1984 or the 2011 edition, DOES NOT ADEQUATELY PREPARE CHILDREN FOR CHRISTIAN ADULTHOOD.

So let's have no more talk of dismissing the importance of Synod's choice “translation used in WELS publications,” as if it weren't intended to have, indeed, if it weren't “THE EXPECTATION” that it have, wider and deeper impact than merely the “translation used in WELS publications.” It is clearly “expected” to be far more than just this. And it undoubtedly will be.

Surrender, Retreat or Die! The Prison of Pedologia that awaits post-Modern Experientialists
(from Impressions from My Visit with ELDoNA at their 2013 Colloquium and Synod – PART V.5 (FINAL))
There were two problems. FIRST, most young adults entering college were totally unequipped to think about their faith in complex or abstract terms – in the same types of terms in which they were absorbing ideas from their college professors, textbooks and other coursework. This was a language problem – and it included students who were raised in conservative Christian homes, who studied their Bibles on a regular basis. They certainly had the raw ability to think about their faith in such terms – they just had no training or practice. But not everyone was so ill-equipped. There was one major difference between those of us who were practiced at thinking about our faith in complex or abstract terms, and those who were not: for the most part, we had been reared on Bibles having a faithfully complex grammar and vocabulary.

---------------
I was a little boy when my father started teaching me how to shoot. He refused to put a “child's gun” in my hands: “A gun is a man's tool. It is not a cute child's toy, but a tool that requires the utmost responsibility, a man's responsibility, to use safely and effectively.” He put a man's shotgun in my hands, never allowing me to think of a gun as anything other than something for adults. It was heavy, at first. I could hardly hold it up, and when I fired it I entirely missed, and my shoulder hurt. But over time, with practice and maturity, I grew into it. By the time I had entered adulthood, I was proficient in its use, ready to independently take on the adult responsibilities that go along with the use of a tool meant for a grown man. It was never a toy in my mind, it was always very serious business.

The same was true of my Bible. When I became a proficient reader, I was given an adult's Bible – the NASB. It was too big for me. Too heavy. I didn't know how to use it right. But with practice and maturity, I grew into it, and by the time I had entered adulthood I was proficient in its use. I was able to reason alongside the author as he developed his point, and, understanding a given teaching from the standpoint of the various nuances that went into its development (many of which are grammatical), I was able to apply it, or aspects of it, to challenges that faced me, and to use the form of reasoning taught me by the inspired authors to engage in more complex patterns of thought on my own. My parents, in choosing to put an adult Bible in my hands, preserved me from a lifetime of Christian pedologia. The majority of Christians I met while at college (and since) have not been spared this fate.

---------------
That was the case with most of us who were practiced at thinking about our faith in complex or abstract terms. Most used the NASB or the NKJV, some used the RSV, and only a couple still using the KJV. But many of us knew that when someone showed up to Bible study with an NIV or with a Living Bible, they were much more likely to struggle with Biblical concepts, and were going to have greater difficulty using their Bibles to respond to the complex challenges hurled at them by the secular World that surrounded us. This was because, reading the NIV or the Living Bible, they never had the opportunity to struggle through the text to understand the nuanced teachings of Scripture – they had no practice at it; they had never learned to follow the complex reasoning of the inspired authors, and to think alongside them. All that the text offered was simplistic prose, stripped of nuance, reduced for readers of the sixth grade level. Let me tell you, there isn't a single translation of Hegel, Marx, Darwin, Kant, Hume, Descartes or any of the other great thinkers of World history, that has been reduced for a sixth grade reader! And when a college student sets his NIV or Living Bible next to one of these authors, or even next to one of his recently published textbooks – which also aren't rendered for sixth graders! – he sees that his Bible is just what his classmates and professors tell him it is: a book of children's stories invented to scare people into submission. Bibles like the NIV or the Living Bible certainly aren't books for adults – not like the books they are reading in college, which, instead of the Bible (unfortunately), are the books that are teaching them to think and reason as adults for the first time.

And so this is the problem with equipping children with children's Bibles, instead of adult Bibles. I know. I witnessed it. I was there. For over ten years. When the enemy is swinging a Claymore over your head, you better have something more substantial than a butter knife to parry it with! If you don't, you are left with two alternatives: (a) surrender, or (b) turn tail and run. And the NIV, along with the Living Bible, has – in the heat of battle when it really counts – shown itself to be little more than a butter knife. I was never so thankful for having been trained in my faith, from childhood, using an adult Bible, than when I was in college and had to use it to combat complex false ideas and defend the simple truth. I even tried using the NIV for awhile in college, but threw it away fearing that my mind would get flabby from using it. Many fellow students switched to adult-grade Bibles, too – mostly on their own, after studying their Bibles, but we did have a couple of Bible study methods that I think provided some indirect encouragement toward that decision, as well.


Rev. Dr. Martin Luther on the Meaning of Christian Experience
To be fair, Dr. Martin Luther DID preach about the impact of “Christian Experience”, but hardly devoid of the Word, at the expense of the Word, or as a necessary addition to it. In his Epistle sermon for the Eighth Sunday after Trinity on Romans 8:12-17, he preaches of the experience of comfort from the objective message of the Gospel (the mere words on a page denigrated by the lay pastor Dr. Scott Gostchock [WELS], above), teaching that the experience of this comfort reinforces what the Word already teaches and the knowledge that we can rely on divine assistance when we call on Him in faith:

“The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:16)

That we are children of God and may confidently regard ourselves as such, we do not learn from ourselves nor from the Law. We learn it from the witness of the Spirit, who, in spite of the Law and of our unworthiness, testifies to it in our weakness and assures us of it. This witness is the experience within ourselves of the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Word, and the knowledge that our experience accords with the Word and the preaching of the Gospel. For thou art surely aware whether or no, when thou art in fear and distress, thou dost obtain comfort from the Gospel, and art able to overcome thy doubts and terror; to so overcome that thy heart is assured of God’s graciousness, and thou no longer fleest from him, but canst cheerfully call upon him in faith, expecting help. Where such a faith exists, consciousness of help must follow. So Saint Paul says, Romans 5:4-5: “Steadfastness worketh approvedness [patience worketh experience]; and approvedness, hope [and experience, hope]: and hope putteth not to shame.”

WELS has quite evidently become a voice-box for full-throated post-Modernism. There is no discernible level of protest, much less concern, over the adoption of these ideologies and the governing authority they have attained. WELS schools seem to be fully vested in the philosophies of this world, and the leaders fully captive to them. Most of the parishes seem to uncritically accept whatever is handed down to them. True, one hears squeaks and gurgles of protest from time to time, but I've come to believe that these are just the noises made as the chest of a dying body heaves its final gasps of air. But I have a feeling this one isn't going to go peacefully, and anticipate violent spasms as the end draws even nearer.

Endnotes:

1. Piper, J. (2003). Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian hedonist (2003 ed.). Sisters, Or: Multnomah Publishers. pg. 19.
2. Ibid. pp. 9, 24-25.
3. Ibid. pg. 55. (emphasis mine)
4. Ibid. pg. 73. (emphasis mine)
5. Ibid. pg. 81.
6. Ibid. pg. 94.
7. Ibid. pg. 100.
8. Ibid. pg. 98.
9. Ibid. pg. 90.
10. Ibid. pg. 92.
11. Ibid. pg. 97. (emphasis mine)
12. Ibid. pg. 82.
13. Why does the name “SON Band” remind me of the band SONSEED (top video)... ?
14. Many of the Sunday-morning entertainment groups, especially if they have been around for awhile, know, or know of, each other, jam/worship together, exchange bandmates and gigs, practice on each other justifying their own existence, etc... In fact, there was a minor flap a few years ago involving WELS contemporary worship entertainers practicing with/gigging with/standing in for musicians from non-WELS bands -- the issue with practicing together being that the Evangelicals usually combine practice with some sort of group prayer and study of the Scriptures...
15. Gerstner, J. (2000). Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, 2^nd Edition. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications. pp. 17-59.
16. Please see following works:
    MacPherson, D. (1980). The Incredible Cover-up: Exposing the Origins of Rapture Theories. Medford, OR: Omega Publishing.
    MacPherson, D. (2000). The Rapture Plot, 2^nd Edition. Simpsonville, SC: Millenium III Publishers.
17. For more information on the errors of Charles Finney, see the following article written by Michael Horton almost two decades ago:
    Horton, M. (1995). The Legacy of Charles Finney. Modern Reformation, 4(1), 5-9.

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.

 

Change or Die: The Sequel

Dear Readers,

You may have seen that there is another Change or Die conference taking place in the Milwaukee area this year. Here is the link.

If you have any questions or concerns about this conference, we urge you not to make your comments to us, but rather to make your comments or concerns known directly to the participants in this conference or to your pastor or district supervisor.

Sincerely,
The IL Editors

Thanks to Issues, Etc.

We're grateful to Issues, Etc. for choosing our blog again last week as one of their picks for Blog of the Week (March 18). The line from Melanchthon that Pr. Todd Wilken especially highlighted from the post:

"There is more need for reverence in churches than in the theater. The action and the speaking of those who teach is more dignified and serious in the divinely called meeting at which Christ and the angels are present than on the stage."

We would also like to commend to our readers the other pick for Blog of the Week last week, entitled Timely Words on Being Timely (Part 1), in which the author addresses the recurring deception that the church must "change or die."

Change or Die - Issues, Etc. Comments

We have very little to report so far on the Change or Die conference that took place on Thursday. We were told earlier in the week that Pastor Skorzewski had decided not to participate, for which we were glad. We are working under the assumption that Pastor Jeske did participate, as advertised, although we would be happy to learn otherwise.

Our post of two weeks ago was picked up by Issues, Etc. and was chosen as one of their two picks for Blog of the Week. They found the "Change or Die" concept to be as offensive and unbiblical as we did.

Just yesterday, Issues, Etc. commented again on the Change or Die conference in response to an e-mail they received from a pastor who attended it. What follows is a transcript of their commentary. (Listener E-mail and Issues, Etc. Comment Line, 30:30-34:35)

Jeff Schwarz: Here’s an e-mail we just received in the studio here,

I’m a former ELCA pastor now called to an independent Lutheran congregation in southern Minnesota. And I attended the Change or Die conference Yesterday, March 10th. This was supposed to be a pan-Lutheran event, however, one presenter pulled out due to pressure from the WELS leadership.

Sadly the event lived up to Pr. Wilken’s suspicions as he mentioned in blog of the week recently. Two presenters from the ELCA promoted their liberation and social gospel theology, nothing new here so I don’t know how this was seen as new and relevant.

What surprised me were the two LCMS presenters who proudly demonstrated how they worked outside of the orthodox understanding of the Lutheran Confessions. When I challenged one of these presenters during a small group discussion concerning his definition of “church,” which was not about the Word of God properly preached and the Sacraments properly administered from his point of view, he removed himself from the conversation.

The other LCMS presenter openly advocated the removal of confirmation instruction (I’ve heard this in the ELCA several times in the past) and insisted that the seekers who come to the second preaching point of his ministry were not ready to attend worship at the primary worship site which is a classic Midwestern church building and liturgy. He did not say why, and in keeping with the 8th Commandment, I will not speculate. The best part of this free conference was the fine dinner sponsored by two external organizations who sponsored the event. I guess you get what you pay for. I appreciate your work, and yes, Todd, you were right, sometimes others can do a great job in demonstrating what not to do,

writes Kerry in Minnesota.

Todd Wilken: Well, Kerry, thank you very much, and look, change is change. And when the attitude is “we must change or die, that the Church’s life, the Church’s ongoing life and existence depends not upon the living Christ present in his Word and his Sacraments, but upon our ability to change,” usually change with the times, which is just another way of saying, “Let’s let the culture call the shots.” Right? “Let’s just let the culture tell us what is relevant, what we should be talking about. The audience is sovereign,” all this kind of George Barna nonsense.

When change is the essence of the Church’s existence, then you have no stopping point. When you believe that the Church can only continue to exist if it continues to change, you have absolutely no boundary to limit what you will change. So, old definition of the Church? Sure it’s in the Lutheran Confessions, and sure we call ourselves “Lutheran.” I mean, what does that mean? We drink beer and wear Lederhosen and we talk to each other in German occasionally. That’s why we’re Lutheran, come on! The Confessions, what are you talking about? Definition of the Church? That needs to change, too.

And what dictates the change? The Word of God? No. Any faithful confession, be it Lutheran or otherwise? No. What dictates the change? Well, it’s going to be one of two things, isn’t it? It’s going to be our own imagination or opinion, or it’s going to be someone else’s imagination or opinion, neither of which are, well, solid ground upon which to build the Church.

And remember what I said when I talked about this in blog of the week. Jesus says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” – Peter’s confession! – “and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” But if you build – well, you can call it a “church,” I don’t know what it is, — when you build upon change, when you build upon your own imagination or opinion, then that promise does not prevail.

What I’d like to see is a conference called “Change AND die.”