An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud

On October 29, I posted a blog entry entitled, Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near. It included a 90 minute lecture given by noted Anthropogenic Climate Change skeptic, Lord Christopher Monckton, in which he details how long-known data has always questioned the predictions of so-called climate change computer models, how climate organizations, like the IPCC and CRU, have been caught doctoring public reports supporting the notion of climate change, and how recent scientific observations, specifically addressing the question of climate change, utterly disprove the theories concocted by politically motivated scientists and organizations, and propped up by magical computer models. In this latter regard, I noted a recent paper by German scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, which concludes: “the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science” (pp. 90-91). Science – that is, real science, or the process of hypothesis testing through direct observation of phenomena, rather than the make-believe science of supporting one's assumptions (or “scientific models”) by programming a computer to produce the desired answers – has, as recently as this Summer, not only proven that anthropogenic climate change models are false, and that the fabled "hockey-stick" graph showing dramatic temperature increases is a fabrication, but that the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" does not exist, the results of recent research by Lindzen & Choi (MIT) showing that heat is not trapped in the atmosphere but radiated out. Kirsten E. Lombard, in a review of Glenn Beck's October 20 interview with Lord Monckton, summarzes Lindzen's work from this interview, as follows:

Richard Lindzen of MIT, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Planetary and Atmospheric Sciences, has in the last two months, released a salient (understatement of the year) study on climate feedbacks. Simple in concept but meticulous in execution, Lindzen's study measures the escape of outgoing radiation into space.

Al Gore and those with whom the former vice president aligns himself claim, of course, that such radiation becomes trapped within the earth's atmosphere, leading to precipitous and disastrous warming. Yet Lindzen's study finds quite the opposite: such radiation has continued escaping out into space at rates that would seem finally to put an end the global warming scare. Results indicate, in fact, that the effects of CO2 on temperature over the course of the next century will remain well below 2° F, possibly as low as 1° F. These projections amount to less than one sixth of what the U.N. claims and are, quite simply, negligible.

Better still, where all previous projections were based solely on computer modeling – much of it wildly biased – Lindzen's projections are based on hard data accumulated over the course of 20 years. Monckton had actually published a paper last year that arrived at the same conclusions from a theoretical perspective. Now Lindzen's rigorously conducted science backs him up.

Lindzen and Monckton aren't the only ones standing against the Anthropogenic Climate Change crowd: nearly 32,000 professional American scientists have signed a petition urging the US government to reject treaties such as Kioto and Copenhagen, stating,

There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

That's 32,000 professional American scientists, and counting.

How interesting it is, then, that late last week, mere weeks before the U.N. Climate Change Conference was set to begin in Copenhagen (on Dec. 7), “hackers” were able to gain access to UK government systems and “find” a store of emails and documents authored by very prominent climatologists from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU), which go back approximately 15 years and clearly detail scientific fraud, not only by calculated and systematic manipulation of data, but scheming to prevent other researchers, with competing conclusions, from publishing their findings. Andrew Bolt, journalist for Melbourne's Herald Sun, reports on Nov. 20:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

On November 24, a Washington Times editorial comments:

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution [University of East Anglia (UEA)] have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts... [T]hese e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released [without having to be hacked]. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University [Professor Micheal E. Mann], the University of Arizona [Professor Malcom K. Hughes] and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst [Professor Raymond S Bradley] conduct proper investigative inquiries.

“A scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science,” exclaims Mr. Bolt. Indeed. Piltdown Man, while disenfranchising two or three generations of school children, surely did not have the political and economic implications of Climategate. Recently, it was discovered that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a German anthropologist, was forced to retire from his university in Frankfurt “because of numerous 'falsehoods and manipulations' ...his deceptions may mean an entire tranche of the history of man's development will have to be rewritten.” But again, a few academically disenfranchised students, some republishing costs, and a little egg-on-face for his former employer, are nothing compared to the commercial and political interests already fully vested in the outcome of Copenhagen. Some folks are already warning investors to dump alternative energy stocks. Of course, there still are all the poor little school children who've been lied to and deliberately frightened for the past two decades – but who cares whether they will have sufficient knowledge to function as productive citizens, the vulnerable emotions of helpless and ignorant children are too politically useful to worry about truth and integrity.

Interestingly, the Copenhagen Treaty was DOA anyway – for political reasons. On November 17, Der Spiegel reports:

At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Singapore [on November 15], 17 heads of states and government -- including ones from China, Russia and the US -- destroyed all hopes of setting internationally binding climate targets in Copenhagen. Even the agreement to halve carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 that was agreed upon in L'Aquila has been sidelined. Now, the only possible result of the Copenhagen talks will be a "politically binding agreement." According to the latest plan for the summit, a formal, legal agreement would then be reached at a later stage [ostensibly, Bonn in 2010].

Copenhagen is a failure now on both scientific and political grounds. Bone fide science debunks claims of anthropogenic climate change. Highly respected scientists, advocates of anthropogenic climate change, have been caught in the global fraud of the century. And the politicians can't seem to agree anyway (and why should they agree? Disagreement is better for their careers – it is always much more theatrical, enhances the perception that they are conscientious problem solvers, and provides additional opportunities for them to be seen and heard by their adoring public.).

Nevertheless, in the US, issues of scientific fraud are being taken seriously. Senator Inhofe (R – OK), who has always been suspicious of climate alarmism and a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change, will be pushing for full Senate investigation into the extent of this fraud.



On November 18, Inhofe spoke at a press conference regarding the lack of science behind anthropogenic climate change (above), claiming vindication of his skepticism on scientific grounds, and offers a pretty good history of his anti-alarmist skepticism and consistent leadership on this issue.





On November 23, three days after the CRU fraud was made public, Inhofe says he will call for an investigation into Climategate (above).





And then, just yesterday, reiterating his promise to call for investigation into Climategate, Inhofe relates (above) how he had been approached by many prominent US scientists over the years who expressed concern that they had not been allowed proper input into climate studies or to publish their research, some even having left the IPCC over the treatment they had received. Fraud apparently extends beyond the CRU.


Finally, Chris Horner (another well-known global warming skeptic) was interviewed by Fox News, along with a global warming advocate. Mr. Horner's comments are worth paying attention to.

Q: Do these emails substantiate what you have been saying for years?
A: That's precisely what they are. They are miscast as revelations when in fact they are all affirmations. None out of context, all posted in full context, including entire email threads, affirming the specifics of the actions that we have been describing, including ...falsifying the data of the entire premise for the IPCC's process, the Kioto Treaty, the Kioto II Treaty, Cap & Trade, EPA's actions, and so on, all of which, from the US perspective, must be stayed until the truth is out. We do need an investigation ...in fact, they are affirming everything that a lot of people, including many many scientists, including some in the refereed literature had been [pointing out], for some time, has been going on...

Let me clarify what these are. This isn't information ...that somehow was just sprung now. In fact, it's just as likely to have come from a whistle-blower, someone from inside with a conscience. All of this information is subject to the UK's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). All of it has been under request for years. The most recent request, after they had run out of reasons, was [denied with the statement], “We lost the data.” Well, that's implausible beyond belief, and also would cause a stay in the process until they found [it]. So someone has forced cooperation with UK's FOIA by revealing this, what, 12 to 13 year string of evidence of seeking to, not keep people out of conferences, but out of refereed literature, and of seeking to falsify their own results. Not just random marginal results, either, but the premise – the hockey stick. They talked about hiding the decline in temperature of the last half of the last century. That's not what other people are just saying, “Yes, I found that too.” Other people are echoing significant data. They are disagreeing [with their own premise] in their own words, and they can't deny it any more.

We need an investigation... The emails prove that they broke the law, they describe how to break the law. They also engaged in fraud.

Q: Is it possible that more information will come out to exonerate these scientists?
A: ...[T]he bottom line is, would we have heard a defense if a real one existed? Yes, we would have heard it by now. Instead, what we have seen are statements like, “Using the word 'trick' is acutally a very common application in science,” although this is the first we've ever heard of it, and “Hiding the decline is just really describing something else.” The plain meaning is described as the implausible, and the implausible is described as the reasonable meaning. If that's your first, best, and apparently last defense, these people have been caught with their pants at their ankles, and another 100mb of data are coming. A real investigation ...shall ensure now, and all processes should be stayed: Kioto II, Cap & Trade, EPA regulatory push, all of the energy rationing and tax schemes premised precisely on research proven falsified in this material, must be stayed.

Somebody with a conscience, indeed. No random hacker is going to break into a system and simply discover a store of approximately 1100 documents detailing a pattern of scientific fraud over the past 13 years – especially regarding such high profile research. Someone was most definitely collecting this information. The hacker had to have known what he was looking for, where to find it, and how to anonymously post it under the title "FOIA" for the world to discover.

To stay on top of this as it develops, frequently visit Climate Depot. They are maintaining a running list of news stories covering Climategate.


I close by quoting again from last month's review of Lord Monckton's presentation:

lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality – which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth – immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.

Heralded by its organizers as a significant step toward Global Governance, Copenhagen was to be the beginning of a legally-binding realignment of world powers. A realignment founded on falsehood and deceit on a grand scale, it would have created a new global governing body, overtly requiring that members hand over their sovereignty as independent nations, for the purpose of transferring capital between these member nations based on carbon usage, subject to international enforcement. That's (1) a new government (2) with enforcement powers (a military, or access to internal economic controls for punitive purposes, perhaps), that (3) manages the flow of capital between member nations on the basis of factors directly related to a nation's economic success (production/transportation of goods and services). What manner of immorality, illiberality and exploitation could descend from such an arrangement, hopefully we'll never have to find out. President Obama, however, despite the November 17 report from Der Spiegel, cited above, just today offered his assurances that, as a result of his recent political gallivant, he has been successful moving sentiment in China and India toward a positive stature regarding the Copenhagen Treaty. We'll see...




Some links:

• Capping Emissions, Trading On The Future: The West's goals in Copenhagen are tantamount to suicide.


• Nature will decide Earth's future:"AS the core samples from deep underground pass through the logging sensor before me, the rhythmic pattern of ancient climate change is clearly displayed. Friendly, brown sands for the warm interglacial periods and hostile, sterile grey clays for the cold glaciations. And for more than 90 per cent of recent geological time the Earth has been colder than today."


• The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero: "Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming. One thing is clear from this. People who say that “Climategate was only about scientists behaving badly, but the data is OK” are wrong. At least one part of the data is bad, too. The Smoking Gun for that statement is at Darwin Zero."


• The warming theory is falling to bits: "Recent results published by top scientists cast doubt on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s theory about the link between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming…"


• Pressure Mounts From Inside: Disband IPCC? Scientist from U. of East Anglia Suggests 'UN IPCC has run its course...politicizes climate science...authoritarian, exclusive form of knowledge production' -- ClimateGate reveals science has become 'too partisan, too centralized...more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures'


• News Busters: Obama is going 'to Copenhagen not in spite of these e-mails but because of these e-mails. He's in full panic mode'


• Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws


• Climatology, Junk Science, and Congress: Climategate Scientist Phil Jones Provided Data to the US Congress


• WSJ: Rigging a Climate 'Consensus' ...About those emails and 'peer review.'


• UK Scientist Piers Corbyn speaks: 'Case for climate fears is blown to smithereens...whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed' -- 'We should end this anti-scientific nonsense now' -- UN's 'Copenhagen jamboree is a scandal and it must be stopped'


• UN scientists turn on each other: UN Scientist Declares Climategate colleagues Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf 'should be barred from the IPCC process' -- They are 'not credible any more'


• New Zealand Climategate: the scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…


• New Zealand: Government agency accused of 'cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists'


• Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.


• Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud


• Numbers racket: 4,000 Scientists did not endorse IPCC report, only 60 did


• Big bucks riding on data: Leaked e-mails cast doubt on global-warming strategy


• New Peer-Reviewed Research: Atlantic Ocean Was 2.7°C Warmer During Roman Warm Period, 2.2°C Warmer During MWP


• What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming: Scientist: 'Climategate has everybody rethinking global warming... is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought? Actually, the evidence was never even evidence'


• Green totalitarianism: Which is the more terrifying and devastating: if people are bent and deliberately try to deceive others, or if they are so much in thrall to an ideology that they genuinely have lost the power to think objectively and rationally? I think that the terrible history of mankind provides the answer to that question. Nixon was a crook. But what we are dealing with here is the totalitarian personality. One thing is now absolutely clear for all to see about the anthropogenic global warming scam: science this is not.


• The Skeptics Are Vindicated: "We have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various 'progressive' causes require a particular scientific result."


• Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate: (1) the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results, (2) scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication, (3) the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom


• "Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA


• Old Consensus: There Is "Unprecedented" Global Warming; New Consensus: UN-IPCC Climate Scientists Are Unprecedented Liars


• The Death Blow to Climate Science


• Climate Cuttings: Lengthy and growing blog post of cuttings from Climategate emails...

EU President: "2009 to be First Year of Global Governance" -->

<-- Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near

 

The Dire Need for Reformation in the Modern Church: The New 95 Theses for Reformation Day

In an admitted lack of creativity, I have absconded with someone else's entire blog post, below. It was posted on the Reformation Day 2008 blog entry of Chris Rosebrough's Extreme Theology. I'm even embedding his Fighting for the Faith interview on these New Theses with Rev. Bill Cwirla (LCMS). Like them, I'll play the role of the Gutenberg Press operator, reprinting these Theses, and of the literate peasant who had read the original 95 Theses, passing along these issues for consideration and discussion. When I read these "New Theses" last year, I thought they capsulized today's issues in greater Christianity quite well -- particularly as these issues continue to besiege us Confessional Lutherans.

As Rev. Cwirla reads from the "New Theses," below, Cancer and crabgrass both grow rapidly, as does the church without the Gospel. To cut out the cancer, we must first identify it -- and to do so we must maintain regular study of the Scriptures and the Confessions. But once identified, we must still muster the courage to actually use the knife, no matter how much we think we may miss the diseased flesh once it is discarded -- and we will never have such courage apart from the Holy Spirit's work through Word and Sacrament. As joyful as the positive aspect of Fellowship is (that is, unity in doctrine and practice), the negative aspect of Fellowship (or, the rejection of and separation from falshood and false teachers) should be equally joyful.

---

The New 95 Theses
In honor of Reformation Day and due to the present crisis in American Christianity I am passing along the New 95 Theses. These theses are for discussion and debate.

Along with these New 95 I'm posting my radio interview with the Rev. William Cwirla and our discussion on these new theses.



If you'd like to download a pdf version of The New 95 Theses then click here

Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, the public bulletin board of his day. In like manner, we, Athanasius and Chrysostom, post these 95 theses on the door of the internet. Like the original theses, these are debatable, for we believe that it is through vigorous debate that the spirits are tested and truth is revealed.

In publishing these theses, we do not intend to foment division, but to expose those who are creating division within the body of Christ. We are not addressing any particular church body or person, but invite all who love the Gospel of Jesus Christ to engage in this debate. We do so in the spirit of the great Reformer, Martin Luther, as we implore the mercies of God upon His Church, for the sake of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church and Bishop of our souls.

1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said “Repent,” He willed that the whole life of believers should be one of repentance.

2. To “repent” means to be contrite for one’s sins and to trust Jesus Christ and solely in His completed work for one’s forgiveness, life, and salvation.

3. Those who describe the Christian life as purpose-driven deny true repentance, confuse the Law and the Gospel, and obscure the merits of Christ.

4. Impious and wicked are the methods of those who substitute self-help and pop-psychology for the Gospel in the name of relevance.

5. This impious disregard for the Gospel wickedly transforms sacred Scripture into a guidebook for living, a pharisaic sourcebook of principles, and sows tares among the wheat.

6. Relevance, self-help and pop-psychology have no power to work true contrition over sins and faith in Jesus Christ.

7. Like clouds without rain, purpose-driven preachers withhold the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross and enslave men’s consciences to the law which they cleverly disguise as so-called 'Biblical Principles'.

8. By teaching tips for attaining perfect health, debt-free wealth, and better sex in marriage, the purveyors of relevance undermine true fear, love and trust in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

9. They are enemies of Christ, who distort the Word of God by tearing verses from their original context in order to use them as proof texts for their self-help, pop-psychology agendas.

10. Injury is done the Word of God when it is used as a source book for practical, relevant “life applications.”

11. In the name of relevance, our Lord Jesus Christ is reduced to a life-coach whose “gospel” assists and motivates people to achieve the objectives of their self-centered delusions of grandeur.

12. Apart from the Holy Spirit, the seeker cannot understand the things of God for these are “spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14).

13. The natural man does not naturally seek the Gospel. “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me” (Is. 65:1)

14. The true Seeker of men’s souls is our Lord Jesus Christ who came to seek and to save the lost by His death on the cross (Lk. 19:10).

15. The truly “seeker-sensitive” church proclaims God’s wrath against our sin and His mercy for Jesus’ sake.

16. The preaching of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to purpose-driven pragmatists and foolishness to church growth consultants.

17. The true gold of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

18. But this treasure is a stench in the nostrils of fallen and sinful men because it exposes man’s complete lack of ability to save himself by his own religious efforts.

19. On the other hand, the fool’s gold of self-help is preferred by sinful men, for it creates the illusion of moral progress and a life that is pleasing to God apart from repentance.

20. The gold of the Gospel is the net by which Christ would make us fishers of men.

21. The fool’s gold of self-help is a snare by which purpose-driven purveyors of relevance attempt to capture the riches and approval of men.

22. The church is holy sheep who hear the voice of their Shepherd.

23. How can sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd when false shepherds preach self-help and pop-psychology?

24. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance are not shepherds of men’s souls but wolves in sheep’s clothing.

25. Purveyors of relevance claim that self-help, life-applications and biblical principles are the means to reach the unchurched because they meet people’s felt needs.

26. Yet a person’s greatest need is one he does not by nature feel, namely the need for the righteousness that comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ.

27. The true means by which fallen sinners are reached is the preaching of Christ and His sacraments. (Ro. 10:17)

28. The true need that mankind is seeking but does not know is justification by grace through faith for Christ’s sake.

29. Since justification is through faith and not through works, natural man neither seeks it nor desires it.

30. Therefore, the teaching of justification by grace through faith is neither seeker-sensitive nor relevant to a world that naturally seeks self-justification.

31. To be in the church is to be union with Christ through faith.

32. Regardless of the number of people in attendance, the church does not grow unless men are granted repentance and faith by God through the action of His Word.

33. Scripture clearly teaches that the means by which God grants faith are the the hearing of the Word of Christ (the Gospel) and the water of Holy Baptism.

34.Therefore, even if a congregation, through their own marketing methods and business prowess were able to draw 100,000 people every Sunday, if the Gospel is not heard and the sacraments are not administered according to the Gospel there is no church and the true Church of Jesus Christ has not grown by a single soul.

35. If numerical growth is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of Islam and the Mormons.

36. If financial success is a measure of God’s approval, then we must conclude that God approves of pornography and gambling.

37. Cancer and crabgrass both grow rapidly, as does the church that obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

38. The purveying of purpose-driven relevance is the theology of glory; the preaching of Christ crucified for sinners is the theology of the cross.

39. The theologian of glory says that the kingdom of God is visible now in buildings, people, and dollars; the theologian of the cross says that the kingdom of God is an article of faith.

40. The theologian of glory asks “How much?” and “How many?”; the theologian of the cross preaches Christ regardless of how much or how many.

41. The theologian of glory prepares people to receive health, wealth, and happiness; the theologian of the cross prepares people to suffer and die in faith.

42. The theologian of glory preaches that God wants to grant you favors; the theologian of the cross preaches the favor of God for the sake of Christ crucified.

43. The theologian of glory proclaims 40 days of purpose; the theologian of the cross preaches daily dying and rising in Jesus.

44. God established the Church to be a “mouth house” of forgiveness not a madhouse of activity.

45. Christ wills that His voice be heard in His Church and not the voice of man when He says, “He who hears you, hears me.” (Lk. 10:16)

46. Purveyors of purpose-driven relevance obscure the voice of Christ and so draw the sheep away from the Good Shepherd.

47. Christ saves from sin and death not through the motivation of the sinner to do good, but through baptismal death and resurrection.

48. The mission of the church is not to transform the world but to disciple the nations by baptizing and teaching (Mt. 28:19-20).

49. Anyone who preaches a vision and demands allegiance to it sets up a new papacy among the churches.

50. A synod or church body is a human institution that exists by the will and consent of its member congregations and pastors.

51. A synod or church body is not merely an affiliation of churches that agree on a common purpose.

52. A synod or church body is not the Church, properly speaking, but a fellowship of churches sharing a common confession of faith and practice.

53. Synods are not of the church’s essence (esse) but for her well being (bene esse).

54. Synodical leaders are not lords over the churches, but servants of the churches and stewards of their common possessions.

55. Synodical leaders are not called to promulgate visions but to execute the collective will of the synod’s churches.

56. The old papacy arrogated the Church’s treasury of merits; the new papacy arrogates the Church’s treasury.

57. The old papacy said, “As the coin in the coffer clings, so the soul from purgatory springs.”

58. The new papacy says, “As the coin in the church coffer clings, so another program out of debt springs.”

59. The old papacy counted plenary indulgences; the new papacy counts money and people.

60. The old papacy suppressed the Gospel through canon law; the new papacy suppresses the Gospel through constitutions and by-laws.

61. The old papacy was a friend of Caesar; the new papacy is a friend of Mammon.

62. The old papacy bound a man’s conscience for the sake his wallet; the new papacy binds a man’s wallet for the sake of his conscience.

63. The old papacy promulgated infallible dogma; the new papacy promulgates undebatable visions.

64. The old papacy claims to sit on the seat of Peter; the new papacy claims to sit on the mandate of the majority.

65. The old papacy reserved the right to judge doctrine and practice; the new papacy judges doctrine and practice by commissions and committees.

66. The old papacy issued “bulls;” the new papacy issues task force reports.

67. The old papacy had a college of cardinals; the new papacy has high-priced consultants.

68. Just as popes and councils have erred in the past, so synodical leaders and synodical conventions err in the present.

69. A synod that is concerned for the true unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace does not excuse unionism and syncretism.

70. Unity in doctrine and practice means discernible interchangeability in teaching, preaching, and practice.

71. Unity in doctrine and practice does not consist in signing confessional statements, but in word and deed.

72. Worship is doctrine put into practice.

73. As one worships, so one believes.

74. As one believes, so one worships.

75. Christian worship consists in God’s service to us through His giving and our receiving in faith the gifts of Christ’s Word, Body, and Blood, and our service to God by our prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.

76. Worship that is focused principles for Christian living obscures the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His gifts and is detrimental to faith and salvation.

77. While Christian liberty allows that worship forms need not be altogether the same in every time and place, unity in faith and practice requires that worship forms must not be altogether different in every time and place.

78. Worship forms serve as identifying banners in the confessional field of battle.

79. Peculiar and novel worship forms obscure the unity of the churches and extol the creativity of the worship leaders.

80. In matters neither commanded nor forbidden in the Word of God (adiaphora), the churches of God are free to change ceremonies according to circumstances, as may be most beneficial and edifying to the churches of God. (Epitome, Art X.4)

81. Such changes must avoid all frivolity and offenses, particularly with regard to those who are weak in faith (Epitome, Art X.5).

82. Where the Gospel is at stake, concessions in ceremony must not be made so as to suggest unity with those who deny the Gospel (Epitome, Art X.6)

83. Therefore, it is contrary to the doctrine of adiaphora to hide the substance of Lutheran doctrine behind a non-Lutheran style of worship.

84. To create and sustain saving faith, God established the office of the holy ministry in the church to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments according to our Lord’s institution.

85. No one may publicly preach, teach, or administer the sacraments in the churches without his being called and ordained.

86. Those who introduce novelties into the church are the true agents of division.

87. The ordination of women is a novelty that has caused great division in the church.

88. The introduction of worship forms not held in common by the churches is a cause of division and a stumbling block.

89. The church belongs to no man but to Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, and Lord of the church.

90. Woe to the false prophets who cry, “Unity, unity” when there is no unity.

91. Again, woe to those who say, “Peace, peace,” when there is no peace.

92. Again, woe to those who say, “Gospel, gospel,” when there is no Gospel.

93. Blessed are those who say, “Cross, cross,” when there is no cross.

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through all suffering, death, and hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven through many trials and tribulations, rather than through the assurance of outward peace, unity, and happiness.

 

Natural Law, Moral Imperative, and Public Policy: Copenhagen Looms Near

Inconvenient Truth to be aware of ahead of Copenhagen



Lord Christopher Monckton speaks to the Minnesota Free Market Institute,
October 14, 2009, at Bethel University, St. Paul, MN

Most of us who have been trained in hard science have a cautious and dispassionate regard for the predictions of new theories. An inductive process, the scientific method, by design, cannot be regarded as a source of ultimate answers, but only as a process of iterative questioning in search of successive answers. As a result, true "fact" in science is a rare thing, and only conservatively agreed upon after a sufficiently exhaustive application of the scientific method seems to confirm it. The Laws of Thermodynamics are illustrative. It took nearly a century of testing by physicists across Europe, with nearly unanimous results, before these hypotheses, and later theories, were finally accepted as Laws. Theories are nothing more than an occasion for asking legitimate questions, not for making dire predictions.

As a result of scientific caution, I, along with most of those I know who have bona fide scientific training, have long been suspicious of recent political exploitation of modern "climatology." Such skepticism is warranted whenever politicians are involved anyway -- they have a long-standing reputation for misusing science as it is. After years of study, however, the data is in. The doomsday theories are wrong. The predictions of computer models, based on those theories, are also wrong. Climate variations, whatever their cause, cannot be anthropogenic. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that we are on the brink of climatic disaster, nor has there been any data supporting evidence of "global warming" since 1995.

The video above is the entire presentation of Lord Christopher Monckton given at an event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute earlier this month. Lord Monckton is a well-known and credible skeptic of climate-change hysteria, and in this presentation documents the clear scientific fraud of politically motivated climatologists, and produces both long-known data regarding climate variations as well as very recent results of careful scientific observation and inquiry weighing the specific questions of global climate variations and their causes. The power-point slides accompanying his presentation can be found here. In addition, his presentation followed the premier of the new documentary, Climate Chains -- an interesting video documenting the political and economic implications of giving-in to these unfounded doomsday hysterics.


Fidelity to Truth
I found Lord Monckton's introductory remarks interesting. He quotes Genesis in support of mankind's stewardship responsibilities, and quotes Christ (in the "original Latin"...) in support of our witness to the truth. Of course, in this quote, Christ was speaking of Himself and the Truth He alone could reveal to mankind, while Monckton applied the substance of this quote as a model for man to emulate with regard to his moral obligation to handle all questions with fidelity toward the truth. Regarding such questions, he states:

We are [here] to bear witness to the truth, we are not [here] to impose any ideology... on the truth. The truth is the truth whether you or I or anyone believe it or not. ...[I]t was all very well for jesting Pilate to ask that question and then not to tarry for an answer, but that question that he asked, What is the truth?, is the question which underlies every other question. It is the only question, in the end, that really matters. When you ask a question, you are really asking, What is the truth regarding the matter about which I am asking?.

He then proceeds to show by example that lack of fidelity to truth is necessarily followed by fundamental immorality -- which reasonably follows given that questions are asked, and answers are sought, for the sake of guidance in our thoughts and deeds. False foundation for thinking and acting naturally results in wrong thinking and acting. Governments and large organizations cannot act ethically by deliberately mis-handling the truth -- immorality on a grand scale is the tragic result.


Climatology is a study in Chaos
Other remarks in the presentation that I found to be interesting are of a more scientific nature. One is the reminder that climate is scientifically chaotic. The mathematical models which describe climate are iterative with countless variables, and many have no mathematical solution. From one iteration to the next, they quickly degrade into seemingly patternless and unpredictable results -- or chaos. Indeed, a recent paper by German scientists Gerlich and Tscheuschner, Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, describes the serious solvability issues of global climatology models given their mathematically unsolvable nature and the lack of Numerical Methods which can be applied to them, outside of climate questions of strictly short term and local geography ("Numerical Methods," or "Recipes," are iterative mathematical algorithms for approximating solutions to unsolvable equations):

Thus there is simply no physical foundation [for] global climate computer models, for which still the chaos paradigma holds: Even in the case of well-known deterministic dynamics nothing is predictable. That discretization has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis in non-linear systems is a lesson that has been taught in the discussion of the logistic differential equation, whose continuum solutions differ fundamentally from the discrete ones (pg. 90).

Concerned with the direction of popular scientific trends, they continue:

Modern global climatology has confused and continues to confuse fact with fantasy by introducing the concept of a scenario replacing the concept of a model. ...Evidently, this is a description of a pseudo-scientific (i.e. non-scientific) method by the experts at the IPCC. The next meta-plane beyond physics would be a questionnaire among scientists already performed by von Storch or, finally, a democratic vote about the validity of a physical law. Exact science is going to be replaced by a sociological methodology involving a statistical field analysis and by "democratic" rules of order. This is in harmony with the definition of science advocated by the "scientific" website RealClimate.org that has integrated in ammatory statements, personal attacks and offenses against authors as a part of their "scientific" workflow (pg. 90).

They conclude:

A statistical analysis, no matter how sophisticated it is, heavily relies on underlying models and if the latter are plainly wrong then the analysis leads to nothing. One cannot detect and attribute something that does not exist for reason of principle like the CO2 greenhouse effect. There are so many unsolved and unsolvable problems in non-linearity and the climatologists believe to beat them all by working with crude approximations leading to unphysical results that have been corrected afterwards by mystic methods, flux control in the past, obscure ensemble averages over different climate institutes today, by excluding accidental global cooling results by hand, continuing the greenhouse inspired global climatologic tradition of physically meaningless averages and physically meaningless applications of mathematical statistics.

In conclusion, the derivation of statements on the CO2 induced anthropogenic global warming out of the computer simulations lies outside any science (pp. 90-91).

No, it isn't science. It's ideology. On Oct. 27, American Physicist, Howard Hayden, issued his disproof of climate catastrophe, based on one letter of the alphabet, in this letter to the EPA. The fact is, there is no scientific consensus among the scientists making wild claims of imminent climate disaster, only a scientific cacophony. There is, however, plenty of ideological solidarity, beginning with an inordinate and scientifically unfounded emphasis on the CO2 "Greenhouse Effect," as also pointed out by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (a theory which they have falsified), above, as well as Lord Monckton, and leading to a disturbing solidarity of political ideology and consequent advancement of "political solutions." Indeed, the video Climate Chains, mentioned above, describes a dogged devotion to environmental causes of a peculiarly religious character, suggestive of a Holy War against Western Civilization in the name of distinctly pre-Christian paganistic/pantheistic values and priorities.


Correlation and Causation
More remarks of interest in Lord Monckton's presentation include the reminder that a correlation of independent variables does not at all imply a causal relationship. It was a running joke among us students of hard science that, using correlative statistics, one could prove that the moon was made of green cheese. In fact, I seem to recall that there is a positive correlation between the mosquito population of the Florida Everglades and the rate of traffic accidents in Juneau, Alaska. But to suggest a causal relationship between these variables is ludicrous -- a fact that we had much fun reminding students of Sociology and Psychology, for whom we had little academic respect. Much of the hysteria-inducing propaganda generated by the media, and others with economic and political interest in manufacturing a global crisis, is used to manipulate average folks by exploiting their ignorance of legitimate science, of experimentation, and of statistical analysis.


Other Thoughts
There are many other thought-provoking statements offered by Lord Monckton in this presentation, including the demographic evidence that wealthier nations are, in fact, environmentally cleaner and more efficient than those trapped in squalor, and that reducing the wealth status of such nations does not reduce their negative environmental impact, but increases it. In fact, the free-market solution of capitalistic investment in poorer nations, of providing them wealth generating opportunities, is the true environmentally and morally sound solution. I highly recommend that one take the 90 minutes or so to listen to the entire presentation.


Conclusion
If nothing else, listen to Lord Monckton's concluding statements, regarding the gravity of the Copenhagen Treaty, which our President will sign in December. This treaty will form a new government -- not theoretically, but actually, and in those terms -- the purpose of which is to enforce the global redistribution of wealth. It will supersede our Constitution, and hand over our national sovereignty to foreign interests over a non-issue.

Statistically and scientifically speaking, especially given recent published conclusions of real scientists studying actual data, climate change is a non-issue. Politically and economically speaking, however, fueled by artificially fevered public hysteria, it is very much an issue -- these have really been the only bases all along -- while the name of science continues to be misused by the world's governments as a tool to usurp individual liberty, control wealth and assert broad expansion of power. History shows that's what governments do. It shows that power is their favorite cause in the use of science.

An “Inconvenient Truth:” Climate Change and Scientific Fraud -->

 

New from CPH: Completely Reproducible Choir Music

http://www.cph.org/cphstore/product.asp?part_no=977348&promo=WEB&CMID=1187 Composer: Schalk, Carl Instrumentation: various: organ and instruments Occasion: Church Year Product Description: 41 reproducible choral anthems for various vocal forces are included in this collection, released in honor of Carl Schalk's 80th birthday. A data CD containing PDF files of all of the music is also included.

This just landed in my mail box, with the subject line Completely Reproducible Choral Music. That is fantastic! Frankly, the fixation of CGM on copyright protected materials, and the threats of lawsuits from religious publishers resulting from use of these materials, represent a stifling and costly burden on regular congregations -- you know, the congregations without the thousands of dollars a year to spend on "OneLicense.net," for millions of songs they will never use (or, should never use...), or without the desire to permanently maintain a usage database so that they can report to copyright holders and pay, pay, pay. Of course they need to be mega-churches! How can simple congregations otherwise make use of broadcast technology, like the internet, without the resources of a mega-church?

Church isn't supposed to be a get-rich scheme, but religious publishers sure seem to create this opportunity, not only with the imposition of onerous copyright restrictions to extract revenue from congregations, partly for themselves and partly to provide residual income for composers-and-performers-for-hire, but also by creating markets for necessary copyright management software and services, to directly assist congregations in tracking usage and managing compliance issues, and in this way also by providing an avenue of directly marketing "contemporary worship" materials to congregations that would be otherwise inaccessible. The "Contemporary Worship" scene is a real racket, and CGM proponents are pushing it. I wonder if one could trace the financial stake of individuals and organizations pushing CGM to see who profits by it, and in what way? That would make for some interesting financial sleuthing -- you know, who owns, or owned, interest in what CGM services organizations when, how various financial connections may have been coincident with various CGM fads, and what financial benefit was derived. Hey, there might even be a book in it!

Lutherans in America really need more Public Domain worship materials. The publication of this collection is a wonderful step in the right direction, and provides an excellent example to other publishers. Thank you, Carl Schalk and CPH. Now, can hymnal publishers please work on opening up copyright restrictions (performance, archival, rebroadcast, etc.) on music in Hymnals, too -- for congregations that use the hymnals in the way that they were intended to be used, i.e., in the context of the Divine Service? I know, I know -- that would probably mean eliminating a lot of the new "Lutheranized" contemporary worship songs from new Hymnals that are composed by ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC artists, but it would go a long way toward altering today's repugnant reality: the Divine Service is functioning as someone's marketplace. Artists who serve the church ought to be working under her direct commission anyway, IMHO (i.e., specific artistic needs identified by the church, and specific artists with specific qualifications being chosen by the church to fill those artistic needs under the church's supervision...). It would also strike a blow for Christian Freedom, would it not? After all, there is freedom in the Public Domain... Until then, I think that the TLH is a wonderful, mostly Public Domain, alternative to the new hymnals.

 

What is going on in WELS: The Disintegration of Church Fellowship, and the Rise of Unionism?

Ichabod recently featured a sermon from Grace Lutheran Church, a WELS church in downtown Milwaukee whose chief shepherd is WELS First VP, Rev. James Huebner. The Ichabod post can be found here. The sermon can be found here. I responded to this post, offering my opinions on the posted sermon, and Dr. Jackson reposted those comments as a new blog entry, here. Both of those entries resulted in a number of comments by concerned readers, prompting yet a third Ichabod blog entry in as many days on the same theme, here – which has also attracted a number of comments. What was the theme of these posts? Fellowship and Unionsim in the face of the Church Growth Movement, and the status of WELS teaching and practice on these matters.

With a cheapening of practice resulting from the expediency- and pragmatism-oriented Church Growth Movement, comes a necessary dilution of doctrine. It's impossible to endorse carte blanche freedom in church practice in an environment permeated by strong doctrinal perspectives, as practice in such an environment is used as a vehicle for teaching and confessing cherished Scripture doctrine. Moreover, if one is going to import the practices of the heterodox while maintaining an oblivious regard for doctrinal or confessional impact, the main doctrine to be attacked, maligned, and redefined is the doctrine which serves as the immune system of the Church: the Doctrine of Church Fellowship.

For these reasons, the topic of Church Fellowship comes up frequently in discussions regarding the Church Growth Movement. It came up recently on Bailing Water, as well, here. As the discussion following this blog entry progressed, the topic naturally turned to Fellowship. I offered the following by Rev. Egbert Schaller, featured essayist in the NPH title, Essays on Church Fellowship, from his essay "Concerning Christian Brotherhood and Christian Fellowship." It distinguishes the “Christian Brotherhood,” which is invisible, from the visible recognition of "Christian Brothers," and is particularly enlightening. Here are a few quotes:

“It should not require extensive demonstration to establish active fellowship as an essential fruit of the Christian brotherhood. Fellowship is the confessional act of belonging together which Christians owe one another” (pg. 159).

“The critical question is: What must be the basis of Christan fellowship? ...Let us begin by stating that, while the basis of the Christian brotherhood is regeneration and true faith, the basis for recognition and the practical exercise of Christian fellowship is not regeneration and faith. The reason obviously is that recognition must precede fellowshipping, and recognition must have as its object something that can be seen. Faith cannot be seen. Hence, it is impossible to recognize a brother by his faith, and equally impossible to fellowship with him on that basis... Personal faith cannot be the basis of Christian fellowship. Instead, Christian fellowship can be based only on profession of faith, by word and deed, which is something else again... This passage [referring to 1 John 4:1-3], in urging discrimination and recognition of the spirit that is in men, sets up the confession of a man as basis of recognition... We must now amplify the statement that confession is the basis for fellowship by saying that the deciding factor in establishing Christian fellowship is that of a common and correct confession” (pp. 160-161).

“Out of the confusion of those who have been unwilling or unable to analyze the scriptural doctrine of the communion of saints and the fellowship of believers, there has come a welter of confused attitudes, theories, principles, and practice in matters of fellowship. Symptomatic and not actually new is the proposal of selective fellowship..., a practical recognition of individual Christians or congregations, by word or deed, which ignores synodical affiliation. It argues for the right to call a man a brother and treat him as a brother when he is formally separated by synodical lines. ...Membership in a church body is confessionally decisive for conclusive action regarding fellowship. ...We are not concerned with whether or not [one] is a Christian. Christianity in others is a matter of faith with us, not of determination. But practical fellowship is purely a matter of outward confession” (pp. 162-163).

“Can anyone who does not recognize heterodox affiliations be said to practice in accordance with God's Word? Is not that a contradiction in terms? If a man, or a congregation, does these two things simultaneously: (a) Make a verbal confession that is correct; and (b) Make and uphold a second confession by affiliation with a heterodox church body – then those two confessions form one whole. And together they form one false confession. ...Fellowship practiced under such circumstances constitutes recognition of a confession which is thoroughly in conflict with divine truth” (pg. 164).

“We do not, in other words, feel bound to declare anyone a Christian, by word or act of fellowship, simply because we believe or hope he may be one. ...Only if we refrain from trying to see the invisible and content ourselves with careful weighing of the visible, audible evidence, can we truly establish fellowship with brethren and successfully avoid syncretistic affiliations” (pg. 166).

So, what is going on in the WELS?
That was the question asked by the fourth commenter on my review posted on Ichabod. Regarding this, the following email recently landed in my inbox. I know the layman involved, and I know the WELS Pastor involved, as well. I also knew of the situation as it was occurring last Summer. In contrast to E. Schaller's points above, this email explains vividly what is happening among us, what is happening among those who should function as our “Royal Guard” against doctrinal impurity, and what they are doing with Scripture's teaching regarding Church Fellowship.

Freddy,

Last Summer, growing concerned over what I perceived to be loosening fellowship standards, I submitted the following post to WELS Q&A. I informed my Pastor, and he was encouraging, and asked that I let him know when I received an answer. Here is a link to the original post: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=23231. Here is the content of that post:


Q: In a recent Q&A posting entitled "Christian Unity vs. Doctrinal Unity," the Responder used the following phrase in reference to an individual of heterodox confession: "...you as a Christian brother." Over the past 18 months, or so, I think that I have seen WELS Q&A refer to individuals of heterodox confession as "Christian Brothers" at least a half-dozen times, finally prompting me to ask this question: "Are we changing our terminology, theology, or practice concerning the Fellowship and heterodox?" I ask especially since in the same Q&A posting that I reference above, the Responder recommends that the Questioner consult "Essays on Church Fellowship," in which E. Schaller's 1948 essay (pp. 157-166), after a preamble briefly defining the "Christian Brotherhood" as the Church Universal, makes plain in Part II that our recognition of "Christian Brothers" is based on their confession, not the presumption of their faith, and that Scripture "commands that brethren be of the same mind and speak the same things..." (pp. 161-162). In Part III, he labels as "Selective Fellowship" the practice of identifying heterodox Christians as "brothers" – a practice which was endorsed by the ALC at that time. In short, "Christian Brothers" are only those with whom we share Fellowship in the Visible Church, since calling someone a "brother" requires that we apply confessional standards that would identify him as such. Indeed, as a person who travels extensively for business, I can confirm that this is widely taught in our Synod, that "We cannot refer to the heterodox as our Christian brothers" (recent quote from a WELS Pastor in Ohio). I must say, that a loosening of terminology such as this is of great concern to me, especially now, as it comes at a time when Fellowship standards also seem to be loosening – particularly around attitudes toward Worship Fellowship. Perhaps I am suffering from a perception problem, and there is nothing at all to be concerned about. Perhaps also, your reference to heterodox Christians as "brothers" is nothing more than an attempt to communicate with them using terminology familiar to them, in the way they normally would understand it. I can appreciate this, but would also warn of the potential confusion and offense that may result among your Brothers, who rely on you to be as accurate and precise as possible. Not an easy balancing act, I'm sure! Anyway, thank you very much for your hard work, and for maintaining this service. I look forward to your response.

A: Thank you for identifying and expressing concern about the different use of terminology that may be found in our circles and the subsequent confusion that might result. While this potential confusion has existed for some time, the value in recognizing the potential problem and offering clarifications remains fitting.

You appear to be quite well-read on the subject, so I ask you to compare the use of terminology that E. Schaller used in 1948 to the parallel terminology J. Brug used in 1996 (Church Fellowship, p. 20). While there are obvious similarities – and identical theological and doctrinal convictions – there are also differing use of terms. We are dealing with manner of expression, not with the substance of what is being expressed.

Perhaps the primary point is that we judge any professing Christian on the basis of his or her confession, not on the presence or absence of saving faith in the heart, which we cannot see or verify. If this confession reveals (and is not simultaneously denied by the person's practice or lifestyle, which is also part of the confession) that he is relying on Jesus Christ, we believe we may acknowledge him as a "Christian brother" and member of the "Christian brotherhood," the Holy Christian Church. This is the more contemporary use of the term "Christian fellowship" that is used among us today. If that confession is heterodox we may not express unity by calling him a "confessional brother" or in joint activities that would express such unity. E. Schaller's use of "Christian fellowship" focused more on that point and by the term "fellowship" he was referring to activities or expressions of unity (see his essay, p. 159,160) and not simply to the status or relationship itself. Today we (for better or worse) more consistently use the term "church fellowship" for those expressions and activities. But the substance of what is believed and taught and practiced has not changed. A reading of the texts within their contexts will demonstrate this.

One may legitimately ask if it is OK or wise to speak of heterodox believers as "Christian brothers." I believe the language of the Apostle Paul shows it is legitimate and may be used properly (concerning professing brothers whose current confession is heterodox due to weakness or ignorance; when a professing Christian persists in error despite warning and instruction, we often withhold the term since willful clinging to error is not compatible with saving faith). Viewing 1 Corinthians 15:31,58 ("my dear brothers") with 1 Corinthians 15:12 (some among these "brothers" were denying the bodily resurrection) may be helpful. Paul's words in Galatians 5:11,13 ("brothers" again) alongside his words in Galatians 5:4 (declaring the soul-destroying nature of falsehood found among the Galatians) may also be instructive here. Nevertheless, the greater value is to consider the context and whole message of Paul (as well as WELS writers on the subject) and to be aware that different uses of certain terms may be found when the same doctrinal convictions prevail, and so potential confusion and a need for periodic clarifications should also be admitted.

Finally, you share the observation that "fellowship standards" among us "seem to be loosening." As you say, this may merely be a "perception problem" rather than reality, but due vigilance and loving interest will never go out of style, biblically speaking. I pray you will continue to address the subject whenever and wherever appropriate, and in a positive, loving way to testify to the truth.

I was not at all satisfied with this response, and I let my Pastor know. He was not entirely satisfied, either, and so encouraged me to send a follow-up question. Here is the content of my follow-up question:


Q: Brothers, forgive me if I seem unnecessarily persistent. However, after reviewing your response to my original post, and corresponding with my pastor, I felt prompted to follow-up. I'm not sure that your answer actually brought clarification. The point, as I see it, is that to identify someone as a "Brother" is to identify that person as a member of the "Christian Brotherhood," or the Church Universal. Since we are unable to see a person's faith, which is the true measure of such membership, Scripture appoints Doctrine and Practice (in the case of Church Fellowship) or Confession and Works (in the case of Christian Fellowship) to identify someone as sharing such unity with us. That is, unless a Christian's Confession is in full agreement with Scripture, and unless their Works are consistent with their Confession, we are not free to assume the faith that would make them a member of this "Brotherhood." To say that we can sift true statements from an openly heterodox confession, and on the basis of only those true statements recognize a Christian with that confession as a "Christian Brother" seems to entirely overthrow the Scriptural requirement that Brothers are to be united in mind and spirit, are to "speak the same words and think the same thoughts." Further, invoking the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship in order to divide "Christian Brothers" from "Confessional Brothers" is also confusing – I have never heard of this before, and I am quite sure that I have never seen this in Scripture. It also seems particularly dangerous to identify levels of "Brothers" in this way, as it seems to cast seed from which a teaching of "levels of fellowship" may easily sprout. My understanding regarding the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship is not that they establish different criteria for identifying who a Brother is, or what kind of Brother he is, and not that they establish different Fellowship criteria, but that they distinguish the nature of "Fellowshipping" in these (quite) different scenarios. A much greater degree of imperfection is expected when applying Fellowship principles in Christian Fellowship scenarios, as individuals apply sanctified judgment in an effort to balance competing priorities in the ministry of their personal lives. Regardless, I don't see the criteria for the recognition of a "Brother" as different in either case, nor do I see the definition of Fellowship as different. Finally, the Scriptures referred to in your answer did not seem to be entirely helpful. Paul addresses these congregations, and their members, as "Brothers." He was not addressing a heterodox congregation. He shared Fellowship with them. In this context, if he identifies false teaching among them, is he not admonishing erring Brothers and calling them to repentance? This is the way that I would understand these verses. I would not infer that he was referring to openly heterodox Christians (i.e., "persistent errorists") as "Brothers." Certainly, if someone gives all indications that they are relying on Jesus, we call them Christians. But "Brotherhood" requires unity, and since we cannot see faith, confession and works are the measure Scripture commands us to apply. As a result, we simply cannot say that we share unity with Christians of heterodox confession, because the visible measure of this unity is not satisfied. Maybe we do share unity with them in the Church Universal, and maybe we don't – only God knows. But, it seems to me, we do not have the authority to declare that we share unity with specific individuals of heterodox confession, by referring to them as our "Brothers." In short, and to return to E. Schaller's essay, I see his point as this: to recognize someone as a "Christian Brother" is at the same time to declare Fellowship with him. Thank you for continuing to bear with me in my confusion. I look forward to your response.

This follow-up question was not posted on WELS Q&A, but it was answered with a direct email to me. In my opinion, their follow-up answer only made matters worse, and I corresponded with my Pastor, as follows:


Paster,

WELS Q&A supplied a response to my follow-up question, but will not post it in public, signaling to me that they no longer wish to discuss or comment on the issue. They did not invite further discussion via email. This has gone from bad to worse in my opinion. I hate to burden you with this, as I am sure that you have much better things to be doing, but the WELS Q&A author is clearly saying something other than what I have learned from my reading of Scripture and other orthodox Lutheran works, and from what I have learned from you. The substance of his words, below, depart significantly from my understanding of the Bible's teaching of Fellowship.

I do not consider this a trivial matter, at this point. The distinctions he is making are not Biblical (that I can tell), he supplies no Biblical support for the Fellowship distinctions that he is making and is applying. I understand attempts to think about things differently, but sound doctrine rests only on clear statements of Scripture. I am aware of no such statements in the Bible that support what this author is saying – and what he is saying definitely seems to qualify what has up to now, in my understanding, been regarded as quite clear.

If you could, would you be able to make a study of these issues? Please definitively correct my understanding where it is lacking, show me from Scripture where the WELS Q&A author is correct and I am incorrect, so that I can be brought into agreement with the WELS Q&A author. If no agreement is forthcoming, we will need to determine how to escalate this.

The author's reply below is in bold italics. My original comments are in regular un-bolded black. I supplied my thoughts in response to the points in his reply [bracketed in blue], and I have highlighted in bold red italics the specific points in the author's reply that I was responding to in blue. Hope this makes sense.

Thank you for your time and attention to this.

[name deleted]


-------- Original Message --------

Hello [name deleted],

We have answered your question on WELS Topical Q&A but decided not to post it to the system for others to view it. This may be on account of the topic being too private and sensitive, or perhaps this questioned has already been asked. Your question and our response follows.

You asked:
...[snip ...posted above]...

This is our reply:
Thank you for writing again. I regret that the previous reply was not helpful to you. I am inserting my replies into your comments and questions below. I'll italicize my replies to distinguish them from your comments.

Brothers, forgive me if I seem unnecessarily persistent. However, after reviewing your response to my original post, and corresponding with my pastor, I felt prompted to follow-up. I'm not sure that your answer actually brought clarification. The point, as I see it, is that to identify someone as a "Brother" is to identify that person as a member of the "Christian Brotherhood," or the Church Universal. Since we are unable to see a person's faith, which is the true measure of such membership, Scripture appoints Doctrine and Practice (in the case of Church Fellowship) or Confession and Works (in the case of Christian Fellowship) to identify someone as sharing such unity with us. That is, unless a Christian's Confession is in full agreement with Scripture, and unless their Works are consistent with their Confession, we are not free to assume the faith that would make them a member of this “Brotherhood.” We agree fully on the fact that we appraise another on the basis of his confession. Your final statement, however, says more than that. To insist on full agreement on all of Scripture before we can acknowledge a confession of Christian faith deserves clarification since it sounds presumptuous and arbitrary. We may say that a believer, in principle, assents to all of Scripture. [Does this mean that by default all professing Christians are therefore "Christian Brothers" unless they are determined, case-by-case, to be otherwise? Where is this in Scripture? The author of this response cannot make any of the statements that follow unless he makes this assumption.] But because of ignorance or weakness, for example, such a person might still give a heterodox confession. We take both aspects of that person's confession seriously as long as we can -- the portion that professes reliance on Jesus Christ as Savior and the portion that departs from Scripture on some point. You seem to be saying that any and all doctrinal errors outweigh or functionally negate the confessed truth of saving faith. [I am not concerned with the "truth of saving faith" -- I have no means of measuring it in another individual. Nor am I concerned with a "confession of faith." Faith can only be assumed of "Brothers" with whom we share confessional agreement. Show me in the Bible where it says otherwise, and I'll change my thinking on this. Error may or may not negate the faith of a person -- it does, however, negate his confession, and make it impossible for us to recognize him as a "Brother."] But only when I have learned that the person persistently and willfully spurns Scripture would I not be free to assume that his confessed faith is true. [Is this not the definition of "Christian of heterodox confession?" Isn't a heterodox Christian one who, by their public confession, is in a state of persistent error? Is this not what is in question here? Again, I question: is the author of this response assuming that all professing Christians are "Brothers" unless, one-by-one he rules out by personal knowledge that they are not? I make no such assumption, and, rather, require the opposite, as I have been taught and as I have seen it taught in Scripture: no Christian can be recognized as a "Brother" unless I know his confession is orthodox.]

To say that we can sift true statements from an openly heterodox confession, and on the basis of only those true statements recognize a Christian with that confession as a "Christian Brother" seems to entirely overthrow the Scriptural requirement that Brothers are to be united in mind and spirit, are to "speak the same words and think the same thoughts." I do not agree that taking seriously all portions of a heterodox confession overthrows the Bible command that we seek and express unity. [Is this not wordplay? Is the author of this response not attempting to use the phrase "taking seriously all portions of a heterodox confession" to slight the significance of error in an "openly heterodox confession?" How seriously, after all, can or should we take the error in their confession?] When Paul urged such oneness among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:10) he made it clear that (1) the Corinthians did not enjoy such unity at that time, but (2) he still appealed to them as his "brothers" (see verse 11, etc.) even while rebuking and exposing the disunity. Our task is to work with the weak, affirming what is true and opposing what is false. [Again, this is Paul, addressing a congregation with whom he was in Fellowship. He was addressing the congregation and it's members -- putting this squarely in the context of "Visible Church" where even the author of this response must admit that "Church Fellowship" principles apply, not so-called "Christian Fellowship." This is not a heterodox congregation, it is not a congregation that Paul has declared "in persistent error." He was addressing error among his Brothers in order to draw their attention to it and to call them to repentance. These references have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue: that of referring to individual Christians, who have not been recognized as Brothers on the basis of confessional agreement, who, further, are of known heterodox confession, as "Christian Brother" solely on the basis of what we recognize as true in their heterodoxy (whether or not we refer to this as "taking seriously all portions of their heterodox confession..."] (Nor would I say that I am advocating a "sifting" through confessional statements, picking up on some but neglecting others. That would be presumptuous. Rather, I advocate taking ALL of the confession equally seriously). [How is this not, "sifting through confessional statements, picking up on some but neglecting others?" Is the author of this response recognizing "Brothers" on the basis of the error in their confession? No, he could only make such recognition on the basis of the truth of their confession in spite of the error. The fact is, the author cannot make the claim that he is admonishing erring Brothers in such a situation unless he first assumes that everyone who professes Christianity is automatically a "Christian Brother," and can only one-by-one rule them out of such a status after he personally admonishes them, has had such admonishment rejected, and on the basis of this rejection declares them persistent errorists. I have been taught, and have read in Scripture, that the opposite is the case: only those who are first recognized as Brothers (not globally assumed as Brothers) can be considered Brothers.]

Further, invoking the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship in order to divide "Christian Brothers" from "Confessional Brothers" is also confusing – I have never heard of this before, and I am quite sure that I have never seen this in Scripture. The note is well taken that the Bible itself does not use the same terminology and that such ecclesiastical terminology needs defining and clarifying. The use of such terminology does not strike me as particularly recent or unheard of, but I have not researched this point.

It also seems particularly dangerous to identify levels of “Brothers” in this way, as it seems to cast seed from which a teaching of "levels of fellowship" may easily sprout. My understanding regarding the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship is not that they establish different criteria for identifying who a Brother is, or what kind of Brother he is, and not that they establish different Fellowship criteria, but that they distinguish the nature of “Fellowshipping” in these (quite) different scenarios. A much greater degree of imperfection is expected when applying Fellowship principles in Christian Fellowship scenarios, as individuals apply sanctified judgment in an effort to balance competing priorities in the ministry of their personal lives. Regardless, I don't see the criteria for the recognition of a "Brother" as different in either case, nor do I see the definition of Fellowship as different. The so-called "levels of [church] fellowship" that are advocated by false ecumenists receives no support at all from a proper distinguishing of elements in a professing believer's confession. The error you refer to ignores and downplays confessional differences and ultimately does not take them seriously in considering joint expressions of fellowship (worship, prayer, etc.) [This only applies if one assumes a prescriptive distinction between "Christian Fellowship" and "Church Fellowship." I have only recognized such distinction as descriptive since Biblical criteria for recognizing a Brother only comes to us in the context of the congregation. There is only one form of Fellowship in the Visible Church. Anywhere that two or more are gathered in agreement constitutes a congregation. This is "Visible Church." There can be no recognition of "Brothers" on any level outside the context of the "Visible Church." Therefore, recognizing "levels of Brothers" necessarily results in "levels of Fellowship." There is no distinction in Scripture, that I can find, between so-called "Christian Fellowship" and "Church Fellowship." Show me that there is, and I will change my thinking.] But taking a believer's confession seriously will acknowledge what is true as well as what is not true, and can lovingly affirm what is right and rebuke and avoid what is wrong. [No disagreement here. We can lovingly and joyfully affirm Truth in another Christian's confession, while at the same time rebuking the error. My understanding from Scripture, however, is that the error prevents an orthodox Christian from referring to a heterodox Christian as a "Brother," regardless of whether we rejoice in orthodox aspects of their confession.] Since full unity in doctrine and practice is required for expressions of fellowship (joint worship, prayer, etc.), however, we are not talking about that.

Finally, the Scriptures referred to in your answer did not seem to be entirely helpful. Paul addresses these congregations, and their members, as "Brothers." He was not addressing a heterodox congregation. He shared Fellowship with them. In this context, if he identifies false teaching among them, is he not admonishing erring Brothers and calling them to repentance? This is the way that I would understand these verses. I would not infer that he was referring to openly heterodox Christians (i.e., "persistent errorists") as “Brothers.” You are correct and wise to identify that the weak and erring members in Corinth and Galatia were part of orthodox churches. You are also correct to say Paul is clearly admonishing them and calling them to repentance. But to conclude from this that we can only deal in this manner with members of orthodox churches is, in my opinion, concluding more than Scripture says. [I am not concluding anything from these Scriptures, really. Criteria for recognizing a "Brother" -- namely, confessional agreement -- are clearly spelled out elsewhere in Scripture. I am applying those abundant, well-known, and clearly stated Scripture references to this anecdotal reference. The author, however, seems to be using these anecdotal references -- generally unclear according to sound Lutheran hermeneutics -- to qualify or question those clear statements of Scripture by which I interpret these anecdotes. This is not Lutheran hermeneutics, in my understanding, which is to interpret the less clear (i.e., anecdotal references) using the more clear references (i.e., direct, positive statements of Scripture). Such an approach the author seems to be using, however, is a hermeneutical approach common to modern Evangelicals, like Wayne Grudem, for instance (whose Systematic Theology I am familiar with).] The subject here is dealing with people, not congregations or church bodies. [More fully, the subject is dealing with people who are members of congregations with whom Paul was in Fellowship. "Church Fellowship" principles therefore apply. Erring Brothers within this Fellowship are being admonished and called to repentance within the framework of "Church Fellowship." I do not deal with individuals with whom I share confessional unity, who I refer to as "Brothers" in my congregation, according to criteria outside of what is expected within a "Church Fellowship" context. I don't refer to them as "Brothers" in two different senses at the same time -- as "Christian Brothers" and then as "Confessional Brothers". Is the author of this response assuming that a high standard of "Church Fellowship" applies only to the organizations we call congregations in the Visible Church, and that a weaker standard of "Christian Fellowship" applies only individuals, whether they are heterodox or not? Again, I don't see this teaching in Scripture. By my reading, there is only one standard for recognizing a Brother, and there is only one Fellowship with identical standards.] It is every Christian's privilege to affirm truth and rebuke departures from revealed truth when confronted by such in the daily Christian walk. [No disagreement here. But this in no way establishes criteria for referring to Christians of openly heterodox confession as "Christian Brothers." We deal with all sinners the same way. False doctrine is sin, the same as any other sin -- and we call sinners to repentance. We don't need to refer to such sinners as "Brothers" in order to lovingly admonish them and call them to repentance. In fact, we are required to be separate from them, not to surreptitiously declare some sort of hidden, extra-congregational unity with them by calling them "Brother" outside the context of the congregation. I simply see this nowhere in Scripture, and read quite the opposite.]

Certainly, if someone gives all indications that they are relying on Jesus, we call them Christians. But "Brotherhood" requires unity, and since we cannot see faith, confession and works are the measure Scripture commands us to apply. As a result, we simply cannot say that we share unity with Christians of heterodox confession, because the visible measure of this unity is not satisfied. Maybe we do share unity with them in the Church Universal, and maybe we don't -- only God knows. But, it seems to me, we do not have the authority to declare that we share unity with specific individuals of heterodox confession, by referring to them as our "Brothers." Thanks for restating your assumptions to make sure I grasp them. Perhaps this is (still) the crux of the matter. You are saying that we must share with others a complete and orthodox unity in our confession before we have the right or freedom to acknowledge the others as Christians or Christian brothers. [No. I thought that I was clear on this point. I am definitely not saying that we need to share confessional agreement with someone in order to refer to them as a Christian. I just stated that, above, in fact. I am, instead, reserving the use of the term "Brother" to those with whom we share confessional agreement, since use of this term requires that we first recognize a Christian as a Brother on the basis of his confession. So, I am specifically ruling out equivalency of the phrases "Christian" and "Christian Brother". The label "Christian" is based on one's profession of faith in Christ, without regard to anything else he says. The term "Christian Brother" is based on one's recognition of another Christian as a Brother on the basis of confessional agreement. Brother is a term reserved for those with whom one shares a common confession, because a common confession is the criteria required in Scripture by which we recognize a Brother.] I am saying that we have the right and freedom (and privilege) to take all aspects of their confession equally seriously as long as we can, with the result that we may refer to weak and erring professing believers as siblings in Christ unless there is evidence to the contrary. [Again, apparently an "openly heterodox confession" is not evidence to the contrary? I have no basis by which to recognize anyone as a sibling in Christ, since I cannot see his faith! Scripture only provides confession and works as such a measure, and only provides the criteria of full agreement! Show me in the Bible where this is not the case!] To use your words, I believe "the visible measure of this unity" is sufficient to affirm a Christian fellowship even though it may not be sufficient to express this in church fellowship (joint worship, prayer, etc.). [I don't see this anywhere in Scripture. First, the only place in Scripture where we are given criteria for the recognition of "Brothers" is in the context of the congregation, i.e., the Visible Church. Second, to identify "Brothers" outside the context of the congregation simply does not make sense. The Bible defines "Brother" as those who share full agreement (show me where this is not the case). By the declaration of Christ, any two or more Christians who share such agreement constitutes a congregation, thus their association under this agreement falls within the context of the Visible Church, and the criteria of "Church Fellowship" applies. This is why I have, up to this point, seen the distinction of "Christian Fellowship" from "Church Fellowship" as only descriptive terminology referring to the relative imperfection of Fellowship standards among individuals versus among congregations. They are not two distinct systems of recognizing Brothers and of associating with them under this recognition. Frankly, at this point, these terms are proving to be the cause of far to much confusion, and in my growing opinion, abuse. They are not useful and should be dropped.]

In short, and to return to E. Schaller's essay, I see his point as this: to recognize someone as a “Christian Brother” is at the same time to declare Fellowship with him. Thank you for continuing to bear with me in my confusion. I look forward to your response. Again, you are understanding "Fellowship" as both Christian fellowship (membership in the Brotherhood, or Una Sancta) and church fellowship (joint expressions of doctrinal unity) as inseparable and all-or-nothing in our dealings with others. I am not convinced that this is what Schaller meant and do not believe subsequent church fathers endorsed such an idea. [If Christian Fellowship is recognition of another person in the Una Sancta, I can only do so, definitively, on the basis of his faith. I cannot see another person's faith. The point of Schaller's essay is that neither individuals nor churches are free to assume the faith of another Christian apart from recognizing them as Brothers on the basis of full confessional agreement. Certainly, he is discussing what the author would call "Church Fellowship," but Schaller steps out of this context in several places and directly addresses individuals and who they recognize as Brothers, whether on their own or in the context of the congregation, and makes it plain that there is no difference: Brothers in either context are recognized by the same criteria, and Fellowship standards are what describe their association under this recognition. This is what a close reading of E. Schaller reveals, it is what I have learned in my study from the Scriptures, and is the reason for my having brought up this line of questioning.]


My Pastor did take this issue seriously. He shared it with several of his family members, who are WELS clergymen. He escalated it to the Seminary, being careful to avoid the author of this Q&A response (he wouldn't tell me who it was) and to avoid Bivens (he didn't tell me why, but I can guess). The men he spoke with at the Seminary (he wouldn't tell me who they were, either) indicated that the author's response is “out in no-man's land,” that his use of the anecdotal 1 Corinthians reference does not apply since "heterodox congregations" didn't exist at the time. There was no such thing – you were a Christian congregation, or you weren't Christian (of course, I think that by the time John wrote Revelation, we can say that heterodox congregations existed, as Jesus identifies a number of them for us...). As my Pastor explained his discussions to me, I could see the look of extreme disappointment on his face, and hear it in his voice. I think some of the Pastors he spoke with defended the author of the response, and several didn't know what to think. At the end of our conversation, he said with exasperation, "I'm just a parish pastor. I don't know what else to do or say."

We want so much to believe in our own orthodoxy without measuring it, and when it comes time to measure it, when the truth becomes obvious that we are not united, so many want to view the disunity through cow-eyes. They are orthodox, they have to be... I must misunderstand them... They must be speaking too deeply for me...

The sermon I reviewed on Ichabod is an example of a sharp and significant departure from WELS and Scripture's teaching on Church Fellowship. It embraces a "Fundamental Doctrines" threshold of Fellowship, and a unionistic regard for who we recognize as "Brothers" in the Faith. But can we say that such sentiments have originated with the leadership of Grace Lutheran Church in dowtown Milwaukee? Or has this descended to them, and other parishes, from higher up, from those whose job it is to protect pure teaching for the entire Synod, train our workers, and disseminate sound teaching to us? Given that we have WELS pastors leading ministries publicly confessing LCMS doctrine (i.e., Rev. Jeske and Time of Grace, read here, here, here and here), that we have WELS parishes which have publicly become ministry extensions of Purpose Driven Church and Willow Creek Association, given that the worship practice of a number of our congregations has been given over entirely to heterodox priorities, we must gouge-out our cow-eyes and begin to see words and actions as they lie naked before us.

<-- The Course of Error in the Church (Krauth/Kretzmann)