When is Enough Enough?
What are the limits, historically?
by Rev. Daniel Preus,Executive Director, Concordia Historical Institute
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. 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,
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: 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
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)
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)
Sign our
Guestbook | Related Links