Shattered Pulpit – Posts the author’s first-hand accounts of being sexually abused by a WELS pastor.

Polluted WELS – Publishes often about the severe problems in WELS.

Intrepid Lutherans – Publishes lengthy and thoughtful posts about the state of the Wisconsin Eveangelical Lutheran Synod.

Ichabod, The Glory Has Departed – Provides occasional typos so the apostates can avoid dealing with justification by faith; clergy plagiarism, rape, molestation, and porn file swapping; false doctrine; synodical theft of property; abuse of pastors, misuse of offering funds; rich and adulterous synod heroes.

WELS Discussions Facebook Page – Features regular discussions about WELS topics, with a wide variety of contributors, from the thoughtful to the robotic.

This is a meme.

Confessional Lutheran Memes Facebook Page – Specializes in memes that provoke discussion about doctrinal topics and worship.

Luther is being re-buried by the “conservative” Lutherans.

Order Religious Art here.

Norma Boeckler’s fourth art book has just been published through Amazon – Religious Art.

This her Facebook page for art – Norma Boeckler’s Art.

Norma Boeckler’s website is a convenient place to order her prints and original art.

I admit to getting Norma started on the computer. When I took Photoshop at Glendale Community College, a professional artist was taking the class. His artistic skill was ideal for the Photoshop program, and his classroom examples made us gape in awe.

Norma Boeckler became a member of our congregation, and we saw how artistic she was. I encouraged her to learn Dreamweaver and Photoshop, so she took tutorials and began showing what a Christian artist could do.

Everyone enjoys Norma’s daily offerings on Facebook. The number of works is staggering, so now people have a chance to own many of them in a printed book or as a Kindle ebook.

The books is divided into two main sections. The first part illustrates Biblical verses, which are included for each artwork. I have enjoyed seeing them as they developed. Many have been featured on this blog or in various books I put together.

The Last Supper, p. 30.

Part 2 of the book features Norma Boeckler’s hymn illustrations. Bethany Lutheran Church may be  alone in featuring The Lutheran Hymnal and illustrating the great hymns with art.

Norma selects the well known and the less famous hymns. I teach a graduate class in web tools for educators. I argue that the content plus illustration makes the idea lasting in our minds. This book proves the value.

Norma Boeckler has so many contributions that I can only indicate a few. Readers know how much she continues to do on a daily basis.

This is the idea – she loves art, and everyone appreciates her unusual gifts and her expressions of Christian faith.

I remember an Augustana College professor saying the Trinity was not in the Bible. I also found that Knappe, the godfather of Objective Justification, denied the Biblical basis of the Trinity as well. 


I decided to put together the Scriptural verses, and Norma Boeckler agreed to illustrate it. Available as a Kindle e-book as well.


Quoting me:


These passages were gathered by an assistant – always there when I need him most – to show that the Holy Spirit does reveal the Triune God throughout the Bible, from Genesis 1 onward. The parameters chosen were the naming of all Three Persons within two verses. In many cases, the Father Son relationship is revealed by the Spirit in the text of the Word, but the work is more powerful when all three Persons are named or described.

To order The Holy Trinity, click here.

Upcoming projects:

Metamorphosis – A defense of Christianity in the form of a murder mystery novel.

Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant – Amazon edition.

Just a Vacation. Lutheran leaders oppose justification by faith, so I am going to offer some quotations by Luther on their least favorite topic. Yes, the title will reflect Biblical doctrine rather than the LCMS/WELS deluxe winter vacations (for District Presidents) in the Caribbean.

Biblical work on the efficacy of the Word.

Biblical work on Jesus throughout Scriptures.

Decisions.

Maria Morgan has published a great book for children – Louie’s Big Day.

Maria Morgan’s smile may look familiar, because she is the daughter of Norma Boeckler, our artist-in-residence, who also publishes on Amazon.

I have always enjoyed children’s literature – and that did not stop when I was all growed up. Those who enjoy reading have favorites they read again and again. Not surprisingly, famous authors often mention their favorite authors, such as Nesbit and Twain. The Wind in the Willows is the Moby Dick of children’s literature, so full of insight, drama, and humor that it should be read annually.

Children’s books are easier to read than to write. Anyone who accomplishes this task must be creative and yet convey ideas and images in simple, plain terms.

Maria Morgan’s Louie-the-Lawnmower page.

I downloaded Louie’s Big Day as a Kindle e-book. That may be a handy format for the techno-grandparent, especially one who travels. Reading books to children is the best way to give them a good start in education. The experience bonds parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren.

My mother read books to us children, and I still remember choking back tears when Lassie was struggling to come home. In grade school our teachers often read to us, although we could read the same books. The practice kept us all still and we thought about the story as we heard the words.

Reading imaginative books and biographies will fuel a child’s interest, provide a large vocabulary, and establish a base for learning that will never be satisfied. Did our grade school teachers realize that three of us from the same class would earn graduate degrees at Yale, in music and theology? If not, they certainly helped us get started.

I read books and stories to our children, leading to many inside jokes that still make a 40 year old son laugh. “It rained bricks and mortar for two weeks” – Mark Twain. “Attercop” – a terrible insult to spiders in Tolkien’s The Hobbit. And the great battle cry – “A mole! A mole!” – The Wind in the Willows.

Louie the Lawnmower’s big day concerns his first day home as a lawnmower. The lawnmower is personified, which is great fun for children. I can picture a child looking at the book and getting involved from the start, with such beautiful and vivid illustrations by Sherrie Molitor.

Louie is nervous about his first day mowing the lawn. Would he like it? Would he be allergic?

This takes the reader to a flashback, his days at the hardware store, with a drawing of all his friends waving goodbye to him.

Naturally, Louie is nostalgic about all the pranks they played at night. What follows next is a lot of fun, especially since children love messes. Everything is cleaned up before opening time, so the secret is safe.

So Louie’s first day begins with sadness about the good old days, but he gets into the job and enjoys it, doing it well. A number of pages describe his work and the satisfaction he feels. But he misses his friends.

I thought this was a good story with great illustrations at this point, great for discussions with a child. “Can you imagine all that grass being cut?”

But the story is not done. The trunk pops open, and there are his friends in the trunk, ready to create new memories.

The book ends with questions to use at home and in a Christian day school.

Parents and grandparents will love this book, and teachers will enjoy using it in school. I hope many more books like this will come out in a series.

Order Louie’s Big Day here.

Not Madam Mueller, but WELS Pastor Adam Mueller, where children are encouraged to put women’s makeup on the pastor and church council members.

From WELS Pastor Steve Spencer:

Notice the name change in WELS, from Adult Education to Adult Discipleship. These four blokes are only part of the Mark Jeske Mob.

According to Slick Brenner, Wayne Mueller was pushed out of teaching at the Sausage Factory because of his Reformed doctrine. (Ditto Joel Gerlach) So WELS gave Wayne a big raise and put him in charge of Perish Services (aka proven methods of killing Lutheran doctrine and worship). When Wayne was promoted again to First VP (hefty salary), he was replaced by Bruce Becker (drive-by DMin), who now works openly with Mark Jeske.

When Wayne Mueller took over Perish Services, he immediately changed two job titles: Youth Education became Youth Discipleship. Adult Education became Adult Discipleship. The word disciple is pivotal for the Church Shrinkage Movement, which hectors people to “make disciples who make disciples” instead of preaching the Gospel of justification by faith and administering the Sacraments. Church Shrinkage has always assumed the cell group model of Pietism, and WELS has trampled over the other sects in rushing into Fuller’s world and chasing the mirages with a vengeance.

ELCA went from women’s ordination to gay ordination to women running all the schools. Here is the first woman to head a dying seminary. WELS is eager to follow ELCA.

Adult Education
I decided to study adult education methods for a master’s degree. What really matters is the content, and that has been heavily skewed to the left, ever since FDR’s presidency. The Church Shrinkers work exactly like the Leftists in politics. They have the same methods and want to reverse everything with the same mindless passion.

I remember seeing the LCMS Michigan District’s committee name – Evangelism and Church Growth. Aha, we do not want people to think of Evangelism being The Gospel, but Evangelism meaning the doctrinal content of Fuller Seminary pea-brains and hot-air merchants. The Fuller disciples do make Fuller disciples. The Lutherans (even ELCA) have spent millions at Fuller Seminary, Willow Creek, and Trinity Divinity School.

Therefore, esteemed alumni of Fuller, WC, and Trinity have the same mocking attitude toward Lutheran doctrine and worship that their mentors exude. James Huebner (Wayne Muller.2) is another Fuller devotee who has mocked the efficacy of the Word in his sad, confused publications, but he is First VP anyway. And he often leads people down the dark pathways he has trod – Adult Discipleship.

Why are so many conferences held throughout WELS? There is a constant effort to drum the ideology of Mark Jeske, Paul Kelm, and Larry Olson into every remaining noggin in the sect. They should hurry, because WELS will not last much longer under the current leadership.

WELS is an interesting study because of its small size and lust for brain-dead conformity. Missouri pastors can always point to their alternative groups and lobbies, but they are traveling down the same well-greased road.

Missouri will end up like the Episcopal Church, lots of money in the vault, very few members in church.

“We love the diversity that agrees with our iron-fisted rule.” Episcopal and Lutheran motto.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Is alcohol becoming more of an issue at our synod colleges?

Underage Drinking at our Synod Schools

Is drinking and alcohol becoming more of an issue at our Synod Schools? Are there groups like “COS” at Martin Luther College that facilitate the use of alcohol? How much of a problem is it, if any? What about at the high school level? Does it happen in our synod high schools also? What can be done to reduce the occurrences? The 2014 data has not been released yet.

---

---

Martin Luther College
 

Liquor Law Violations on Campus in Student Housing Facilities –

2009 – 22 drinking violations

2010 – 07 drinking violations

2011 – 12 drinking violations

2012 – 21 drinking violations

2013 – 26 drinking violations

Liquor Law Violations On campus –

2009 – 25 drinking violations

2010 – 14 drinking violations

2011 – 22 drinking violations

2012 – 27 drinking violations

2013 – 28 drinking violations

Data Taken from the 2011 Annual Security Report

Data Taken from 2013 Annual Security Report

College Sophomore 22 days ago
Party Scene: There is like no partying that’s worth going to. COS or DEX stink and are just people drinking off campus. Source.

College Freshman Dec 31 2014
Greek Life: It does not affect our campus at all. People throw wild parties, yes, but it is low-key and not in the way of us non-greeks. Source.

College Freshman May 6 2014
Drug Safety: Since we are located in a small town, there isn’t much to do, so people resort to drugs and alcohol, but I rarely hear of drugs, just alcohol. Drugs and alcohol are not permitted on campus, so if you are caught, you must pay a fine.Source.

---

---

Wisconsin Lutheran College

Liquor Law Violations on Campus in Student Housing Facilities –

2009 – 18 drinking violations

2010 – 45 drinking violations

2011 – 38 drinking violations

2012 – 25 drinking violations

2013 – 41 drinking violations

Liquor Law Violations On campus –

2009 – 18 drinking violations

2010 – 45 drinking violations

2011 – 38 drinking violations

2012 – 25 drinking violations

2013 – 41 drinking violations

Forcible Sex Offense in Resident Hall – 
2012 – 2 Forcible Sexual Offenses
2013 – 2 Forcible Sexual Offenses

Data Taken from Annual Security Report Statistics

College Junior Jul 20 2012
Administration: Dry Campus – WLC is a dry campus and that means that even if you are legal you still cannot bring alcohol onto the campus. It doesn’t mean that you can’t drink off campus but you are not allowed to come back drunk and if you get caught then you will either be suspended or expelled. However they are not the best at following through on their punishments or the meetings that they want to have to discuss the situation with the students envolved. Source

College Sophomore Jul 24 2012
Administration: Dry Campus – Drinking on campus is prohibited, but if you are of age, they have no problem with you drinking off of campus. If you are underage and you come onto campus drunk, you are considered an open container of alcohol and, if caught, you can get into some pretty serious trouble. They are a little more strict on this policy then other private/religious schools, but it doesn’t seem to bother most of the people I have talked to. Source.

Being drunk at college leads to drinking on the job – no problem in WELS.

Doug Lindee Intrepid Lutherans – what do you do with a certified letter kicking you out of your congregation?

FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 2015

What do you do with a Certified Letter? Here is one idea…

More Sharing ServicesShare|Share on facebookShare on myspaceShare on googleShare on twitter

Certified Letter to Faith Church

The following letter was sent, Certified Mail, in response to the receipt of a Certified Letter from a Lutheran Congregation. While such letters are an official way for a congregation to terminate relationships with individuals and families they are releasing from membership, and an entirely appropriate form of rebuke when an estranged member cuts himself off from the congregation and refuses to respond to their overtures of evangelical concern, they are nothing but a callous expedient for the congregation which makes no attempt whatsoever to reach out to its members (who up to that point were supposedly considered their brothers/sisters in Christ) or to otherwise contact the intended recipient ahead of time to determine with certainty what their situation is; thus, such Certified Letters belie the congregation’s evangelical confession. That is what happened to the family, below. So perturbed were they with this callous expedient, that they returned the Certified Letter, unopened, along with a personally handwritten letter of their own that extended nine full pages of legal-sized paper. They had much to say, which they found important enough to deliver to their former congregation via Certified Mail. It is worth reading. As many readers may find it difficult to read human handwriting, rather than posting images of the handwritten letter, it has been transcribed, below (edited, of course, for public consumption).

---

Lxxxxx
1234 Anystreet Road
Nowhere, WI 54000

Faith Church
5678 Anyotherstreet Road
Next to Nowhere, WI 54000

To Whom It May Concern:

We received a piece of certified mail from you, postmarked March 11, 2015. We are returning it to you, unopened. We have very little interest in hearing what you may have to say in such a letter, that you could not preface with a demonstration of evangelical concern, or even basic courtesy, by making a simple phone call or sending an email. But, to be honest, it would have been difficult for us to imagine that you would have done otherwise.

At one point in time we were considered by the members of Faith Church to be Christian brothers. At least, we are pretty sure that we were. Feeling welcomed when we first joined, we were immediately drawn by them into the ministry of the congregation and put to work, and labouring closely with them, had established what we had considered to be close and meaningful relationships. This all came to an end after nearly seven years, when, in mid-2007, without explanation, we were shunned by the congregation. It was difficult to discern precisely, at first, as Mr. Lxxxxx was heavily involved with Church leadership, and was in constant communication with many of those who are now counted as our former friends. But by the end of 2007, his final year in any leadership capacity at Faith Church, it had become clear that the only communication being initiated by those “friends” was strictly related to church business. Beginning in 2008, the reality was unmistakable. Not just a few people, but everyone, including the Pastor, remained mysteriously aloof. He waited week after week for his friends to initiate with him some form of personal conversation. Weeks turned into months. Months turned into years. Nothing. All the while, the women of the congregation pretended to carry on as normal with Mrs. Lxxxxx, but she saw very clearly what was going on, and refusing to be socially separated by them from her husband, remained by his side. She was quickly disfavored, as well. By the time Pastor Sxxxxxxxx passed away in 2009, those former friendships were regarded by us as completely severed. As the years continued to pass, however, we once again began to enjoy some social involvement in the congregation, as other marginalized members of Faith Church recognized our situation and reached out to us in various ways. We also enjoyed conversation with new members, who had not yet been fully received into the labours of the congregation.

Accordingly, Mr. Lxxxxx’s last face-to-face meeting with the Rev. Wxxxx was unfortunate, but predictable. Having had to travel for work, he was unable to attend the October 2013 Voters’ Meeting, but discovered some weeks afterward – quite by accident – that there was some concern regarding the issue of Bible translations, and that the Board of Elders had been asked by the congregation to look into it. There was no hint that this was intended as any kind of formal investigation. Nevertheless, having himself been rather notoriously engaged in research and writing on the topic, he forwarded to the Rev. Wxxxx a number of articles and resources for the Board to consider. When, at the following Voters’ Meeting in January 2014, Mr. Lxxxxx was surprised to see that the issue of Bible translations was on the agenda, he enquired of the Rev. Wxxxx regarding the nature of the Elders’ report – as he was again unable to to attend due to business travel. He was stunned to learn that the Elders would not only be reporting their findings, but would move to officially adopt the NIV 2011. “Did the Board study any of the documents I forwarded to you, for them to consider?” he asked the Reverend.

“What documents?” was the reply.

Mr. Lxxxxx, realizing that he had been marginalized yet again, then clarified, “The documents and links I sent to you in an email not long ago.”

“Oh,” then after a long pause, “No. We only considered the documentation provided by Synod.”

“But that documentation was biased in favor of a single conclusion!”

“Yes, I know it was biased. It was biased on its face. But I don’t know why it was biased…”

Now incredulous, Mr. Lxxxxx proceeded to make clear, in sharp and conclusive terms, that he would allow neither himself nor his family to knowingly sit under teaching that proceeded from a document descending directly from post-Modern philosophies known to be perverting human language, and, along with it, human thought patterns; a document which is nothing more than the translators’ paraphrasing of the original languages (paraphrasing which is further edited downstream in the publication process by “readability committees”); a document which deliberately twists thousands of words of Scripture in ways that purposely accommodates liberal theology (feminism, in particular); and a document which, rather than clarifying the Scriptures for English readers, ultimately obscures their meaning by intentionally gutting the Bible of significant vocabulary and grammatical forms found in the original languages – that do have English parallels, if translators care to take into consideration not just the limits of “conversational English,” but the full capacity of the English language to carry objective meaning – making it ever more difficult for the English reader to find and rely on “direct positive statements of Scripture,” and thus also statements that are, by definition, clear. Such translation ideologies gravely endanger the Perspicuity of Scripture in the name of making it accessible for the marginally literate English reader, they threaten to drive the laity of the Church ever deeper into a general illiteracy and intellectual incapacity such as was common in medieval times, and they certainly ought not be vaunted in Christ’s Church as the standard English form of Holy Writ in all teaching and publications.

Nevertheless, Faith Church proceeded to officially adopt the NIV 2011 as the congregation’s translation.

This was not the reason we left Faith Church and the WELS, however; it was merely the straw that broke the camels back.

A few months prior, we were warned by the Rev. Wxxxx to “prepare” our sixth grade boy, who had just entered Catechism, for a discussion of the Sixth Commandment. Finding it a bit ridiculous to rush him through “sex-ed” just to prepare him for Catechism class, we refused to go to such lengths, insisting that such matters need to be handled delicately with children his age, that discussion of sexual activity in any direct terms would be entirely out of bounds, and that there is very little basis for understanding the Sixth Commandment anyway, without a thorough positive grounding in biblical courtship and marriage – deviation from which would itself serve as a glaring example of something that is sinful.

Then we read the catechism that would be used by the Reverend to instruct our young boy, which was written by one Rev. David Kuske. In comparison with the catechism resources we afterward recommended he use instead for the Sixth Commandment lesson (Gausewitz or Koehler), Kuske goes into excessively lurid detail of sexual intercourse, including what kind of sex to have, when to have it, and how enjoyable it should be. The Rev. Wxxxx forcefully rejected use of the alternative resources we suggested (which were, in our opinion, better by orders of magnitude, without all of the direct sex-talk and associated imagery), and when we opted to keep our son home rather than attend his lesson, were indirectly criticized by him for our parenting decisions. In retrospect, given all of the sexual scandals in WELS that have been made public over the past year, and the many more that are roiling just under the surface, we wonder now whether Kuske’s catechism might have something to do with it – whether, in our over-sexed day and age, introducing direct sex-talk with sixth-grade boys and girls is a bit premature for these youngsters, and puts images in their minds that they might otherwise be inclined to struggle against, had their pastor not been the one who put them there using Synod materials that carry the approval of the Church. Given this, it is no wonder the current generation of WELS theologians prefers the NIV 2011’s use of the phrases “make love” (Ge. 4:1,17,25; 29:21,23,30; 38:2; Ru. 4:13; 1 Sa. 1:19; 2 Sa. 11:11; 12:24; 1 Ch. 2:21; 7:23; Is. 8:3; etc.) and “have sex” (Ge. 19:5; Jud. 19:22; 1 Co. 6:9) – phrases and imagery thought in previous generations to be far too indelicate to implant in the minds of pious Christians, who were probably also averse to using such terms for fear that they would indirectly reinforce immoral standards cherished by the world and ignite fleshly desires, against which Christians already struggle.

About a month after Mr. Lxxxxx’s final face-to-face conversation with the Rev. Wxxxx, he was called by the Reverend on the telephone. Mr. Lxxxxx made clear that he meant what he had said in January, and that we were looking for another congregation. He told him that we were, at that time, investigating other WELS congregations, along with LCMS congregations. The Reverend assured him that we remained members in good standing, that if we found a suitable WELS congregation he would be glad to transfer us, and if not, then we would be simply released from membership. We never heard from him again. In all of this time, we were contacted by no one from the congregation out of evangelical concern, or even curiosity, over our extended absence, save one person. We received from the congregation what we had come to expect since 2008: near deafening silence.

We quickly found that there were no suitable WELS congregations within reasonable traveling distance. In the end, we found that among those WELS congregations which seemed intent upon demonstrating their Confession through a wholesome liturgical practice, seemed uncorrupted by ambitions of glory, seemed unwilling to give place to worldly entertainment standards in their worship chambers, seemed confident in the Holy Spirit’s work through the Means of Grace to Call, Gather and Enlighten His Elect, and seemed content to allow Him to work in His way, through His Means, in His time, unaugmented by their own innovations, Faith Church was to be most commended in regard to its NIV 2011 deliberations: where Faith Church actually had the courage to at least publicly identify “Bible translation” as an issue, and to go through the motions of publicly addressing that issue (although, with a planned outcome all the while, given that a single source of admittedly biased materials was all that they consulted), all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.

Of all the other options in our area, there was one ELS congregation and two LCMS congregations that were in many ways very suitable. But we decided that we were unwilling to dance around the issue of Universal Justification, merely for the convenience of attending those congregations.

“Universal Justification” is the teaching espoused by name in the WELS, and with one name or another by ELS and LCMS, as the centerpiece of Christian teaching – the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It asserts that all mankind, including every individual, is righteous before God, and forgiven of his sins, whether he has faith or not. The natural, and fully accepted and confessed, consequence of this teaching is that those who die without faith, though they are righteous and forgiven by God, nevertheless spend an eternity barking in hell – not as punishment for their sins (since no one bears sin before God under the teaching of Universal Justification), but merely for their lack of faith. Thus they are willing to accept the teaching that righteous and forgiven saints spend an eternity in hell. The doctrine of Universal Justification, however, is nowhere named, described, or articulated in the Scriptures. It is a purely derived doctrine, without a single word of direct positive attestation in the entirety of Holy Writ.

In all, however, according to the Rev. Dr. Siegbert Becker in his essay Universal Justification, there are a total of three distinct doctrines of Justification taught by WELS. The first is Universal Justification. The second distinct doctrine of Justification, which is merely a corollary of Universal Justification, is “Objective Justification.” It teaches that God, and not man, is entirely responsible for man’s Justification. Such a teaching is not peculiar to WELS, or to Lutherans for that matter; for even the Calvinists do not deny that Justification is objective in this sense. However, WELS, ELS and LCMS seem to assert that Objective Justification also defines “faith” as “man’s work”, and therefore insist that claiming Justification comes by faith is thus to assert a doctrine of synergism. Normally, Universal and Objective Justification are conflated by them, and referred to as “Universal Objective Justification,” but, Becker makes clear, they are, in fact, distinct doctrines, with Objective Justification merely a happy consequence of Universal Justification.

The third distinct doctrine of Justification espoused by the old Synodical Conference Lutherans is so-called “Subjective Justification” – the only doctrine of Justification spoken of and articulated in the Scriptures, and the doctrine identified in the Lutheran Confessions as the main doctrine of Christianity. Except, the Scriptures don’t name it “Subjective Justification”; the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions refer to this doctrine interchangeably as “Justification” and “Justification by Faith Alone.” According to WELS, “Subjective Justification” is entirely superfluous. All of mankind is already righteous and forgiven before God (they say); Justification does NOT come though faith, since that is man’s work, and to suggest that faith is in any way the cause of Justification (even an “instrumental cause”, as it was defined by Leyser and Gerhard) only robs God of the glory He is due for the work He has already accomplished. Subjective Justification (they say), isn’t “Justification” at all, properly speaking – it’s merely “the reception of faith,” and with it merely “receiving the benefit” of the righteous and forgiven standing they, and all men, have had in the eyes of God since the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Prior to faith (they say), all of mankind is already Justified – fully righteous and forgiven before God – but is denied “enjoyment” of this Justification until God gives him faith.

According to the Bible and the Confessions, however, “Justification by Faith Alone” is the only doctrine of Justification that is taught; mankind (including every individual) is NOT already Justified before God, he is already Condemned; the unbeliever is NOT already righteous and forgiven before God, but stands before God in the filth of his own sin, in need of righteousness and forgiveness; this Justification was earned by Christ in His Passion, and is now offered to mankind in the Message of the Gospel, via which the Holy Spirit works to produce faith; and a person is said to be Justified when the promise of Salvation has been appropriated to himself through the faith God gives him, and not before.

Woods was a famous Calvinist, so why are WELS, LCMS, and the ELS bewitched by a Calvinist translating  a Halle Pietist textbook? Answer – because Walther copied Stephan’s Halle Pietism.

Frankly, it was a shock to us to learn that WELS, ELS and (it seems) LCMS all believe, teach and confess a doctrine of Universal Justification. This fact was withheld from us during Bible Information Class (adult catechism). The fact is:

• We reject the doctrine of Universal Justification as without a scintilla of Scriptural or Confessional support;
• We reject as Scripturally unfounded and as entirely fallacious reasoning the assertion that Justification must be Universal in order for it to be objective, or to be accomplished entirely outside of man;
• We, rather, fully embrace and confess the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone;
• We, further, confess and insist that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification taught by the Scriptures in direct positive terms, and that it is therefore the only Scripturally defensible doctrine of Justification that Christians may confess;
• We fully reject the assertion that faith is in any way man’s work (the Scriptures directly forbid this notion), and we therefore reject the assertion that Justification by Faith Alone is a doctrine of synergism;
• We reject the assertion that “Objective Justification” is a doctrine of Scripture which is taught in distinction from Justification by Faith Alone, and find it impermissible to define “Objective Justification” as any kind of justification at all;
• We, rather, confess that the objectivity of Justification is a defining attribute of the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, and insist that Justification by Faith Alone does, indeed, constitute a fully objective Justification – that is, our Justification is accomplished fully outside of us, without any merit or participation of our own in any sense;
• We confess with confidence and rejoicing that faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit;
• We reject as flippant hyperbole the assertion that saving faith, under the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, is reduced to merely “a profound hope that man conjures within himself”;
• We further confess in this regard, that it is fully biblical to speak of faith being active (i.e., receiving, appropriating, trusting, etc.), without it also being considered volitional and thus synergistic;
• We recognize that the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone is the only doctrine of Justification confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, and was the only doctrine of Justification directly named and taught by the orthodox Confessors and Concordists;
• We further recognize that a form of Universal Justification was asserted by a heterodox member of the Wittenberg Faculty, a teacher whose doctrine was roundly condemned by his orthodox peers, and who was dismissed in 1595 for clinging to his false doctrine – for denying that Justification is restricted to believers;
• We therefore reject as unfounded fiction and utterly preposterous all claims that Universal Justification is “implicitly taught in the Lutheran Confessions,” that it was understood, embraced and taught by the Confessors and Concordists without ever being named or articulated by them, and that it must therefore bind the consciences of any Christian today who would lay claim to an orthodox confession;
• We recognize the introduction of Universal Justification and its corollary teachings in American Lutheranism, as a biblically indefensible innovation of the old Synodical Conference.

Putting the best construction on our experiences, and despite any appearances that might cause some to conclude otherwise, we assume, Faith Church, that you are, in fact, possessed of great evangelical concern over our plight, and though, over the course of a full year, you exerted no effort to find out from us directly, we also assume that you are nevertheless deeply interested to know how we fare today.

We have found a Lutheran congregation. It is a congregation affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). Of this congregation, we are happy to say:

• They are confessional – that is, they understand the dire need for a clear Christian confession in a sinful world where otherwise well-meaning believers, as victims of sin’s corruption, everywhere misunderstand and pervert the Scripture’s teaching;
• They fully subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions, as articulated in the Christian Book of Concord, not insofar as they are a correct presentation and exposition of the pure doctrine of the Word of God, but boldly confessing before the world and other Christians, that they are so;
  in particular:
  • They positively reject the doctrine of Universal Justification, and instead, believe, teach and confess the single Scriptural and Confessional doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone – the very doctrine for which Luther and his fellow confessors struggled so mightily, risking their lives that it would be preserved to the Church for the eternal benefit of mankind;
  • They do not confuse laity with clergy – that is, laymen are NOT considered Ministers of the Word, and are NOT tasked with carrying out the functions of the pastoral Office;
  • They fully trust the Holy Spirit to work through His appointed Means, and being confident in the efficacy of those Means and content with His timing, do not feel compelled to augment His work with their own innovations;
  • Not merely mouthing the words of their confession, they endeavor to make manifest this confession, maintaining in the Divine Service a wholesome liturgical practice that unmistakably demonstrates Lutheran catholicity, rather than supplanting it with the obnoxious sectarian practices of pop-church evangelicalism.
• They are conservative – that is, rather than dispose of their Lutheran birthright (which, on order to keep it, requires much honour, trust, patience and a keen awareness of the past) for an immediately satisfying bowl of sectarian and worldly porridge (which, if it satisfies at all, does so merely for the moment, soon afterward requiring the satiation of new and different cravings), they endeavor to carry into the future that great deposit of wisdom wrought of Christian experience over the millenia. Thus they endeavor to conserve the past, rather than discard it as quaint, passé and irrelevant in favor of the wisdom of the day;
  in particular:
  • They reject (as far as we can tell) the post-Modern philosophies of contemporary times, which represent a full frontal attack on the very morality of language itself, mightily threatening the Church, not by changing the words She confesses before the world, but by dramatically altering that Confession in place – altering the meaning of Her Confession by altering the structures of language employed to express it;
  • They have chosen to use and promote a wholesome translation of the Scriptures which not just theoretically, butmanifestly honours the doctrine of inspiration, retaining in English as much as practicable, both the grammatical forms and the vocabulary found in the Greek and Hebrew originals, and which honours the tradition of English ecclesiastical thought and expression by maintaining continuity with the English translation Received by English speaking peoples over 400 years ago as the Bible in English, and that continues to this day as a dominant Bible translation preferred by English speakers;
  • They hold that it is wise practice for the Church to maintain a sharp distinction from the world in Her practice, including the use of terminology in their catechesis and during the Divine Service, which maintains a continuity with the past and which reinforces the “other worldly” reality of the believer’s citizenship in the Kingdom of Grace.

And to top it all off:

• They – like Lutherans across the globe (in our experience) – are just plain nice folks.

Unfortunately, this congregation, being a two-hour drive for us, is not very conveniently located. We are not able to attend weekly, as we would like, but endeavor to attend at least twice monthly. When we are unable to attend, however, we do take time to worship as a family in our home, following a modified form of “The Order of Morning Service” from The Lutheran Hymnal (pg. 5), and reading from Luther’s Postils for the Sermon. This works very nicely.

If the truth be told, however, we started this practice of home worship years before finally leaving the WELS. We began to notice that there was a consistent dearth of Law in the preaching and teaching, not only of Faith Church, but in every WELS church we visited. The emphasis on the Gospel was so smothering that the Law, if present at all, was virtually indiscernible. While both of us had grown up within pop-church Evanglicalism and among confessing Pietists, were fully acquainted with the Law, and personally found Law-less Gospel preaching a sufficient (and welcome) balance to the smotheringly Gospel-less Law preaching we had been reared with, the impact on our children, who, over a decade had only become familiar with the Gospel, was unmistakably negative. Having literally no acquaintance with the Law, they failed to place any real significance on the Gospel, taking for granted that they were already forgiven and righteous regardless of what they do, as if they were entitled to it. The result was behaviour issues of various kinds, a general disregard for God’s Word, and a failure to respond to correction which was drawn from it. We appealed at various times to our WELS pastors for more Law in their preaching, so that there would be a more discernible balance between Law and Gospel, but when our requests were dismissed – sometimes with ridicule for being “lovers of the Law” – we realized that there would be no changing their nearly Law-less Gospel preaching. Mrs. Lxxxxx had finally grown so fed up with the fact that our children had not imbibed the Law in any significant way from our association with WELS, that she began taking them through the Book of Proverbs every month, and visiting with them other sections of the Bible that emphasize Law – like the Book of James. This had quite an impact. As the the older children would read the Proverbs, they would stop, read it again, gulp, and say things like, “Oh, boy…” They had no idea. At one point, Mrs. Lxxxxx even suggested, somewhat facetiously, that we leave Lutheranism entirely, and go back to Pietism, just so that our children could be acquainted with the Law through the teaching of the Church, and finally come to appreciate the Gospel. Needless to say, that is not what we did. Instead, we started reading Luther’s sermons for semi-regular family worship, in place of attending Faith Church every Sunday. Luther is very direct in his preaching of the Law, and equally so in his preaching of the Gospel, nearly every sermon being very well balanced between the two. It is unlike any preaching we had heard over the past four decades, including the last fifteen years of association with WELS. Acquaintance with the Law has helped with discipline in the home, too, and improved our family’s appreciation for the Gospel.

Finally – you may be interested to know – there is informal, though very serious, discussion of opening a Lutheran mission congregation in our area (River Falls, Hudson, New Richmond, Baldwin, etc.), of confessional and conservative character similar to the congregation in which we currently enjoy membership. The intent would be to use our family, and perhaps other interested individuals, to seed this mission. Efforts are underway, now, to investigate possible meeting places.

Ta Ta for Now,

Lxxxxx

POSTED BY MR. DOUGLAS LINDEE AT 10:59 AM 

LABELS: BIBLE TRANSLATION, CATHOLICITY, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE, LAW AND GOSPEL, LITURGY, MEANS OF GRACE, NIV, OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION, POSTMODERNISM, UNIVERSAL JUSTIFICATION, WELS, WORSHIP

COMMENTS:

Anonymous said…

Thank you for posting this excellent letter. I appreciate not only the effort taken to provide a clear and concise explanation of Justification by Faith Alone, but also the perseverance in finding a faithful church home.
Jami Thomas

APRIL 3, 2015 AT 9:30 PM

Rev. Paul A. Rydecki said…

Yes, excellent letter, Mr. Lindee! I pray that many others will follow your example of faithfulness and commitment to sound doctrine and to a fellowship that teaches and practices authentic Lutheranism. Sadly, that fellowship is not the WELS, for as much as you and I had, at one time, hoped it would be. But happily, by God’s grace, we have found such a fellowship. Welcome to the ELDoNA!

APRIL 4, 2015 AT 12:09 PM

Thomas S said…

From https://m.facebook.com/groups/1649010391990081?view=permalink&id=1826075187616933

1. The “translation committee” that even implicitly accepted the NIV ’11 made the 2nd worst possible decision for the future of our synod (the worst, explicitly accepting the ’11). Any congregation that unequivocally accepts the NIV ’11 as a standard can hardly be said to possess the unaltered Word, and falls under the curse of Galatians 1 and Revelation 22.

I thank God for the Wartburg Translation. A confessional translation should have been directly and immediately supported by our Synod, undertaken as an act or worship. All considered, I suppose something so important can’t be left to the Synod. Until then my NKJV will do.

2. Universal Justification IS Universalism.

Christ died for the sins of the world, but without faith there is no “imputation” or “declaration” of righteousness – universal atonement certainly, but not justification. Conflating objective and universal justification, or even worse, adding philosophical shenanigans to what the epistles state plainly, is an error. It works for Real Presence – “This IS my body/blood” is as clear as “By grace you have been saved through faith”! Philosophy is properly used to understand and describe what the Word says, not define it.

I agree with the definitions of Objective and Subjective Justification contained in the article/letter, but better still they are precisely what the Bible teaches clearly. Objective and Subjective as terms are unnecessary – they both state, from different perspectives, that we have no propitiatory agency in our salvation, and that the works of both redemption and faith are wholly God’s. Simple Justification is Justification by Faith Alone.

APRIL 4, 2015 AT 12:38 PM

Anonymous said…

Douglas,

About your 2011 NIV observations:

“… all of the other WELS congregations we visited simply started using the NIV 2011 without discussion, without the people even knowing it – when we asked, we learned that the new Bibles just showed up in the pews one Sunday, and no one knew the difference. We could not abide such cowardice.”

Yes, they can’t defend a practice or an action based on Scripture, and don’t want to talk about it, so they sneak it in, and hope no one will notice until it has been going on for awhile. Once it is established, there is no turning back. The approach is similar with church growth practices. And when people express concern or ask for an explanation about the changes, there is little or no response. And the practice continues until it is well established, and then there is no turning back. 

Vernon

Anonymous said…

As a former WELS layman who left in November 2012, I have long been struggling with my decision (leaving behind my daughter’s wonderful family and long-time friends with whom I worshipped for decades). The persistent council of my pastor and loving members of my current (ELDoNA) congregation have kept me reassured but still a doubt lingered. Your explanation of the false teaching of Universal Objective Justification was very clear and a wonderful blessing to receive this Easter Eve. I finally see that the long established WELS teaching of universal objective justification is not found in scripture nor the Book of Concord. What a wonderful blessing it is to have God’s true Word, your letter, and my shepherd, Pastor Rydecki.

Reed Elliott
Emmanuel Ev. Lutheran Church

Copied from Robert Preus, Justification and Rome.

Part One

Part Two 

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven – Sloppy, One-Sided References

Part Eight – Gross Errors about Luther, Chemnitz, Gerhard, Calov

Part Nine – The Pietists are Orthodox?

Jay Webber PDF – Dropbox Link

DP Buchholz PDF – Dropbox Link

DP Mueller PDF – Dropbox Link

Cascione’s Reprint of the early Robert Preus UOJ Essay

Martin Teigen book on Consecration – Free.

Thy Strong Word – Against Church Growth and UOJ

The Significant History of the Doctrine of Objective Justification – Rick Curia – This really exposes the inanity of Objective Justification. Judas Iscariot is forgiven, too!

Philipp Jakob Spener started Pietism with his Pia Desideria (Pious Wishes) in 1675. He wrote a long essay as an introduction to a popular orthodox book of sermons by Johann Arndt, so Arndt’s book served inadvertently as a launching pad for Pietism. Spener had already started conventicles or cell groups in 1669. (Pia Desideria, ed. Tappert, p. 13)

Some hallmarks of Pietism are:

1. A heart religion instead of a head religion. Pietists often mention that false distinction.
2. Lay-led conventicles or cell groups, to develop piety through prayer and Bible study.
3. Unionism – cooperation between Lutherans and the Reformed. Spener was the first union theologian (Heick, II, p. 23).
4. An emphasis on good works and foreign missions. “Deeds, not creeds” is a popular motto.
5. Denial of the Real Presence and baptismal regeneration, consequences of working with the Reformed. (Heick, II, p. 24)
6. A better, higher, or deeper form of Christianity rather than the Sunday worshiping church. This often made the cell group the real church, the gathered church.

Webber favors Rambach over Chemnitz

Spener influenced the ruler to found Halle University in 1694, to teach actual Biblical studies, which had been neglected in favor of ferocious dogmatic struggles between the Lutherans and Calvinists.

Francke met with Spener, adopted his program, and got into a world of trouble over Pietism. Spener had Francke appointed to the newly established Halle University. Francke remained there as a professor and pastor of a congregation for the next 36 years. His energy spread the influence of Pietism, both in his charity work (Halle Orphanage) and his Biblical teaching.

Count Zinzendorf (1700-1760) had a profound effect on the spread of Pietism, not only through his contact and friendship with Wesley, but also by being the father of world missions. Methodism is another form of Pietism. The English Methodist George Scott influenced Carl Olaf Rosenius, who founded Swedish Pietism together.

Zinzendorf is also known for his “Come Lord Jesus” prayer and his hymns. Pietistic hymns emphasize the blood of Jesus because of the influence of Johann Albrecht Bengel. (Heick, II, p. 25) Bengel’s son-in-law, Burk, may be the inventor of Objective Justification.

The English Methodist George Scott (1804-1874) came to Sweden and worked with Carl Olaf Rosenius (1816-1868), who founded the newspaper Pietisten. The Swedish-American Augustana Synod looked to Rosenius as their patriarch. Augustana taught justification by faith, arguing against the Norwegian Pietists who promoted justification without faith. Two offshoots of Swedish Pietism in America are the Evangelical Covenant and Evangelical Free denominations, both deeply involved in the Church Growth Movement.

Boehme (1575-1624) illustrates what can happen when someone just starts making up all kinds of things. Today he is called creative. Another radical Pietist was Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772).

Bengel introduced weird ideas about the blood of Christ stored in heaven for justification. His work greatly influenced the Pietistic hymns (Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness) and the theology of Zinzendorf.

Bengel is also famous for his Gnomon, used by John Wesley for his Expository Notes. Does this explain Methodist George Scott–>Rosenius–>Objective Justification? Note Burk below.

Bengel’s son-in-law published an expanded edition of one of his works in 1763 – Philip David Burk (1714-1770).

Hoenecke (Dogmatik, III, p. 354-5) wrote this: And Ph. D. Burk (Rechtfertigung und Versicherung, p. 41) rightly said:

The difference between general justification and the more common usage of the term justification can be expressed as follows. The latter takes place precisely upon the appropriation of the former.

Hoenecke added a sentence used as a bromide by all UOJ fanatics: “An emphasis upon general justification is necessary in order to safeguard the material content of the Gospel.”

In German, general justification means – each and every one is justified. General seems vague in English, so that is probably why moderns have used Objective Justification and Universal Justification and Universal Objective Justification. All three terms mean what the Brief Statement of 1932 imagines – God declared the whole world free of sin, without faith, without the Word, without the Means of Grace.
(1932 B.S. – Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25; that therefore not for the sake of their good works, but without the works of the Law, by grace, for Christ’s sake, He justifies, that is, accounts as righteous, all those who believe, accept, and rely on, the fact that for Christ’s sake their sins are forgiven.)

Halle moved quickly from Pietism to Radical Pietism to Rationalism. Wolff, professor at Halle, exemplified the rationalism which spread to all other German universities from Halle. Frederick William I fired Wolff from Halle, so Marburg University immediately hired him. Wolff eventually returned to Halle, lionized by academics and a favorite of Frederick the Great.

George Christian Knapp (1753-1825) was a Pietist but very rationalistic. He taught two justifications, objective and subjective, in his Lectures on Theology, published in German in 1789. The Lectures were translated into English in 1831 by Leonard Wood, who was very influential at the time, published and used in many editions in America. The Lectures were still being used at Andover at the end of the 19th century, mirroring the enormous span of years Knapp spent teaching.

Knapp taught Objective and Subjective Justification, in form familiar to Missouri, WELS, and the Little Sect on the Prairie:

Here are some statements from the English edition, 8th, 1859, p. 397ff:

The Scripture doctrine of pardon or justification through Christ, as an universal and unmerited favour of God.

1. The Universality of this Benefit

*[Translator note – This is very conveniently expressed by the terms objective and subjective justification. Objective justification is the act of God, by which he profers pardon to all through Christ; subjective is the act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the latter not.]

The Register, quoted below:

“Dr. Knapp, late Professor at the University of Halle, was born at Glancha,in Halle, on the 17th of September, 1753, and received his early education in the Royal Paedagogium, one of the institutions of the pious Francke. At the age of 17, he entered the university at Halle, and attended the lectures of Semler, Noesselt and Gruner, with more than common success. The Bible was his great object of study, while the Latin and Greek classics still received a degree of attention which enabled him ever afterwards to adorn, enrich and illustrate from classical literature whatever he said or wrote in the department of Theological science. In 1774 he completed his course of study, and in 1775, after a short absence, he began to lecture, at Halle, with much success upon Cicero, the New Testament, and the more difficult portions of the Old Testament. He was appointed Prof. Extraordinary in 1777, and Prof. Ordinary in 1782. He then lectured in Exegesis, Church History, and in Jewish and Christian Antiquities.

On the death of Freylinghausen (1785), he and Niemeyer were appointed Directors of Francke’s Institutes; and continued jointly to superintend these establishments for more than 40 years. In the division of duties, the Bible and Missionary establishment fell to Dr. Knapp, which brought him into near connection with the Moravians. The lectures, of which this volume forms a part, he commenced during the summer of the same year.”

Tholuck mentored Hoenecke

From Henry Eyster Jacobs:

Only in George Christian Knapp a branch of the old Halle school remained, but reserved and timid, and without any extensive influence. At my [Tholuck’s] entrance in Halle in 1826 I found still two citizens who traced their faith to this one deceased advocate of the old school among the clergy.” This deterioration, however, was gradual.

Nevertheless, Knapp supported Unitarian-Universalist arguments.

Friedrich August Tholuck (1799‒1877) also taught two justifications, following the teaching of his own mentor George Christian Knapp.

From the Bethany Lectures:

Tholuck took a personal interest in Hoenecke, as he did with all of his students. He liked to take walks with his students, using the occasion as a time for peripatetic Seelsorge. Tholuck also gave Hoenecke quite a few free meals, which he had sorely needed.

Hoenecke traveled to America through the offices of a Pietistic missionary society. In Switzerland, his studies of the Confessions and later Lutheran orthodox fathers were doubtless pivotal in making him stronger in Lutheran doctrine.

J-564

“For God has already forgiven you your sins 1800 years ago when He in Christ absolved all men by raising Him after He first had gone into bitter death for them. Only one thing remains on your part so that you also possess the gift. This one thing is—faith. And this brings me to the second part of today’s Easter message, in which I now would show you that every man who wants to be saved must accept by faith the general absolution, pronounced 1800 years ago, as an absolution spoken individually to him.”
C. F. W. Walther, The Word of His Grace, Sermon Selections, “Christ’s Resurrection—The World’s Absolution” Lake Mills: Graphic Publishing Company, 1978, p. 233. Mark 16:1-8.