When is Enough
Enough?
What are the limits,
historically?
by Rev. Daniel Preus,
Executive
Director, Concordia Historical Institute
What are the limits
historically?
The topic which you have
assigned to me is entitled "When is enough enough? What
are the limits historically?" These questions, it seems
to me, deal directly with the subject of Lutheran
identity. What does it mean to be a Lutheran? What has
it meant historically to confessional Lutherans when
they have said, "I am a Lutheran."? At what point did
they feel constrained to say to others, "You are not
Lutheran."? Why and at what point did they exclude
people or congregations from their fellowship because
they were not Lutheran or because they were not
Christian which amounts to virtually the same thing? In
other words, how was church discipline exercised? What
did they view as legitimate and godly dissent among
brothers in the same Lutheran synod? At what point did
dissent become heresy and require discipline? When did
they in effect say, "This is enough. You have crossed
the line. We can no longer be in fellowship with each
other. Your practice and/or your doctrine is not
Lutheran."?
I will attempt today to answer these
questions and others at least briefly today recognizing
that it is quite impossible to treat the subject
thoroughly in the time allotted. For the same reason I
will confine myself primarily to the American scene but
I will also touch upon views outside the Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod, since we certainly do not
believe that this church is the only one which in our
country has been or is truly Lutheran in the
confessional sense. I will also not be presenting a
chronological description of how the question you have
assigned me has been answered over the years, since that
would be a far more complicated task than we have time
for. I hope, however, that the context I provide will
assist in defining what the parameters or boundaries
were as understood by our spiritual forefathers in
answering the question, "When is enough enough?" It will
then be appropriate to make some application to our
church today.
I would like to focus to a great
degree on the way in which church discipline for pastors
and teachers took place early in the history of the
Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, particularly in the
first 40 years. I believe that the matter of church
discipline is, more than any other, where the rubber
hits the road, so to speak. This issue defines the
boundaries, and demonstrates where the church drew the
line and answered the question, "When is enough
enough?"
At the very beginning discipline upon
pastors and teachers was exercised by the synodical
convention. Not too long after the founding of the
synod, the initial steps in disciplining a pastor were
undertaken by the district of which he was a member.
Final disposition of the cases took place at the
synodical convention. Already by the 1870's, however, in
view of the limited time available at the synodical and
district conventions, investigations were handled mostly
by committees. The final ruling, however, continued to
be made by the synodical convention.
Without
going into a great deal of detail, permit me to
summarize some of the cases that were dealt with in the
early years.
The Synodical Proceedings of 1848
refer to a Pastor Romanowski who was investigated
following a charge of a willful neglect of duties. He
resigned before the investigation was
completed.(1)
In 1849 a Pastor Schneider who for some
time had been insisting on using only the old Lutheran
ceremonies, joined the Roman Catholic Church. No action
was taken at the synodical convention since he was
considered to have excluded himself.(2)
The Western
District Convention Proceedings of 1858 describe the
events surrounding a Pastor Gruber who was at odds with
the synodical position on chiliasm or millenialism. He
had presented certain theses for discussion at the St.
Louis Pastoral Conference. The conference called his
views dangerous and unscriptural. When it became
apparent that the synod would not entertain his
position, Gruber voluntarily excluded himself from the
synod. A resolution passed by the Western District
regarding Pastor Gruber is interesting.
Since
Herr Pastor Gruber in a statement to the Synod in part
explained his departure from the Synod and in part
attempted to defend his chiliasm, the Synod decided to
strike his name from the list, but not to deal any
further with his chiliastic errors which have been
sufficiently refuted elsewhere.(3)
In 1860 Pastor N Volkert resigned voluntarily after
accusations of sins of indecency and was considered
thereby excluded.(4)
In 1863 Teacher Kolb was
relieved of duty for reasons unknown. He left the
congregation and was seen thereby to have excluded
himself.(5)
Pastor J.C. Schneider was convicted in
civil court in 1867 of impregnating a schoolgirl. He
"voluntarily resigned" from the Ministerium and was thus
excluded.(6)
I found a rather surprising and
interesting pattern in all of these cases. Did you
notice it? In all of the cases mentioned above, the
Synod does not appear to have removed anybody except as
a sort of formal closure to the matter after he himself
had resigned from the Synod. What does this mean? The
question is a bit difficult to answer since in most
cases very few details are included in the district or
synodical proceedings describing the cases. There are
other cases I could have included but have not for the
sake of time. They, too, describe removal of a teacher
or pastor after he has "voluntarily resigned." Not many
details are made available to us concerning these cases,
either. Apparently, the leaders of early Missouri had no
desire to overly embarrass those who were accused of sin
or wrongdoing. For the sake of the sinner and to
encourage repentance and possible return to the church,
details were kept to a minimum so that should repentance
occur, restoration could take place without undue
embarrassment on the part of the penitent.
At any
rate, what is clear from all of these cases is that
people were not really removed, as much as they simply
resigned. Is this evidence of an age in which sinners
more readily recognized their wrongs, repented and did
the right thing? I think not. Rather, I think it almost
certain that in many of these cases, the one guilty of
immorality or of false teaching simply "had things made
clear to him." The case of Stephan who was charged both
with immorality and false doctrine was, I am sure, still
vivid enough in the minds of the people that they
understood how immorality and false doctrine were viewed
and dealt with. In other words, they understood they had
a choice: resign voluntarily or be removed against your
will. In either case the result was the same. Early
Missouri tolerated neither immorality nor false doctrine
on the part of its pastors and teachers and doctrinal
purity was an extremely high priority.
Even a
casual look at Synod's first constitution makes this
fact abundantly clear. As one of the reasons for forming
a synod, the constitution states:
"The preservation
and furthering of the unity of pure confession (Eph.
4:3-6; I Cor. 1:10) and to provide common defense
against separatism and sectarianism. (Rom.
16:17)"(7)
As a condition of congregational
membership in the Synod, the constitution naturally
required "Acceptance of Holy Scripture . . . as the
written word of God," and of the Lutheran Confessions
"as the pure and unadulterated explanation and
presentation of the Word of God."(8) It also stipulated
the following: "Separation from all commixture of Church
or faith, as, for example serving of mixed congregations
by a servant of the Church; taking part in the service
and Sacraments of heretical or mixed congregations;
taking part in any heretical tract distribution and
mission projects, etc."(9) The Synod also required of
congregations,
The exclusive use of doctrinally
pure church books. (Agenda, hymnals, readers, etc.) If
it is impossible in some congregations to replace
immediately the unorthodox hymnals and the like with
orthodox ones, then the pastor of such a congregation
can become a member of Synod only if he promises to use
the unorthodox hymnal only under open protect and to
strive in all seriousness for the introduction of an
orthodox hymnal.(10)
In the section dealing with the
execution of synodical business, the constitution
states,
If it should happen that the president
reports a pastor who after having been reprimanded
several times by the President, by the particular
congregation, and by the ministerium, yet continues in
wrong doctrine or in an offensive life, then Synod in
its entirety shall make the last attempt to turn him
from the error of his ways. If, having been thus
reprimanded, he does not listen to Synod, he shall be
expelled . . . .(11)
Also interesting in the same
section of the constitution is the following description
of Synod's duties:
It is the duty of Synod to
discuss and investigate in its annual convention which
articles of church doctrine to emphasize or further
especially, also against which heresies and weaknesses
in life testimony is to be given and the manner in which
this is to be done. In accordance with this, Synod is to
pass judgment on the work of the editor of the synodical
paper and to give him instructions for his future
activity.(12)
I wish I could exhaust the riches
of this first constitution in its attention to and
insistence upon doctrinal purity but there is simply too
much material to cover. Let me include just one more
rather lengthy example that clearly displays the desire
for pure doctrine and is particularly relevant to issues
before the Missouri Synod today. In describing the
business of Synod, the constitution states,
Synod
holds in accordance with the 7th article of the Augsburg
Confession that uniformity in ceremonies is not
essential; yet on the other hand Synod deems such a
uniformity wholesome and useful, namely for the
following reasons:
because a total difference in
outward ceremonies would cause those who are weak in the
unity of doctrine to stumble;
because in dropping
heretofore preserved usages the church is to avoid the
appearance of and desire for innovation;
Furthermore
Synod deems it necessary for the purification of the
Lutheran Church in America, that the emptiness and the
poverty in the externals of the service be opposed,
which, having been introduced here by the false spirit
of the Reformed, is now rampant. All pastors and
congregations that wish to be recognized as orthodox by
Synod are prohibited from adopting or retaining any
ceremony which might weaken the confession of the truth
or condone or strengthen a heresy, especially if
heretics insist upon the continuation or the abolishing
of such ceremonies.
The desired uniformity in the
ceremonies is to be brought about especially by the
adoption of sound Lutheran agendas (church books).
Synod as a whole is to supervise how each individual
pastor cares for the souls in his charge. Synod,
therefore, has the right of inquiry and judgment.
Especially is Synod to investigate whether its pastors
have permitted themselves to be misled into applying the
so-called "New Measures" which have become prevalent
here, or whether they care for their souls according to
the sound Scriptural manner of the orthodox
Church.(13)
Before I continue with the point I am
presently pursuing, let me just point out that in the
last words which I just read to you we see that the
Synod is not reluctant to identify the so-called "New
Measures" as illustrative of unorthodox, unlutheran
worship. In fact, they stick it in the constitution! Now
the "New Measures" of their day were very similar in
concept and in doctrine to what we today call the
"Church Growth Movement."
But what is the point I
am making with these numerous references to the Missouri
Synod's first constitution? There was a strong consensus
among the founders of the Synod that the proclamation of
pure doctrine was essential to the health and the life
of the church. Nor were they embarrassed to say that
there was such a thing as pure doctrine which could be
known and therefore be proclaimed boldly. They were
firmly convinced that the church lived, was nourished
and grew from the preaching and teaching of the pure
Word of God. And they were not reluctant to say that
they had this pure Word. In 1873 in fact, C. F. W.
Walther delivered an essay at the Western District
Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod
entitled – now listen to this, The Doctrine of the
Lutheran Church Alone Gives All Glory to God, an
Irrefutable Proof that its Doctrine Alone is True.(14)
His presentation then provided a number of theses
supporting the theme of the essay. Now listen to this --
for the next thirteen conventions of the Western
District Walther continued his treatment of precisely
the same theme until just a few months before his death.
Of course Walther was not saying that there was no truth
in other Christian churches, nor was he saying, God
forbid, that only Lutherans could possess truth and be
saved. But he was saying that the teachings of the
Lutheran Church are true, and that wherever the
teachings of other church bodies conflict with those of
the Lutheran Church, their teachings are false and that
such false teachings damage and destroy the church and
cannot be permitted within an orthodox Lutheran church
body.
Today it is popular to refer to oneself as
a Lutheran Christian or a Methodist Christian.
Accompanying such terms is the frequent assumption or
statement that the different church bodies represent
different faith traditions, all equally valid. In
contrast to such a view, Walther delivered an address in
1866 to the Convention of the Missouri Synod with the
title, The Evangelical Lutheran Church, the True Visible
Church of God upon Earth. With this presentation Walther
certainly did not wish to teach that all Christians are
members of the Lutheran Church or that every member of
the Lutheran Church is a Christian. Such nonsense would
never have occurred to him. But he did mean to teach
that the church has marks by which it can be known and
identified as the true church of Christ; these marks are
the pure teaching of the Gospel and the Sacraments
rightly administered. The Evangelical Lutheran Church
possesses these marks. Other churches do not or they
possess them only partially or impurely. Where this is
the case, such infidelity must be pointed out and dealt
with. Walther clearly meant to teach, in common with
Luther and in opposition to Erasmus,(15) that God's Word
is clear, that it is not ambiguous, that doctrinal
assertions can be made with the confidence that they are
correct, that truth can be known and one can know that
one has it. When it comes to doctrine, the line between
truth and error is not vague or gray. Therefore when we
make a confession of the faith in our creeds and
symbols, we do so not with some nebulous hope that what
we say may contain a kernel of truth. Rather we confess
in the same spirit as the signers of the Formula of
Concord who wrote concerning the confession they had
made, " . . . [This] is our teaching, belief, and
confession in which by God's grace we shall appear
before the judgment seat of Jesus Christ and for which
we shall give an account." (16)
Thus, early
Missouri not only dealt with false doctrine in its midst
but felt compelled to speak out about false doctrine
outside its fellowship -- not out of a sense of
pharisaical pride, but for the sake of the flock which
needed to be warned against the wolves intent upon
destruction. It is for this reason that Wilhelm Sihler
so castigated the liberal General Synod in
1855:
The Eastern District of our Synod . . .
will no doubt have to content itself with setting up the
banner of uncompromised Lutheran confessionalism and of
pure doctrine in the midst of the apostate, false
brethren of the Reformed-methodistic, so called Lutheran
General Synod. And neither, on account of the size and
prestige of the General Synod, (will it) fail to testify
as vigorously and as emphatically as necessary to any
article of doctrine suppressed and falsified by this
synod and to warn every Lutheran against this harmful
leaven.(17)
These words sound harsh to today's
ecumenical ears, but perhaps not as harsh as they did a
few years ago before the ELCA established what amounts
to full altar and pulpit fellowship with the
Presbyterian Church USA, the Reformed Church in America,
the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church,
before the ELCA stated its intentions of exploring full
fellowship with the United Methodist Church and before
the ELCA committed itself to the Joint Declaration on
Justification and thus sacrificed on the altar of
ecumenical fervor the article by which the church stands
and falls and relinquished her right to call herself a
daughter of the Reformation. What orthodox Lutheran can
deny that a little more of the spirit of Sihler would be
useful in the church today?
Nor was the Missouri
Synod alone in warning its people against doctrinal
laxity and error. It was not the only Lutheran church
body that knew what it meant to be truly Lutheran. In
1867 my great-great-grandfather Herman Amberg Preus
delivered a series of seven lectures in Kristiania (now
Oslo), Norway, later printed in Gisle Johnson's Luthersk
Kirketidende, to describe the conditions of the
Norwegian Lutheran immigrants in America. At the time
Herman Amberg Preus was the pastor of a Norwegian
Lutheran church in Spring Prairie, Wisconsin and the
president of the Norwegian Evangelical Lutheran Church
in America (Den norsk-evangelisk-lutherske Kirke i
Amerika) commonly known simply as the Norwegian Synod.
In his lectures he attempted to show the living
conditions of Norwegian immigrants, the religious
context of America in which the Norwegian Lutheran
churches had been planted, the confessional fidelity or
the lack of it evident among the members of other
Lutheran Scandinavian church bodies with which the
Norwegians felt some kinship - and whatever else he
thought might encourage the Lutherans in Norway to send
desperately needed Lutheran pastors to
America.
In spite of the fact that many in the
Church of Norway considered the Norwegian Lutherans in
America to be somewhat narrow-minded and argumentative,
Preus did not hesitate to describe the doctrinal
problems and controversies relevant to the American
situation. In his sixth lecture he spoke about the lack
of doctrinal unity in the Augustana Synod. "Our
conferences with them have shown us that they are not
united in even basic doctrines, but that their apparent
unity is based in part on pure ignorance and in part on
indifference which allows them to keep silent while
their brethren in the synod preach quite contradictory,
false doctrine."(18)
In this same lecture Preus
speaks of the careless and unLutheran practice common in
the Augustana Synod. For example, the Augustana Synod, "
. . . has allowed its pastors to use the Reformed
formula for the Lord's Supper and the conditional form
of absolution . . .. It has allowed Methodist pastors to
be teachers in its Sunday schools and a
Congregationalist pastor to preach at the dedication of
one of its churches. It has allowed prayer meetings and
'revivals' to be conducted Methodist-fashion in its
congregations."(19) After numerous other references to
the unorthodox practice rampant in the Augustana Synod,
Preus points to what he considers as one of the most
serious problems of all.
The synod and its pastoral conferences have not
only refused forceful invitations on our part to meet
jointly with us, but they have even declined to discuss
disputed doctrinal points with those among their own
pastors who are troubled in conscience and have
therefore requested that they do so.
In my opinion all this sufficiently demonstrates the
indifference reigning in this synod, how it is all for
extending itself and winning respect, how it therefore
seeks to avoid strife and controversy and prefers to
allow errors and abuses and departures from both the
doctrine of the church and good Lutheran ecclesiastical
order. There has entered in here a genuinely American
speculative spirit, a spirit that does not ask whether
something is right, but whether it is clever or
'expedient.' Thus, in this synod, the Lutheran
confession is in reality a display sign to decoy the
naïve, since both its doctrine and its practice
manifestly controvert this confession and God's
Word.
That this spirit of indifference also holds
sway in congregational life speaks for itself. It
naturally happens that there is a reciprocal effect
between congregations and the synod.(20)
Herman
Amberg Preus, along with Ulrik Koren and others in the
Norwegian Synod were struggling hard to establish an
immigrant church in America that would be truly
Lutheran. It is reasonable to conclude that the
practices criticized by Herman Amberg Preus in the
quotations just read were not tolerated in the early
Norwegian Synod. The question, "When is enough enough?"
was certainly not difficult for them to answer, given
their doctrinal position, nor was their answer
ambiguous.
But let me return for a bit to the
subject of church discipline in the Missouri Synod
because I don't want to leave you with an incomplete
picture of the situation. To sum up what we already
discussed earlier. The early Lutheran Church--Missouri
Synod carried out church discipline conscientiously in
accord with principles laid out in Scripture. Because
their commitment to Scripture was so strong and their
doctrinal position so clear, those placed under church
discipline frequently resigned "voluntarily" when guilty
of immorality or when their doctrinal position was
contrary to that of Missouri. There was little question
as to what would happen if they did not resign.
I
do not want to leave you with the impression, however,
that the way early Missouri dealt with doctrinal issues
was not evangelical or was heartless. Yes, they were
committed to retaining their pure doctrine. They were
also reasonable and patient in their approach. A few
examples are in order to demonstrate this point. The
case of Pastor E.M. Bürger is one which demonstrates
clearly the willingness to be patient and work through
issues in a Christian manner. Bürger had been among
those who immigrated to the United States and settled in
Perry County in 1839. In the aftermath of the doctrinal
confusion following Stephan's deposal, Bürger had come
to the conclusion that the immigration had been wrong,
and that the validity of his own call and ministry were
in question. In this state of mind he decided to return
to Germany. On his way, while he was still in America a
group of Buffalo, New York Lutherans who had been
excommunicated by Grabau issued him a call. He
established that they had been unjustly excommunicated
and accepted the call to be their pastor. He then
petitioned the Missouri Synod to recognize and affirm
the call. However, several members of his previous
congregation in Perry County had accused him of false
doctrine and of unjustly excommunicating them. Bürger
admitted that he had not spoken and acted with enough
Christian wisdom and that he may have given the
impression that he was the highest court in the church,
though publicly he had stated his conviction to the
contrary. His accusers on the other hand, admitted that
they had acted contrary to the law of love and dropped
their charges against him. The Synod concluded in the
very first synodical convention in 1847 that Bürger had
not been guilty of false doctrine or willful sin or
unfaithfulness in his office. They urged him to accept
the call he had received from the people in Buffalo and
resolved to accept him into voting membership in the
synod.(21) All in all, a wonderful and God-pleasing
resolution of what had been serious issues.
The
example of teacher Knoche demonstrates that the early
synod leaders could certainly be reasonable. His conduct
became a concern because although he was a member of the
Synod, he taught in the school of a heterodox church
body. The Synod found in 1860 that Knoche had stipulated
he taught only Lutheranism, he belonged to a
congregation of the Missouri Synod and he partook of the
Sacrament only in his Missouri Synod congregation. There
was, therefore, nothing amiss.(22)
The case of
Pastor Georg Albert Schieferdecker is notable for a
number of reasons. There is a great deal of
documentation; it demonstrates the Synod's insistence
upon dealing with doctrinal issues; it shows the patient
and charitable approach taken by the Synod in dealing
with those who were in disagreement with Synod's
doctrine. I will confine myself to the bare essentials
of the case.
Schieferdecker was the pastor of
Trinity Lutheran Church in Altenburg, Perry County
Missouri. Early in 1856 he preached a sermon in which he
promoted chiliastic (or millennialistic) views for which
he was strongly criticized by members of his
congregation. As a result of the criticism he had
received, he asked the 1856 convention of the Western
District, of which he was then president, to address the
issue. After lengthy debate, the convention "condemned
chiliasm as unscriptural."(23) The convention also
stated that chiliasm is not church dividing so long as
the one who holds it neither teaches it nor spreads it.
At the same time the District insisted that it had a
duty to convince chiliasts in its midst that their
position is unscriptural. Between then and the synodical
convention the following year, Synodical President
Wyneken tried to bring Schieferdecker back to a
scriptural position both through correspondence and by
meeting with him, but Schieferdecker remained firm in
his position. In February 1857 Wyneken even invited
Schieferdecker to a four day consultation with himself,
C.F.W. Walther and some of the other seminary
professors. Schieferdecker accepted but was still not
convinced he was in error.
At the synodical
convention in 1857 Schieferdecker asked the Synod to
overturn the Western District's condemnation of
chiliasm. The convention refused and held an
investigation of Schieferdecker's views instead. In each
aspect of his position about which he was questioned
Schieferdecker was permitted to think through his
answers overnight if he so desired. After a great deal
of debate, the entire matter was turned over to a
committee consisting of the four district presidents,
the seminary professors, and one delegate from each
district.(24) The committee concluded that "since
Schieferdecker was casting aside articles of faith in
favor of his chiliastic views, he was no longer on the
same footing of faith with Synod and that Synod
therefore deemed it necessary to withdraw the hand of
fellowship from him."(25) The convention then upheld the
findings of the committee and expelled Schieferdecker
from the Synod.
Two final points are worth noting. First, after
the convention synodical officials visited
Schieferdecker's congregation to see whether they
approved of his expulsion. Two thirds of the
congregation did; Schieferdecker was relieved of duty
and left with his supporters to start a new
congregation. Second, after he was expelled
Schieferdecker asked whether the Synod would consider
reinstating him should he ever return to the doctrinal
position of the Synod in regard to chiliasm. The Synod
assured him that such would be the case and indeed,
eighteen years later, he did recognize and admit his
error and was readmitted to the Synod in 1875.
At this point I would like to provide a number of observations concerning church discipline in the early Missouri Synod and then bring this part of my presentation to a close. First of all, every case suggesting the need for discipline was met with an investigation into the facts of the case and into theological issues raised by the case and an abundant amount of evidence of heterodoxy or of wrongdoing was needed in order to remove someone from office and to exclude him from synod.
Second, pastors and teachers found guilty of
sinful behavior were repeatedly admonished, first
privately and then in public. Those who did not repent
were excluded from the synod. Those who did repent
typically resigned from office and the synod simply left
matters at that. Absolution, of course, took
place.
Third, pastors and teachers found guilty
of false teaching were also urged to repent of their
error. Those who did not repent were excluded from
synod; those who did repent were welcomed back with open
arms.
When was enough enough for those in early
Missouri? Where did they draw their boundaries, so to
speak, and how do those boundaries compare to those we
seem to have drawn today? What was their definition of
what it meant to be Lutheran and how does it compare to
ours today? I suppose we could stick our heads in the
sand and say that church discipline today is being
carried out pretty much the same way it was then, our
boundaries appear to be about the same, we are certainly
as conscientious today as they were then in identifying
false teaching and practice and putting a halt to it.
And surely such a view is the one many would like to
hear. But nobody who studies our history and looks at
the state of our church today could possibly believe it.
I don't think that there is any question that what we
are willing to tolerate today far exceeds what early
Missouri would have put up with and I do not believe it
is because we are more evangelical or charitable or
reasonable or civilized or enlightened. No, I think
there is another reason and I am afraid that it is
summed up in the words of Jesus to the church in Ephesus
as recorded in the book of Revelation: "I have this
against you, that your love is not what it was at
first." Rev. 2:4 Now I honestly do not mean to indict
specific individuals when I say this. I think our entire
Missouri Synod needs to look at these words of Jesus and
we need to ask ourselves. Are we becoming Ephesians
whose love is not what it was at first?
About
seven years ago, I think, I was at a professional church
workers conference somewhere in the mountains west of
Denver. I was sitting at the dinner table with two
friends and we were talking about the Lord's Supper. We
had discussed the Reformed position and its denial of
the real presence and therefore of everything which our
Lord Jesus gives us in the Sacrament; we had discussed
the Roman Catholic position which views the priest as
making an unbloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ to the
father for the sins of the living and the dead; and we
were in the process of talking about the Lutheran view
and how comforting it was to us to know that our sins
were truly forgiven for how could it be otherwise when
the Lord Jesus gives us his own true body and blood with
which on the cross he purchased our forgiveness. A
pastor sitting on the other side of the table said to
us, "Do you guys have to talk shop?" We were stunned and
silent for about as long as pastors are generally able
to be silent which is, I guess, about two or three
seconds and then in unison without even looking at each
other, we said, "Yes!" For the rest of the meal this guy
didn't say anything else. But think for a moment about
the attitude revealed by his question. "Do you have to
talk shop?" Why would there ever be a time when I would
not want to talk about that which defines my very
existence as a Christian -- the grace which has been
poured out on my by my Savior Jesus Christ? But maybe I
need to pay attention to this man's question, not that I
will ever appreciate it or share its sentiment. But
perhaps that man -- I'm reluctant to refer to him as a
pastor -- perhaps that man was simply expressing
honestly an attitude that many others also hold but will
not express, an attitude that is far more prevalent in
the Missouri Synod than most of us would care to
believe. Do we dare to ask the question of ourselves --
and about our synod, "Is our love still what it was at
first?" And if we are afraid to ask the question, then
we are really in trouble!
I believe that
Lutherans all over the world today are having an
identity crisis. Why are you even asking the question,
"When is enough enough?" It's because Lutherans don't
know what it means to be Lutheran anymore. And although
I'm not just talking about the ELCA here, the situation
in the ELCA has in fact become so serious that the
faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne
at one point brought an overture, that is a request for
action, to the Missouri Synod's Convention asking the
delegates, in view of the doctrinal errors common in the
ELCA and the fellowship practiced with others who teach
false doctrine, to declare, "That, apart from local
protests amounting to a genuine 'state of confession,'
the LCMS cannot regard or treat the pulpits and altars
of the ELCA as confessionally Lutheran, in the sense of
the Book of Concord, but must recognize them as
heterodox, union pulpits and altars."(26) The Convention
did not adopt this overture. Instead, while recognizing
the differences existing between the two church bodies,
the Missouri Synod delegates adopted a resolution much
milder in tone, one which did not call into question the
Lutheran identity of the ELCA.(27)
In 1995 a
congregation of the Missouri Synod submitted an overture
to the convention stating that if the ELCA would declare
fellowship with certain Reformed church bodies in
America, she would thereby, "cease to be Lutheran in any
meaningful, confessional sense."(28) However, once again
the convention of the Missouri Synod, though expressing
grave concern about developments in the ELCA, declined
to call into question the Lutheran identity of the ELCA.
(29)
In 1998 the relationship between the
Missouri Synod and the ELCA became even more strained
when the ELCA did declare pulpit and altar fellowship
with the Presbyterian Church in the USA, the Reformed
Church in America and the United Church of Christ. Her
obvious intention to sign the Joint Declaration on
Justification added fuel to the fire. A number of
overtures were submitted to the 1998 Missouri Synod
convention which stated that the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of America had sacrificed her Lutheran character.
The ELCA has " . . . further confused the understanding
of what it means to be a Lutheran Church body in this
country," said an overture from one of our pastoral
conferences.(30) " . . . [T]he LCMS cannot regard or
treat the pulpits and the altars of the ELCA as
confessionally Lutheran in the sense of the Book of
Concord, but must recognize them as heterodox, union
pulpits and altars," said an overture from one of our
congregations.(31) Another overture from a pastoral
conference, "Resolved, that we acknowledge that the ELCA
has abandoned Lutheran doctrine and forfeited the name
Lutheran to become a union church."(32) Three
congregations signed an overture which, "Resolved, that
the LCMS declare in convention and in its publications
that it no longer recognizes the ELCA as a Lutheran
Church body."(33) Another overture suggested that the
Missouri Synod, "withdraw recognition of the ELCA as a
legitimate Lutheran church."(34) Finally Concordia
Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne once again requested
that the Missouri Synod address the issue of the ELCA's
departure from Lutheran doctrine and practice and called
into question "the Lutheran character of the ELCA."(35)
The Synodical Convention passed what some would consider
a decent resolution which expressed "deep regret and
profound disagreement with these actions taken by the
ELCA."(36) However, the convention continued its
established pattern of avoiding the issue of Lutheran
identity which had been raised in so many of the
overtures to the convention. Apparently we are willing
to condemn specific teachings and practices of another
church body, but unwilling to define in a clear and
direct way what it means to be Lutheran.
Am I
making too much of this reluctance of the Missouri Synod
to identify the ELCA as unlutheran? I don't think so. No
less than six overtures in 1998 alone addressed the
issue of Lutheran identity but the resolution adopted by
the Convention did not. We were willing to say that the
teachings of the ELCA were wrong but for years we have
backed away from saying to those who in their doctrine
and practice are not Lutheran, "You are not
Lutheran!"
Why? Is it possible that we no longer
know what it means to be Lutheran? I do not mean to say
that nobody in our churches knows what it means. But is
it possible that the vast majority of Lutherans in all
of our Lutheran churches have such a fuzzy notion of
what it means to be specifically Lutheran, that whenever
the issue of Lutheran identity rises, we hit a brick
wall? We simply don't know how to deal with it. Since we
no longer know how to define what Lutheranism is, we are
incapable of determining whether a church body is
genuinely Lutheran or not.
In the ELCA today the
vast majority of the people and a larger majority of
their leaders have lost the sense of their identity as
Lutherans or at least have a definition of the word
"Lutheran" vastly different from that of their spiritual
forefathers. Consider for a moment the decision of the
ELCA to declare fellowship with three Reformed church
bodies in America.
The very foundation of
Christianity, the doctrine of justification is involved.
For Lutherans to permit Reformed to Lutheran altars is
to show contempt (whether knowingly or not) for the
doctrine of justification by grace, because such
"Lutherans" are saying, are they not, that it makes
little difference whether one sees participation in the
Lord's Supper as an act of obedience to the law or as a
believing reception of the grace of God and
participation in the atoning death of Jesus. To take
such a position is an incredible mockery of Christ whose
last will and testament the Lord's Supper is.
But
this kind of attitude which sacrifices the Gospel on the
altar of a false ecumenism jeopardizes the survival of
Christianity itself. Hermann Sasse saw this clearly and
expresses himself on the subject far more eloquently
than I can do. Sasse had lived and been trained and
ordained in the Prussian Union Church and was well
acquainted with the destruction caused by a false union
of two opposing confessions as had happened in the
German territorial churches via the Prussian Union. In
an essay entitled Union and Confession Sasse refers to
what he calls the "pious lie."
Lies have been
told in the church because of cowardice and weakness,
vanity and avarice. But beyond all these there is in the
church one particularly sweet piece of fruit on the
broad canopy of the tree of lies. This is the pious lie.
It is the hypocrisy by which a man lies to others and
the intellectual self-deception by which he lies to
himself . . . . The most fearful thing about the pious
lie is that it will lie not only to men, but also to God
in prayer, in confession, in the Holy Supper, in the
sermon, and in theology.(37)
According to Sasse,
the pious lie which devastated Lutheranism in Germany
was a lie which for the sake of ecumenical ends
permitted opposing confessions (in the form of the
Lutheran and the Reformed - particularly in regard to
the Lord's Supper) to stand side by side with equal
validity within the same church. And this is relevant to
the Missouri Synod because you know as well as I do that
there are pastors among us who practice open communion.
But what is the result when a church officially adopts
the 'pious lie'?
Sasse laments the inability of
the Prussian Union church to identify and fight
doctrinal error and he makes it clear where such lack of
attention to error will finally lead.
That false
doctrine must be fought, and that there could be no
church fellowship where there was no unity on the basic
understanding of the Gospel -- that was indeed an
understanding which had been learned from Luther, and
which neither the Old Lutheran Church nor the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of later times could have
given up. Whoever does give it up -- as the
Enlightenment and Pietism did -- abandons the
Reformation.(38)
Has the ecumenistic,
relativistic spirit of our postmodern time been so
pervasive in its influence on Lutheranism that the
Reformation itself is being lost in Lutheran churches?
Unfortunately, yes. Churches which historically have
been Lutheran are Lutheran no longer, except in name.
Hermann Sasse wrote regarding the Prussian Union of
1817,
The church which came into existence on 31
October in Potsdam was no longer the Old Lutheran Church
of Brandenburg-Prussia of the time of Paul Gerhardt. Nor
was it any longer the Reformed Church of the great
elector. In reality, it was a new church, the Prussian
territorial Church so long desired, the soul of the
Prussian state which was rising in greatness and coming
into global political significance.(39)
In 1998
the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America established a
new relationship with certain Reformed churches in North
America. She was not forced to do so as was the case in
Prussia. Rather, she embraced the ideology of the
Prussian Union willingly, with open arms. Having done
so, does she even know she is no longer the church she
once was? She is no longer the church of the Lutheran
Reformation. She has abandoned the
Reformation.
Can there really be any doubt
whatsoever about this fact when one considers what will
happen tomorrow [October 31, 1999], in fact about
seventeen hours from now, in Augsburg? Representatives
of the Lutheran World Federation and other Lutheran
bodies and representatives of the church of Rome will
sign together that document entitled Joint Declaration
on Justification, and thereby declare to all the world
that the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics have reached
consensus on the article of justification. In the
dishonest and treasonous act of adopting this
declaration, the Reformation is abandoned and the flock
of Christ is viciously attacked by those who bear the
name Lutheran. Never mind that the Roman church since
the time of the Reformation has not changed its position
on Purgatory, the sacrifice of the mass, the merits of
the saints, works of supererogation; never mind that the
dogma of the infallibility of the pope, adopted long
after the Reformation, stands as strongly as ever and
that the veneration of Mary is more vigorously promoted
by this pope who believes she is co-redemptrix than by
any other in recent memory; never mind that the present
pope is offering new indulgences to the faithful; never
mind that the Roman church still views grace as an
infused quality which gives the Christian the ability to
please God with his works rather than as God's gracious
disposition of favor toward the completely undeserving
sinner; never mind that none of the blasphemous
anathemas of Trent has been retracted, anathemas which
condemn to Hell the doctrine of justification central to
your faith. These doctrinal matters are all ignored and
sacrificed once again on the altar of ecumenical fervor
and the "pious lie". Hermann Sasse correctly pointed out
that in the enforcement of the Prussian Union, it was
the Lutherans who lost everything. In the adoption of
the Joint Declaration on Justification it is once again
the Lutherans who lose everything. For when truth meets
falsehood in compromise only truth can be the
loser.
I repeat, the ELCA is no longer Lutheran.
She has abandoned the Reformation. And I am distressed
by the fact that the Missouri Synod is apparently
unwilling to say this. But then we are having our own
identity crisis. It is only fair and right to point this
out. We have not declared fellowship with any heterodox
church bodies. On the other hand, we have many pastors
who routinely give the Lord's Supper to those of
heterodox church bodies and they are not disciplined in
any way. Pastors conduct joint worship services with
pastors of other heterodox church bodies and nothing
happens.
We are definitely experiencing an
identity crisis in the area of worship. For the sake of
what is called "church growth," many of our churches are
opting for a worship experience which is anything but
Lutheran. Our rich Lutheran hymns are being replaced by
Baptist or charismatic songs or by theologically empty
ditties. Pastors preach in suits, the historic creeds
are replaced or rewritten, sermons have in many cases
given place to inspirational speeches, and the
confession and absolution are often omitted. Some
congregations have literally abandoned the liturgy
completely and the time together on Sunday morning which
we once called worship would now more accurately be
described as entertainment. On the other side are
pastors who view ordination as sacramental and for whom
Rome and Constantinople definitely hold an
attraction.
Can anyone deny that Missouri is also
going through an identity crisis of her own? And nobody
really knows what the Missouri Synod will be like 20
years from now. We have our task cut out for us and it
is a task which focuses around doctrine. And because we
are Lutherans who know that the Gospel and the
Sacraments are God's means of grace, we know that the
church that loses its doctrine dies. Therefore, the
primary battles we must fight as members of the church
militant are always doctrinal. Thus it is only when we
strive to eliminate and condemn doctrinal error and
preserve doctrinal purity that we demonstrate true love
for Christ's church. And in this endeavor we have
something to learn from Luther and the orthodox Lutheran
theologians and we have something to learn from the
founders of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and it is
this: their love for doctrine, their conviction that
doctrine comes from God, that it is therefore precious,
that it brings life and salvation to a dying
world.
I conclude by asking you to listen to the
voice of a few of these Lutherans. Listen to the voice
of Georg Stöckhardt in 1888:
Today there are
still such radical heretics, pernicious foes, who
deliberately, with all the powers at their disposal,
contend against the truth and campaign and propagandize
for the lie. Of course, not all who spread abroad false
doctrine are that evil and malicious. But without
further ceremony we question the faith and Christianity
of every teacher who deviates from the truth. In
heterodox church bodies there certainly are many pastors
who although ensnared in the errors of their sects, are
very sincere, who themselves are misled and deluded
rather than making it their business to mislead others,
who blindly follow the church leaders since they really
don't know what they are doing. Nevertheless, in every
case false doctrine is a soul-corrupting poison, no
matter from whose mouth it is spewed.(40)
Listen
to the voice of an early member of the Norwegian Synod
whose leaders had been called rabid because of their
zeal for pure doctrine:
I shall admit that especially in the beginning
after we in the Norwegian Synod had become straight on
the doctrine, there may have been something among us
which, viewed superficially, appeared to be such a
'rabies.' . . . [But] I have no doubt that something has
often been called 'rabies' which in reality was nothing
else than the zeal of a faithful theologian for the pure
doctrine of God's word, but which may have been
displayed in a somewhat ill-timed and annoying way. And
finally, I prefer, especially in teachers of the church,
even this glowing 'rabies' to the ice-cold
'indifferentia theologorum,' which considers one thing
as good as another and like Cain, asks: 'Am I my
brother's keeper?'(41)
Listen to the voice of F.
Bente who in 1923 delivered the essay for the Missouri
Synod convention in 1923 in Fort Wayne:
The
"spirit of Missouri" has frequently been spoken of with
aversion. But the truth is that the spirit of our
fathers was in every respect none other than the
sincere, serious, straightforward, and earnest spirit of
our early confessors themselves, Luther
included.
Indeed, our fathers were both faithful
Bible Christians and genuine Lutherans, and the latter
not in addition to, but because of, the former. Genuine
Lutherans, -- for they adhered most faithfully to the
doctrines set forth in our symbols. True Bible
Christians,-- for they adopted these symbols only
because they had found them to be drawn from the Word of
God, which alone they recognized as the final and
infallible norm of Christian truth.(42)
We who
wish to be and remain children of the Reformation -- can
we not continue to speak with the voice of our fathers,
a voice that is unashamed to call itself Lutheran? After
all, we believe that Lutheran is Christian, that
Lutheran is evangelical, that Lutheran is ecumenical in
the true sense for the Holy Spirit brings true unity to
the church only by means of the pure Word and
Sacraments. Dear Father, guide us by Your Word and
Spirit that we may remain your faithful children. Thy
Kingdom come.
Amen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
Synodical
Proceedings, 1848, 25.
Synodical Proceedings, 1849,
5.
Western District Proceedings, 1858, 35. The
translation from the German is mine.
Synodical
Proceedings, 1860, 28.
Synodical Proceedings, 1863,
27.
Central District Proceedings, 1867.
W. G.
Polack, Ed., "Our First Synodical Constitution."
Concordia Historical
Institute Quarterly, Vol. 16,
no. 1, (April, 1943) p. 2. The original constitution, of
course, was in German. References to the constitution in
this paper are from an English translation.
Ibid., p.
3.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 6.
Ibid., p.
7.
Ibid., pp. 11-13.
Selected Writings of C.F.W.
Walther: Convention Essays, Aug. R. Suelflow,
Translator, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1981), p. 11.
See J.I. Packer & O.R. Johnston,
The Bondage of the Will, (Fleming H. Revell Company,
1957) or Luther's Works, E. Theodore Bachmann &
Helmut T. Lehmann, eds., (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1960), XXXIII.
The Book of Concord, Theodore Tappert,
ed., (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), p. 636 (SD
XII.40).
Carl S. Meyer, E., Moving Frontiers, (St.
Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964). p.
254.
Vivacious Daughter: Seven Lectures on the
religious situation among Norwegians in America by
Herman Amberg Preus, Todd W. Nichol, ed., (Northfield,
Minnesota: The Norwegian-American Historical
Association, 1990), 152.
Ibid., 152.
Ibid.,
153.
Synodical Proceedings, 1847, pp.
11-13.
Synodical Proceedings, 1860, p. 78.
August
Suelflow, Georg Albert Schieferdecker and his Relation
to Chiliasm in the Iowa Synod, unpublished Bachelor of
Divinity thesis, Concordia Seminary (St. Louis, MO),
May, 1946, p. 35.
Ibid., p. 70.
Ibid., pp
70-71.
Reports and Overtures of the 57th Regular
Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
178-179.
Convention Proceedings of the 57th Regular
Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
115.
Reports and Overtures of the 59th Regular
Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
156-157.
Convention Proceedings of the 59th Regular
Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
125-126.
Reports and Overtures of the 60th Regular
Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
165.
Ibid.
Ibid., 166.
Ibid., 167.
Ibid.,
169.
Ibid., 168
Convention Proceedings, of the
60th Regular Convention of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod, 116-117.
Hermann Sasse, Christ and His Church,
Essays by Hermann Sasse, (St. Louis: Office of the
President, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1997)
Vol. I, Union and Confession, 1-2.
Ibid.,
50-51.
Ibid., 13.
Daniel Woodring, "Karl Georg
St"ckhardt: His Life and Labor," Concordia Historical
Institute Quarterly, Vol. 72, no. 1 (Spring, 1999),
58.
George O. Lillegard, ed., Faith of our Fathers,
(Lutheran Synod Book Co.: Mankato, Minnesota, 1953), pp.
52-53.
F. Bente, Following the Faith of our Fathers:
Convention Essay, June, 1923, (Holy Cross Press; St.
Charles, Mo. Undated), p. 6.
