Posted by SB on 4/13/2002, 2:18 pm

“Surely Marvin doesn’t believe that we have to fit a Pentecostal or charismatic mold in order to experience God in His fullness.” Hmm, that’s a sticky one. Well, remember what I said about what the guy told me about the ritual in the early days of the Lutheran Church? It goes to show, it was the praying and believing God that brought the Spirit down, not what went on in the external. If God could do it then, I won’t rule out that maybe he could do something like that in some ritualistic church now. It’s God, after all, who dispenses the Holy Spirit, not man. And one other thing: I don’t believe any of us are experiencing God in his fulness, now, in this fallen age. I think the fulness of God would be more than fallen man would be able to bear, so I say Pentecostal/charismatics aren’t experiencing God in his fulness. “Does Marvin think God is really that small?” No, Marvin doesn’t think that. We may have some different preferences about different kinds of worship, but of all the points you made in your post, I haven’t disagreed with any of them. Marvin ---------- ...Then Steve [Part 1] Posted by Marvin on 9/23/2001, 6:06 pm , in reply to “First Chris....” Steve, The viewpoint I was expressing was that the people who have fewer passions—I shouldn’t say “no passions” because everybody has at least SOME passions—but the people with fewer usually tend to be in a better situation because of not being as prone to having their passions lead them to things that get them into trouble in life. But the people with more passions—it’s a fact—they have a greater enjoyment of the good things they have in their lives, and on top of that, it’s also a fact that it can lead them to getting things done more. So what’s better: Achieving a lot of good with a great amount of bad happening at the same time? Or making sure that no bad happens by doing nothing to achieve the good? Take your talent and bury it in the ground? Is that the answer? No, no. Brotherly love, peace and democracy at the expense of failing to fulfill God’s instructions adds up to being a bad thing, though in themselves, these are good things. That is the point I was making. When I wrote that “the Lutheran Church, for the most part, can’t bring that (the gospel) to them (the people of the more difficult unconventional mindsets [some of the ones I listed were ‘the worst criminals, the drug addicts, the underworld, the insane, the Wiccans, the Satan worshipers,’ etc.]),” you responded with “It can’t? Why not?” The answer is simple: Because they’re just not interested in it, the Lutheran Church. Because it appears “dead” to them. And that’s not even to mention the bigger problem, that most, the majority of Lutherans, aren’t even born again themselves. How are the ones who aren’t born again going to bring something to the unsaved that they don’t even know themselves? SOME Lutherans are born again, yes, but even they, in their churches as they are, do not present a spiritual appeal to these people, these more difficult cases among the unsaved of the world. You say: “It [the Lutheran Church] preaches the Word of God, and depends upon the Spirit to work through it.” Well, theoretically it does. But often what you hear from Lutheran pulpits is weirded-out philosophy, humanism, psychology, many things—and often little of the Word of God. Besides that, there may be a cleric or two, maybe of the born-again minority, saying something about depending on the Spirit, but really, not an awful lot getting accomplished for the Kingdom of God. Some amount, yes, but comparatively, not so much. You also must consider that most Lutheran clergymen deny the authenticity and complete inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus and many of the fundamental truths of the Gospel of Christ. A while ago, Dave posted an article about it, a survey that gave the numbers. Maybe he would be kind enough to post that again now. You ask: “Is that not adequate?” And I say: No, I’m afraid it isn’t. You then ask: “Are you suggesting that the Lutherans need to work on the presentation of the message to make it more ‘relevant’ or ‘exciting’ to a particular audience?” Is that the only alternative you can think of? At Chapel the message all along was that this common tactic of the denominational churches was in fact a mistaken tactic, and that people needed to be drawn in by the presence of the Holy Spirit—which happened regularly—and not by organizing picnics, activities, games, etc. to try to get people to come to church, as the denominational churches were notorious for. (I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with picnics, activities and games, I’m just saying the Spirit of God needs to be there in a much stronger way so that we don’t need to be using those things to be the appeal that brings in the converts.) “Liven up the message with more loaves and fishes for those we think need to be attracted by offers that will gratify their physical appetites?” Again, Chapel’s consistent message was that this is how NOT to do it, in spite of the church world at large making a regular practice of it. “All I did was observe that they [the cases listed were ‘one whose hobbies are collecting child pornography and writing letters to swimsuit models, others who are so confused that they no longer believe Jesus is God and others who are so burnt out that they want nothing to do with any church’] did in fact come out of the Chapel, and I add now that in each case they still claim the Chapel as a positive formative influence upon them.” This brings conclusive proof that the church they came from (Chapel) is no good? So if any such things ever happen in Lutheran churches, it would conclusively prove the same thing? Be careful where you skate, Steve. The ice may be thin in some places. I would never have made such a case against the Lutheran Church, but since you’re making it against Chapel, I’m going to have to do the following to show you how this rationale is mistaken: ---------- ...Then Steve [Part 2] Posted by Marvin on 9/23/2001, 6:07 pm , in reply to “…Then Steve [Part 1]” Just doing a preliminary skim across the Internet about Lutheran clergymen and misconduct, here are the beginnings of the results, articles from newspapers all across the country: 1. LUTHERAN COUNSELOR NABBED. St. Paul Lutheran Church youth counselor John Wayne Nase, 40, Phoenix, was accused of multiple counts of child molesting, sexual conduct with a minor and kidnapping. Police say he ordered a boy, 12, into the choir loft and performed sex acts on him after Nase’s Sunday confirmation classes. Source: Arizona Republic 7/21/92. 2. REDEEMER CHURCH SETTLES SUIT. Redeemer Lutheran Church, Redwood City, made a secret settlement to a victim of youth counselor James A. Weller, who had sought $25,000. The victim said the pastor and other church officials interrupted Weller when he was molesting the victim, then 13, but failed to report it. Weller had been dishonorably discharged from the Navy for sexual molestation and had a record when he was hired by the church. He was convicted in 1990 of 27 counts of sex crimes against four boys and a girl, including oral sex, rape and pornography. He is serving a four-year prison sentence. Source: Redwood City Tribune 5/19/92. 3. LUTHERAN PASTOR CONFESSES TO 13 YEARS OF CRIMES. The 500 members of Christ Lutheran Church in Palatine were sent a letter informing them that Rev. Wayne Tellekson has confessed to sexual misconduct while he was pastor from 1975 to 1988. He was removed from his current St. Paul, Minn. church when a former victim confronted Tellekson. Source: Chicago Sun-Times 1/15/93. 4. LAWSUIT ALLEGES CLERGY MALPRACTICE. David S. Guppy filed a civil suit for clergy malpractice, misrepresentation, fraud and other counts against Rev. F. Scott Luthy, resigned pastor of St. Stephen Evangelical Lutheran Church, Rockford. Guppy says the minister seduced his wife, a parishioner, then misused his counseling relationship with Guppy to conceal the affair, urging him to have an affair of his own. Source: Jackson Citizen Patriot 7/31/92. 5. LUTHERAN PASTOR NABBED. Dirk van der Linde, 43, pastor at Immanuel Lutheran Church, Waterloo, was charged with intent to commit sexual abuse of a boy, 14. He is affiliated with the Missouri Synod. Relatives complained about a two-month delay in arresting him. An aunt said she believed the delay stemmed from racism, because the victim is black and the minister white. “It would not be this way if it had been a black minister molesting a white child,” she said. Source: Waterloo Courier 9/23/92, Des Moines Register 9/24/92. 6. LUTHERAN MINISTER REMOVED. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America removed Rev. Wendell Henkenmeier of Marblehead from the ministry after a panel found him guilty of sexual misconduct and destructive practices during counseling of five victims. Source: Union-News 5/30/92. 7. LUTHERAN LEADER ADMITS CHARGES. Lutheran pastor David L. Anderson admitted having sexual relations with a number of boys and young men while pastor of a leading Lutheran congregation in Moorehead, Minn. He resigned from the clergy of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and as vice president for college relations in St. Olaf College in April, admitting sexual misconduct with minors, college students and male parishioners from 1973 to 1985. He confessed only after a parishioner approached a staff member at the 4,000-member church with allegations in March. Source: Star Tribune 4/20/92. (Continued)