|
LC-MS: Toward
Geneva or Wittenberg?
By L. Blecker
Infiltration of Reformed theology into the Lutheran Church is nothing
new. Less than 20 years after the dearth of Luther, the Saxon Lutheran Church was in the
toils of Calvinist doctrine, led by Melanchton and Peucer. Fortunately, however, Chemnitz
and others were able to unmask the Crypto-Calvinism of the Phillipists, and the Saxon
Elector, Augustus, restored the pure doctrine into the Saxon Church in 1574, pointing the
way toward the Book of Concord.1 More recently, Sam
Schmucker and his "Definite Synodical Platform" of 1855 sought to bring into
being "American Lutheranism", which was Reformed-friendly, editing Augustana far more freely than Melanchton ever dreamed of
doing.2 At that time, Walther and Krauth marshaled the forces of
confessional Lutheranism, and "American Lutheranism" was pushed into the
background for a time.
Fast forwarding to recent times, taking 1989 as the date of departure.
Since 1989, certain leadership elements in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for whatever
reasons and in lubricous indifference to the Symbols of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
(despite their pledged quia acceptance thereto) have overtly taken positions closer
to Geneva than to Wittenberg. Other Synod leaders, while not overtly endorsing Reformed
doctrine, but by their reluctance to take action against such false doctrine, have
conceded Synod as a quasi-EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland). That is to say,
both Lutheran and Reformed doctrine are tolerated, and Synod exists as an administrative
body. The tendency toward Reformed views seems evident in Synod’s current Dispute
Resolution process and the Nordlie matter.
The separation of Scripture into Law and Gospel is a fundamental tenet
of the Lutheran Church as well as is the doctrine of the separation of kingdoms within the
Kingly Office of Christ. Calvinists, on the other hand, by their denial of universal
grace, seem at a loss as to the role of the Gospel apart from the Law. Mueller quotes
a Calvinist view on the role of the Gospel as follows:
…the Gospel is "a
proclamation of the terms on which God is willing to save sinners and an exhibition of the
duty of fallen men in relation to that plan," 3
The statement, couched in terms of duty,
certainly sounds quite a bit like a new law, and thus seems a clear indication of
confounding of Law and Gospel, according to Lutheran thought. Calvin, himself, in his Institutes
saw the Old and New Testaments as differing in administration but not in substance. 4 One perhaps confusing question is, how shall the Church Militant
be administered: according to Law or Gospel? First, let’s be clear on our term
"church." The Church Militant is divided into the visible church and the
invisible church. We know by their outward profession, who adhere to the visible church,
but the identity of the invisible church (the elect) is known but to God, Who, alone,
knows men’s hearts. We concern ourselves here with the visible church, not all of
whom are members of the invisible church, or as Walther put it, "A person may pretend
to be a Christian while in reality he is not."5 Indeed,
Walther in his Kirche und Amt devoted
considerable attention in making the distinction between the visible and invisible church.
In Thesis VI, Walther asserts:
In an improper sense Scripture also
calls the visible aggregate of all the called, that is, of all who confess and adhere to
the proclaimed Word and use the holy sacraments, which consists of good and evil
[persons], "church" (the universal [catholic] church); so also it calls its
several divisions, that is, the congregations that are found here and there, in which the
Word of God is preached and the holy sacraments are administered "churches"
(Partikularkirchen [particular or individual churches]). This it does especially because
in this visible assembly the invisible, true and properly so-called church of believers,
saints and children of God is hidden; outside this assembly of the called no elect are to
be looked for [anywhere]. 6
Walther quotes J. B. Carpzov as follows:
The church properly so called is not an assembly
consisting of hypocrites and nonsaints, but it an assembly with which the hypocrites and
nonsaints are mingled. This fact the Augsburg Confession carefully explains in the
beginning of Art. VIII … Hence, when an assembly composed of hypocrites and saints is
called a church, this designation is merely synecdochic or figurative and denotes the
saints who are found in the assembly. So also a pile of grain is called wheat even if most
of it is chaff. 7
Thus, Walther is clear on the fact that
the visible church does contain unregenerate persons to whom the Gospel is a closed book.
However, what of the regenerate, the members of the invisible church? May they be trusted
at all times to do that which is upright in the sight of God? Reference to the Loci Theologici of
Chemnitz supplies an answer, where Chemnitz says:
John is speaking of the same thing
when he says, "If we say we do not have sin, we are liars," 1 John1, 8; for he
is speaking of the weakness and wicked emotions which occur in the regenerate, not of
their actual falls which are against conscience, that is, when they voluntarily indulge in
corrupt desires. 8
We found it striking that Calvin had nothing to say
about 1 John 1:8 in his Institutes 9: but then,
according to his lights, how could 1 John 1:8 apply to the elect?
Indeed, Walther quotes Luther concerning sins of the elect:
The sins into which the elect fall
take away their holiness and drive the Holy Spirit from them. This is quite evident,
first, in Adam and Eve, who were elect, but miserably lost their holiness and the Holy
Spirit nevertheless, so that by the discomfiture of these first men, all their descendents
have become feeble and sinful by nature. … Likewise when David had slept with the
wife of Uriah and had caused her godly husband to be slain, etc., he was under the wrath
of God and had lost his holiness and the Holy Spirit until he was converted again. 10
Walther indicates that Calvinists, on
the other hand, do not see that the adultery of David caused the king to be under the
wrath of God; according to Walther:
The Calvinists, then, claim that,
when David became an adulterer and even committed murder, he did not lose either his faith
or the grace of God, but his faith merely withdrew somewhat, so that he could not exercise
it. 11
To summarize the Lutheran view: the
members of the visible church, admittedly containing nonchristians as well as the elect,
can and do sin; the elect of the invisible church may also sin in the sight of God. As Dr.
Montgomery has put it: "In a sinful world, - and, last we heard, the Christians also
are simul justi et peccatores – there is need for adjudicative processes that
will seek justice as their primary goal." 12
Accordingly, the Fathers of the Lutheran
Church subscribed to the necessity of Kirchenordnung,
and in Article XIV of the Apology (Of Ecclesiastical Order) viewed church
regulations as a necessity laid down by the ancient Fathers, not as divine law (jus
divinum) but as human law (jus humanum). Article XIV states in part:
Concerning this subject we have
frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain
church-polity and the grades in the church [old church-regulations and the government of
bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow
our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church-discipline was instituted
by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful
intention. 13
So, it would seem that the Lutheran
Church, at least according to its Confessions, is to be administered according to human
law, not divine law and most certainly not by the Gospel, as we Lutherans understand the
Gospel. Therefore, it would seem that the administration of the Lutheran Church is
adiopheral. Where do we go from here?
We do not say that Calvinists oppose a proper administration of the
Church; quite the opposite is the case. However, Calvinists assert that the church is to
be governed according to divine law, thus making its administration a matter of faith. 14 If one makes no distinction between Law and Gospel, it is
possible for some to claim that all matters pertaining to the visible Church fall within
the purview of the Gospel, which they transmogrify into a new law.15 Recently, Lowell Green’s well-crafted article "The Discipline of
Church Law and the Doctrine of Church and Ministry" appeared in Logia.
Dr. Green writes:
Dare one speak of church law in the
Lutheran churches of America? For years there have been voices that decried church law and
insisted that we are not governed by the law but by the gospel. One hears this argument on
all sides, and especially among the more independent sorts of people who want to free
themselves from synodical restraints. Such reasoning, however, is flawed. To deny the
validity of church law is a form of antinomianism that contradicts the Lutheran
distinction between law and gospel. The gospel is not a codex of rules for governing the
church, but rather the announcement of forgiveness and reconciliation. To claim that we
are governed by the gospel is to make the gospel a nova lex, a new law, a procedure
that is repudiated in the Lutheran Confessions. 16
We believe Dr. Green is not speaking in
theoretical terms, but rather he may allude to a deception perpetrated upon Synod at the
1992 Pittsburgh Convention.
Prior to 1992, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod adhered to an
adversarial adjudication process to address disputes within the church. 17 Each district had a Commission on Adjudication as did Synod as
well. In addition, there was a Synodical level Commission on Appeals. The members of all
boards were elected, either at the district or Synodical Convention, and there was a
requirement that at least two members be lawyers.18 Section
8.0519 of the Bylaws required an attempt at informal reconciliation
before any matter was placed before a commission for adjudication. To be sure, there was
no preamble of misplaced citations from Scripture to justify Synodical Adjudication, since
adjudication, in conformance to the Confessions, had been considered adiopheral. Nor do we
recall any general consensus calling for a change in the adversarial system.
After the 1989 Convention, Dr Robert D. Preus was "retired"
as President of CTS. Defense for this action was tenuous at best according to Canon Law,
and Dr. Preus eventually appealed his case to civil court. President Bohlmann and the
Synodical Praesidium then suspended Dr. Preus from Synodical membership for going to the
civil courts with a deceptive citing of 1 Cor 6, to which even Calvin would take issue. 20 Had he held membership in LC-MS, one wonders whether St. Paul,
likewise, would have been suspended from Synod for appealing his case to Caesar in Acts
25. Article XVI of Augustana does not preclude Christians from using civil courts,
where it states:
Of Civil affairs they teach that
lawful civil ordinances are good works of God, and that it is right for Christians to bear
civil office, to sit as judges, to judge matters by the Imperial and other existing laws
… 21
Indeed, Apology Article XVI
spells out more clearly that a Christian may seek public redress in civil court as
follows:
Public redress, which is made through
the office of the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a work of
God, according to Paul, Rom. 13, 1. 22
In this matter, Green puts it plainly,
"President Bohlmann and the Praesidium had acted contrary to the Confessions!" 23 After wending its way through the Synodical adjudication
process, the Commission on Appeals (COA) found the ecclesiastical charges against Dr.
Robert Preus as well as his removal from the presidency of CTS without merit, and Dr.
Preus was re-instated to Synodical membership. The Board of Regents of CTS refused to
abide by the COA ruling in violation of the then existing Bylaw 8.69.24 On church law, Green asks the question, "In other words, is church law
employed lawfully or lawlessly?"25 In the
Dr. Robert Preus matter, the answer to Dr. Green’s question is obvious. Article II, 2
of the Synodical Constitution requires a subscription "without reservation" to
the Symbols of the Lutheran Church, of which Augustana and the Apology are
part and parcel. It is, indeed, difficult to see how, in view of Article II, 2 of the
LC-MS Constitution, Dr. Bohlmann and the Praesidium were even acting according to rule of
Missouri Canon Law in their charges against Dr. Preus. However, a quia subscription
to the Confessions in today’s Missouri, similar to money in inflation, has lost its
former value.
It is one thing to tell the emperor his attire is lacking in substance,
but it is quite another to get away with lèse majestè. In the end, Dr. Bohlmann
marked "paid" to the Synodical Adjudication process. Commenting on the
vindication of Dr. Preus by LC-MS adjudication system and Dr. Bohlmann’s reaction to
that vindication, Dr. Montgomery asserted:
But, then, to Bohlmann’s utter
frustration, the church courts entirely vindicated Preus: first by voiding his enforced
retirement from the presidency [of CTS], and second, by restoring him to the ordained
ministry of the LCMS. Now the only possible recourse for Bohlmann was to attack the church
court system itself!26
From a Lutheran point of view, to
advocate use of the Gospel in the administration of Synod seems, as Green suggests, a form
of antinomianism. Green here seems much too kind. The confounding of Law and Gospel is a
consequence of Calvinism, which merely views the Gospel as a new law. It would seem naïve
to say that Dr. Bohlmann with an earned doctorate did not realize the adjudication he
advocated contained (as we shall see) antinomian or Crypto-Calvinist elements. The fact
that Dr. Bohlmann was able to sell the snake oil of "Synodical Reconciliation"
seems evidence that an unbridled democracy and political expediency can be, and at times
are, at variance with the Confessions. Unfortunately, the 1992 Convention bought into
"Synodical Reconciliation", really an inferior and unfair form of adjudication
under another name. The lengthy, incoherent preamble to Section VIII of the 1992 Bylaws
(hereinafter Section VIII) seems an example of shoddy, self-serving and specious
application of Scripture, which may be construed as antinomian or a confounding Law and
Gospel, despite its protestations to the contrary (see Appendix i).
By applying the Gospel as nova lex, Synod moved toward Geneva in its substitution
of jus divinum for jus humanum in the administration of the church, and even
Calvin would bristle at its abuse of 1Cor. 6 in the second paragraph of the preamble.
Let’s take a look at some of the more egregious Scripture
citations in the preamble to Section VIII, especially the third paragraph. 27 Matt. 8, 15-20 was cited with pious mutterings as the basis for
church discipline at the local congregation. So far, so good. However, it is difficult to
see, as was done in the preamble, how Matt. 18:17 applies to Synod, since Synod is not
"the church" in the context of the Scripture cite. Franz Pieper put it this way:
On the other hand, the union of
congregations into larger church bodies, such as conferences, synods, etc., has not been
ordained by God. The command "Tell it unto the church," according to content,
pertains to the local church, or congregation, and it must be restricted to the local
church. "Tell it to the synod", etc., is a human device. 28
The late Dr. Harold Buls of CTS
commented on the Matt. 18 device of paragraph 3 in the preamble to Section VIII :
The first sentence of the paragraph
just quoted is the only acceptable sentence in the paragraph. Until Pittsburgh, the LC-MS
rightly understood Matthew 18: 15-20 as pertaining exclusively to congregational
discipline. Look at the passage yourself. Of necessity, the word " church"
(ecclesia) must mean the local congregation. That is as clear as the brightest sun at high
noon. The next several sentences attempt to justify the use of Matthew 18 for conflict
resolution, but it just won’t fly because the method of conflict resolution is
adiaphoral, not Biblical, though we may strongly urge that any system of conflict
resolution be solely, only and always in Jesus’ name for His sake. 29
Reference to Section VIII preamble
(paragraph 3), also includes a citation of 2 Cor. 5:18 in the context that the church has
been given the "ministry of reconciliation." The "ministry of
reconciliation" given to the church refers to the Gospel. Dr. Buls indicated:
The reference to 2 Corinthians 5:18
is a terribly bad application of Scripture. Read that passage for yourself. It speaks
exclusively of the objective and general reconciliation brought about by God with man in
Jesus Christ. The term "ministry of reconciliation" is a synonym for the Gospel. 30
Even Calvin was on the right track here:
"No wonder: for seeing that the Gospel is "the ministry of reconciliation"
(2 Cor. 5 v. 18), there is no other sufficient evidence of divine favour, such as faith
requires to know." 31
We also read the following in Section
VIII, the last two sentences of the third paragraph of the preamble:
Hence conflict resolution in the
church is to lead to reconciliation, restoring the erring member in a spirit of gentleness
(Gal. 6:1). Its aim is to avoid the adversarial system practiced in society. 32
Again Dr. Buls takes issue with the
Scripture citation:
In the last [sic] sentence of the
pertinent paragraph Galatians 6:1 is invoked in the context of conflict resolution. The
[Greek] verb prolambanomai can mean either (contextually) "to be caught up in
the very act" or "to be overcome" (by sharp lust). It is light years away
from conflict resolution. That second last sentence in the pertinent paragraph says
conflict resolution is to lead to reconciliation. No way. Conflict resolution seeks
justice and justice only, not absolution. The last sentence reads: "Its aim is to
avoid the adversarial system used in society." Well, that sentence is simply
unrealistic. It is simply inevitable that when Christians cannot settle their differences
themselves or with the help of the local congregation, someone else must step in to help.
And then they become adversaries. Even teams in sports are adversaries. They don’t
"reconcile." They play it out adversarially. That in itself does not mean it is
sinful. 33
Deceptive Scriptural citations are bad
enough. However, the intent of such citations seems an attempt to use Scripture to move
adjudication from the adiopheral Lutheran position of jus humanum into a
Calvinistic jus divinum.
Bylaws §8.01and 8.02 of the 1992 Handbook indicate that the procedure
specified in Section VIII must be the exclusive remedy in Synod for all theological,
doctrinal or ecclesiastical matters. 34 Of course, no civil court
is competent to decide theological or doctrinal matters. However, if a member of Synod
believes a civil wrong has been done him by another member of Synod, and he goes to civil
court for relief, that member may be subject to expulsion from Synod. Here Synod presumes
to legislate in matters pertaining to Caesar, by forbidding its members to avail
themselves of civil remedy affirmed by both Scripture and Confessions.
Unfortunately, we are unaware of any interest by the current Synodical
administration in seeking the abolishment of the current Section VIII of the Bylaws, given
its anti-Lutheran, Crypto-Calvinist underpinnings; replete with misleading Scriptural
citations, and patent unfairness. Sure, there has been some tinkering over the past two
conventions with adjudication. However, just as one does not tinker with a cancer in
one’s body but, if possible, has it excised, no amount of tinkering short of its
repeal will remedy the odium that is now Section VIII of the Bylaws.
While the current adjudication process in Canon Law might be seen as a
covert bit of Crypto-Calvinism being tolerated in Missouri, we are also aware of some not
so veiled Calvinism tolerated in Synod. We refer to the Dr. Robert Nordlie matter. It is
not our purpose to delve deeply into all the aspects of the Nordlie matter. However,
briefly stated, Dr. Nordlie, a member of Synod, thereby ipso facto a quia
subscriber to the Lutheran Confessions, through his written and spoken word, allegedly has
confounded Justification / Sanctification as well as Law and Gospel, traducing the Gospel
into nova lex. Dr. Nordlie is the co-author of a book entitled The Goal of
the Gospel, published by CPH with the imprimatur (at least for a time) of
Synod’s doctrinal review process. The book allegedly asserted, that "the goal of
the gospel was the obedience of Christian people." 35 Dr.
Nordlie reportedly also had problems with his congregation, 26 members of which filed
charges of false doctrine against him. The case was given to the local D.P., Dr. Lane
Seitz, who allegedly found no fault with. Nordlie’s doctrine. Dr. Seitz’s
decision was appealed by the 26 to the Synodical Praesidium (presumably under §2.27.b. of
the Bylaws36). The praesidium allegedly refused to intervene because Nordlie
had not been officially admonished, even though they purportedly found he was teaching
reformed theology.37 The charges were renewed after a period of admonishment had
apparently elapsed without any perceptible change in Dr. Nordlie’s teachings on
Justification. Again Pres. Seitz found Nordlie’s teaching sound. For a second time,
the Synodical Praesidium received an appeal from Seitz’s decision. On March 29, 1999,
the Praesidium addressed a letter to Dr. Nordlie, the complainants and to Dr. Seitz. The
letter presented their findings as follows (in part), representing the efforts of six
years struggle:
…"The praesidium would again
underscore its determination that there are serious concerns with Pastor Nordlie’s
teaching in regard to the distinction between justification and sanctification and between
law and gospel. The praesidium finds that Pastor Nordlie continues to be unable to discern
his deficiencies in this regard."
The praesidium formally endorsed the
lifting of doctrinal certification for The Goal of the Gospel by the Commission on
Doctrinal Review, which stated: "[The] basic flaw is the muddling of justification
and sanctification [and between] law and gospel. Obedience is spoken of in a way more at
home in the reformed tradition than the Lutheran. There are times when the actual
exposition of scripture and the confession (what there is of it) is not only weak but
misleading."
The praesidium found Dr. Nordlie’s
teaching to be responsible for confusion and upset in his congregation. "The
praesidium notes with sadness that the situation has resulted in offense being given to
the many people of God, both within his own congregation, and even beyond the
congregation."
The praesidium lamented the fact that
Dr. Nordlie teaching is not unique in Synod. The praesidium characterized such teaching as
"…’reformed-like’ articulation of the relationship of justification
and Christian life." The praesidium recommended more study "of the proper
understanding and articulation of justification and sanctification and the proper
distinction between law and gospel."
The praesidium declined to suspend Dr.
Nordlie, hoping that Nordlie would finally get his teaching straight.
The praesidium hoped that Dr. Nordlie
would seek out brother pastors in Synod who would straighten him out on his false
teaching.
The praesidium recommended that Dr.
Barry direct Dr. Seitz to hold a series of meetings with Dr. Nordlie to discuss the issues
raised. The praesidium recommended that Dr. Barry direct Seitz to see to it that Nordlie
correct his perceived deficiencies, and that Seitz submit regular reports to Dr. Barry on
Nordlie’s progress in that direction. The praesidium expressed its expectation that
recognize his deficiencies and to correct them.38
The Praesidium’s cited letter seems
an oblique finding of false doctrine taught by Dr. Nordlie and an incredibly flawed remedy
to the problem. The Praesidium seem to have adjudged Dr. Nordlie culpable of not one, but
two charges found in Article XIII of the Synodical Constitution, for which one might be
expelled from Synod, to wit violation of Constitution Article II (false doctrine) and
giving persistent offense after previous futile admonition. 39 The Praesidium’s remedy was lacking in basic logic to achieve its directed
result. Dr. Seitz, who twice previously was unable to discern any false doctrine in Dr.
Nordlie’s teaching, was to counsel with Nordlie in order that Nordlie’s
doctrinal deficiencies be corrected. In the case of Seitz counseling Nordlie, we seem to
have the halt leading the lame. The Praesidium’s remedy also defines the revolving
door non-solution. The Praesidium has set the stage for other persistent teachers of false
doctrine to remain in Synod, if their respective district presidents are unable to discern
evidence of false doctrine in their teachings, despite what any Praesidium might find to
the contrary. Thus, we have a de facto situation in LC-MS, where Reformed as well
as Lutheran doctrine are tolerated, exactly the situation in the EKD, in which both
doctrines are admissible and the EKD is merely an administrative unit. The Praesidium did,
however, seem to make public the sad situation in LC-MS relative to its Constitution
Article II, 2, such that a quia subscription to the Confessions in Synod now seems
to have as much meaning as von Goethe’s cynical quia subscription thereto. Von
Goethe, Germany’s greatest literary figure, was by all reports not a Christian,
despite his quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, which is displayed in
the Stadtsmuseum of the city of Weimar. Merely the fact that one subscribes to the
Confessions does not make him Lutheran, or in von Goethe’s case, a Christian, either.
The Praesidium’s admission that inroads of Reformed doctrine have
occurred in Synod and its remedy: to merely recommend more study of justification /
sanctification as well as Law / Gospel does nothing to fortify Missouri’s self-image
as an orthodox Lutheran church body, in view of Pieper:
With regard to the orthodox character of
a church body note well:
A church body is orthodox only if the
true doctrine, as we have it in the Augsburg Confession and the other Lutheran Symbols, is
actually taught in its pulpits and its publications and not merely "officially"
professed as its faith. Not the "official" doctrine, but the actual teaching
determines the character of a church body, because Christ enjoins that all things
whatsoever He has commanded His disciples should actually be taught and not merely
acknowledged in an "official document" as the correct doctrine. It is patent
that faith in Christ will be created and preserved through the pure Gospel only when that
Gospel is really proclaimed. (2) A church body does not forfeit its orthodox character by
reason of the casual intrusion of false doctrine. The thing which the Apostle Paul told
the elders of Ephesus: "Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse
things to draw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:30), came true not only in the
Apostolic Church, but also in the Church of the Reformation and will occur in the Church
of the Last Day. A church body loses its orthodoxy only when it no longer applies Rom
16:17, hence does not combat and eventually remove false doctrine, but tolerates it from
within without reproof and thus actually grants it equal right with the truth.40
Item no. 29 of the Brief Statement
of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod says essentially the same thing as
does Pieper as to the orthodox character of a church body. 41 Would it
be fair to characterize the Praesidium’s remedy to inroads of Reformed doctrine in
Synod, such as that, which Pieper would recognize as combating false doctrine with a view
to its removal? If so, then how does one square the Praesidium’s refusal to suspend
Dr. Nordlie as an application of Rom. 16:17, which Pieper seems to indicate is sine qua
non before the combating and removal of false doctrine?
In the Lutheran Church, doctrine is determined by Scripture and the
Confessions: Scripture is the norm by which doctrines are determined to be true or
false. The Lutheran Confessions decide whether a person has clearly understood the true
doctrines of Scripture. 42 However, artful dissembling obscure the teachings of both
Scripture and the Confessions. Article II of the Synod’s Constitution requires it
members to subscribe "without reservation" to the infallible Scriptures and to
the Lutheran Confessions. As we have mentioned previously, subscription can be a
meaningless exercise. To be sure, Prof. Kurt Marquart hit upon truth, when he asserted
that the Confessions, themselves, are not at all interested in a formal subscription, but
rather in their actual doctrinal content.43 What
stands between the doctrinal content of the Confessions and actual doctrinal practice in
Missouri, creative dissimulation notwithstanding, is its Canon Law. If Scripture and the
Confessions are not really upheld as Synod’s unassailable norms for doctrinal
practice as well as "official" doctrine, but are permitted to be moving targets,
then Synodical Conventions can become free-for-alls, in which the democratic process and
political expediency at times run roughshod over doctrinal command. We were present at a
Synodical Convention, at which the oxymoronic Lay Minister question was dealt with. Prof.
Marquart quite clearly pointed out that the concept of "Lay Minister" was at
odds with Augsustana XIV. It is doubtful, whether very many pastoral delegates and
an overwhelming majority of lay delegates either cared about or understood Prof.
Marquart’s concerns. Marquart was correct and the convention was wrong when it
ratified the Lay Minister resolution of the moment. A church body, which ignores its own
professed doctrinal standards is asking for trouble, and Missouri has gotten what it has
asked for. If Synod is serious about the doctrinal content of the Confessions, rather than
acceptance of an empty, meaningless subscription to the same, its leadership must apply
the principles set forth by Pieper relative to purging of false doctrine. Moreover, the
Administration must deal resolutely with false doctrine in order to halt and reverse the
inroads of Reformed theology in Missouri. If they continue to be unwilling to do so, the
doctrinal norms of Synod will continue to suffer at the hands of the democratic process
and political expediency … unless or until false doctrine is effectively combated,
instead of its being discussed or studied ad infinitum. If unchecked in LC-MS by
doctrinal command, the democratic process may well pave the way toward the same type of
doctrinal indifference in Missouri as now seen in the ELCA. Indeed, "Church
Growth" (a Reformed concept) is already upon us, and the spectre of PLI looms over
us.
It seems that two key issues before the 2001 Convention will be the
Nordlie matter and the adjudication process: the former the frank admission of lapse into
toleration of Reformed theology and the latter a consequence thereof. To those ends,
please find attached Appendix ii and Appendix iii, which are offered as memorials for consideration
by this group.
Soli deo gloria
A note about Endnotes
The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in
the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa. In addition,
where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the
appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK
button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with. From there, you
can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.
1. Bente, F. (ed.) , Concordia Triglotta,,
CPH, St. Louis 1921, pp185-192.
2. Luecker, E., Lutheran Cyclopedia, CPH, St.
Louis 1975, p. 227.
3. Mueller, J. T., Christian Dogmatics, CPH,
St. Louis 1955, p. 484.
4. Calvin, Jean, Institutes of the Christian Religion,
(trans. Henry Beveridge), Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1998, ii, 10, 1, p.
388.
5. Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction Between
Law and Gospel, Thesis 1, Second Evening Lecture, CPH, St. Louis 15th
printing 1991, p. 17.
6. Walther, C. F. W., Kirche
und Amt (trans.
J. T. Mueller), THESIS VI, CPH, St. Louis 1987, p. 77.
7. Ibid., p.
85, (Isagoge in libros ecc. Luther. Symbolicos, pp. 305-306)
8. Chemnitz, M, Loci Theologici (trans. J. A.
O. Preus), CPH, St Louis 1989, 668.
9. Calvin, Jean, loc. cit., p. xviii.
10. Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction Between
Law and Gospel, Thesis IX, Twentieth Evening Lecture, CPH, St. Louis 15th
printing 191, p. 218.
11. Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction Between
Law and Gospel, Thesis IX, Twentieth Evening Lecture, CPH, St. Louis 15th
printing 1991, p. 215.
12. Montgomery, J. W., "An Invitation to Injustice",
Christian News, September 14, 1992 (CN Enclclopedia,
Vol. V, p. 3803)
13. Bente, F. (ed.) , Concordia Triglotta, Apology
of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV, CPH, St. Louis 1921, p. 315.
14. Calvin, Jean, loc. cit.,iv, 3, 8, p. 321
& iv, 4,6, p. 331.
15. Pieper, F., Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III,
CPH, St. Louis 1953, p.247.
16. Green, Lowell, Logia, vol. IX, no. 3 (Holy
Trinity 2000), p. 35
17. 1986 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, pp.
127-133
18. ibid., §8.15, p.129
19. ibid, pp. 127-128.
20. Calvin, Jean, loc. cit., iv, 20,21, p. 668.
21. Bente, F., loc. cit., Augsburg Confession,
Article XVI, p. 51.
22. Bente, loc. cit., Apology of the Augsburg
Confession, Article XVI, p. 331.
23. Green, loc, cit., p. 38.
24. 1986 Handbook the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod,
p. 133.
25. Green, loc. cit., p. 35.
26. Montgomery, J. W., loc. cit.
27. 1992 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, pp.
123-130.
28. Pieper, F., loc. cit., p. 421.
29. Buls, Harold, New Jersey Confessional Lutheran
Quarterly, Vol. III, No. 2 (1993), "Something to Think About", pp.1&2.
30. Ibid.
31. Calvin, Jean, loc. cit, , iii, 2, p. 494.
32. 1992 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod, p. 123.
33. Buls, H., loc. cit. P. 2
34. 1992 Handbook of the Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod, p.125.
35. CN, April 19, 1999, p. 10.
36. 1995 Handbook Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p. 28
37. CN, April 19, 1999, p. 10.
38. ibid., p. 12.
39. 1995 Handbook Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, p.
16.
40. Pieper, F.. loc. cit., p. 423.
41. Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the
Missouri Synod, CPH, St. Louis, p. 13.
42. Luecker, E. W. (ed.), loc. cit., p. 580.
43. Marquart, K. E., Anatomy of an Explosion,
CTS Press, Ft. Wayne 1977, p. 70.
Lamar Blecker, a layman from the New Jersey District, has been
actively fighting for conservative/confessional causes for many years. He's a frequent
contributor to Christian News.
November 3, 2000
|