Pageviews yesterday | 8,569 |
Pageviews last month | 57,135 |
Pageviews all time history | 4,280,492 |
↧
Yesterday Started with Sundown Tuesday. The Previous Day - 3,000+
↧
Reader Responds to Recent Posts
Hi Greg,
Thanks with sadness for the posts you've had up this week. The Brent Biesterfeld and Anthony Natalie information confirmed me in my decision to leave WELS recently. This passage summed up the difficulties people with conscience must have with the WELS concisely:
"if the WELS officials were honest and put church worker arrests into FIC, church workers would be warned that the cover-ups are ending. Are the WELS officials any different from the Roman Catholic officials who simply moved offending priests into new positions? The only difference I see is that the Lutherans are married and have even less of an excuse to assault minors and married women. If someone takes advantage of a married woman while "counseling" her--in his office at church, or in her home alone--he should be canned, caned, and committed to prison, not elevated to synodical office. "
After a few months away from several years in WELS, one statement by my former pastor continues to come back to me as a mark of the group. In the midst of what I thought to be an honest discussion between the two of us, I asked, "You mentioned that many people have left this congregation. Certainly you must have wondered why. Have you ever tried to contact them later and discuss their reasons?"
"I know exactly why every one of them left," he answered. I was momentarily dumbfounded at his utter conviction. The tone and manner of his answer allowed for not a sliver of doubt.
"What was the reason?"
"Sin. They were all in sin."
Your new byline is fabulous: "Ichabod explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, with an emphasis on UOJ, Church Growth, and Emergent Church heresies. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the mainline denominations."
Also appreciated your human look at your experience at Walmart. God be with you.
Thanks with sadness for the posts you've had up this week. The Brent Biesterfeld and Anthony Natalie information confirmed me in my decision to leave WELS recently. This passage summed up the difficulties people with conscience must have with the WELS concisely:
"if the WELS officials were honest and put church worker arrests into FIC, church workers would be warned that the cover-ups are ending. Are the WELS officials any different from the Roman Catholic officials who simply moved offending priests into new positions? The only difference I see is that the Lutherans are married and have even less of an excuse to assault minors and married women. If someone takes advantage of a married woman while "counseling" her--in his office at church, or in her home alone--he should be canned, caned, and committed to prison, not elevated to synodical office. "
After a few months away from several years in WELS, one statement by my former pastor continues to come back to me as a mark of the group. In the midst of what I thought to be an honest discussion between the two of us, I asked, "You mentioned that many people have left this congregation. Certainly you must have wondered why. Have you ever tried to contact them later and discuss their reasons?"
"I know exactly why every one of them left," he answered. I was momentarily dumbfounded at his utter conviction. The tone and manner of his answer allowed for not a sliver of doubt.
"What was the reason?"
"Sin. They were all in sin."
Your new byline is fabulous: "Ichabod explores the Age of Apostasy, predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, with an emphasis on UOJ, Church Growth, and Emergent Church heresies. The antidote to these poisons is trusting the efficacious Word in the Means of Grace. John 16:8. Most readers are WELS, LCMS, ELS, or ELCA. This blog also covers the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the mainline denominations."
Also appreciated your human look at your experience at Walmart. God be with you.
***
GJ - Thank you, Anonymous Reader. When there are 11,000 reads total in two days, I feel certain someone is reading the blog. My only hope is that they stay for the Biblical, Lutheran doctrine material.
↧
↧
Personality Cults Are Also Abusive Cults - WELS Is One Example. WELS Teachers and Pastors Target the Innocent
 |
| WELS Church and Changer - Pastor Adam Mueller, First VP Wayne Mueller's son. The congregation was so proud of their cross-dressing pastor and council that they published the photos on the Net. Children helped them with their makeup - at their parish picnic. |
Readers have been asking about comments I might have received. Some WELS clergy were angry that I turned off blog comments for good, because one WELS pastor in particular was being so nasty about people I knew. He is always anonymous but rather obvious in his clumsy attempts. He even tried various names - to get around my knowledge of his crafts and assaults.
I get complimentary emails regularly, and critical emails are just as welcome. But I fear Mark Schroeder has ordered silence, since WELS responses only encourage me to write even more. And - let's face it, his little pastors do not help their dying little sect with their little hissy-fits.
 |
| Here is a two-fer: prostitution arrest and the WELS poster boy for sodomy. Isn't that a Church and Changer on the far left? By golly.... |
Mark Schroeder has quite a resume now.
- He and Mark Jeske's pals stole St. John in Milwaukee and gave it to ELCA, to keep new members from joining and putting worship services on the Internet. This had to be done stealthily, dishonestly, and illegally, because no one involved had any claim on the title.
- The Intrepid Lutherans group, which he urged Steve Spencer to start, has been dismantled, but Mark Jeske's Church and Changers have been larded with money and promoted in every way possible.
- He traveled to Appleton to cut a deal for Ski, getting the abusive alcoholic a new call in a new district, breaking the rules established for pastors forced to resign.
- His missions department gave the Booze Brothers a huge gift to buy a bar in downtown Appleton, next-door to a WELS urban mission, which was like giving an arsonist a gift of napalm. Yet real mission pastors are starving.
- But he was fine with his buddy Jon Buchholz kicked Paul Rydecki and his congregation out of WELS for teaching justification by faith. (Read your Bible, not the NIV, and the Book of Concord, Mark.)
- WELS has become known as a cross-dressing sect, because the synod loves to publish photos and videos of its male students, pastors, and teachers dressed as women and acting nellie.
- The cover-ups continue as one scandal after another breaks, and new sources send the stories to me. He can hardly deny what is published in newspapers. Flushing everything down the memory hole works best when these ructions are rare rather than daily.
 |
| Church and Change took over WELS under Schroeder. Isn't that Adam Mueller? Wayne's son? By golly, it is. |
Characteristics of an abusive cult:
- Everyone is always spying on the rest and reporting to the bullies at the top.
- The rules are very strict, for everyone except the leaders, who are lawless.
- The vulnerable are targeted to be used by the leaders, just as Martin Stephan (LCMS founder) did when he told his young women he was in charge of their souls and their bodies.
- The group is infallible, so any spot that might damage the immaculate pose is denied, erased, forgotten, or blamed on the person reporting it.
- The members suffer from Stockholm Syndrome, in love with the thugs who keep them captive to the man-made laws and always guilty for offending Holy Mother Sect.
- Family and school connections are the ultimate claim to authority. Someone can be an abusive drunk, a sex addict, a lazy incompetent, a liar and thief, but the cult will rescue their lamb if he is threatened with the natural consequences of his moral decay.
- Gaslighting is routine. Leaders play their GA (hazing) games, pretending to be on one side, then another, saying one thing and then denying it, then acting as if the target is crazy for holding them to their words, which are simply tools for manipulation.
- Another language, known only to the insiders, and used with great smugness. I knew the Duggars were in a cult when they began speaking of "side-hugs, defrauding the eyes, Nike," and other nonsense. WELS will say, "In our circles (more like a zero) this means..." They drop their GA hints and how they punish those who talk.
 |
| Under Mark Schroeder's leadership - Mark Jeske's joint-workshop with ELCA. Didn't Steve Witte help found Church and Change? |
WELSians - remember how they told you to use the synodical schools and area schools to avoid the nastiness and abuse of those public schools?
- Like teachers who are voyeurs?
- Like teachers who abuse minors and are left on the faculty or moved to another?
- Like female teachers found making out with their female students in a parking lot?
- Like staff found engaging at work in swapping homosexual child porn files, yet excused by their bosses?
- Like those public and those evil ELCA colleges encouraging and bragging about male students role-playing gay roles?
- Like illegal drinking to the point that students graduate as alcoholics?
WELS is deep into the current culture and definitely an enthusiastic participant in the decline of America. The WELS schools are not an escape from degenerate culture but an immersion in hazing, alcoholism, physical and sexual abuse, and who knows what else.
 |
| Michigan Lutheran Seminary, a WELS high school, cannot wait to get the male students into skirts and makeup. |
↧
In the Public Record - (X-Rated, - Sorry). WELS District President Ed Werner. I Heard Keith Free Tell the WELS Cover Story When Werner Was Arrested. WELS Knew And Did Nothing
 |
| District President Ed Werner was Valleskey's classmate and fellow scholar in the dogma of UOJ. |
http://law.justia.com/cases/south-dakota/supreme-court/1992/17434-1.html
482 N.W.2d 286 (1992)
STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Edward J. WERNER, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 17434.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Argued October 23, 1991.
Decided March 4, 1992.
Rehearing Denied April 13, 1992.
*287 Mark W. Barnett, Atty. Gen., Ronald D. Campbell, Karen E. Cremer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Pierre, for plaintiff and appellee.
James C. Roby of Green, Schulz, Roby & Oviatt, Watertown, for defendant and appellant.
MILLER, Chief Justice.
Edward J. Werner, a Lutheran minister, appeals his conviction of five counts of sexual contact and two counts of attempted sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen. We affirm.
FACTSWerner became the pastor for St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Goodwin, South Dakota, in 1963. In 1967, he became pastor of several combined churches, principally serving Our Savior's Lutheran Church in South Shore, South Dakota, and St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Goodwin.
As pastor, Werner was responsible for conducting Sunday services and supervising the programs at each church. He taught confirmation classes on Saturday mornings in South Shore for seventh and eighth grade children of the two parishes.
On April 16, 1990, a complaint was filed charging Werner with six counts of sexual contact with a child under the age of 16 (a violation of SDCL 22-22-7) and two counts of attempted sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen (a violation of SDCL 22-22-7 and 22-4-1). An amended complaint dated May 22, 1990, added an additional charge of sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen. All of the complaints alleged the sexual contact between Werner and the young female parishioners occurred during church-related activities during the period from October 1987 to March of 1990.
These five young girls, all members of Werner's parish, claimed Werner had touched or attempted to touch their breasts, lower backs and buttocks. This contact was initiated at different times and at different locations, including: the hallway of the church, during a Christmas party at the church, during a church swimming party in Watertown, in the confirmation classroom, and in the fellowship hall of the church. At the time the contact was initiated, the girls ranged in age from eight to fourteen years old.
State notified Werner on three separate occasions of its intention to use testimony from witnesses claiming that Werner had previous sexual contact with them. State intended to use this testimony, pursuant to SDCL 19-12-5, to show proof of Werner's intent, motive, opportunity, common scheme or plan, and absence of mistake or accident in his commission or attempts to commit acts of sexual contact.
The other acts witnesses also were members of Werner's parish when they were young women. The testimony of these grown women described encounters with Werner where he fondled their breasts, and kissed and embraced them. The testimony elicited from these women indicated that Werner had sexual contact with young women of his parish for every year from 1962 to 1990 with the exception of 1983 and 1986.
After receiving the first notice, Werner filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit the admission of this other acts testimony because it was not relevant and its probative value was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
On July 10, 1990, a hearing was held on the motion in limine. The trial court denied Werner's motion and set forth its decision and findings of fact and conclusions of law on August 27, 1990. In its conclusions of law, the trial court specified each reason other acts testimony could be admitted. *288 The court concluded that State presented clear and convincing evidence that this testimony was relevant to show proof of opportunity, common scheme or plan, motive, intent for sexual gratification, absence of mistake, or accident.
Furthermore, the trial court addressed the issue of remoteness and concluded that when considered with other factors such as reliability, necessity, nature of the offenses, and similarity of the occasions and locations, the other acts were not remote in time.
Finally, the trial court concluded that the other acts testimony would not confuse the jury, and had probative value as evidence of the crimes charged. The court performed the appropriate balancing test and determined that the probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Thereafter, the State made a motion to admit the testimony of another other acts witness. On October 17, 1990, pursuant to this motion, a hearing was held. The trial court granted State's motion and again filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
At the commencement of the trial, State made a motion to admit the testimony of one more witness. This witness claimed that she had also been touched by Werner when she was a member of his parish. The trial court granted State's motion.
At trial, Werner offered expert testimony on the generalized theory of human memory. The trial court did not allow this testimony. However, the expert was permitted to testify as to the effect that investigative techniques have on memory. The jury convicted Werner of five counts of sexual contact and two counts of attempted sexual contact with a child under the age of sixteen. He was acquitted of two counts of sexual contact. Thereafter, Werner was sentenced to the South Dakota State Penitentiary.
ISSUES I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY ADMITTED TESTIMONY OF OTHER ACTS WITNESSES TO SHOW PROOF OF OPPORTUNITY, COMMON SCHEME OR PLAN, MOTIVE, INTENT AND LACK OF MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT.On appeal, Werner contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the other acts testimony. Specifically, Werner claims that the trial court improperly admitted the evidence because it failed to specify a particular exception to SDCL 19-12-5 (Fed.R.Evid. 404(b)) and because the other acts testimony was too remote. Finally, Werner claims it was improper to allow the other acts testimony to be presented before State established the basic elements of the crime.
The trial court's decision to admit other act evidence will not be overruled absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapin, 460 N.W.2d 420 (S.D.1990). The admissibility of other acts testimony is governed by SDCL 19-12-5, which is almost identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b):
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.Recently, in State v. Basker, we discussed the two-step approach which must be followed when the trial court is ruling on the admissibility of other acts testimony:
(1) Whether the intended purpose for offering the other acts evidence is relevant to some material issue in the case, and (2) Whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.468 N.W.2d 413, 415 (S.D.1991), State v. Dickey, 459 N.W.2d 445 (S.D.1990); State *289 v. Klein, 444 N.W.2d 16 (S.D.1989); State v. Champagne, 422 N.W.2d 840 (S.D.1988).
The first inquiry pertains to the factual relevancy of the evidence, since evidence of other bad acts is inadmissible to prove bad character. For example, "whether the proffered evidence has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Basker, 468 N.W.2d at 416. The second inquiry concerns legal relevancy: "Whether the probative value of the proffered evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Id.; SDCL 19-12-3[1] (Fed.R.Evid. 403).
Furthermore, the trial court must identify the exception:
In each case in which bad act evidence is sought to be admitted, the trial court should identify the applicable exception and perform an analysis of the facts and nature of the prior bad acts.Chapin, 460 N.W.2d at 422. The list of exclusions in the statute is not exhaustive as evidenced by the language "such as.""[T]he statute lists the most usual instances in which `other acts' will be admissible as long as proof of the intended purpose is relevant to some material issue in the case." Champagne, 422 N.W.2d at 842; State v. Dokken, 385 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 1986).
The trial court held three evidentiary hearings on the other acts evidence. State filed interviews of seventeen witnesses describing Werner's sexual contact with them. At trial, eleven of these women were subpoenaed to testify. All of the women testifying at trial were, at various times, members of Werner's parish. Except for two women, the sexual contact always occurred during a church-related activity. Both women who claimed the contact did not take place at church-related activities stated the contact occurred when Werner drove them home after babysitting. One woman testified that in addition to the sexual contact initiated during church activities, that Werner, who was an emergency medical technician, fondled her while she was being transported in an ambulance. These women were from 12 to 16 years old when Werner first initiated contact with them.
The trial court examined the factual relevancy of the proffered testimony and concluded that this testimony was factually relevant to the issues on trial for the purpose of proving opportunity, common scheme or plan, motive, intent, and absence of mistake or accident.
Once factual relevancy is determined, the trial court must perform a balancing test to determine whether the prejudicial effect of the evidence substantially outweighs its probative value. Werner claims the other acts testimony was too remote from the acts charged. When standing on its own, the testimony from these women may appear remote in time. In fact, the other acts evidence spanned several years. However, in determining probative value, remoteness must be considered with other factors, such as reliability and necessity. State v. Titus, 426 N.W.2d 578 (S.D.1988).
Furthermore, "[t]he trial court must consider the nature of the offenses, the similarity of occasions and locations as well as the time elapsed between incidents." Id. at 580. "[W]hether prior acts are too remote must realistically depend on their nature." State v. Wedemann, 339 N.W.2d 112 (S.D. 1983). Moreover, "each case depends upon its own particular facts as to a limitation, regarding vintage, on the remoteness. Admission of prior acts must realistically depend upon their nature." Titus, 426 N.W.2d at 582 (Henderson, J., concurring specially).
*290 It is evident that the nature of Werner's other bad acts and his modus operandi showed that he would develop a relationship of trust with the young girl and her family through the church. The other acts complained of almost exclusively occurred through a church-related activity and took place consistently for almost a thirty-year period.
In this case, the trial court determined that the acts had probative value as evidence of the crimes charged and that there was a substantial need for this evidence in order to prove the crimes with which Werner was charged. The court further found that there was no other evidence of equal probative value, and the introduction of this evidence would not confuse the issues, would not mislead the jury, would not cause undue delay, and would not constitute a needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The court performed this delicate balancing test and decided the danger of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value. Werner's acquittal on two charges seems to support that determination.
We believe the trial court did exactly what we required in Basker and Chapin. There was adequate information to properly perform the balancing test required by SDCL 19-12-5. The trial court performed a meaningful analysis and identified the specific exceptions under which the testimony was admitted. Furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury that the other acts evidence was to be considered only for the purpose of showing opportunity, common scheme or plan, motive, intent, and absence of mistake or accident. The jury's acquittal on two counts indicates it followed this instruction.
We reiterate that the determination of whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect is a question left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Titus, 426 N.W.2d at 580; Champagne, 422 N.W.2d at 842; State v. Grooms, 399 N.W.2d 358, 361 (S.D.1987); Dokken, 385 N.W.2d at 497.
Finally, Werner claims it was improper to present the testimony of the other acts witnesses before State established the basic elements of the crime and that this testimony was presented only to show Werner's bad character. We disagree. This chronological evidence was both factually and legally relevant to the charges against Werner. It was not admitted for the improper purpose of showing bad character. Furthermore,
[A]s a general rule it is preferable to delay the admission of 404(b) evidence until after the defense rests because it places the trial court in the best position to determine whether the issue sought to be proved by the extrinsic act evidence is really in dispute, and if so, to assess its probative worth and possible prejudicial effect.United States v. Estabrook, 774 F.2d 284, 289 (8th Cir.1985). However, "where it is made clear at the outset of the trial that the defendant's principal defense is lack of knowledge or intent, and thus the issue is unarguably in dispute, the government may ... introduce the [other acts] evidence in its case-in-chief." Id.
In this case, the trial court had ample opportunity to determine whether there was a real dispute. Werner denied having sexual contact with any of the victims currently accusing him.[2] He claimed that the contact was in the nature of comforting, joking or playing and that he had no intent to sexually gratify himself. At the time defense counsel objected to State's introduction of other's acts evidence, the trial court had already held three hearings on the issue.
Moreover, the order of proof is within the sound discretion of the trial court and an appellate court will reverse *291 only if there is an abuse of that discretion. Dodds v. Bickle, 77 S.D. 54, 85 N.W.2d 284 (1957); 75 Am.Jur.2d Trial § 354 (1991). In this case, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to introduce the testimony of the other acts witnesses prior to establishing the elements of the crime charged. We reiterate that the other acts testimony could hardly be said to paint Werner as a bad person, since the jury saw fit to acquit him on two counts.
II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN RESTRICTING WERNER'S EXPERT'S TESTIMONY.Werner argues that the trial court erred when it refused to allow his defense expert to testify to the jury as to the manner in which human memory functions.
The admissibility of expert testimony is controlled by SDCL 19-15-2 (Fed. R.Evid. 702):
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.The trial court has broad discretion regarding the admissibility of expert testimony. State v. Hill, 463 N.W.2d 674 (S.D.1990); State v. Bachman, 446 N.W.2d 271 (S.D. 1989); United States v. Purham, 725 F.2d 450 (8th Cir.1984). Absent an abuse of discretion, this decision will not be reversed. State v. Logue, 372 N.W.2d 151 (S.D.1985).
In order to admit psychological evidence, the testimony must be a proper subject for expert testimony. Hill, 463 N.W.2d at 677. This has been interpreted in two ways: "(1) [T]he subject of the expert's testimony must lie beyond the knowledge and experience of the average lay person; State v. Swallow, 350 N.W.2d 606 (S.D.1984); Bachman, 446 N.W.2d at 275 and (2) the expert must not invade the province of the jury." Hill, 463 N.W.2d at 677.
Under the first test, the determining factor is if the expert testimony would assist the jury in understanding matters normally outside of a lay person's breadth of knowledge. Id. Werner's expert would have testified as to the generalized theory of how memory works, which he claims would have been helpful to the jury in understanding the evidence. Specifically, Werner argues that the jury should have considered how the Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) agent influenced the witnesses' testimony after hearing from the expert how such influence can change and affect memory.
In response to Werner's argument, the trial court allowed the expert to testify regarding investigative techniques and also the effect improper techniques may have on the resulting answers in interviews. However, the trial court thought that it would be "overly confusing and not helpful to the jury" to hear testimony on the generalized theory of memory. We agree.
Under the second test, we must analyze whether the expert is invading the province of the jury. Under South Dakota law, an expert may not testify if his testimony includes the expression of opinion regarding ultimate issues. Id.; Logue, supra. Werner's expert was allowed to testify at great length regarding interview techniques. He was not allowed to reach the ultimate issue, which in this case was whether the testifying witnesses had in fact been influenced by the DCI agent. This was a determination for the jury as trier of fact. McCafferty v. Solem, 449 N.W.2d 590 (S.D.1989).
Finally, the trial court in its discretion must balance the probative value of this expert testimony against its prejudicial effects. In Hill, we said: "Consequently, we hold that any small aid the expert testimony might have provided would be outweighed by the unfair prejudice which might have resulted because of the aura of reliability and trustworthiness surrounding *292 scientific evidence." 463 N.W.2d at 678; Logue, 372 N.W.2d at 157. Likewise, the same rationale applies here. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding portions of the defense expert's testimony.
Affirmed.
WUEST, J., concurs.
HENDERSON, J., concurs specially.
AMUNDSON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
SABERS, J., dissents.
HENDERSON, Justice (specially concurring).
As a child, Abraham Lincoln was sorely distressed when he could not understand the expressions and thoughts of grownups as they talked at night in his home. Comments of the adults confounded him for he could not comprehend them, being a boy. So to understand wordstheir meaning became in his own words "a kind of passion with me." As our esteemed President, he expressed: "I am never easy now, when I am handling a thought, till I have bounded it north, and bounded it east, bounded it south, and bounded it west." Unfortunately, those of us who study the law, cannot always "bound it" together. I am no exception. Lincoln's law partner, William Herdon, in a testimonial on Lincoln's mental processes, expressed inter alia, that "He saw all things through a perfect mental lens. There was no diffraction or refraction." Again, Herndon expressed: "No lurking illusion or other error, false in itself and clad for the moment in robes of splendor, ever passed undetected over the threshold of his mind."[1] Few of us are so endowed. Thus, we conceptualize differently and express ourselves in varying words. Born is a difference in opinion and a different way to say it. Perforce, concurring opinions are written, dissenting opinions are filed, special concurrences are triggered, and concurrences in result are formed into words. Opinion writing is a fascinating calling. Precedent is created thereby. Majority opinions have precedential bite and well they should. A special writing may or may not provide a positive influence to jurisprudence. In Moorhead, Concurring and Dissenting Opinions, 38 A.B.A.J. 821 (1952), as quoted in Opinion Writing, by Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge, West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1990, at 166, proper functions of a separate opinion may, inter alia, be:
(a) To assure counsel and the public that the case has received careful consideration. (b) To help attain the objective of the law: a just result through careful formulation and application of a system of legal principle. (c) To appeal to the intelligence of a future day, when a change in the law may be forthcoming. (d) To warn that a holding laid down must not be pressed too far; i.e., that it is dangerous if given a wider application.The "bad acts rule" causes great consternation in its application. Scholars might well read our opinions on this subject, years hence, and advance that we have been inconsistent in its application, to include this writer. Back to Honest Abe for a moment. On his application of principles to specific plans for reconstructing the Southern States, after hostilities ceased in the Civil War, he concluded in his last public address:
No exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. Such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement.[2]Thus, to follow his reasoning, there are certain principles, which must stand fast as principles, but nevertheless must have certain flexibility, in effect, to sustain themselves. By analogy, the admissibility of *293 other acts testimony as governed by SDCL 19-12-5, cannot sustain itself unless it has some flexibility. When one reads the first sentence of this evidentiary rule, it appears to be inflexible; when the last sentence thereof was written, the rule takes on flexibility. I daresay that the constitutional right to a fair jury trial is inflexible. In said address, he also declared: "Important principles may, and must be inflexible."[3] Attach therefore to the right of a fair jury trial, I surmise, the inflexibility thereof, but consider the last sentence of this statute to give it some degree of flexibility so as to sustain its intent. Having said this relative to the preservation of statutory strength and the vitality of the rule,[4] hereby I wish to assure counsel and the public that this case has received careful consideration; furthermore, that I believe a just result is achieved through the majority opinion, i.e., Pastor Werner be punished for his wrongdoing and the jury's verdict was formulated by the application of a system based upon legal principle.
Pastor Werner's conduct is reflected by a chart, which is supported by the evidence, and is attached hereto, and by this reference, made a part hereof. These sexually abusive acts were perpetrated upon these young girls who trusted him, as did their families. With the exception of two years, these acts of abuse were perpetrated from 1962 to 1990. There were no provable sexual offenses for the years, 1983 and 1986. It is apparent that he isolated maturing young girls, sexually contacted female genitalia or breasts, used his religious position to abuse these young victims, and inflicted, in nearly each scenario, identical acts. These are what could be described as "touchy-feely" acts; testimony reflects that he was known to be a person who commonly touched people, patted them, and placed his hands on people. Therefore, Pastor Werner could easily advance that his "touchings" were really not sexually abusive acts, but were acts in friendship, love or admiration. It is vital to consider that SDCL 22-22-7.1 reflects that a "touching" must be with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party. Therefore, considering these numerous sexual contacts, over a number of years, it can be reasonably argued, were not accidental "touchings" nor can it be argued that these acts were just "mistakes." These numerous "touchings" are not lost in time: They were continuous acts of sexual exploitation of young girls, where he had the opportunity, and were all a part of a common scheme or plan to arouse and gratify his sexual desire. This conduct was not harmless play, nor mistakes, nor accidents; it was wrong and Pastor Werner knew it was wrong. These young girls were in his presence by virtue of the trust of the parents in his congregation. These parents, and their offspring, had an expectation of safety within their own church. It was not there.
Mr. Chief Justice has seen fit to quote one of my special writings in Titus. Said writing, nearly four years ago, depicts that which I still believe in, namely that "each case depends upon its own particular facts as to a limitation, regarding vintage, on the remoteness. Admission of prior acts must realistically depend upon their nature." Titus, at 582, emphasis supplied mine. In Klein, seeking the spirit of the rule, and a certain flexibility, at 20, I expressed:
These "prior crimes, wrongs, or bad acts" cases, i.e., admitting prior crimes or wrongs or bad acts to prove the crime at hand, must be distinguished and decided on each set of facts. Admitting evidence of prior crimes, wrongs or bad acts is a matter of judicial discretion. It is not a matter, in every case, of automatic inclusion or automatic exclusion.For consistent writings of this special writer, I refer to State v. Willis, 370 N.W.2d 193 (S.D.1985) (isolating retarded women to take advantage of them); see also, State v. *294 Bradley, 431 N.W.2d 317 (S.D.1988) (physically abusing women establishing a pattern leading to murder); see also, State v. Perkins, 444 N.W.2d 34 (S.D.1989) (pedophilia). In summation, this case turns on the trial court's admission of evidence. Our scope of review is the abuse of discretion test. In my opinion, Judge Timm did not abuse his discretion. State v. Sieler, 397 N.W.2d 89 (S.D.1986) and State v. Rose, 324 N.W.2d 894 (S.D.1982).
Sexually Abusive Acts Committed Against Victims By Appellant
Admitted to Prove Opportunity, Common Scheme or Plan,
Absence of Mistake or Accident
Occurred
Victim While Occurred Occurred
*Other Age At Parishoner At Sexual Attending More In A
Acts Initial Defendant's Contact-Body A Church Than Public
Victims Contact Church Parts Involved Activity Once Setting
C.H. 14 X Breasts X X
K.H. 10 X Breasts X X X
T.Z. 8 X Breasts X X X
T.Z. 13 X Attempt-Breasts X X X
D.H. 13 X Buttocks X X
* Vagina/
B.D. 12 X Breasts X X X
*
S.S. 13 X Breasts X X X
*
J.B. 16 X Breasts X X X
*
P.N. 14 X Breasts X
*
J.S. 14 X Vagina
*
S.A. 13 X Breasts X X X
*
K.T. 14 X Breasts X X X
*
S.B. 13 X Breasts X X X
*
K.S. 13 X Breasts X X X
*
K.J. 13 X Breasts X X
*
E.K. 13 X Breasts X X X
AMUNDSON, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
This is not your typical sexual abuse case wherein the credibility of one victim and credibility of the defendant are the critical issues to be resolved by the jury. In this case, the defendant was charged with seven counts of sexual contact with a child under sixteen years of age and two counts of attempted sexual contact with a child *295 under sixteen years of age. These counts covered conduct alleged to have occurred over a period of time beginning in October, 1987, and ending in March, 1990. There were five different victims named in the charges filed who all testified regarding the alleged incidents.
In other words, State had incorporated into the charge evidence of other bad acts allegedly committed by this defendant against the other four victims, which could be used to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, under SDCL 19-12-5. The record does not reflect any objection being filed by defendant to exclude any testimony by the victims under the first part of the above-mentioned statute.
There has been a profusion of decisions written in numerous jurisdictions on the subject of prior bad acts. This court has dealt with this issue in a multitude of cases and continues to have appeals filed on a regular basis where this issue again is the focal point. In our recent decision of State v. Chapin, 460 N.W.2d 420 (S.D.1990), we again confirmed that the rule contained in SDCL 19-12-5 is one of inadmissibility and that the exceptions contained therein should not be allowed to totally absorb this premise. The purpose behind this rule is that a defendant should not be convicted on evidence of mere propensity to act in a particular manner.
The general exclusion of evidence of other crimes or wrongs in criminal prosecutions rests on sound policy and constitutional concerns. Introduction of evidence that the defendant committed other crimes and unwholesome acts may lead jurors to return a verdict of guilty for reasons other than finding all the elements of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Although reasonable doubt of guilt exists on this occasion, the jury might conclude the defendant is a "bad man," who deserves punishment regardless of his innocence of the crime charged and warrants imprisonment to prevent future maleficent acts. Such results defeat the letter and policy of substantive criminal law mandating conviction based upon a non-vague concrete statute; instead, jurors have found the defendant guilty based upon past unsavory acts without necessarily violating any criminal statute in the process. Alternatively, and just as improperly upon learning that the accused committed other crimes or wrongs, jurors might infer that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and probably committed this crime as charged.Patterson, Evidence of Prior Bad Acts: Admissibility Under the Federal Rules, 38 Baylor L.Rev. 331, 332-33 (1986).
In Chapin, we advised that the proper procedure to be followed when requesting the allowance of bad acts evidence is to identify the specific exception providing for admission, and establish why the evidence is relevant to an issue or ultimate fact in dispute in the case.
In United States v. Mothershed, 859 F.2d 585 (8th Cir.1988), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a conviction based in part upon the use of a ten-year-old conviction and held as follows:
We have not been aided in our review of the relevancy issue in this case by the `laundry list' approach taken at trial. Rather than name the particular issue on which this conviction was relevant, it appears that the government simply read the list of issues for which prior bad acts can be admitted under Rule 404(b) [SDCL 19-12-5]. This is not in itself a basis for reversal, but it is a practice we discourage. `Rather than making a broad reference which merely restates the components of the rule, the district court should specify which components of the rule form the basis of its ruling and why.' United States v. Harvey, 845 F.2d 760, 762 (8th Circuit 1988). We expect the same from the proponent of the evidence.Mothershed, 859 F.2d at 589. Submission of this type of evidence is critical for an appropriate and informed review of such an issue on appeal. If not specified, it is difficult for a reviewing court to determine the relevancy to the material issue in dispute *296 for which it is tendered as proof. A simplistic approach to the admission of bad acts evidence is warned against in 22 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure:
Particularly to be deplored is what might be called the `smorgasbord' approach to analysis of other crimes evidence in which the court simply serves up a long list of permissible uses without any attempt to show how any of them are applicable to the case at hand. ... What is to be avoided is the mere listing of possible uses in the hope that at least one will seem to the reader to be applicable to the facts of the instant case.Section 5240 at 479 (1978). The record in this case reflects a laundry list requesting admission of the plethora of bad acts evidence with little rationale for why it is applicable or needed in the case. This court has to guard against the smuggling of bad acts evidence into the record to show mere propensity to the jury, no matter how it is labeled by the prosecution. In the instant case, the prosecution jumped out of the starting gate with this bad acts evidence and obviously led wire-to-wire in this prosecution based on the verdict.
There is no question that the trial court concluded that the testimony of this legion of witnesses would be relevant to prove opportunity, common scheme or plan, motive, intent and absence of mistake or accident in this case. Notwithstanding this conclusion, I find the record lacking as to the need for this evidence on these issues, even if they are contested elements to be proven by the State in this case, which is certainly questionable in this writer's mind. As previously stated, the prosecution had five witnesses to present in its case-in-chief, but chose to place this defendant in a position where he had to defend against numerous other incidents covering twenty-plus years.
In State v. Yager, 236 Neb. 481, 461 N.W.2d 741, 752 (1990), Justice Shanahan stated as follows in his dissent:
`There is no presumption that such other-crimes evidence is relevant.... Otherwise, of course, the accused might be convicted because of his participation in the other crimes rather than because he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime alleged.' United States v. Manafzadeh, 592 F.2d 81, 86 (2nd Cir.1979). See, also, United States v. Hodges, 770 F.2d 1475, 1479 (9th Cir.1985): `[T]he defendant must be tried for what he did, not for who he is. Under our system, an individual may be convicted only for the offense of which he is charged and not for other unrelated criminal acts which he may have committed. Therefore, the guilt or innocence of the accused must be established by evidence relevant to the particular offense being tried, not by showing that defendant has engaged in other acts of wrongdoing.'All the other acts of wrongdoing which State was allowed to use in this case were to show that defendant was a bad person and had been a bad person for a long time. The admission of this evidence allowed the defendant to be judged on the basis of innuendo from conduct for which he was not on trial for, nor charged with.
This decision could easily be the final gulp in the total swallowing of this rule by its exceptions. In order to avoid such a result, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
Although I dissent on Issue I, I concur with the majority on Issue II.
SABERS, Justice (dissenting).
The prosecution of this defendant was entirely dependent upon violating almost every rule of fair play in respect to prior bad acts. If we fail to send this case back for a fair trial, the futility and expense of attempting to educate Judicial personnel on "prior bad acts" through our "Judicial Conferences" will be a joke. The State was permitted to put the "bad before the good" to such an extent that the first five witnesses were all prior bad act witnesses. The trial probably doubled in length to 5 days simply because of testimony on uncharged acts. Justice was nowhere to be found.
*297 This same issue arose recently in Florida in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. Although three instances of alleged prior bad acts with other victims were tried in the press, they were excluded from the trial. But not in South Dakota. Here, our liberal and almost automatic admission of prior bad acts makes them the focal point of the trial. Justice is nowhere to be found.
The danger of unfair prejudice so substantially outweighs the probative value of these prior bad acts that the defendant was denied the fair trial guaranteed by the United States and South Dakota Constitutions. Attempting to assess the impact of these prior bad acts on the jury is like speculating on the damage a bull might do in a china shop. The prior bad acts testimony in this case painted the defendant not only as a bad man but also as an evil and conniving man. Once a juror has heard such testimony, the defendant loses any chance of receiving a fair trial. "[T]here is no way that a criminal defendant can have a fair trial after this kind of evidence is admitted." J. Larson, South Dakota Evidence § 404.2[1], p. 154 (1991) (citing other authorities).
A defendant should be tried on the evidence of the crime charged, not on the evidence of all of the other uncharged acts in his life.
A man should not be convicted because he is a `bad man'; or, that previously he acted as a `bad man' in a given factual situation for, if convictions were secured in such fashion, the principle that a man may be punished only for those acts with which he was charged, would be violated.State v. Chief Eagle, 377 N.W.2d 141, 147-8 (S.D.1985) (Henderson, J., dissenting). See also, State v. Perkins, 444 N.W.2d 34, 41 (S.D.1989) (Sabers, J. dissenting); and Wedemann, 339 N.W.2d at 116-117 (Henderson, J. dissenting).
For the state's attorney to offer, the trial court to admit and the majority to affirm defendant's conviction based on most of the exceptions in SDCL 19-12-5 is error. To admit testimony of these prior bad acts based on the pretext of showing "motive, opportunity, intent, common scheme or plan" simply denies fair trials. In reality, none of these exceptions were material to the issue in this case. Defendant's defense was simply that he did not commit the acts charged. Motive was not a material issue. In fact, in this sex molestation case, motive is obvious, not material. No material issue existed as to "opportunity, common scheme or plan" either. The same is true of intent. See Champagne, 422 N.W.2d at 845-846 (Sabers, J., dissenting). The exceptions continue to swallow the rule. Id.
The South Dakota Legislature could, within constitutional limits, make all prior bad acts admissible in sex molestation cases. It could do so simply by enacting a law which states that all such evidence is admissible without regard to relevancy, materiality and prejudice. However, until the legislature does so, we should enforce the law and require the prosecutor to prove relevancy, materiality and that the prejudicial effect of such evidence does not substantially outweigh its probative value. Id.
Additionally, the majority's ruling completely fails to account for the relevant ten year time limit in SDCL 19-14-13.[*] As indicated in the majority opinion, these uncharged prior bad acts occurred up to twenty-eight years prior to the time of this trial. In effect, their admission creates a double standard in South Dakota criminal law. One rule for the state, another rule for the defense. In State v. Caylor, 434 N.W.2d 582, 584 (S.D.1989), this court held under SDCL 19-14-13 that a "15 year old conviction [was] stale and inadmissible as a matter of law" and could not be used to impeach a state's witness. Here, we are not even dealing with a conviction. We are *298 dealing with prior uncharged acts which simply tended to show that the defendant was a bad man. Therefore, these uncharged prior bad acts were too prejudicial and too remote and prevented the defendant from receiving a fair trial. See State v. Rufener, 392 N.W.2d 424, 434 (S.D.1986) (Sabers, J. dissenting).
If we fail to send this case back for a fair trial, our message to prosecutors is clear open season stays open forever, keep winking at the rules.
We should reverse and remand for a fair trial.
NOTES[1] SDCL 19-12-3 provides:
Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
[2] Werner denies having sexual contact with any of the young girls with which he is currently facing charges. However, he did admit that he touched the breasts of at least two of the other acts witnesses and had no recollection of the incidents claimed by some of the other acts witnesses.
[1] R. McGinnis, Quotations of Abraham Lincoln, ch. Logical Thinking, at page 23 (Nelson-Hall Publications 1977); Library of Congress.
[2] R. McGinnis, Quotations of Abraham Lincoln, ch. Ethics, at page 9 (Nelson-Hall Publications 1977); Library of Congress.
[3] Id. at 9.
[4] In Matter of Silver King Mines, Permit EX-5, 315 N.W.2d 689, 691 (S.D.1982) we expressed the following proposition: "It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that all provisions within a statute must be given effect, if possible." (Citing State v. Heisinger, 252 N.W.2d 899 (S.D.1977).
[*] SDCL 19-14-13 (609(b)) states in part:
Evidence of a conviction under § 19-14-12 is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of the conviction or of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that conviction, whichever is the later date, unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect[.]
***
One reader responded -
I attended NWC for a semester and a half, however, I joined at second semester of freshman year and "missed out" on the freshman initiation. I do still have a very good friend who is a WELS pastor and he has shared with me the horror of what happens at Sem in particular. He nearly left, and it was only his love for God and his desire to preach the Gospel, which kept him there. I could recount stories which mirror those recounted above but I was not a firsthand observer. I hope he someday shares those stories openly. What I was a firsthand observer to was the clear attempt by all involved to make everyone support each other blindly so no one would question another pastor. I asked my uncle, a WELS pastor, about it a few years later, a man I greatly admired, only to have him defend GA and reveal that he was the pope of his class! He has proven the effectiveness of GA in the years since by calmly refusing to judge any other pastor and telling me that I must not have understood my pastor when he defended a position that was not defensible by scripture. My grandfather is WELS Pastor Clare Reiter, maybe some of you have known him. He is now 93 and by the grace of God has Alzheimers. I am so glad he is unaware of how far our synod has sunk. I am so proud of Pastor Jackson and Doug Lindee for posting this article. I believed 20 years ago that these activities spoke of trouble for our synod and it is clear now that it has.
Jim Huey
Jim Huey
↧
Third World Anglican Leaders Fed Up with Western Liberal Branch -
 |
| The new Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (USA) is Michael Curry. The old one is Katie Schori. This is one of her less offensive costumes. |
One member has sent me this link about the potential Anglican sanctions -
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/anglicans-sanction-us-episcopal-church-over-gay-marriage/ar-BBocSqT?li=BBnbfcL
 |
| Virtue Online has used my Photoshop of Schori with its telling caption. |
My favorite source is Virtue Online, with this source -
http://www.virtueonline.org/canterbury-my-ear-your-ear-trust-us-say-gafcon-primates
The basic story is this - the Third World Anglican leaders are consistently conservative and abhor the USA, Canadian, and English fever to ordain and marry homosexuals.
The African membership dwarfs American membership, which has been shrinking from 3 million back in the 70s to about 2 million today.
 |
| The American, ELCA Presiding Bishop is on the far left; her Canadian counterpart, Susan Johnson, on the right - both seated. The Canadian Episcopal leader is on the left, eh? Katie Schori, American ex-PB, is on the right. |
"On the second day of the gathering, I moved a resolution that asked the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada to voluntarily withdraw from the meeting and other Anglican Communion activities until they repented of their decisions that have torn the fabric of the Anglican Communion at its deepest level. They would not agree to this request nor did it appear that the Archbishop of Canterbury and his facilitators would ensure that this matter be substantively addressed in a timely manner.
"Sadly, after two long days of discussions, I was concerned that the process set up for this meeting would not permit us to address the unfinished business from the 2007 Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam.
"In accordance with the resolution of our Provincial Assembly, it was, therefore, necessary for me to withdraw from the meeting, which I did at the end of the second day. It seemed that I was being manipulated into participating in a long meeting with the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada without the necessary discipline being upheld. My conscience is at peace.
"I have left the meeting in Canterbury, but I want to make it clear that we are not leaving the Anglican Communion. Together with our fellow GAFCON Provinces and others in the Global South, we are the Anglican Communion; the future is bright. The door is open for all those who seek communion on the basis of a common confession of our historic, Biblical faith for which the Ugandan Martyrs, Archbishop James Hannington, Archbishop Janani Luwum and many others around the world have died. We are part of a global movement of Anglicans who follow the God who "so loved the world that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)"
***
GJ - WELS and Missouri are just as comfortable with ELCA as ELCA is with The Episcopal Church.
No one has ever mentioned WELS and the LCMS breaking up with ELCA. They are velcroed together through Thrivent and Mark Jeske's pagan religious broadcasts.
![]()
"In accordance with the resolution of our Provincial Assembly, it was, therefore, necessary for me to withdraw from the meeting, which I did at the end of the second day. It seemed that I was being manipulated into participating in a long meeting with the Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada without the necessary discipline being upheld. My conscience is at peace.
"I have left the meeting in Canterbury, but I want to make it clear that we are not leaving the Anglican Communion. Together with our fellow GAFCON Provinces and others in the Global South, we are the Anglican Communion; the future is bright. The door is open for all those who seek communion on the basis of a common confession of our historic, Biblical faith for which the Ugandan Martyrs, Archbishop James Hannington, Archbishop Janani Luwum and many others around the world have died. We are part of a global movement of Anglicans who follow the God who "so loved the world that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)"
 |
| One is an ELCA meeting, |
 |
| And one is a WELS meeting. Only the regular readers know the difference. |
***
GJ - WELS and Missouri are just as comfortable with ELCA as ELCA is with The Episcopal Church.
No one has ever mentioned WELS and the LCMS breaking up with ELCA. They are velcroed together through Thrivent and Mark Jeske's pagan religious broadcasts.
↧
↧
Grey Slipper Thrown Away - More Rotten Wood Found
The Michigander suggested we thrown away things not used since we moved to Springdale. We are turning the garage into the Great Room - at last. The grey slipper finally had to go. I have been waiting for its mate to show up for three years. Every so often, on a cold day, slippers are great. "Why buy another pair?" I reasoned. The grey slipper moved from the garage to one room, then the next, then back to the garage. With reluctance and the deliberate speed of an Anglican bishop, I finally threw it away.
Sassy wants her walk soon after 7 am each day. We have a great time, meet various friends, and explore the area. Wind storms knock dead wood off trees and I bring it home, trying to look casual as I carry it home.
No one has stopped me, but they should. I am taking home toad abodes. They are irregular lumps of wood already in the initial stage of rotting. When wood touches soil, fungi begin to break the structures down and channel the nutrition to plant roots. Rotting wood also attracts the soil creatures of decay, like slugs and earthworms, and toads enjoy the meals coming to them. Besides, toads enjoy warm, moist places and shade from the drying sun, the very places sought by various pests.
"Hello darkness my old friend,
I'm come to rest in you again
Because the sunlight is a-burning
Leaving me with coolness yearning...
WHAT ARE THOSE EYES? TOAD!"
Toad Abodes:
All amphibians require water to survive. Besides building a pond in your backyard, you can provide moisture by having shady areas where dew collects, moist patches of soil and/or rotting vegetation. Let the edges of your garden grow wild with cover giving amphibians places to hide from the hot sun. One man built a Toad Abode, with a piece of wood. When placed in a cool part of the garden, toads sat under the two inch opening enjoying bugs attracted to the dark.
Rocky retreats for toads can be made by placing stones to form a rocky burrow about 10 centimeters high with a sandy floor where toads can dig. Use small sections of brick drain pipe covered with rock or pieces of concrete blocks broken to allow access to the toad chamber. Plant ferns to shade the area or, if it is too dry, a garden sprinkler can be used to increase moisture levels.
↧
Join the Booze Brothers Growing Band - Not Just Glende, Ski, and , but WELS Pastor Ben Sadler Too. Bad Theology on Tap
 |
| This image is the cover photo for the Facebook page, not my Photoshop. He also uses it on his church website - http://goodviewtrinity.org/blog/ |
Tullian (the adulterer) fan Ben Sadler posted this:
↧
The Episcopal Church - USA - Banned at Last, A Three Year Suspension
 |
| "What?" |
(RNS) The Anglican Communion voted to censure its American branch, the Episcopal Church, during a meeting in Canterbury, England, called to reflect on the future of the communion.
The vote Thursday (Jan. 14) to suspend the Episcopal Church from voting and decision-making for a period of three years was leaked a day ahead of a press conference that had been scheduled for Friday.
Details of the suspension were first reported by Anglican Ink, a Connecticut-based publication that said they came from a leaked communique. The vote passed by a two-thirds margin, the publication said, and included prominent voices among African bishops who have loudly condemned the American church for its liberal stance on gays.
The dramatic demotion follows a string of Episcopal Church decisions stretching back to 2003, when it elected Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, as a bishop of New Hampshire. That decision led dozens of U.S. churches to break away from the Episcopal Church and declare their allegiance to a series of rival groups, including the Anglican Church in North America.
In July, the Episcopal Church voted to allow its clergy to perform same-sex marriages, a move not taken by the majority of churches in the Anglican Communion.
“Given the seriousness of these matters we formally acknowledge this distance by requiring that for a period of three years The Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies … ,” a statement issued by the Anglican Communion reads. “They will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.”
“The traditional doctrine of the church in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds marriage as between a man and a woman in faithful, lifelong union,” the statement also notes. “The majority of those gathered reaffirm this teaching.”
The Anglican Communion consists of 44 member churches from around the world, representing about 85 million Christians.
The Episcopal Church, the predominant church of many of the 13 original Colonies, has had a disproportionate influence on public life in the United States. The majority of U.S. presidents have been Episcopalians and its influence still far surpasses its 1.8 million U.S. members, who now find themselves without a voice in Anglican Communion decisions.
The three-year term of the suspension is the amount of time until the next denomination-wide meeting of the Episcopal Church, when it will vote on a response, though other church groups could respond sooner.
The suspension comes after four days of discussions among church leaders — “primates,” in church parlance — over the Episcopal Church’s position on gay marriage in relation to the position of the broader Anglican Communion. The meetings apparently got testy; British Christian media reported that the archbishop of Uganda, among the most conservative of Anglican branches, walked out amid disagreements.
Jeffrey Walton, the Anglican program director at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C., said the suspension of the Episcopal Church is significant but does not, at this point, represent a schism, or irreparable rupture, within the Anglican Communion.
“This is not kicking the Episcopal Church out of the Anglican Communion, but it is saying is that by making these decisions for the past 12 or so years the Episcopal Church has created this distance and there will be consequences to those decisions.”
Other Anglican experts were mystified at the Anglican Communion’s statement, which consisted of eight brief points.
“This is not how Anglicans should behave,” said Christina Rees, a member of the General Synod, the governing body of the Church of England. “It’s awful. It’s a terrible outcome to the meeting of the primates in Canterbury. What action will now be taken against all those churches in the Anglican Communion who treat gay men and women as criminals? Will they be suspended for three years, too?”
Jim Naughton, former canon for the Archdiocese of Washington and now a communications consultant specializing in the Episcopal Church, called the sanctions a “weird” attempt by the primates to take power away from elected bodies and claim it for themselves.
But Naughton expects no impact in the life of the Episcopal Church.
“We can accept these actions with grace and humility but the Episcopal Church is not going back,” Naughton said. “We can’t repent what is not sin.”
Bishop Ian Douglas of the Episcopal Church in Connecticut wondered whether the Anglican primates wanted the Episcopal Church to repent for its position on same-sex marriage. “Or were they asking for an apology for how the (church’s governing body) went about opening all the roles and rites of the church, including marriage, to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Episcopalians?”
Kevin Eckstrom, director of communications for Washington National Cathedral, the seat of newly installed Presiding Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry, said that while this suspension will be greeted by sadness in the Episcopal Church, it has been on a parallel track with the Anglican Communion for a while.
“It is not unlike a couple who are having marital problems and are sleeping in separate bedrooms,” he said. “Maybe now they are going to formalize the separation.”
Curry told Episcopal News Service the sanction would be painful for many in the Episcopal Church to receive. “Many of us have committed ourselves and our church to being ‘a house of prayer for all people,’ as the Bible says, when all are truly welcome,” Curry said.
Communion leaders also reportedly wanted to censure the Anglican Church of Canada, but because it has not yet adopted same-sex marriage rites, no action was taken.
The Lambeth Palace press office, home of the archbishop of Canterbury, did not respond to requests for comment about the vote, which was leaked to the media.
(Kimberly Winston is a national correspondent for Religion News Service. Senior National Correspondent Cathy Grossman contributed to this report from Washington, D.C., and reporter Trevor Grundy contributed from Canterbury, England.)
↧
Evergreen WELS HIgh School Teacher Anthony Natalie - Arrest Records
 |
| LinkedIn Photo |
A
 |
↧
↧
Requested by a Reader
↧
Luther's Gospel Sermon for the Second Sunday after Trinity
 |
| Norma Boeckler |
Luther's Sermon for the SECOND SUNDAY AFTER EPIPHANY. John 2:1-11
German text: Erlangen edition II, 36; Walch II, 634; St. Louis II, 462.
TEXT:
John 2:1-11. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: and Jesus also was bidden, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when the wine failed, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
And Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatever he saith unto you, do it. Now there were six waterpots of stone set there after the Jews’ manner of purifying, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they tilled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the ruler of the feast. And they bare it. And when the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants that had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast calleth the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man setteth on first the good wine; and when men have drunk freely, then that which is worse: thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of his signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
CONTENTS:
A CONSOLATION. A DOCTRINE AND EXAMPLE, AND THE SPIRITUAL MEANING OF THIS MARRIAGE.
* The outline of this exposition I. THE CONSOLATION OF MARRIED PEOPLE AND THE HONOR OF THE MARRIAGE STATE.
1. The first consolation and honor
2. The second consolation and honor 3-6.
* Of the Wedding. a. What we are to think of the great show and cost of weddings 7-10. b. What opinion should we have of dancing and music at weddings 11.
II. THE DOCTRINE AND EXAMPLE OF LOVE AND FAITH.
1. Of love
2. Of faith. a. That this doctrine and example is very wonderful 18f.
* Where divine grace exists and does not exist 13-14. b. How the character of faith is here exhibited 15f.
* Of the strong spiritual temptations
17. c. Why this doctrine and example are the highest theme in the Gospel 18f.
* In what way temptation is to be overcome 18.
* One should know neither father nor mother in the things and service of God
* Parents should rear their children not according to their own ideas, but as God’s Word teaches
20. d. This doctrine teaches that faith never faileth 21.
III. THE SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS MARRIAGE.
1. Of the marriage in itself 22, 2. That it was in Cana
3. That it was in Galilee
4. That Christ was bidden to this marriage
5. That Christ’s disciples and mother were present.
6. Of the waterpots of stone: a. Of the waterpots them selves 27. b. That there were six of them 28. c. Of the water that was in them 29. d. That they were of stone
7. That the water was turned in to wine 31-33.
8. Of the servants who had drawn the water: a. Of the servants themselves 34. b. Of their drawing it 35. c. That these servants knew whence this wine was 36.
9. Of the ruler of the feast: a. That he tasted the wine, and did not know whence it was 37. b. That he addressed the bridegroom 38-39.
1. Enough has been written heretofore on marriage; hence we leave that subject for the present, and treat the following three topics in this Gospel text: first, the consolation this history affords married people by virtue of their marriage; secondly, the faith and love revealed in this Gospel lesson; thirdly, the spiritual significance of this marriage.
I. THE CONSOLATION OF MARRIED PEOPLE AND THE GLORY OF THE MARRIED STATE.
2. In the first place, it is indeed a high honor paid to married life for Christ himself to attend this marriage, together with his mother and his disciples.
Moreover, his mother is present as the one arranging the wedding, the parties married being apparently her poor relatives or neighbors, and she being compelled to act as the bride’s mother; so of course, it was nothing more than a wedding, and in no way a display. For Christ lived up to his doctrine, not going to the rich, but to the poor; or, if he does go to the great and rich, he is sure to rebuke and reprove, coming away with disfavor, earning small thanks at their hands, with no thought of honoring them by a miracle as he does here.
3. Now the second honor is his giving good wine for the poor marriage by means of a great miracle, making himself the bride’s chief cup-bearer; it may be too that he had no money or jewel to give as a wedding present. He never did such honor to the life or doings of the Pharisees; for by this miracle he confirms marriage as the work and institution of God, no matter how common or how lowly it appears in the eyes of men, God none the less acknowledges his own work and loves it. Even our Caiaphases themselves have often declared and preached that marriage was the only state instituted by God. Who then instituted the others? Certainly not God, but the devil by means of men; yet they shun, reject and revile this state, and deem themselves so holy that they not only themselves avoid marriage — though they need it and ought to marry — but from excess of holiness they will not even attend a marriage, being much holier than Christ himself who as an unholy sinner attends a wedding.
4. Since then marriage has the foundation and consolation, that it is instituted by God and that God loves it, and that Christ himself so honors and comforts it, everybody ought to prize and esteem it, and the heart ought to be glad, that it is surely the state God loves and cheerfully endure every burden in it, even though the burdens be ten times heavier than they are. For this is the reason there is so much care and unpleasantness in marriage to the outward man, because everything that is God’s Word and work, if it is to be blessed at all, must be distasteful, bitter and burdensome to the outward man.
On this account marriage is a state that cultivates and exercises faith in God and love to our neighbor by means of manifold cares, labors, unpleasantnesses, crosses and all kinds of adversities, that are to follow everything that is God’s Word and work. All this the chaste whoremongers, saintly effeminates and Sodomites nicely escape, serving God outside of God’s ordinance by doings of their own.
5. For this is what Christ also indicates by his readiness to supply any want arising in marriage, bestowing wine where it is needed, and making it of water; as though he would say: Must you drink water, that is, suffer affliction outwardly, and is this distasteful? Very well, I will sweeten it for you and change the water into wine, so that your affliction will be your joy and delight. I will not do this by taking the water away or having it poured out; it shall remain, yea, I will have it poured in and the vessels filled up to the brim. For I will not deprive Christian marriage of its cares and trials, but rather add to it. The thing shall be wondrous, so that none, except they themselves who experience it, shall understand it. It shall be on this wise: 6. God’s Word shall do it, by which all things are made, preserved and transformed; that Word which turns your water into wine, and distasteful marriage into delight. That God has instituted marriage ( Genesis 2:32) the heathen and unbelievers do not know, therefore their water remains water and never becomes wine; for they feel not God’s pleasure and delight in married life, which if they did feel they would experience such delight in my pleasure as not to feel the half of their affliction, feeling it outwardly only, but inwardly not at all. And this would be the way to turn water into wine, mixing my pleasure with your displeasure and placing the one against the other, so that my pleasure would drown your displeasure, and turn it into pleasure; but this pleasure of mine nothing will reveal and give to you except my Word, Genesis 1:31: “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”
7. Here too Christ indicates that he is not displeased with a marriage feast, nor with the things belonging to a wedding such as adornments, cheerfulness, eating and drinking, according to the usage and custom of the country; which appear to be superfluous and needless expense and a worldly matter; only so far as these things are used in moderation and in keeping with a marriage. For the bride and groom must be adorned; so also the guests must eat and drink to be cheerful. And such dining and doing may all be done in good conscience; for the Scriptures occasionally report the like, even the Gospel lessons mentioning bridal adornment, the wedding garment, guests and feastings at weddings. Thus Abraham’s servant in Genesis 24:53 presents ornaments of gold and silver to Rebecca, the bride of Isaac, and to her brothers; so that in these things no one need pay attention to the sour-visaged hypocrites and self-constituted saints who are pleased with nothing but what they themselves do and teach, and will not suffer a maid to wear a wreath or to adorn herself at all.
8. God is not concerned about such external things, if only faith and love reign; provided, as already stated, it be in moderation and in accord with each person’s station. For this marriage, although it was poor and small, had three tables; which is indicated by the word Architriclinus, showing that the ruler of the feast had three tables to provide for; moreover, the groom did not himself attend to this office, but had servants; then too there was wine to drink; all of which, if poverty were to be urged, might have been dispensed with, as is frequently the case with us. So also the guests did not merely quench their thirst with the wine; for the ruler of the feast speaks of how the good wine ought first to be set on, then, when men have freely drunk, that which is worse.
All this Christ allows to pass, and we likewise should let it pass and not make it a matter of conscience. They were not of the devil, even if a few drank of the wine a little beyond what thirst required, and became merry; else you would have to blame Christ for being the cause by means of his presence, and his mother by asking for it; so that both Christ and his mother are sinners in this if the sour-visaged saints are to render judgment.
9. But the excess customary in our times is a different thing, where men do not eat and drink but gorge themselves with food and drink, revel and carouse, and act as though it were a sign of skill or strength to consume overmuch: where, moreover, the intention is not to be merry, but to be full and crazy. But these are swine, not men; to such Christ would not give wine, nor would he visit them. So also in the matter of dress, it is not the marriage that is kept in mind, but display and pomp; as though the most admirable were those most able to wear gold, silver and pearls, and to spoil much silk and broadcloth, which even asses might do and switches.
10. What then is moderation? Reason should teach that, and cite examples from other countries and cities where such pomp and excess are unknown.
But to give my opinion, I would say a farmer is well adorned if for his wedding he have clothes twice as fine as he daily wears at his work; a burgher likewise; and a nobleman, if he have garments twice as costly as a townsman; a count, twice as costly as a nobleman; a duke, twice as costly as a count, and so in due order. In like manner food and drink and the entertainment of guests should be governed by their social position, and the purpose of the table should be pleasure not debauchery.
11. Now is it a sin to play and dance at a wedding, inasmuch as some declare great sin is caused by dancing? Whether the Jews had dances I do not know; but since it is the custom of the country, like inviting guests, decorating, eating and drinking and being merry, I see no reason to condemn it, save its excess when it goes beyond decency and moderation.
That sin should be committed is not the fault of dancing alone; since at a table or in church that may happen; even as it is not the fault of eating that some while so engaged should turn themselves into swine. Where things are decently conducted I will not interfere with the marriage rites and customs, and dance and never mind. Faith and love cannot be driven away either by dancing or by sitting still, as long as you keep to decency and moderation. Young children certainly dance without sin; do the same also, and be a child, then dancing will not harm you. Otherwise were dancing a sin in itself, children should not be allowed to dance. This is sufficient concerning marriage.
II. THE DOCTRINE AND EXAMPLE OF LOVE AND OF FAITH.
12. In the second place, to return to. our Gospel lesson, we here see the example of love in Christ and his mother. The mother renders service and takes the part of house-keeper: Christ honors the occasion by his personal presence, by a miracle and a gift. And all this is for the benefit of the groom, the bride and the guests, as is the nature of love and its works.
Thus Christ lures all hearts to himself, to rely on him as ever ready to help, even in temporal things, and never willing to forsake any; so that all who believe in him shall not suffer want, be it in spiritual or temporal things; rather must water become wine, and every creature turned into the thing his believer needs. He who believes must have sufficient, and no one can prevent it.
13. But the example of faith is still more wonderful in this Gospel. Christ waits to the very last moment when the want is felt by all present, and there is no counsel or help left. This shows the way of divine grace; it is not imparted to one who still has enough, and has not yet felt his need. For grace does not feed the full and satiated, but the hungry, as we have often said. Whoever still deems himself wise, strong and pious, and finds something good in himself, and is not yet a poor, miserable, sick sinner and fool, the same cannot come to Christ the Lord, nor receive his grace.
14. But whenever the need is felt, he does not at once hasten and bestow what is needed and desired, but delays and tests our faith and trust, even as he does here; yea, what is still more severe, he acts as though he would not help at all, but speaks with harshness and austerity. This you observe in the case of his mother. She feels the need and tells him of it, desiring his help and counsel in a humble and polite request. For she does not say: My dear son, furnish us wine; but: “They have no wine.” Thus she merely touches his kindness, of which she is fully assured. As though she would say: He is so good and gracious, there is no need of my asking, I will only tell him what is lacking, and he will of his own accord do more than one could ask.
This is the way of faith, it pictures God’s goodness to itself in this manner, never doubting but that it is really so; therefore it makes bold to bring its petition and to present its need.
15. But see, how unkindly he turns away the humble request of his mother who addresses him with such great confidence. Now observe the nature of faith. What has it to rely on? Absolutely nothing, all is darkness. It feels its need and sees help nowhere; in addition, God turns against it like a stranger and does not recognize it, so that absolutely nothing is left. It is the same way with our conscience when we feel our sin and the lack of righteousness; or in the agony of death when we feel the lack of life; or in the dread of hell when eternal salvation seems to have left us. Then indeed there is humble longing and knocking, prayer and search, in order to be rid of sin, death and dread. And then he acts as if he had only begun to show us our sins, as if death were to continue, and hell never to cease. Just as he here treats his mother, by his refusal making the need greater and more distressing than it was before she came to him with her request; for now it seems everything is lost, since the one support on which she relied in her need is also gone.
16. This is where faith stands in the heat of battle. Now observe how his mother acts and here becomes our teacher. However harsh his words sound, however unkind he appears, she does not in her heart interpret this as anger, or as the opposite of kindness, but adheres firmly to the conviction that he is kind, refusing to give up this opinion because of the thrust she received, and unwilling to dishonor him in her heart by thinking him to be otherwise than kind and gracious-as they do who are without faith, who fall back at the first shock and think of God merely according to what they feel, like the horse and the mule, Psalm 32:9. For if Christ’s mother had allowed those harsh words to frighten her she would have gone away silently and displeased; but in ordering the servants to do what he might tell them she proves that she has overcome the rebuff and still expects of him nothing but kindness.
17. What do you think of the hellish blow, when a man in his distress, especially in the highest distress of conscience, receives the rebuff, that he feels God declaring to him: “What have I to do with thee?” Quid mihi et tibi? He must needs faint and despair, unless he knows and understands the nature of such acts of God, and is experienced in faith. For he will act just as he feels, and will not think of God in a different way and mean the words. Feeling nothing but wrath and hearing nothing but indignation, he will consider God only as his enemy and angry judge. But just as he thinks God to be so will he find him. Thus he will expect nothing good from him.
That is to renounce God with all his goodness. The result is that he flees and hates him, and will not have God to be God; and every other blasphemy that is the fruit of unbelief.
18. Hence the highest thought in this Gospel lesson, and it must ever be kept in mind, is, that we honor God as being good and gracious, even if he acts and speaks otherwise, and all our understanding and feeling be otherwise., For in this way feeling is killed, and the old man perishes, so that nothing but faith in God’s goodness remains, and no feeling. For here you see how his mother retains a free faith and holds it forth as an example to us. She is certain that he will be gracious, although she does not feel it.
She is certain also that she feels otherwise than she believes. Therefore she freely leaves and commends all to his goodness, and fixes for him neither time nor place, neither manner nor measure, neither person nor name. He is to act when it pleases him. If not in the midst of the feast, then at the end of it, or after the feast. My defeat I will swallow, his scorning me, letting me stand in disgrace before all the guests, speaking so unkindly to me, causing us all to blush for shame. He acts tart, but he is sweet I know. Let us proceed in the same way, then we are true Christians.
19. Here note how severely he deals with his own mother, teaching us thereby not only the example of faith mentioned above, but confirming that in things pertaining to God and his service we are to know neither father nor mother, as Moses writes in Deuteronomy 33:9: “He who says of his father and of his mother, I know them not, observes thy Word, Israel.” For although there is no higher authority on earth than that of father and mother, still this ends when God’s Word and work begin. For in divine things neither father nor mother, still less, a bishop or any other person, only God’s Word is to teach and guide. And if father and mother were to order, teach, or even beg you to do anything for God, and in his service that he has not clearly ordered and commanded, you are to reply: Quid mihi et tibi? What have I and you to do with each other? In this same way Chris there refuses absolutely to do God’s work when his own mother wants it.
20. For father and mother are in duty bound, yea, God made them father and mother for this very purpose, not to teach and lead their children to God according to their own notions and devotion, but according to God’s command; as St. Paul declares in Ephesians 6:4: “Ye fathers; provoke not your children to wrath: but nurture them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord;” i.e. teach them God’s command and Word, as you were taught, and not notions of your own.
Thus in this Gospel lesson you see the mother of Christ directing the servants away from herself unto Christ, telling them not: Whatsoever I say unto you, do it; but: “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.” To this Word alone you must direct everyone, if you would direct aright; so that this word of Mary (whatsoever he saith, do it) is, and ought to be, a daily saying in Christendom, destroying all doctrines of men and everything not really Christ’s Word. And we ought firmly to believe that what is imposed upon us over and above God’s Word is not, as they boast and lie, the commandment of the church. For Mary says: Whatsoever he saith that, that, that do, and that alone; for in it there will be enough to do.
21. Here also you see, how faith does not fail, God does not permit that, but gives more abundantly and gloriously than we ask. For here not merely wine is given, but excellent and good wine, and a great quantity of it. By this he again entices and allures us to believe confidently in him, though he delay. For he is truthful and cannot deny himself; he is good and gracious, that he must of himself confess and in addition prove it, unless we hinder him and refuse him time and place and the means to do so. At last he cannot forsake his work, as little as he can forsake himself — if only we can hold out until his hour comes.
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS MARRIAGE.
22. In the third place, we must briefly touch upon the spiritual significance of the text. This marriage and every marriage signifies Christ, the true bridegroom, and Christendom, the bride; as the Gospel lesson of Matthew 22:1-14 sufficiently shows.
23. This marriage took place in Cana of Galilee; that is, Christendom began in the days of Christ among the Jewish people, and continues still among all who are like the Jews. The Jewish nation is called Cana, which signifies, zeal, because it diligently practiced the Law and zealously clung to the works of the Law, so that even the Gospel lessons always call the Jews zealots, and especially St. Paul in Romans 9 and Romans 10. It is natural too that wherever Law and good works are, there zeal will be and contention, one claiming to be better than the other, first of all, however, opposing faith which cares naught for works and boasts only of God’s grace. Now wherever Christ is there such zealots will always be, and his marriage must be at Zeal City, for you always find by the side of the Gospel and faith work-righteous people and Jewish zealots who quarrel with faith.
24. Galilee signifies border or the edge of the country, where you pass from one country into another. This signifies the same people in Zeal City who dwell between the Law and the Gospel, and ought to emigrate and pass from works to faith, from the Law into the Christian liberty; as some also have done, and now still do. But the greater part remain in their works and dwell on the border, achieving neither good works nor faith, shielding themselves behind the shine and glitter of works.
25. Christ’s being bidden to the marriage signifies that he was promised long ago in the Law and the prophets and is earnestly expected and invoked to turn water into wine, fulfill the Law and establish faith, and make true GalileansOF US.
26. His disciples are bidden with him; for he is expected to be a great King, hence to need apostles and disciples in order to have his Word freely and fully preached everywhere. Likewise, his mother is the Christian church, taken from the Jews, who herself most of all belongs to the marriage, for Christ was really promised to the Jewish nation.
27. The six waterpots of stone, for the purification of the Jews, are the books of the Old Testament which by law and commandment made the Jewish people only outwardly pious and pure; for which reason the Evangelist says, they were set there after the Jews’ manner of purifying, as if to say: This signifies the purification by works without faith, which never purifies the heart, but only makes it more impure; which is a Jewish, not a Christian or spiritual purification.
28. There being six waterpots signifies the labor and toil which they who deal in works undergo in such purification; for the heart finds no rest in them, since the Sabbath, the seventh day, is wanting, in which we rest from our works and let God work in us. For there are six work-days, in which God created heaven and earth, and commanded us to labor. The seventh day is the day of rest, in which we are not to toil in the works of the Law, but to let God work in us by faith, while we remain quiet and enjoy a holiday from the labors of the Law.
29. The water in the pots is the contents and substance of the Law by which conscience is governed, and is graven in letters as in the waterpots of stone.
30. And they are of stone, as were the tables of Moses, signifying the stiffnecked people of the Jews. For as their heart is set against the Law, so the Law appears outwardly to be against them. It seems hard and difficult to them, and therefore it is hard and difficult; the reason in that their heart is hard and averse to the Law; we all find, feel and discover by experience that we are hard and averse to what is good, and soft and prone to what is evil. This the wicked do not feel, but those who long to be pious and labor exceedingly with their works. This is the significance of the two or three firkins apiece.
31. To turn water into wine is to render the interpretation of the Law delightful. This is done as follows: Before the Gospel arrives everyone understands the Law as demanding our works, that we must fulfill it with works of our own. This interpretation begets either hardened, presumptuous dissemblers and hypocrites, harder than any pot of stone, or timid, restless consciences. There remains nothing but water in the pot, fear and dread of God’s Judgment. This is the water-interpretation, not intended for drinking, neither filling any with delight; on the contrary, there is nothing to it but washing and purification, and yet no true inner cleansing. But the Gospel explains the Law, showing that it requires more than we can render, and that it demands a person different from ourselves to fulfill it; that is, it demands Christ and brings us unto him, so that first of all by his grace we are made in true faith a different people like unto Christ, and that then we do truly good works. Thus the right interpretation and significance of the law is to lead us to the knowledge of our helplessness, to drive us from ourselves to another, namely to Christ, to seek grace and help of him.
32. Therefore, when Christ wanted to make wine he had them pour in still more water, up to the very brim. For the Gospel comes and renders the interpretation of the Law perfectly clear (as already stated), showing that what belongs to us is nothing but sin; wherefore by the law we cannot escape sinning. When now the two or three firkins hear this, namely the good hearts who have labored according to the law in good works, and are already timid at heart and troubled in conscience, this interpretation adds greatly to their fear and terror; and the water now threatens to rise above the lid and brim. Before this, while they felt disinclined and averse to what is good, they still imagined they might yet succeed by their good works; now they hear that they are altogether unfit and helpless:, and that it is impossible to gain their end by good works. That overfills the pot with water, it cannot hold more. This is to interpret the Law in the highest manner, leaving nothing but despair.
33. Then comes the consoling Gospel and turns the water into wine. For when the heart hears that Christ fulfills the law for us and takes our sin upon himself, it no longer cares that impossible things are demanded by the Law, that we must despair of rendering them, and must give up our good works. Yea, it is an excellent thing, and delectable, that the Law is so deep and high, so holy and righteous and good, and demands things so great; and it is loved and lauded for making so many and such great demands.
This is because the heart now has in Christ all that the Law demands, and it would be sorry indeed if it demanded less. Behold, thus the Law is delightful now and easy which before was disagreeable, difficult and impossible; for it lives in the heart by the Spirit. Water no longer is in the pots, it has turned to wine, it is passed to the guest, it is consumed, and has made the heart glad.
34. And these servants are all preachers of the New Testament like the apostles and their successors.
35. The drawing and passing to the guests is, to take this interpretation from the Scriptures, and to preach it to all the world, which is bidden to Christ’s marriage.
36. And these servants knew (the Evangelist tells us) whence the wine was, how it had been water. For the apostles and their successors alone understand how the law becomes delightful and pleasant through Christ, and how the Gospel by faith does not fulfill the Law by works, every thing being unchanged from what it formerly was in good works.
37. But the ruler of the feast does indeed taste that the wine is good, yet he knows not whence it is. This ruler of the feast is the old priesthood among the Jews who knew of naught but works, of whom Nicodemus was one, John 3:9; he indeed feels how fine this cause of Christ would be, but knows not how it can be, and why it is so, clinging still to works. For they who teach works cannot understand and apprehend the Gospel and the actions of faith.
38. He calleth the bridegroom and reproacheth him for setting on the good wine last, whereas every man setteth on last that which is worse. To this very day it is the surprise of the Jews that the preaching of the Gospel should have been delayed so long, coming first of all now to the Gentiles, while they are said to have been drinking the worse wine for so long a time, bearing so long the burden and heat of the day under the Law; as is set forth in another Gospel lesson. Matthew 20:12.
39. Observe, God and men proceed in contrary ways. Men set on first that which is best, afterward that which is worse. God first gives the cross and affliction, then honor and blessedness. This is because men seek to preserve the old man; on which account they instruct us to keep the Law by works, and offer promises great and sweet. But the out-come is stale, the result has a vile taste; for the longer it goes on the worse is the condition of conscience, although, being intoxicated with great promises, it does not feel its wretchedness; yet at last when the wine is digested, and the false promises gone, the wretchedness appears. But God first of all terrifies the conscience, sets on miserable wine, in fact nothing but water; then, however, he consoles us with the promises of the Gospel which endure forever.
↧
The Second Sunday after Epiphany, 2016 - John 2:1-11. Turning Water into Wine through the Word
The Second Sunday after the Epiphany, 2016
Pastor Gregory L. Jackson
The Hymn #39 Praise to the Lord
The Confession of Sins
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual
The Absolution
The Introit p. 16
The Gloria Patri
The Kyrie p. 17
The Gloria in Excelsis
The Salutation and Collect p. 19
The Epistle and Gradual
The Gospel
Glory be to Thee, O Lord!
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn # 370 My Hope Is Built
Praise be to Thee, O Christ!
The Nicene Creed p. 22
The Sermon Hymn # 370 My Hope Is Built
Water into Wine - Jesus Blesses the Marriage at Cana
The Hymn #128 Brightest and Best
The Hymn #128 Brightest and Best
The Preface p. 24
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #309 O Jesus, Blessed Lord
The Sanctus p. 26
The Lord's Prayer p. 27
The Words of Institution
The Agnus Dei p. 28
The Nunc Dimittis p. 29
The Benediction p. 31
The Hymn #309 O Jesus, Blessed Lord
KJV Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on ourministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. 9 Letlove be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; 11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; 12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; 13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. 14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. 15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. 16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.
KJV John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.
Lord God, heavenly Father, we thank Thee, that of Thy grace Thou hast instituted holy matrimony, in which Thou keepest us from unchastity, and other offenses: We beseech Thee to send Thy blessing upon every husband and wife, that they may not provoke each other to anger and strife, but live peaceably together in love and godliness, receive Thy gracious help in all temptations, and rear their children in accordance with Thy will; grant unto us all to walk before Thee, in purity and holiness, to put all our trust in Thee, and lead such lives on earth, that in the world to come we may have everlasting life, through the same, Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one true God, world without end. Amen.
Water into Wine - Jesus Blesses the Marriage at Cana
KJV John 2:1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
The Gospel of John constantly proves the necessity of a fourth Gospel, revealing significant events and miracles, but also great sermons and teaching. One reader calls it "The Doctrinal Gospel" and this lesson is a good example.
When we know a Biblical passage too well, we ignore telling details. It is like people who know exactly how to get to a favorite place in their cars but cannot give directions, forgetting the details that are embedded in the mind and habits.
The mother of Jesus was at the wedding. It is clear from the details that Mary stood in for the mother of the bride. Parents of the bride and groom are never mentioned, so that is more reason to believe this couple is rather poor, so Mary is helping out by managing and hosting the wedding.
Jesus and His disciples were invited, so their presence alone shows that Jesus blessed the institution of marriage. The presence of the disciples also meant that there were many witnesses besides the guests.
Luther has quite a long section on marriage being despised by the self-made saints among the Catholic priests and monks. Some pretended to be so pure that they would not even attend a marriage. That reminds me of modern Pharisees who would not attend the funeral of a Lutheran from another sect. One said he would only stand at the back, at the very most. If such pretensions converted the masses the entire world would be Christian today.
But the despising of marriage itself has a modern day counterpart - our own society. America seems especially bent on hating marriage out of existence. The young men and women delay marriage and avoid it as much as possible, arguing against the commitment, the expense, and bother of being married. Some Eastern seaboard women have published articles on how they kept waiting for the perfect man and discovered that fatal flaw was not so bad after all, but someone else married those imperfect specimens.
Besides that, many who are married live as though they are not married. They carry on like single hedonists and expect everyone to understand. And yet this most basic of contracts is one that everyone understands, even in the mad era of ending the institution altogether. People respect fidelity whether they believe in God or not. And they look down on those who act the part but are unfaithful.
Children, who should be regarded as the blessed fruit of marriage, are the object of fear and horror. The only concession to this terrible burden, as seen by moderns, is "one and done," having a single child to lessen the burden and horrors of multiple children. Of course, many couples are prevented by health reasons from having more children, but that is not the same as avoiding children as much as possible.
Merkel, the idiot premier of Germany, thinks women should have more babies, but she never had a single one. Her "child" was her career.
All this about the hatred of marriage and having children comes from despising the Word. God in His wisdom instituted marriage with Adam and Eve, knowing this to be necessary and beneficial. Ancient Judaism considered marriage a necessity and supported the institution with a contract where parents would support the couple for a given number of years.
I called on one man and told him he was despising the Word, and teaching his three children the same. He became alarmed and denied this. I said, "You have not married the mother of your three daughters. You are teaching them to despise marriage, which God instituted through His Word." Soon after he asked me to marry them and to take lessons to join the church. This caused an uproar in that church because they did not approve of this, so they might have renamed their parish The Pot Calls the Kettle Black. But that is what happens when the Word is taught as revealed in the Scriptures. Good things happen and Satan's minions do their best to root out the Word and destroy it. They fare no better than copper thieves who cut into live power lines to line their pockets and experience the power of electricity. (You do not want to see the photos.)
So the Middle Ages was one of antagonism toward marriage. Priests were married, like the Apostle Peter and the other Apostles, but the institution of monks did not allow it. The monkish provisions were aimed at the priests but not followed. Many were married at the time of Luther, but the Council of Trent re-emphasized the forbidding of marriage. Now we have everyone except men and women wanting to be married. The famous Episcopalian bishop left his wife to marry his boyfriend, but divorced his boyfriend as well, disclosing he was married to liquor.
Two ways to mock marriage are the lavish events that spend as much money as possible, often a solemn warning about the future. Even worse is the entertainment wedding, where the wedding party dances down the aisle, where the priest sings a secular solo, and even worse - where the bride bellows a solo about how wonderful her groom is - as he wipes his metrosexual eyes in reaction.
All this is within and around the altar, suggesting that this union is not to honor God but to showcase the talents of the people gathered their. And people clap for these abominations and pat the clergy on the back for being so cool.
What God creates is also blessed by Him. The Medieval monks admitted that God only established one estate - that of marriage, but they set themselves above it anyway. This lesson, by itself, corrects that notion.
Merriment and Pietism
Luther wrote about people having a good time at a marriage. That is another great insight about the sour-puss saints who never want anyone to have a good time. I came from the Pietistic Augustana Synod (more so than some of the older Pietistic groups, like the ULCA, ALC, WELS, and LCMS). Dancing was a major issue for the Augustana and Augustana College.
Because this concern came from Pietism, and not the Bible, Augustana was too weak to deal with societal changes by remaining true to Biblical doctrine. When the radicals demanded it, Augustana College joined the extreme Left in every respect of the word, sad to say.
Oddly, the Wisconsin Sect, born in Pietism and despising the Confessions, always felt a need to prove it was not Pietistic. Therefore, the college for future pastors organized drinking parties and fostered underage drinking to excess, so many graduated (as they still do today) as alcoholics. Nothing is more Pietistic than to prove one is not a Pietist by becoming helpless and ridiculous through abusive drinking.
God Lets Us Feel the Want
As always, Luther unites the entire Word of God when he preaches a sermon. That is why I post one per week, to get Lutherans used to Luther again.
There was really only one beverage for the guests - wine. The couple was poor but honoring God's Word and getting married. Mary, Jesus, and the disciples did not look down on the lack of wealth, but honored the couple with their presence. However, the lack of wine was an embarrassment which was deeply felt, as such things are. Marriage ceremonies are supposed to be perfect in all their details - at least the wedding party hopes so.
I conducted an outdoor wedding overlooking the beautiful Fayetteville Valley. They set up a church setting there. Everything was complete. Except there was no knife of any kind for the very gooey wedding cake. That made us vow to keep one in the trunk of the car for any such future events. Cutting a cake with a paper plate cannot be done with enough skill to make up for the lack of a knife.
People think their lack is a sign of God's displeasure, but the moment we think everything is wonderful, thanks to our efforts, our thankfulness to God diminishes and our self-conceit grows.
But when we feel the want sharply, the work of God is to show us how He was answering our prayers before we even asked. We know that from someone having a child after many years. My cousin had his first after 25 years. He said, "We wanted to see if the marriage worked, first."
13. But the example of faith is still more wonderful in this Gospel. Christ waits to the very last moment when the want is felt by all present, and there is no counsel or help left. This shows the way of divine grace; it is not imparted to one who still has enough, and has not yet felt his need. For grace does not feed the full and satiated, but the hungry, as we have often said. Whoever still deems himself wise, strong and pious, and finds something good in himself, and is not yet a poor, miserable, sick sinner and fool, the same cannot come to Christ the Lord, nor receive his grace.
14. But whenever the need is felt, he does not at once hasten and bestow what is needed and desired, but delays and tests our faith and trust, even as he does here; yea, what is still more severe, he acts as though he would not help at all, but speaks with harshness and austerity. This you observe in the case of his mother. She feels the need and tells him of it, desiring his help and counsel in a humble and polite request. For she does not say: My dear son, furnish us wine; but: “They have no wine.” Thus she merely touches his kindness, of which she is fully assured. As though she would say: He is so good and gracious, there is no need of my asking, I will only tell him what is lacking, and he will of his own accord do more than one could ask.
14. But whenever the need is felt, he does not at once hasten and bestow what is needed and desired, but delays and tests our faith and trust, even as he does here; yea, what is still more severe, he acts as though he would not help at all, but speaks with harshness and austerity. This you observe in the case of his mother. She feels the need and tells him of it, desiring his help and counsel in a humble and polite request. For she does not say: My dear son, furnish us wine; but: “They have no wine.” Thus she merely touches his kindness, of which she is fully assured. As though she would say: He is so good and gracious, there is no need of my asking, I will only tell him what is lacking, and he will of his own accord do more than one could ask.
God can answer prayers in ways far different from what we plan as the ideal. I thought it would be fairly easy to move near the grandchildren, with one university having a local campus here. It was an easy transition to make, but the local campus closed. Nevertheless, other things have happened. But it was something we dreamed about for years. Anything especially good would have kept us in Arizona forever. But it went the other way there and that pushed us on here.
Yesterday grandson Alex spotted a cardinal feeding outside our window. I said, "I put a lot of seed in the dish so it would be feeding there and you would see it." He said, "You did that for me?" I said, "Yes, and I put suet in the cages so the starlings would eat and make a big fuss, which brings more birds." Alex said, "You fed noisy birds to bring even more birds to the feeder?" He was grinning and a laughing about that. And that of course is a dream come true for grandparents.
Luther had Joseph and Marry saying, "Oh, we can stay with relatives once we get to Bethlehem." But God provided a place, which was difficult for them and yet ideal for teaching us about what God honors (faith) and what He despises (a display of wealth, pomp, and power).
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
This shows the lack of wine, which is expressed by Mary, not by anyone else. We can see how she was hosting this wedding. And yet Jesus sharpened the want by seeming to refuse. There are many such episodes in the Scriptures, such as the Canaanite woman. This one reveals Jesus addressing her as Woman (not dear woman or dear lady), which shows He is her Lord, not her servant. The Church of Rome mixes this up and has Jesus obeying Mary's commands.
Jesus also addressed Mary as "woman" at the cross, in a very telling set of comments. She is to be "mother" to the Apostle John, but woman, when Jesus addresses her. And yet this is so difficult for the pea-brained modern translators that they must add words to make Jesus a polite obedient Son and not the Lord.
"My hour is not yet come" seems to be a complete rejection of her implied request. But Mary showed faith in bringing the need to her Son.
That shows the great gap between faith in Jesus and the modern tendency to boss God around and make demands about time, manner, and place. When that happens, God does not answer and often takes away what little was there. We can see that in all the religious empires where the "sign" of God's favor was the big building, not scholarships for poor students or help for poor people.
5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.
Mary's faith did not wilt away, so this is an example of "Whatever God wills..." Jesus expressed the same when He said, "If it be Your will, take this cup from Me..."
16. This is where faith stands in the heat of battle. Now observe how his mother acts and here becomes our teacher. However harsh his words sound, however unkind he appears, she does not in her heart interpret this as anger, or as the opposite of kindness, but adheres firmly to the conviction that he is kind, refusing to give up this opinion because of the thrust she received, and unwilling to dishonor him in her heart by thinking him to be otherwise than kind and gracious-as they do who are without faith, who fall back at the first shock and think of God merely according to what they feel, like the horse and the mule, Psalm 32:9. For if Christ’s mother had allowed those harsh words to frighten her she would have gone away silently and displeased; but in ordering the servants to do what he might tell them she proves that she has overcome the rebuff and still expects of him nothing but kindness.
Many miracles have details altogether lacking in others. Those details really matter because the Gospels are quite brief, far shorter than any "Life of Jesus."
These details show us that many witnesses could verify no tricks were used, and tricks are common in displays of great power.
The special effects are based on misdirection of the eyes. I rubbed a paste between my fingers and made smoke come from my hands. That was very convincing to people who heard it was smoke - close up - they were just filaments. I made a coin disappear in my hands in front of UOP faculty members. All I did was show part of one coin and press the small one into the larger one. They saw the finished product, which was heavy and quite realistic. But they saw what they were told to see.
The servants, not Jesus, filled the waterpots. The others, not Jesus, tasted the water turned into wine. They took the wine to the toastmaster, who knew nothing about how this developed. This removed any aspect of trickery, which was bound to be made by the opponents later in time. There is in fact a chemical trick that is easily performed, because one photographic chemical will turn a clear one into a purple wine colored potion - but not one for drinking of course.
9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
This is a good example of ironic humor, because the toastmaster is irritated with the groom about the quality of the wine. Not only was there an abundance of wine, but the best wine, so good that the groom faced the anger of the taster. And that only made the miracle that much more memorable.
The modernists hate the Gospel of John for showing the divinity of Christ so clearly, not to mention many other things unique to this Gospel. But I believe - riffing on the toastmaster - that they are angered by the quality of the Gospel. No other Gospel is so personal and so much an eye-witness account. And yet this is not a correction of errors but a welcome addition to the Synoptic Three Gospels. A Gospel written 300 years later would not be so precise, so personal, and so close to the Judaism of its time (poetic sermon form, much like the Psalms).
Transformation by the Word
Jesus changed the water into the best wine by His Word. As they carried out His routine instructions, something any servant or person could do, God's beloved Son turned their task into a miracle.
The works-salesmen want everyone to dream about great roles, great wealth, and great buildings to be built. So many think an ordinary task is beneath them.
And yet God transforms all tasks through His Word received in faith. No honest job or task is divorced from this transformation. Each effort, no matter how menial, glorifies God when done in faith.
Luther applied this to marriage as well. What others see as the burdens and difficulties of marriage are transformed by God's Word. The difficulties are not taken away. They may even increase, much to the delights of scornful unbelievers. But the couple will experience the delights of marriage, including facing the difficulties and the lack of this or that.
I read a post where someone said, "I have all the money I need and more. I do what I want with my time. I do not answer to anyone. I am not married and do not have children." I thought - yes, this is the conclusion of the Me Generation, forgetting who worked on the factory line to pay for food and housing, who changed the diapers and stayed up all night to watch the fever, etc.
The guests did not say, "We expect a miracle." No one expected what God did through the Word. No one could ask for such a remarkable event. And yet to this day, some ask, "How can the Word change ordinary bread and wine?" To deny this is to deny the Miracle of Cana. To deny this is to deny the power of Christ, turning Him into a teacher of morality and really nice guy.
This is the gap between Modernism and the Word of God. No one can bridge it or forge a compromise. Christianity is not the Amen Corner of modern culture but the power of God to transform a me-centered pagan culture into faith in the mercy of God through Christ.
↧
New Liturgical Terms Are Possible Because "Satis Est"
The Modernists are changing liturgical colors and names to remain in line with the Church of Rome.
The gesima Sundays are gone, in favor of a longer Epiphany season. ELCA follows Rome, and the Thrivent thralls follow ELCA.
Therefore I am proposing the following - to keep up with the reduced vocabulary of American Lutherans:
The Day of Epiphany will start the season as The Wise Guys. That will appeal to Godfather fans.
That season will be called Happy Time, because the Gospel lessons have happy, positive themes.
Ash Wednesday is a downer, so it will be Spring Preview.
Lent means Spring, so the Lenten Sundays will become The First Sunday in Spring, etc.
Of course, Easter is good for attendance and offerings, so no one will change that name. Good Friday will be optional since everyone was already forgiven and saved, 20000 years ago.
↧
↧
Crime Watch in WELS, LCMS, ELS, CLC, ELCA. Too Many Criminals To Portray on the Left Column
To save space on the blog, I am linking the crime stories from this page. Additions will also be linked on this page. To make it easier to Mequon and Concordia graduate to see their old friends, I have posted a photo when available and the link below it.
Several survivors of abuse have already thanked me for doing this.
 |
| WELS District President Edward Werner has now faced his Maker for crimes against young girls. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2016/01/in-public-record-x-rated-sorry-wels.html |
 |
| WELS Evergreen Teacher Anthony Natalie Jr. was arrested for voyeurism. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2016/01/wels-teacher-anthony-natalie-jr-was.html |
 |
| WELS District President Steinbrenner flew to Alaska to keep Pastor Wall from being fired for writing a love letter and special Christmas card to a minor girl. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2015/11/wels-district-president-bullies-council.html |
 |
| Circuit Pastor phoned me to straighten me out about Wall's love letter and Christmas card - denying he and the DP had a duty to report. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2015/12/alaskan-wels-circuit-pastor-same-old.html |
 |
| WELS Pastor Bendix, far right, was arrested for soliciting prostitution. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2015/07/wels-new-ulm-pastor-arrested-on.html |
 |
| Synod President Matt Harrison ordered Steadfast Lutherans to erase their posts about Darwin Schauer, a sex offender encouraged to enter the ministry by a Missouri DP. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2012/04/lcms-case-darwin-schauer-convicted-sex.html |
 |
| A criminal report in 1999 had B-Rod involved with a minor girl, but he taught in WELS and offended again. How did the lawsuit end? http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2016/01/from-2008-wels-facing-lawsuit-over.html |
 |
| This WELS teacher slept in a student's bedroom, but not on the floor. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2008/12/another-wels-church-worker-charged.html |
 |
| The CLC (sic) was organizing conferences in Germany with Horst Gutsche, who was arrested in Needles, California for messing with young boys. Gutsche has been a WELS, CLC (sic), ELCA, and ELCiC pastor - and still is one! http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2015/09/gutschekoenig-conference-held-in.html |
 |
| The FBI raided WELS headquarters, the old Love Shack, and found hundreds of child porn files in Joel Hochmuth's office. Hochmuth was absolved publicly by Mark Schroeder, convicted, given a featherweight work-release sentence - and offended again. http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2011/11/wels-love-shack-director-of.html |
More later - two murders, sex with a minor girl, DUI arrests, embezzlement, and a massive ELCA lawsuit for ordaining a boy predator.
↧
Attracting Cardinals Before Our Snow Storm Arrives
 |
| Cardinals by Norma Boeckler |
Grandson Alex, age 10, was looking our our window when he saw cardinals on the platform feeder just outside. He never saw them so close before. He was very excited to see them.
I said, "I put extra seeds on the feeder, so they would show up for you, Alex."
"You did that just for me?"
"Yes, and I put a lot of extra suet out to attract the noisy starlings, who attract more birds to the food."
He laughed and asked, "You attract the noisy birds to get even more birds at the feeder?"
"Yes, and it works."
I put seven pounds of suet out on various feeders, most of them near the window. I also cleaned out the finch feeder, which had closed down from moisture turning the seed to concrete. That big event kept birds away for days. The finch feeder lid was up for drying - scary. New food was out - ominous. Birds do not like big changes in their habitat.
I had a pretty good store of sunflower seeds and put them bird-ankle deep on the platform feeder. The squirrels show up early and late, but the abundance of feeding points - about 10 in all - makes sure each species will have a place to eat. Many times the platform features a group of the same kind, but at other times - one of each.
I like the platform feeder because the mesh does not allow water to accumulate. I dump it upside down each day so the ground feeders can check out the leftovers.
Suet is super because a few pounds will last a long, long time. Suet is kidney fat from cows, and all the bug eaters love the fat. Starlings are quite comical, fussing and trying to get the best position on my very large suet cages and wooden holders.
The bug eating suet fans are starlings, chickadees, woodpeckers, nuthatches, etc. They will also enjoy sunflower seeds.
Corn is not heavily favored but the doves enjoy it. Corn at 50 pounds is no more expensive than a bag of ears.
↧
Team Jackson versus the 2016 Arkansas Blizzard
 |
| Packers fan Sassy did not see snow until we moved to Arkansas. |
Today we woke up to a landscape covered in snow - barely covered in snow. In fact, the leaf litter was sticking up through the snow.
Our helped sent an IM about shoveling, which we do together for each snowfall. Sassy volunteered to supervise, but she wanted to play in the snow and hunt rabbits.
Our logic is impeccable. If we shovel early, the sun does the rest and there is no chipping away of icy patches later, plus a saving in salt.
When the Wrights lived next door, we shoveled their driveway and cleaned their cars, because they could not manage either one. Now we just do the Gardener's sidewalk and driveway.
Mrs. Wright died in the Faith and her husband went to live in a VA assisted living apartment.
Sometimes we shovel the sidewalk all the way up to the corner, because trampled down snow soon becomes ice. Because long-time residents count on solar power to melt the snow, shoveling a moderate snowfall is often neglected. Older people can fall on the ice, so some early shoveling and salting is a good investment.
↧
One Hundred Percent Gay Lutheran Church Petitions To Join WELS Again.
 |
| Mark Jeske and Mark Schroeder ousted the pastor and grabbed St. John Lutheran and its endowment fund. |
How much more descriptive of WELS can this be? An abusive cult - definitely.
The Church Growth District President got rid of the pastor and congregation on a pretext while leaving Mark and Avoid Jeske untouched.
Jeske pals organized a grab of the property and endowment through the only members, two (2) homosexuals. The late Tim Niedfeldt was going to get the worship services on the Net, so the theft prevented his family from joining. Services stopped altogether until an ex-WELS pastor (now ELCA) was found to front the theft.
 |
| Names, addresses, phone numbers? |
Now the two homosexual members--who worked with WELS to grab the property--want to join WELS again under the same DP who kicked the original members out for supporting the pastor.
↧
↧
Notice How the Duggar IFB Quiverful Bob Jones Hyles Cult Resembles WELS in Its Practices, Secret Language, Abuse of Women and Children, and Deceptions
 |
| Notorious bachelor Bill Gothard, abuser of young women, posed with the Duggar daughters. Where did Josh meet his future wife Anna? At a Gothard event. |
I Fired God: My Life Inside---and Escape from---the Secret World of the Independent Fundamental Baptist Cult
Kindle Edition
Jocelyn Zichterman was born, raised, married into, and finally, with her family, fled the Independent Fundamental Baptist church. Founded by the fiery preacher Bob Jones, with several hundred thousand members, IFB congregants are told they must not associate with members of other Baptist denominations and evangelicals, with an emphasis on secrecy, insular marriages within the church, a subservience for women, and unusual child raising practices.
In I Fired God, Jocelyn Zichterman systematically details the IFB's disturbing history, exposing a cult-like atmosphere of corruption, greed, and abuse. Having been initiated into its innermost circles, Zichterman knows that the gentle demeanor America sees in the form of the Duggar clan on 19 Kids and Counting disguises the truth about the darker side of the church.
With written documentation and sources so thorough that law enforcement has used her work as a foundation for criminal prosecutions, Zichterman exposes the IFB with revelations including:
- The disturbing world of abuse within the IFB and doctors and teachers who cater exclusively to church members and fail to report physical and sexual abuse
- The IFB-controlled Bob Jones University, which issues degrees of questionable value while making vast sums of money for its founders
- The way the IFB influences politics on the local, state, and national level, and protects its abusive culture under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
***
GJ - This book put two things together for me - the extensive, overlapping financial network of the Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, and the parallels to Lutherdom.
- Bob Jones University (which gave Billy Graham an honorary doctorate),
- Quiverful Movement (babies galore),
- The Hyles connection with hundreds of abuse cases.
- The Duggar clan's secret language.
- Spying and reporting on each other.
- Phony doctorates (like Dr. Bob Jones and Dr. Paul Kelm).
- Parallels to WELS, the LCMS, the ELS, and the CLC (sic).
Caution - the author does not come out of this Purgatory a political conservative, after experiencing "conservative family values" masking incest, child abuse, and a network of deceptions.
The interlocking business aspect of this abusive cult is impressive. As Luther said, deception and greed rule the world. The IFB pretends to be independent, but the cult controls people, congregations, and escape attempts by having a file on everyone. They can build up a person and give him plenty of income, or they can make him a leper and deny him income, friendship, and family.
The author suffered horrible physical and sexual abuse from her father, sexual abuse from her brothers, and cult abuse from the IFB, her high school, her college, and the college where her husband worked until they walked out of the cult.
IFB and WELS are quite similar, in many departments. What makes an IFB or WELS person a professor? Answer - education in their inbred system, where similar poorly educated people have been allowed to rule the roost. This yields a dictatorial class of people who use their secret language to control everyone while they live lawless lives.
How did WELS happen to ignore decades of a District President abusing young girls in his own congregation? His entire district knew about it and used the information to have their own fun.
My wife and I enjoyed the Duggar programs at first but I became suspicious of the special language and the weird rules explained by Josh Duggar. I said to Mrs. I, "He does not have his heart in this. Look at his face while talking about defrauding the eyes."
 |
| The Duggar women glammed up later, but in the early days they looked like cult Mormons on parade. |
Some other Duggar terms and practices were -
- No hand holding until engagement.
- Side hugs, because a regular hug is fraught with danger.
- No kissing until the marriage ceremony.
- "Nike!" - the girls ordering all the men not to look an attractive woman walking by, but to look at their shoes instead. Guffaw.
- The wife has to be totally available at all times for the husband's pleasure.
Where did all these special rules and words come from? Answer - Bill Gothard, whose seminars made millions of dollars while this bachelor kept a harem of beautiful young girls at his headquarters so he seduce them with his emotional support and blackmail. That does sound like the founder of the LCMS, Martin Stephan, does it not? And no one knew! Well, they knew about Stephan's adultery but they didn't know. Both stories are out there.
The Missouri Synod did not officially start until Stephan was robbed, kidnapped, and left to die in Illinois, where he did pass on later. So Walther founded the LCMS. Oh yeah, sure. Who got 700 people into ships when he was under house arrest for promiscuity and misuse of funds? Stephan did, not Walther. CFW was the betwitched or cynical follower who went along with the cult and kidnapped his own niece and nephew for the trip.
Spying, lying, and control are crucial in the IFB network and in WELS. Jack Preus compared WELS spying to the KGB, but that is unfair to the KGB. That was disbanded. WELS spying continues unabated.
Here is a partial list of SynCon abuses.
Here is a partial list of SynCon abuses.
A totally controlled sect is a money machine, because everyone has to go to the seminars and buy the materials. Everyone has to work for nothing because they are serving the Lord.
Guilt, guilt, and more guilt is a great way to control people. Abusive families do this instinctively. The author's father was a sadist who tortured and killed their pets and abused all his children with savage beatings and humiliation. Any infraction was a horrible sin that had to be punished.
The school system for Bob Jones and IFB affiliates will sound familiar to WELS survivors. Girls were routinely humiliated in what is now called slut-shaming. That is one of the paradoxes of Pietistic Calvinistic cults like WELS. They act holier than thou and purer than the snows of Kilimanjaro, but they treat young women like dirt and think of wives as dumb slaves.
Northwestern College had Score Reports, where the men shared intimate details about their dates. When one wife objected to the practice, her Circuit Pastor husband roared with laughter.
The author writes about the leaders encouraging abuse and enjoying it. That reminded me of Mequon faculty watching GA hazing rites and enjoy them all over again. Acceptance of abuse is what glues a cult together.
When John Brug was on the front page Christian News, his wife had no idea. She said, "I know about WELS, but it is getting better." Brug seems to be one of the WELS minders, whose job it is to keep Otten controlled. Every congregation and every pastor has a minder or two. Nothing happens without it being reported the the higher ups.
 |
| Pastor Jon Stern's enthusiasm about the Starr-Barefoot gay ministry program is contagious. |
Does anyone know what the District Presidents earn? And what about their perks like the winter vacation in the Carib? The Synod President's salary and benefits are none of your business, but all of your business is his business.
In Lutherdom, sin has nothing to do with the Ten Commandments. First Table - false doctrine? No problem.
Second Table? Every pervert was forgiven 2,000 years ago. Adultery and homosexuality are only sins when getting rid of someone. In the leadership, even at headquarters - no problem at all. The radicals can do no wrong in Lutherdom unless they start drawing fire on the denomination. Even then, the leadership would rather promote the unrepentant, move them, and defend them.
But to question the synod? That is a horrible, unforgivable sin. In fact, even bringing up the problem is a sin, so any meeting or discussion will involve a denunciation of the despicable way in which it was brought up. We said, write a letter, but look at the horrible language, Eighth Commandment violations, and failure to follow Matthew 18!
The Abusive Sect Hates People Out and Demands Them Back
The author describes how the abusive leaders hated them out of the college and connected IFB business arrnagements, but the cult also demanded they come back as servile and repentant slaves to the organization.
I have seen so many cases where WELS pastors or laity were driven out, hated out, shunned and abused, only to see them work their way back in. They complained about the abuse, loudly, and went back for a second helping. Of course WELS loves to have troublesome pastors back, broken of their habit of dissenting.
Every so often I see a prominent leaker of information announce in public he is so grateful to be in WELS and loves his fellowship so much. Truly, such evidence of mind control should draw iron tears down Pluto's cheeks (Milton).
The sub-cult of UOJ works the same way. One dentist questioned every assumption of UOJ, found himself completely pistol-whipped by Rolf Preus and others, and came back repentant and embracing UOJ. Now he is so nasty about UOJ, without being prompted or asked, that I had to block him on Facebook. I do not mind debating UOJ the rest of my life, but ridiculous and gratuitous insults are not welcome. If I missed that so much, I would post on SpenerQuest.
↧
Super Secret Blog Capture Method - Borrowed from WELS
Blogger - What software do you use to capture social media content, etc for use in your posts?
Ichabod - I borrowed this method from WELS - I copy and paste.
Thanks Greg. Your blog captures always look so good - I though you might have some super-secret method :)
As you've said in the past, many things have a short life on the web. If you don't capture them, they seem to not be there when you look again.
***
GJ - Google Blogger had a software called Blog This! - and that made copying and crediting easy. However, that went poof so I fell back on the method I learned from Ski-and-Glende's sermon preparation - copy and paste. I simply highlight text and photos with the mouse, control-c, and then control-v in my blank blog space. I post the link, or embed the link in the title, trying to make it very clear where the verbatim quotation begins and ends.
I learned early that Lutheran bloggers erase the evidence very quickly once they are quoted or mentioned on Ichabod. Pictures often last only temporarily with copy and paste, so if I want the picture to be there always, I copy those graphics into my extensive file, then I copy the actual picture. Otherwise, links change and the picture becomes a big blank square - no location found.
Blogs open to great fanfare and close quietly, with everything erased. That is another reason to copy their best material. I use labels so that every post from that blog can be followed by clicking on the label list.
I enjoy promoting good and bad blogs. Few blogs last long. Having a blog is like having an alligator for a pet - it requires regular feeding. For that reason I have stopped blogging the Moline and Sassy blogs, unless there are special reasons. I simply copy Sassy posts here to her blog, because her foster mother likes to keep up with "the smartest dog we ever took care of."
News organizations welcome copying their stories - with the link taking readers back to the source. It is their right to demand only partial quotation, but regular news sources have never asked that. Yale Alumni Magazine is a separate enterprise, so they want only limited quoting. ChurchMouse is a great blog that does not want the complete copy and paste; it is also one of the few that tempt me to copy everything - but I resist.
Research on Ichabod
I have posted so many articles, -13,600 - that finding them again is a chore. If I want to reclaim a graphic or link to an old article, I use Google to google them. Google owns Blogger, so posts enter the database at once.
That is good for me and bad for apostate Lutherans. Almost any search for a Lutheran topic will yield posts and graphics from Ichabod. I have heard complaints about this effect from all over. That happened again when I created three blogs for the local Evangelical college, to get them involved in social media. The newly assigned blogger complained that my blogs owned the topics and graphics, so I said, "OK. Then out-publish me."
Numbers
I noticed, from looking, that the college blogs were beyond 30,000 views already, which is pretty good for free media attention. The map showed that people all over the world were reading it.
Ichabod registers more than 4.3 million total views now. The recent big day had 8,300 views and the monthly total is around 60,000 views. I seem to have the only blog with a counter showing the numbers, even though I never intended to reach more than a few dozen people.
Impact
Faithfulness to the Word of God is directly related to the impact of a blog. Most efforts simply recirculate current bromides and repudiate Luther at every opportunity. Some - like SpenerQuest - are handy as toxic waste dumps. Whenever I want something entertaining to copy and paste, I click on LutherQuest (sic).
Practice Is Everything
I have learned so much from blogging for eight years that I could never teach all my hints to new bloggers. The most important one is "practice," or as the Germans say, "Practice is everything."
"Writing makes a precise mind." That bit of wisdom is quite valuable in theology. Being challenged is good for study. Making a point in writing is far more difficult that simply speaking about it. That is why so few pastors write out their sermons today. The ministers think they can get up and blab for 15 minutes, finding it easier to parrot what someone else has already committed to video or audio.
WELS advocates plagiarism of sermons and protects those who copy from false teachers. But of course, how does one discipline a known false teacher who saves himself time by copying from another false teacher?
↧
Bad Weather for Birds, Good Weather for Feeding Them
The robins have been acting like it was spring - all winter. We had an earthworm crawling across the road a few weeks ago. We had a little snow this week, but that melted away in hours.
Yesterday the cold was setting in and a mist began to fall in the late afternoon. By 3 AM, they tell me, the mist was freezing. When I walked Sassy this morning the frozen drops on the bushes looked like tears ready to fall.
Birds know all about weather changes, so they load up on food before the heavy rains, snow, or sleet storms arrive. If they feed during a storm, I figure the storm will be lasting. Normally they want to stay in their shelter with their feathers fluffed out for holding in the body heat.
Sleet is especially difficult for birds eating, because they count on bark holding insect eggs and pulpae.
I scoop the sunflower seeds onto the platform feeder, paste peanut butter onto the window ledge, and scatter corn around the yard. The message is - This is a place to build a nest and have some children. When the babies start crying for food, I will have an ample supply of toxin free creatures to feed them. Birds can feed their children and get their supplements from my continuous bird-food stations.
Blue jays are notorious for attacking anyone near their nests. In Bella Vista, we had a blue jay nest just outside our window, perched in a bush. Team Jackson enjoyed watching them grow up , trying their wings, then disappear. I made a point of taking piles of sunflower seed to the parents. They watched me and never attacked, even when I got close to their nest. They were glad to get the spare food, thankful to their Creator, just as we should be. They sounded their beautiful bell-like calls to show their joy.
Bird Scouts
All summer long, your resident birds are assessing and re-assessing their options for the fall and winter. They are learning where feeders are and scouting out locations to roost on cold winter nights. Since those decisions are being made months before the first snow flies, it’s best that you help them along. Start training these birds now! Set up your feeders in a safe location and keep them full so those birds recognize your yard as a reliable source of food.
↧
"Theology on Tap" is an open discussion led by Pastor Ben Sadler on life's biggest questions, like "Can I really know God exists?""If God is good why does he allow suffering?"
Every first Wednesday of the Month, starting February 3rd
Doors open at 6pm. Discussion starts at 6:30pm
At Wenonah Brewery 4065 6th St, Goodview, MN 55987
For more information call 507-450-4431 or check out goodviewtrinity.org for more information
4. He can grow facial hair before lunch. Fascinating!
5. Goodview Trinity is his dream call