A Brief Survey of LCMS History
John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., Th.D.
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod today is in turmoil. It is politicized. Tensions are running high. For the first time in 25 years, the dreaded word “split” is on people’s lips. Reasonable people want to know why this is happening. This brief study is an attempt to give an answer. For fuller treatment with full annotations, see my essay, “Doctrinal Integrity and Outreach within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” from which this synopsis is derived.
Introduction
During a course on American Lutheranism at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis in 1978, Dr. August Suelflow observed that a study of the history of American Lutheranism is a study of the tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach. That statement came to mind recently as I reflected on the latest disturbing events that have unfolded within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and I tried to put things into proper perspective.
Doctrinal integrity and outreach are inseparably related, for both are at the heart of what it is to be Lutheran. To be true to our Lord, His Word, and our Confessions, we must maintain both doctrinal integrity and outreach. Doctrinal integrity is the desire and determination to remain true to the teaching of God’s Word in both teaching and practice. There is a strong sense of stewardship of God’s mysteries (1 Cor. 4:1-2) as we seek to hold and confess the faith once delivered to all the saints (Jude 3). Outreach is the desire and determination to share that treasure (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 1:8; Romans 1:16), the pure doctrine of the Gospel, through confession of faith, evangelism, missions and the formal recognition of the unity of faith wherever God the Holy Spirit has established it.
Like other paradoxes in theology though, doctrinal integrity and outreach must not be either/or but both/and. To emphasize one point to the exclusion of another means a denial of Scriptural teaching resulting in heterodoxy or heresy. For example, consider the doctrine of Christ, particularly His two natures, during the early history of the church. Those who went to one extreme or another espoused heretical views: Arius who denied the Deity of Christ; Nestorius who denied the communication of attributes; the monophysites who taught that the humanity of Christ was absorbed in His divinity. We also see this in teachings about predestination, where ignoring or denying Scriptural truth results in the synergism of Pelagius and Arminius or the double predestination and denial of objective justification of John Calvin. In each case of theological paradox, there is a tension that remains without resolution. And so it is with integrity and outreach. They must both stand together. An overemphasis of one can mean a rejection or denial of the other. But in Scripture we see these things held in balance. Take the example of St. Paul, a theologian/missionary. Pure doctrine drove him into outreach, and outreach was formed by pure doctrine. This balance is maintained by confessional Lutherans today.
The Preface to the Book of Concord clearly defines this both/and of doctrinal integrity and outreach:
We took up… and again unanimously subscribed this Christian confession, based as it is on the witness of the unalterable truth of the divine Word, in order thereby to warn and, as far as we might, to secure our posterity in the future against doctrine that is impure, false, and contrary to the Word of God. This we did that we might testify and declare…to everyone… that it was in no way our disposition and intention to adopt, to defend, or to spread a different or a new doctrine. Rather, with divine assistance, it was our intention to remain and abide loyally by the truth once recognized and confessed at Augsbrug in the year 1530, in the confidence and hope that thereby the adversaries of pure evangelical doctrine would be constrained… and that other good-hearted people would have been reminded and stimulated by this our reiterated and repeated confession the more seriously to investigate the truth of the divine Word that alone gives salvation, to commit themselves to it, and for the salvation of their souls and their eternal welfare to abide by it and persist in it in a Christian way without any further disputation and dissension. [1]
Doctrinal integrity and outreach: it is what Lutherans are all about.
Therefore, I would like to examine how the tension of maintaining both doctrinal integrity and outreach has fared in the history of the Missouri Synod. I do so recognizing that even in the study of church history--particularly that of our own church body--we face the danger of extremes as well. On one hand, there is the hazard of what might be termed nostalgic repristination--creating a sectarian or triumphalistic Heilsgeschichte [“holy history”]. On the other hand, there is the quandary of what may be described as ecclesiastical amnesia, which results in a denial, rejection, or altering of what has been true in the past and what continues to be true today.
This too involves a paradoxical tension. We want to study history in order to identify how the church has guarded the truth in the past. Yet, we want to avoid creating an exclusivistic holy history or an historical study that bypasses a reevaluation of Scripture and the Confessions with regard to current issues.
Some would want to remove the tension that exists by avoiding the past altogether, by rejecting an understanding of the church as guardian of the truth, by simply saying that things are different now. The Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, once stated that one cannot step into the same river twice. Later his students postulated that one cannot step into the same river even once. But it is absurd to imply that truth is in a state of constant flux and therefore purely existential, culturally driven or nonexistent. Another word for this is relativism, something we unfortunately confront more and more in this post-modern age. Thus, we study the history of the church in order to recognize the truth that has been guarded. Furthermore, we study history to take note of mistakes made by those who have gone before in order to avoid them in the present and the future, as George Santayana observed: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Hopefully, reasonable men will not misconstrue this study of Synod’s past as an exclusivistic exercise of nostalgic, sectarian navel gazing. I want to show that the current issues facing the Missouri Synod are much more than political power struggles, despite how it is often portrayed in the popular press or in statements from those seeking change within the Synod. There are critically important, theological issues involved, and the struggle over these issues has been developing within the Synod for more than fifty years.
A confessional Lutheran will analyze the past in conjunction with an ongoing study of Scripture and the Confessions. Intentional, disciplined study is required to grow in understanding of the truth. A simplistic attitude that says, “this is not our grandfather’s church,” must be avoided at all costs, just as one cannot ignore, avoid, or deny the cloud of witnesses that surround us according to Hebrews 12:1-2. Biblical truth is the same throughout every age. To see how that truth has fared, we study the past. In order to avoid both triumphalism and ecclesiastical amnesia, we take a confessional Lutheran approach that affirms both doctrinal integrity and outreach.
As we look at the Synod’s formative period in the 19th century, we will examine the first Constitution, union efforts, the recognition of church fellowship, and mission endeavors, as well as the struggle to deal with doctrinal controversy and the discipline of erring pastors and teachers. During the formative period, doctrinal integrity was heavily stressed, but not to the exclusion of outreach. Following that, we will look closely at developments during the first half of the 20th century, in which a movement began to emphasize outreach over doctrinal integrity. We will then consider how doctrinal integrity was further eroded during the second half of the 20th century through an overemphasis on outreach. A concerted effort from within--a movement to “Americanize” the Missouri Synod--facilitated this erosion. We will trace this movement to the present, and then evaluate doctrinal integrity and outreach today, particularly with regard to Missouri Synod mission endeavors and the participation of LCMS officials in interfaith services. The current disturbance in the Synod over unionism and syncretism is but one facet of the ongoing struggle over the paradoxical tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach. Although both sides employ church politics in this struggle, there are substantive theological issues at the root of this disturbance.
1.
Beginnings
Two groups came together to form the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod on April 26, 1847, in Chicago. Each emphasized one of the two points in our study, but not to the exclusion of the other. While the Saxons of Missouri emphasized confessional or doctrinal integrity, it was not to the exclusion of outreach. Approximately 700 Saxon immigrants had followed Pastor Martin Stephan from Germany to Missouri in 1839. After landing in St. Louis they went on to establish a Lutheran colony in Perry County, Missouri. They left Germany to flee the bankruptcy of rationalism, the threat of forced union with the Reformed, and to maintain purity of doctrine and true Christian living. However, only a few months after their arrival, the Saxons deposed their bishop, Martin Stephan, for immorality. This resulted in almost two years of spiritual and emotional turbulence on top of the physical hardship they had to endure as settlers. The people wondered if they were still Christians, if the church still existed in their midst, and if their pastors still had valid calls. Some influential laymen believed that the only solution was to repent and return to Germany. At the Altenburg Debate in April 1841, Pastor C.F.W. Walther set forth a series of theses which addressed the nature of the church and the validity of their pastors’ calls. Walther won the day and the colonists carried on. Beginning on September 7, 1844, C.F.W. Walther began a publication called Der Lutheraner, which was sent to other Lutherans throughout America. This is a good example of outreach. Not only did this periodical set forth sound confessional Lutheran theology, but it served to draw other confessional Lutherans to the Saxon colonists and helped toward the formation of the Missouri Synod.
Even before the Saxons of Missouri arrived in the New World, Friedrich Conrad Dietrich Wyneken came to America from Germany in 1838 to serve as a Lutheran pastor. Outreach was his motivation after reading about the plight of Lutheran immigrants in various theological journals. Although greatly concerned about reaching out to others with the Gospel, Wyneken advocated confessional Lutheranism, had great appreciation for liturgical forms and rejected the “New Measures” associated with C. H. Finney and the Second Great Awakening. Because of his confessional commitment, Wyneken broke with the General Synod, which had formed in 1820 on the East Coast and was not doctrinally strict. Through Wyneken’s influence, Pastor Wilhelm Loehe of Neuendettelsau, Bavaria began to train and send Lutheran pastors to America. Loehe sent missionaries to the United States with instructions, pledging them to “renounce the fellowship of all sects and false churches,” and to “embrace with deep devotion the Confessions and doctrine of the Lutheran Church….” In Loehe and his men, as in Walther and the Saxons, we see equal zeal for outreach and doctrinal integrity. Through Loehe’s efforts, the Franconian colonies in the Saginaw Valley of Michigan were founded with the specific purpose of instituting mission outreach to Native Americans. Pastor August Craemer led the colony that established Frankenmuth in 1845. A school was established for Indian children in 1846. Other colonies in the area followed in subsequent years.
The Synod’s Constitution
The Loehe Sendlinge [“sent ones]” of Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan, and the Saxons of Missouri came together in Chicago in April 1847 to found what we refer to as the Missouri Synod. The first Synodical Constitution gave as reasons for forming a synodical organization:
2. The preservation and furthering of the unity of pure confession… and to provide common defense against separatism and sectarianism…
6. The unified spread of the kingdom of God and to make possible the promotion of special church projects. (Seminary, agenda, hymnal, Book of Concord, schoolbooks, Bible distribution, mission projects within and outside the Church.)
Therefore, conditions for membership included:
1. Acceptance of Holy Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament, as the written word of God and as the only rule and norm of faith and life.
2. Acceptance of all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church…as the pure and unadulterated explanation and presentation of the Word of God.
3. 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.[2]
Because of its relevance to current issues that will be addressed later in this study, it is important to offer a closer evaluation of point number three under Conditions for Members. This paragraph from the first LCMS constitution has remained essentially intact throughout the Synod’s history, both in the German and eventually in the English editions, down to the present. There is a slight difference between the German original and the later English language translation. Notably, in the German version, the technical terms, “unionism” and “syncretism” are not translated from their strict German counterparts, Unionismus and Synkretismus. Rather, the less-technical Mengerei [“mixture or mixing up”] is compounded first with Kirche [“church”] and then with Glaube [“faith”]. Literally translated, it is “church-mixing and faith-mixing.” August Suelflow noted:
The original constitution called this Glaubensmengerei, that is, “ecclesiastical and confessional mixing together.” It could also be translated as a homogenization of various faiths or blending them together. Gemischter Gemeinden refers to congregations where differing faiths or beliefs have been mixed together.[3]
Both the original German Synodical Constitution and the subsequent English translation require “separation from all commixture of Church or faith” or “renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description.” However, this particular condition for membership was related to specific concerns of the Synod during the early days of its formation, and therefore, specific examples are mentioned. Neither the Loehe Sendlinge nor the Saxons of Missouri wanted to see pastors of the new Synod serving mixed congregations, participating in services and sacramental rites with heterodox ministers, or being involved in heterodox tract and missionary activities.
The reference to mixed congregations, and in fact, the term “unionism” itself, grew out of two union efforts: the Prussian Union in Europe and the establishment of union churches in America. The Prussian Union was a forced joining of the Lutheran and Reformed churches in Prussia and Silesia, first established in 1817 and further enforcement by Kaiser Frederick Wilhelm III with his Common Agenda in 1830. Those pastors refusing to comply were removed from office, and some were imprisoned. On the American frontier, pioneers settling in an area would sometimes pool their money and efforts for a pastor and church building. They would call themselves “Lutheran-Reformed” and call a pastor who would serve them according to their wishes. It should be noted at this point that many of the Lutherans who settled in New York, Pennsylvania, and elsewhere on the East Coast emigrated prior to the Prussian Union, did not have this persecution in their consciousness, and so developed a more open stance toward church fellowship and less of a concern for doctrinal integrity and discipline. The East Coast style of Lutheranism was to have a profound affect on the Missouri Synod, as we shall see.
The Constitution’s concern about participation in heterodox tract and missionary activities grew out of the numerous mission societies that developed throughout Europe and America in the 19th century. Many of these organizations were outside of the organized church, doctrinally ambiguous, and staffed by a mix of Lutheran, Reformed, and other Protestant missionaries. In many of the mission fields, tracts became a tool used to spread the Gospel. Yet, often these tracts were mixed with views at odds with Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions. Thus, the Missouri Synod ruled out participation in this form of outreach.
The examples provided in the constitution were not intended to limit the renunciation of unionism or syncretism of every form or to exclude the renunciation of other forms of commixing of church or faith, which could develop in the future. Although the terms “unionism” and “syncretism” were used somewhat interchangeability during the Synod’s formative period, one may suggest that these terms appear to apply respectively to an aberrant practice and theology. “Unionism” (Kirchenmengerei), with its connection to the Prussian Union and union churches in America, means to put a mixed confession into practice in joint worship. The technical term “syncretism” means to mix up (Glaubensmengerei) the teaching of Scripture and the Confessions (fides quae creditur) with error. During the great period of Missouri Synod outreach in the 19th century, there was also a close watch kept over doctrinal integrity. Pastors who practiced unionism or taught false doctrine were disciplined and sometimes removed from office.
The Definite Synodical Platform
The middle years of the 19th century constituted a period of great divergence among Lutherans in America. It was a time in which strenuous efforts to redefine Lutheranism took place. Because of the confessional antagonism among many eastern Lutherans and because of the strong desire on the part of some to unite with other Protestants, an attempt to modify the Augsburg Confession was issued in 1855. Although published anonymously, what was called the “Definite Synodical Platform” was initiated by Dr. Samuel Schmucker, President of the General Synod’s Gettysburg Seminary, and others. Their “American Recension of the Augsburg Confession” sought to delete so-called “Roman errors”:
1. The Approval of the Ceremonies of the Mass.
2. Private Confession and Absolution.
3. Denial of the Divine Obligation of the Christian Sabbath.
4. Baptismal Regeneration.
5. The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of the Savior in the Eucharist.
With these few exceptions, we retain the entire Augsburg Confession, with all the great doctrines of the Reformation.[4]
The Definite Synodical Platform changed the doctrine and practice of Biblical, confessional Lutheranism. Because of this, the Missouri Synod vigorously condemned it. So did many other Lutherans. Only three small eastern synods subscribed to the Recension. The Missouri Synod saw this as a hopeful sign, and Walther envisioned the possibility of one, united, Confessional Lutheran Church in America. He called for a series of free conferences to this end, but because of doctrinal disagreements they did not succeed. However, they helped stem the tide of what became known as “American Lutheranism”[5] and its “Protestantizing” of the Augsburg Confession. The conferences did much to further confessional Lutheranism in America and helped lead to the formation of both the General Council and the Synodical Conference.
Doctrine, Practice, and Discipline
In his opening address to the 1866 synodical convention, Walther made clear that the bond of unity within the Missouri Synod based on an unconditional subscription to the Lutheran Confessions was not merely a verbal acquiescence:
When our synod came into being, it committed itself before friend and foe not only to all the Symbols of the Old Evangelical Lutheran Church, openly and without reservation, and adopted as its motto, “God’s Word and Luther’s doctrine pure shall to eternity endure,” and thus joyfully began its work – but it also undertook really to act in accordance with those symbols and its motto, in teaching and defense, in structure and practice.[6]
This is not to say that there were not those who taught false doctrine and practiced immorality within the Missouri Synod during its formative period. From the very beginning, the synodical convention disciplined pastors and teachers. The Synod delegated the initial steps of discipline to the districts in 1854 when these administrative divisions of the Synod were established. However, final disposition of the cases still took place at the synodical convention. In each case, however, the person charged with false doctrine or immoral acts voluntarily excluded himself before the Synod took final action. In other words, these men all knew that unless they withdrew, the Synod at convention would have taken action against them.
Mission Outreach
Efforts toward Lutheran unity, struggling with doctrinal controversy, and dealing with errant pastors and teachers are not the only measure of doctrinal integrity and outreach. Already in 1847, the newly organized Missouri Synod confronted challenges with respect to missions, growth, and its understanding of the doctrine of the ministry. During the later half of the 19th Century, German immigration in the United States often exceeded 100,000 persons per year. The German Missouri Synod sought to make efficient use of the available pastoral manpower in reaching out to German immigrants. But it was always shorthanded. The Synod rejected outright the practice of other Lutheran synods and ministeria of the east, which “licensed” theological candidates in an effort to meet the desperate need for clergymen. The Missouri Synod theologians argued that such licenses were contrary to Scripture and proper practice. This was seen as a part-time call, which was unacceptable because it diminished the divinely mandated Office of the Holy Ministry. Attempts were made to restrict the scattering process by drawing German Lutheran immigrants into planned colonies or by meeting them at the port cities with immigrant missionaries who could then direct them to areas where Missouri Synod congregations were already in existence. Yet, these methods met with only limited success. However, new territories and states were opening to settlement almost overnight, particularly after the Homestead Act of 1862, and the Missouri Synod was simply unable to reach them fast enough.
Other methods proved to be more controversial within the Synod. There was reluctance toward an itinerant ministry on the part of some Missouri Synod members because many of the German immigrants were used to the well-ordered parish system of the fatherland where they had personal pastoral care. Additionally, Missouri Synod pastors and laity were cognizant of the aberrant theology and practice, often described as “New Measures,” which were frequently used by the Methodist Church, employing itinerants widely. Furthermore, an itinerant minister, some held, would have to spread himself too thin and could not provide the proper care of souls. Clearly, the exigencies of the outreach opportunities would tempt the Missouri Synod to compromise on the doctrine of the office of the ministry.
Both synodical and district conventions discussed the issue of itinerant ministry for several years. Different churchly offices were instituted, including Besucher [“visitor”], and Reiseprediger [“riding preacher”]. Finally, at the 1865 Western District convention “Twenty-Eight Theses Concerning the Call and Position of a Riding Preacher” were discussed. These theses argued that strict adherence to the idea of transference could result in an incongruity. If it were strictly maintained that a congregation had to come first, before establishment of the Office of the Holy Ministry, the very goal for which God had established the Office, namely, the salvation of souls, would be discarded. The result of the 1865 Western District convention was that Friedrich Liebe, a pastor, was sent out as a Reiseprediger. He was authorized to preach and baptize, and administer Holy Communion, though only in cases of extreme spiritual need. He was to gather scattered believers into congregations, which would then call pastors. The other three districts of the Missouri Synod then followed the Western District’s lead and called Reiseprediger as well. Thus the Missouri Synod in the 19th century took on the challenge of outreach on native soil while maintaining doctrinal integrity. The Synod began its involvement in foreign missions late in the century (1893), developing this outreach further in the early 20th century.
Concluding Comments
From its formative years into the beginning of the 20th century, the Missouri Synod held firmly to both doctrinal integrity and outreach. This is readily identified in its confessional subscription, its rejection of unionism and syncretism of every form, its relations with other Lutheran synods, its discipline of pastors and teachers who fostered false doctrine or were involved in immorality, and its many forms of outreach. As the Synod wrestled over the establishment of itinerant ministers, it was determined that those called to such positions were to be pastors or holders of the Predigtamt [“Preaching Office”]. Such men were called and sent to preach the Word publicly and administer the Sacraments for the salvation of souls and the establishment of Christian congregations. In the argument over which should come first, the chicken (the church) or the egg (the office of the ministry), it was determined that normally it is the chicken, but sometimes, for the sake of love, it is the egg. However, both go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, it was recognized that in the situation of war, where there is no possibility of establishing a congregation, a pastor might be called or sent to preach the word and administer the Sacraments to those who have been displaced from their congregations and for the salvation of souls in this life-and-death situation. We note also one problematic issue that affected outreach during the formative period, yet which did not become completely apparent to many in the Synod until the beginning of the 20th century. In the first half-century of its existence, both doctrinal integrity and outreach were closely linked to the German language and the German heritage by synodical pastors, teachers, and congregational members. As the 20th century unfolded, the abrupt loss of German would dramatically affect the Synod in upholding the paradoxical tension between both doctrinal integrity and outreach. Coupled with this was the sharp decrease in German immigrants upon whom the Missouri Synod had focused its outreach efforts in the 19th century. How could a culturally German but English-speaking Lutheran church now retool and reach out to surrounding Americans without losing its confessional distinctives? The answer for some would be to downplay doctrinal integrity in favor of outreach.
2.
Time of Two Wars
As we look at the early 20th century, we note that there were a number of cultural forces at play, which would exert a strong influence on the development of confessional Lutheranism. This was the time of great immigration. Many new arrivals to these shores were Roman Catholic. The Protestant majority reacted with alarm, assuming that the Catholics, with their ethnic enclaves and parochial schools, would be politically loyal to the pope and resist assimilation into American culture. Reactionary groups were organized, among which was the Ku Klux Klan—originally an anti-Catholic, not an anti-black organization. Concerning this period, John O’Sullivan observes:
One hundred years ago, the great wave of migration to the U.S. produced not only ethnic diversity but also theorizing about cultural pluralism—as in the writings of Randolph Bourne and Horace Kallen—that is very similar to today’s multiculturalism. Bourne, for instance, argued in The Atlantic Monthly in 1916 that America would become ‘a cosmopolitan federation of national colonies, of foreign cultures.’ He hoped that this new America would become ‘not a nationality, but a transnationality, a weaving back and forth with other lands.’ Kallen similarly called for the U.S. to be ‘a federation of nationalities.’ But this cultural pluralism was firmly countered by the ‘Americanization’ campaign led by some of the most significant figures in the America of that day, including Teddy Roosevelt, Louis Brandeis, and Woodrow Wilson, who argued fiercely against these ideas in favor of melting-pot assimilation. And once the American electorate realized what was at stake—i.e., would the immigrant adapt to America or vice versa—the Americanization campaign swept all before it.[7]
Hence, for the Lutherans, with their ethnic enclaves and parochial schools, there was pressure to assimilate even before the anti-German hysteria that arose with America’s entry into World War I in 1917. This of course was nothing new in America. George Washington had said in his Farewell Address that “With slight shades of difference, [Americans have] the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles.”[8] These pressures had formed the identity of East Coast Lutherans, who, from colonial times, had spoken English and assimilated into the broader American religious culture. As persecution broke out against Lutherans during and after WWI, it would be East Coast Missouri Synod clergy who challenged the parochial Midwesterners to conform, not only in terms of culture, but in doctrinal integrity as well.
Thus, several factors affected the balance and tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach within the Missouri Synod during the first half of the 20th Century. These include the language issue, the development of the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, the issue of prayer fellowship, continued unity attempts, and a differing position on the doctrines of church and ministry that developed within the Wisconsin Synod.
World War I and Anti-Germanism
Had Missouri Synod members sensed the difficulties that were to follow the initial shots fired in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, they undoubtedly would have taken action to prevent potential sources of dispute with their fellow American citizens. Unfortunately, no one in the Synod had the needed insight.
As early as 1915, the Missouri Synod as a whole, its congregations and their members, were under attack for being pro-German and therefore unpatriotic.
Besides the attacks in newspapers and magazines across the country, the Missouri Synod also had to deal with anti-German language legislation in several states and personal attacks against congregations and pastors.
Anti-German attitude in America during World War I had a profound effect on the Missouri Synod’s policy on the use of the German language. Although it did not bring about complete transition to the English language, the war did hasten the shift. At its 1917 synodical convention in Milwaukee, WI, the Synod adopted a new constitution, which dropped the word Deutsche [“German”], from the Synod’s official title and translated the name to English. The Synod was now officially called “The Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States.” Because of the anti-German pressure and the reluctant approval from synodical leadership, changes began to occur throughout the Missouri Synod. By June 1918, English was to be the only language used in Nebraska Lutheran schools. Previously bilingual congregations began to drop their German service, while those using only German added an English service. The synodical constitution, as well as those of congregations and districts that restricted services and transactions to German were changed to allow for the use of English. Congregations translated their names into English and dropped the word “German” where it appeared. War-inspired pressures did much to condense into less than two years what would have undoubtedly taken much longer.
Even before World War I broke out, Lutherans across the country were beginning preparations for the Quadricentennial of the Reformation. In New York City, the Lutheran Society of New York, an organization of over 500 laymen from many different Lutheran synods in the Greater New York area, including members of Missouri Synod congregations, were making plans for the celebration of the four-hundredth anniversary. From this Society, the New York Reformation Quadricentenary Committee was formed, which also included several New York City Missouri Synod pastors. Missouri Synod members were encouraged to celebrate the four-hundredth anniversary of the Reformation only with those with whom they were in fellowship. Articles appeared in The Lutheran Witness stating such. O.H. Pannkoke, the director of the New York Reformation Quadricentenary Committee, took this as a personal attack. However, no evidence can be found that Missouri Synod officials spoke out specifically against the New York ceremonies. Apparently, the mass meeting sponsored by the Lutheran Society of New York on October 3, 1917, was not considered a worship service. Yet, even at this time, it can be seen that there were individuals within the Synod who began taking issue with their church body’s emphasis on pure doctrine and confessional integrity.[9] The Missouri Synod participants in the Lutheran Society of New York organized the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (ALPB) in 1914. Its purpose was to promote Lutheranism in a positive way in the face of American anti-Germanism. In January 1918, the ALPB began publishing the American Lutheran under the editorial guidance of Pastor Paul Lindemann, carrying the slogan “A Changeless Christ for a Changing World.” In its first issue, the American Lutheran explained that its objectives were to make the Missouri Synod better known and help correct misunderstandings concerning the Synod’s stand on the war and other issues. They also hoped that the publication would help make the Synod more conscious of its obligation to evangelize among the non-German, English-speaking portion of the American populace. With the formation of the ALPB and the printing of the American Lutheran, there began a movement to Americanize the Missouri Synod from within, a movement that would also emphasize outreach over doctrinal integrity.
After the United States Congress declared war against Germany, the June 1917 synodical convention directed President Pfotenhauer to appoint an Army and Navy Board to care for Missouri Synod servicemen. Because President Pfotenhauer lived in Chicago and the Synod office was at his home, the members of the Board were selected from congregations in this city. Two Missouri Synod pastors (F.J. Wenchel and D.H. Steffens), with parishes located in Washington, D.C., were chosen as the government liaisons. In the midst of rising anti-German pressure, the Army and Navy Board conducted its first sessions and recorded its first minutes in German; incredibly, it also proposed to deal with a government at war against Germany under the title: “Evangelische Lutherische Missionsbehörde für Heer und Flotte” (Evangelical Mission Board for Army and Navy). Fortunately, Pastor Wenchel in Washington, D.C. had the good sense to request a change to English.
Because of the short supply of regularly commissioned military chaplains, the government assigned certain volunteer clergy as full-time camp pastors who were assigned to specific camps. Government officials also decided that all Protestants must work through either the Federal Council of Churches or the Y.M.C.A. It soon became clear that the government might give Lutherans special consideration as a group, but it was unlikely to recognize distinctions among them. In view of its policy on unionism, the Missouri Synod officials had to make some practical decisions. The National Lutheran Commission for Soldier and Sailor Welfare (NLCSSW) was formed, and the Missouri Synod’s Army and Navy Board drew up five points of agreement for working with the NLCSSW. However, this action upset several Missourians, chief among them Theodore Graebner, who perceived this as unionism, particularly after other Lutheran church bodies claimed this involved joint mission work. Thus, in December 1917, the Missouri Synod Army and Navy Board resolved to sever all relations with the NLCSSW. This action, in turn, upset the New York City Pastoral Conference of the Missouri Synod.
Early in January 1918, the New York Pastoral Conference held a “mass meeting” to protest the Chicago Board’s action. To settle the problem, the St. Louis seminary faculty was called upon to render a Gutachten (opinion, judgment, decision). It was then decided that the Missouri Synod Army and Navy Board could work with the NLCSSW in external matters (those which fell short of joint worship) and a new agreement was drafted. However, this again upset the New York City Missouri Synod pastors, who felt that the Synod should have stuck to its original five-point agreement. The New York City Missouri Synod pastors again met, and declared that they would work with the NLCSSW on their own. In the face of such bold action, President Pfotenhauer and three Vice-Presidents of the Synod went to New York City, where a meeting was held February 26, 1918, with about one hundred pastors in attendance. At the meeting a compromise was reached and it was decided to allow the New York Board to continue and to stick to the original five points of agreement with the National Lutheran Commission, with the understanding that work be conducted only in external matters. However, the Synod’s Army and Navy Board located in Chicago retained the power to issue calls and the power of the purse. Matters became worse when, in the summer of 1918, the NLCSSW paved the way for the National Lutheran Council (NLC). The Missouri Synod Army and Navy Board refused to work with the NLC. The New York City pastors again protested. Tension continued until the Armistice of November 11, 1918. At the 1920 Missouri Synod convention, all Army and Navy Boards were dissolved.
The struggle that occurred during World War I within the Missouri Synod was a struggle over the tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach. Missouri Synod officials were willing to cooperate with the NLCSSW, but on the terms of cooperation only in external matters. The other Lutheran leaders in the NLCSSW wanted a more open-ended cooperation. The Missouri Synod appeared quite content with the original five-point agreement until articles appeared in other Lutheran synods publications calling the work of the NLCSSW a joint mission endeavor. This drew the concern of confessional Missouri Synod pastors. More “progressive” Missourians on the East Coast then tried to force the Synod into a more open-ended position on cooperation with the NLCSSW through power plays and tactics that could even be considered rebellious. A split in the Synod was avoided because the war ended and the synodical convention dissolved all outreach to members in the military. However, a dissatisfied group centering in New York City remained – dissatisfied not only with the parochial German attitude of many of the synodical officials, but also with the Synod’s doctrinal integrity, which prevented the Missouri Synod from total cooperation and eventual union with the other American Lutheran church bodies.
Although this tension seemed to settle down in the 1920s, outward dissatisfaction again showed itself in the 1930s. Leading members of the ALPB, including Paul Lindemann, editor of the American Lutheran and then pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Paul, MN, Professor E.J. Friedrich of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Dr. O.P. Kretzmann of the Walther League, and Pastor O.A.F. Geiseman of Grace Lutheran Church, River Forest, IL, devised a plan to bring about change within the Synod. The plan called for altering the Synod’s home mission policy (particularly the linguistic and nationalistic ties), changes in education (the Synod had a surplus of ministerial candidates due to the Great Depression, and a change was demanded for quality instead of quantity), changes in financial planning (“much money has been poured into hopeless places”), and a change in the local congregational life (“a cultivation of the spirit of worship” and meeting the needs of a media-crazed age). It was proposed that the American Lutheran run articles calling for these changes, which it did. Special retreats for pastors and lay leaders in the year leading up to the 1935 synodical convention were also arranged. Lawrence (Lorry) Meyer, the Synod’s Director of Publicity, got word of this plan, which he and other synodical officials saw as being politically driven. By the time of the 1935 convention in Cleveland, extensive politicking was the order of the day. When it became clear that the ALPB group could not get Paul Lindemann elected as synodical president, they worked to unseat Frederick Pfotenhauer. John Behnken was elected, the first American-born Missouri Synod president. Concerning this politicking by the liberals, Behnken would later reflect:
However, in all honesty I must say that if I had known at the time of the Cleveland convention what I learned about five years later, I would not have accepted the Presidency. From a man, whose reliability I cannot doubt, I learned that there was very much electioneering or propaganda. This occurred in the lobby and had also taken place through the mails. It is hardly believable that anyone would resort to such political tactics and maneuverings, against or for a candidate, in church elections. But it happened. The reader will understand, then, why I have warned repeatedly against electioneering at our conventions. It simply is improper and inexcusable in synodical elections. May God graciously preserve our Synod from practices which would make a political football out of our elections. Where this is done the church is on slippery paths, and these lead downward. [10]
In the LCMS today, the conservatives are often criticized for political action. However, we see from the evidence that it was the liberal faction in the LCMS that began the politicization. The conservatives were forced to organize to prevent a complete hostile takeover of the Missouri Synod.
Other issues led to the growing tension during the first half of the 20th century within the Missouri Synod. Chief among those was the fellowship discussions between the Missouri Synod and the American Lutheran Church.
The Quadricentennial of the Reformation served as an impetus for several Lutheran union attempts. Beginning in 1915, Synodical Conference pastors in Minnesota called for discussions with Ohio and Iowa Synod pastors to resolve the Predestinarian Controversy. Several meetings were held, and in 1916, a document, Zur Einigung [“Toward Unity”], was drafted. This led to the Intersynodical Conferences between the Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Buffalo, and Norwegian Synods from 1918 to 1926. The Intersynodical Theses were drafted. However, the Buffalo Synod was the only church body to accept them. Meanwhile, the Ohio, Iowa, and Buffalo Synods had been engaging in their own discussions, which led to the formation of the American Lutheran Church in 1930.
Following its 1929 synodical convention, President Pfotenhauer appointed a committee to formulate theses “which present the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions in the shortest, most simple manner.” These theses would be the basis for future intersynodical discussions. At the 1932 synodical convention, the Brief Statement was adopted as the Synod’s position for future dialogues with other Lutheran church bodies. Concerning unionism, the Brief Statement set forth the following:
28. On Church-Fellowship. – Since God ordained that His Word only, without the admixture of human doctrine, be taught and believed in the Christian Church…all Christians are required by God to discriminate between orthodox and heterodox church-bodies,…and, in case they have strayed into heterodox church-bodies, to leave them….We repudiate unionism, that is, church-fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedient to God’s command, as causing divisions in the Church…and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely.
In 1938, the American Lutheran Church issued its own statement called the Sandusky Declaration. The 1938 Missouri Synod convention assembled in St. Louis then resolved that the “Brief Statement” and the “Sandusky Declaration” could “be regarded as the doctrinal basis for future church fellowship….” and if remaining differences were worked out, and fellowship could be declared, it was to be “announced officially by the President of Synod.” However, the Wisconsin Synod protested this action, as did some pastors and congregations within the Missouri Synod. Therefore, the 1941 and the 1944 Missouri Synod conventions rescinded the “Brief Statement” and “Sandusky Declaration” as a basis for fellowship.
In response to what was considered to be a growing liberal movement within the Missouri Synod, Pastor Paul H. Burgdorf of Red Lake Falls, Minnesota began publication of yet another unofficial publication called The Confessional Lutheran in January 1940. This publication was opposed to the American Lutheran and the agenda of the ALPB, as well as the declaration of church fellowship with the American Lutheran Church.
As noted, the movement for change within the Missouri Synod, which had begun in New York City at the beginning of World War I, developed further during the United States’ involvement in the War when dissatisfaction arose in New York over the Synod’s attempts to minister to Armed Forces personnel. This movement led to the politicking at the 1935 synodical convention. Discontent continued to grow over the handling of the Adolph Brux case, the issue of prayer fellowship, the rescinding of the fellowship decision with the American Lutheran Church, and the beginning of The Confessional Lutheran. These were considered evidence of legalism and a loveless attitude in Missouri. Additionally, some people within the Synodical Conference took positions against life insurance, lightning rods, dancing and card playing. Such views were also considered to be legalistic, as well as the synodical position against lodge membership and how that was implemented in some congregations. Then there was the application of Romans 16:17 to other Lutherans, opposition to the emerging liturgical movement, and opposition to the Lutheran Laymen’s League and the Walther League.
The result was the 1945 document entitled “A Statement,” originally signed by forty-four Missouri Synod pastors (some of whom were synodical officials and professors) as well as laymen. The men who called the meeting that resulted in “A Statement” were serving as the editorial board for the American Lutheran: E.J. Friederich (former professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis and Director of the Wheat Ridge Foundation), O.A. Geiseman (pastor of Grace Lutheran Church, River Forest, IL), O.P. Kretzmann (now President of Valparaiso University), and Oswald Hoffmann, Director of the ALPB and later Lutheran Hour Speaker. At a meeting in April 1945, they decided to gather together like-minded men on September 6-7, 1945, at the Stevens Hotel in Chicago. This date and site was chosen because the American Lutheran editorial board was meeting September 4-5, 1945, at the same location. Apparently, “A Statement” was drafted by O.P. Kretzmann. A continuation Committee, chaired by E.J. Friederich, was appointed, and on October 9, 1945, this committee mailed “A Statement” to all clergy of the Missouri Synod with a cover letter. This was also accompanied by a series of articles and editorials in the American Lutheran and a book entitled Speaking the Truth in Love. The result was considerable unrest and polarity within the Synod—a conflict that was not resolved then, and continues to the present day.
“A Statement” included twelve theses, being divided into a “We affirm” section and a “We therefore deplore” section. That which was deplored included the following: legalism, substituting human judgments, synodical resolutions, or other sources of authority for the supreme authority of Scripture, man-made, ecclesiastical barriers that hinder the free course of the Gospel, a loveless attitude that included suspicions of brethren, impugning of motives, and condemnation of those expressing differing opinions, that Romans 16:17 had been applied to all Christians who differ from the Missouri Synod in certain points, the misuse of 1 Thessalonians 5:22, organizational loyalty taking the place of loyalty to Christ and his church, anything that reduced the warmth of the Gospel to a set of intellectual propositions, the tendency to decide the question of prayer fellowship on any other basis beyond the clear words of Scripture, and the tendency to apply the non-Biblical term “unionism” to any and every contact between Christians of different denominations. Of special importance for our discussion here are Thesis Six and Thesis Eleven:
SIX: We affirm the historic Lutheran position concerning the central importance of the una sancta and the local congregation. We believe that there should be a re-emphasis on the privileges and responsibilities of the local congregation also in the matter of determining questions of fellowship. We therefore deplore the new and improper emphasis on the synodical organization as basic in our consideration of the problems of the Church. We believe that no organizational loyalty can take the place of loyalty to Christ and his Church.
ELEVEN: We affirm our conviction that in keeping with the historic Lutheran tradition and in harmony with the Synodical resolution adopted in 1938 regarding Church fellowship [with the ALC], such fellowship is possible without complete agreement in details of doctrine and practice which have never been considered divisive in the Lutheran Church.
With these theses, “A Statement” proposed selective fellowship. It also held that church fellowship was not based on the recognition of complete agreement in doctrine and practice. Furthermore, matters of church fellowship were taken out of the area of dogma and put into the area of ethics and personal pastoral casuistry. “A Statement” made no reference to the Lutheran Confessions in support of its position. President Behnken then sent a letter to the clergy of the Synod in which he stated:
We voiced our disagreement with some of the points in “A Statement” and insisted they be corrected or withdrawn…. There are some points with which we were not then and are not now in agreement. This holds true also for the ‘Deplorations’ and also of the ‘Accompanying Letter.’ [11]
At the 1947 synodical convention, Synodical President John Behnken reported to the Synod that on more than one occasion members of the praesidium (the President together with the Vice Presidents of the Synod) requested that “A Statement” be withdrawn, but each time the request was declined. Behnken then approved a procedure whereby ten of the signers of “A Statement” and ten pastors appointed by him would serve on a committee, which came to be known as the “Ten & Ten.” However, again no agreement was reached. When it became apparent that there would be no resolution, Behnken and the Praesidium chose an approach that brought both parties together to sign an “Agreement” according to which “A Statement” was withdrawn from discussion. Yet, “A Statement” was never retracted by its signers. Many in the Synod were upset by this action, or lack thereof. Not that the signers were totally happy with this lack of closure either. According to Thomas Coates, one of the Forty-four, “Unfortunately the impression was created that “A Statement” itself was being withdrawn. This was definitely not the case. At any rate, the proposal was accepted and the Signers emerged from the Chicago Convention unscathed, still members in good standing of the Missouri Synod. The whole business was just a bit too Machiavellian.”[12]
In 1945, Dr. Theodore Graebner,[13] a Professor at Concordia Seminary, former editor of The Lutheran Witness, and a signer of “A Statement,” presented a study to the circuit representatives and visitors of the Western District of the LCMS, which was later published as a treatise titled Prayer Fellowship. The document came about as a reflection on the joint meetings between the American Lutheran Church and the Missouri Synod, which almost led to fellowship based on the “Brief Statement” and the “Sandusky Declaration.” These meetings were begun with prayer, but there were some within the Synodical Conference who considered such prayer to be unionistic. Thus, the primary question that Graebner confronted is “whether the Scriptures forbid our praying jointly with those who cannot be denied the name Christian, but who are not synodically affiliated with us or who teach error in one point or another concerning which they are willing to discuss with us the Scriptural basis of their teaching and of our own.”[14]
Following a review of the Scripture passages adduced by those who would prohibit such prayer fellowship, Graebner concluded that “neither the texts nor the contexts in which they stand have anything to do with prayer fellowship. In fact, not a single one of them refers to prayer at all.”[15] For Graebner, the context in which such prayer occurred was crucial to determining whether or not it may be considered unionistic. He would not consider table prayer with non-Lutheran Christians as a case of unionism.
Graebner concluded his treatise by recounting a specific case in St. Louis during the celebration of V-E Day in May 1945. Missouri Synod members, including Pastor Karl Krauth and Dr. Richard Caemmerer, were involved in advising the mayor’s committee on the nature of the celebration. Pastor Krauth and the other Missouri Synod Lutherans sought to avoid involvement in a religious service, and, in fact, counseled the mayor of St. Louis to make the event a predominantly civic affair, encouraging its citizens to worship in their own congregations that morning. This publicly testified to the mayor and other authorities that, because of conscience and creed, Missouri Synod clergy could not participate in unionistic or syncretistic worship. It further allowed individual members of the Missouri Synod—for whom German language and culture were still highly valued—to be represented in the celebration of V-E Day over German Nazism. Most importantly, the nature of involvement was arrived at and approved by the local pastor’s conference, and involved Concordia Seminary in consultation and participation.
By contrast, Graebner noted in the final words of his paper that on V-J day, which followed in August 1945, he urged the mayor to make this celebration also civic in nature, with military bands and marching troops, speeches by civic leaders, and the like. Nevertheless, the mayor’s committee decided on having a service of prayers on the Plaza. A rabbi and an African-American preacher participated in this, while Graebner and the Roman Catholic clergymen chose not to attend. At the committee meetings prior, when Graebner protested the nature of the event, he was told that the people of St. Louis “wanted an emotional outlet to their religious sentiment,” which a civic event or a service in their own church could not give them.[16] In his book, The Borderland of Right and Wrong, Graebner stated: “To participate in religious ceremonies with those who either do not worship the true God at all (idolatry) or worship Him in a manner He has forbidden (unionism)…these things do not agree with elementary Christianity.”[17] We must note, however, that even this statement could be stronger. It not only does “not agree with elementary Christianity,” it is wrong and totally inappropriate. Clearly, by 1945 the LCMS was softening its doctrinal rigor in regard to unionism.
Concluding Comments
During the first half of the 20th century, the Missouri Synod became involved in intense internal struggle over the tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach. Brought on largely by the forced language transition and anti-Germanism of the First World War, the Synod faced a growing movement for change from within, organized primarily around the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau and the publication American Lutheran. The issue of prayer fellowship and continued unity attempts with other American Lutheran church bodies created further tension. Was prayer with others to be considered part of church fellowship? How could Missouri Synod pastors participate in civic events that involved other clergy? Furthermore, a differing position on the doctrines of church and ministry developed within the Wisconsin Synod, which carried into the Missouri Synod and was adopted then by those who strongly advocated the position of parochial school teachers. Was the difference over church and ministry in fact a matter of application instead of a matter of doctrine, while the issue of the military chaplaincy was a matter of doctrine and not application? Was church fellowship associated purely with the marks of the church, Word and Sacraments, or did it encompass more, including prayer and work in external matters? As the members of the Missouri Synod struggled over these issues--and therefore over the tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach--there were some who perceived an emphasis on maintaining doctrinal integrity as loveless legalism, particularly those associated with the ALPB and “A Statement.” They thereby emphasized outreach above or to the exclusion of doctrinal integrity and sought to change the long-standing position of the Missouri Synod. This would lead to further erosion of doctrinal integrity in years to come. This tension and division that developed would lead to a split within the Synod during the second half of the 20th century.
In later years, according to one report, Dr. Behnken was asked how Concordia Seminary filled up with liberals on his watch. He broke down in tears and exclaimed, “What could I do when they lied to me?”
3.
Seminex and Split
Struggle over maintaining both doctrinal integrity and outreach within the Missouri Synod took on even greater intensity during the second half of the 20th century. This struggle, which built during the third quarter of the 20th century, resulted in a split within the Synod at the beginning of the fourth quarter. Marked divergence developed over issues of Law and Gospel, particularly the Third Use of the Law, Biblical interpretation, understanding of church fellowship and the doctrine of the ministry.
Some may say that the “Statement of the 44” was swept under the carpet. The lack of action established a strong precedent. The Rev. Daniel Preus noted the following:
Completely apart from the issues involved, the fact that a statement of faith and conviction which had been made and mailed to all LCMS clergy and was contrary to official church doctrine and practice was simply withdrawn from discussion without retraction was a very bright green light to those who wished to see Missouri embrace a more open fellowship practice. But the implications do not end there. When people were permitted to publish a position statement contrary to our doctrine, and were not disciplined or required to retract, it became apparent that people would be able to publish or set forth other statements contrary to our doctrine. To many who believed Missouri too rigid, the 44 became a heroic example of a new permissiveness which would slowly invade the synod and lead eventually to the deplorable positions held by the St. Louis Seminary faculty majority in the early 1970s….The fact remains that these men were able to flaunt the doctrinal practice of the church body to which they belonged with no significant consequences….[18]
Dr. Richard Caemmerer, a signer of “A Statement,” was professor of homiletics at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, from 1940 to 1974. In 1947, Caemmerer published “The Melanchthonian Blight,” in the Concordia Theological Monthly. Here he traced what was described as the wane of vitality in Lutheranism, attributing it to a “Melanchthonian” approach to theology, which he described as the “intellectualization of the Christian religion.” Caemmerer held that the church must strive to overcome intellectualism by emphasizing the “evangelical” character of its ministry.[19]
While Caemmerer did not provide a substitute for intellectualism beyond advocating a Gospel-centered ministry, Dr. Jaroslav Pelikan, another Concordia Seminary professor, built on Caemmerer’s thesis in his book From Luther to Kierkegaard, published in 1950. Pelikan accepted the existential philosophy of Kierkegaard and called into question the third use of the Law. This was based, in part, on overemphasizing of the views of the “young” Luther, as noted by Scott Murray in his recent book, Law, Life, and the Living God:
Pelikan and other theologians associated with the Valparaiso school joined their suspicion of reason in theology with their denial of the validity of an objective and eternally valid moral law of God. This excessive suspicion of reason was based on an overemphasis on the “young” Luther’s rejection of Aristotelian philosophy. Gerrish and later Luther interpreters revised this view because they researched more in the work of the later or more “mature” Luther.[20]
In support of war-torn Germany, the Missouri Synod began a series of seminars for German clergymen at Bad Boll, a summer resort near Stuttgart, in 1948. The discussions were theological and aimed at a reappraisal of Lutheran confessionalism. From the beginning, the conferences were open to all German Lutherans, and as essays were presented, the Missouri Synod clergymen who attended were directly confronted with modern German scholarship, particularly in the area of contemporary Luther studies and historical criticism. The Missouri Synod commissioners met personally with men like Werner Elert, Helmut Thielicke, Peter Brunner, Heinrich Bornkamm, Edmund Schlink, and Adolf Koeberle. By 1956, the Bad Boll conferences were confined primarily to the German Free Churches. Yet, the early direct confrontation with well-developed, rationalistic German scholarship had a profound effect on the Missouri Synod clergymen who attended. Scott Murray notes three results of the Bad Boll conferences:
First, the Missouri Synod commissioners returned to the United States with an altered view of the place of Scripture in theological prolegomena. This has affected the course of Missouri Synod history to the present. Second, the commissioners encountered an ambivalence about the significance of the Formula of Concord for which they were unprepared. Third, the commissioners returned to their teaching posts eager to recommend these great Lutheran scholars to their students for graduate studies.[21]
During the Forties and Fifties those students would filter back into the Missouri Synod, finding positions of influence, particularly at Concordia Seminary, from which they could advance their liberal agenda.
Out of a growing concern within both the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference over what was considered to be the inroads of liberal theology through a rejection of the third use of the Law as articulated in Formula of Concord Article VI and the use of historical criticism with respect to the Bible, the 1959 convention of the Missouri Synod reaffirmed the Synod’s traditional position on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. It did this by first adopting the “Statement on Scripture,” which had been drafted for and adopted by the Synodical Conference convention in 1958.[22] Secondly, the 1959 synodical convention resolved that “every doctrinal statement of a confessional nature adopted by Synod as a true exposition of the Holy Scriptures is to be regarded as public doctrine (publica doctrina) in Synod,” and “Synod’s pastors, teachers, and professors are held to teach and act in harmony with such statements.” [23]
Yet, even before the 1959 synodical convention, Dr. Martin Scharlemann, Graduate Professor of Exegetical Theology at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, had begun a series of “exploratory” essays on the nature of inspiration and revelation with respect to Scripture. Scharlemann saw a greater threat to the confessional understanding of the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture in fundamentalism than in historical-criticism. In one such article, he attempted to “defend the paradox that the book of God’s truth contains errors.”[24] In defending against a fundamentalist, wooden understanding of Scripture, Scharlemann viewed Scripture as “A MEANS OF REVELATION…”[25] He believed that applying the word “inerrant” to Scripture could give a false understanding if understood in a scientific sense. Yet, in fighting against fundamentalism, Scharlemann did not guard against the dangers of liberal historical-criticism.
Throughout the Missouri Synod and the Synodical Conference, Scharlemann was severely criticized for what many saw as a rejection of the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. The criticism began approximately in the fall of 1959, and by the time of the 1962 Missouri Synod convention there were numerous resolutions asking that Professor Scharlemann be removed from office. For many delegates, this was the primary concern at the 1962 synodical convention. Dr. Scharlemann apologized to the Synod for having created a disturbance and publicly assured the members of his church body that he held to the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture. But the doors had been opened for the further incursion of historical criticism.
Other issues faced the Missouri Synod’s 1962 Cleveland Convention as well. There were questions with respect to the constitutionality of the 1959 resolution which had established all synodically adopted doctrinal statements as public doctrine and required the Synod’s pastors, teachers and professors to live and teach accordingly. Some saw this as the establishment of a new confessional subscription within the Missouri Synod. Also to be considered was the Missouri Synod’s relationship to the Wisconsin Synod and the future of the Synodical Conference. There were calls for the establishment of a new agency for all Lutheran bodies in America that would include newly-formed-by-merger The American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America. The Council of Presidents proposed a resolution that changed the definition of ordination and separated the Public Office of the Ministry from the congregation, and in some cases, from the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments. And finally, the Missouri Synod’s president for twenty-seven years, John W. Behnken, was stepping down and the 1962 convention had to elect a new synodical president.
The emotion-filled 1962 Cleveland Convention was a turning point in the Missouri Synod. That convention elected Oliver Harms as President of the Synod, heard Martin Scharlemann ask forgiveness for his actions, withdraw his essays and then voted to forgive him, heard that Resolution 9 (that all synodically adopted doctrinal statements were public doctrine) was unconstitutional, voted to reestablish relations with the Wisconsin Synod, voted to work toward the establishment of a new inter-Lutheran agency that would include The American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America, established the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, started the “Forward in Faith” funding appeal, and resolved that pastors could be ordained to calls apart from those to a congregation (district, synodical and professorial positions). The pendulum was pulled decidedly from a balance and tension between both doctrinal integrity and outreach toward a marked emphasis on outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity.
In a presentation to district presidents and seminary faculties on December 2, 1963, Synodical Vice-President Roland Wiederaenders made the following significant observation:
Despite repeated efforts we have not dealt honestly with our pastors and people. We have refused to state our changing theological position in open, honest, forthright, simple and clear words. Over and over again we have said that nothing was changing when all the while we were aware of changes taking place. Either we should have informed our pastors and people that changes were taking place and, if possible, convinced them from Scripture that these changes were in full harmony with “Thus saith the Lord!” or we should have stopped playing games as we gave assurance that no changes were taking place. With increasing measure the synodical trumpet has been giving an uncertain sound.[26]
As noted above, some Concordia Seminary professors in the late 1940s and 1950s began stressing the Gospel while rejecting a third use of the Law. This became the predominant position at the Seminary in the 1960s. Scott Murray refers to such Missouri Synod theologians (who invoked Law-Gospel as the ruling or only hermeneutical presupposition in Lutheran theology and who emphasized Gospel to the exclusion of the third use of the Law) as the Valparaiso Theologians or the Valparaiso School, although not all of them taught at Valparaiso University. Some taught at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis or elsewhere within the Missouri Synod. The Valparaiso theologians included Edward Schroeder, Robert Bertram, Walter Bartling, Robert Hoyer, Paul Bretscher, Walter Bouman, and Robert Schultz. These theologians were strongly influenced by the Erlangen school of theology, particularly the works of Werner Elert. Elert focused his theological approach on a Law-Gospel foundation. His anti-Calvinistic bias led him to denigrate the Law’s didactic purpose.
John W. Montgomery referred to this as “Law/Gospel reductionism” which in time became known as “Gospel reductionism.” Gospel reductionism was rightly criticized by Missouri Synod theologians such as Robert Preus, David Scaer, Kurt Marquart, and Ralph Bohlmann because it functioned as a hermeneutical presupposition rather than strictly as a theological principle. For many of the “Valpo” theologians, Law and Gospel had become “the hermeneutical touchstone” of the Lutheran Confessions. Though Law and Gospel was a basis, it certainly was not the only basis in the Lutheran Confessions. “The Law and Gospel” theme had extensive norming significance in Lutheran theology, but it was itself normed by the text of Scripture. Gospel reductionism created a false either/or, a choice between Gospel and Scripture. It reduced the authentication of points of Lutheran doctrine to whether they were “Gospel or not-the-Gospel.” As a result, the third use of the Law was excised. The Valparaiso theologians reduced Law-Gospel reductionism to mere Gospel reductionism, which in turn was based on a very narrow definition of Gospel.
Thus, the theologians of the Valparaiso school were extremely suspicious of church authority, especially when that authority enforced doctrinal standards. As Scott Murray observes: “Often the rigid application of the ‘Occam’s razor’ of Gospel reductionism accompanied or was even occasioned by the rejection of any doctrinal discipline imposed by church authorities.”[27] He continues:
This perspective led to a view of lawful church authority that was low indeed. For in principle there could be no church authority apart from the existential character of truth, itself a slippery notion. An existentialistic Gospel is not susceptible to codification in doctrinal standards or enforcement of those standards. Thus, doctrinal orthodoxy is not a piety to be pursued in faithful service to the Lord of the church, but a positive evil to be avoided at almost any cost.[28]
During the years 1963 to 1969, the faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis took on a different theological cast, as more and more new faculty members taught and used the historical critical method. Between 1963 and 1964, many within the Missouri Synod became concerned about the symbolic interpretation given to Genesis 2 and 3 in an essay by Dr. Norman Habel, a St. Louis Seminary professor. Many exegetes who used historical criticism at the St. Louis seminary also held to the Gospel reductionism of the Valparaiso school. Because they understood the Gospel to be the sole norm for Christian faith and life and maintained that it is the Gospel which gives Scripture its normative character, these theologians did not equate Scripture with Word of God. Instead they held that only the Gospel as proclamation of salvation through Christ equated to the Word of God. Because only the Gospel was considered to be the Word of God, these Concordia Seminary theologians saw the Bible as nothing more than an historical account, like any other human work.[29] Since the Bible was seen as only human history, Edgar Krentz and other Concordia Seminary professors felt it must be evaluated as such using the historical-critical method, which is a method “based on a secular understanding of history.”[30] For Krentz, the historical accounts of the Bible are not inspired because they do not have to be inspired. The inspiration of Scripture, therefore, does not refer to the way in which the Scriptures were transmitted to man, but to the power that the Gospel has to work faith. From this, it is concluded that the Scriptural accounts do not have to be factual, only the meaning is important: “The fact that a given biblical episode is historical is not important in and of itself. The importance of such historical events lies in what God was doing in and through them.”[31]
In Anatomy of an Explosion Kurt Marquart discusses the implications of the use of historical criticism:
It is clear from Krentz’ short book, and more so from standard authorities like the German scholar Hans Joachim Kraus, that the historical critical method arose out of the rationalistic Enlightenment and differs from traditional biblical scholarship in that it insists on treating the Bible not as an unquestioned authority, but as one ancient book among others. All biblical statements are therefore open to challenge before the court of sovereign human reason….This means that the critic and his reason are judge and jury, while the Bible, like all other ancient documents, is on trial whether as defendant or as witness; for even as a witness its credibility depends entirely on the findings of the critical court. This situation, of course, represents a complete reversal of the classic roles of reason and Scripture in Lutheran theology. Under the new, critical regime, reason is master and Scripture is servant, whereas formerly it was the other way round. For this reason alone,…using the historical-critical method with Lutheran presuppositions is as futile and absurd an undertaking as eating ham with Jewish presuppositions.[32]
Gospel reductionism and the historical critical method in Biblical studies adversely affected outreach in the Missouri Synod, resulting in outreach at the expense of confessional or doctrinal integrity. This can be observed specifically in the Mission Affirmations of 1965, fellowship with The American Lutheran Church declared in 1969, and a further denigration of the Office of the Holy Ministry through Oscar Feucht’s emphasis on Everyone a Minister in 1974.
At the 1962 synodical convention, a study of LCMS missions was suggested. Dr. Martin L. Kretzmann, long-time resident missionary and professor in India, was commissioned to make the detailed study. The mission study was published in November, 1964, entitled “Mission Self-Study and Survey.” The reaction to Kretzmann’s study in official Missouri Synod publications was very positive. The Lutheran Witness carried several pieces lauding Kretzmann’s report. The April 1965 issue of Concordia Theological Monthly was devoted to missions, and included an article by Kretzmann further articulating his views. Unofficial attacks on the Kretzmann report came from a publication begun by Pastor Herman Otten in 1962, then entitled Lutheran News (later renamed Christian News). Otten criticized Kretzmann for not stressing the necessity of belief in Christ and for pushing the contemporary view of ecumenism. Using the “Mission Self-Study and Survey” as a guide, Professor William Danker, former missionary and now professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, together with a sub-committee, drew up a series of resolutions on missions submitted to the 1965 synodical convention. These resolutions were adopted and became known as the Mission Affirmations.
In order to study the implications of the Mission Affirmations for implementation, the 1965 Detroit convention established the Commission on Mission and Ministry in the Church (CMMC). The CMMC published a special edition of the Mission Affirmations that was mailed to every congregation and pastor of the Synod. The Synod’s official publications continued to support the Mission Affirmations.
Three resolutions to the 1967 New York synodical convention expressed concern over the implications of unionism, a confusion of terms resulting in an emphasis on the social gospel, and the possibility of a universalistic understanding in the Mission Affirmations. In response to these overtures, the 1967 synodical convention resolved: 1) that the Mission Affirmations do not confuse “an ethic of love with the speaking of the Gospel”; 2) that they “remind us that those who proclaim the message of God’s love in Christ should also witness to Christ in Christian actions”; 3) that the Mission Affirmations are “no license for unionism or separatism”; 4) that the “whole man” does not imply any false doctrine; and 5) that the Mission Affirmations should be studied and used by all members of Synod. At the 1969 Denver synodical convention, two resolutions were adopted calling for synodical, district, and congregational constitutions to be examined “in light of Mission Affirmations.”
After the 1969 synodical convention and the election of J.A.O. Preus as synodical president, the Mission Affirmations came into further question. This resulted in their being eventually discounted but not rejected—as happened with the Statement of the 44. In October 1972, Martin Kretzmann was removed from his position on the Board of Missions. The student newspaper of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis and the Concordia Theological Monthly both protested this action. The delegates to the 1973 New Orleans convention were greeted with two reports from the Board of Missions, that of the Board Majority and that of the Board Minority. The Board Majority maintained that the Mission Affirmations presented an improper emphasis. The Board Minority said they were “positive, enabling, and inspiring.”
In 1974, the CTCR completed and published its study of the Mission affirmations, which verified many of the weaknesses noted previously by the Board for Missions Majority.[33] The Synod’s Board of Directors stated that with the new CTCR document on the Mission Affirmations, the case was closed. No further discussion was deemed necessary. Instead, it was time to move into new areas of mission activity. Unfortunately, because the Mission Affirmations were not officially rejected (just like “A Statement” of the 44), their spirit and overall philosophy have continued to shape Missouri Synod mission thinking and efforts to the present day. As might be expected, they emphasize outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity.
Meanwhile, officials of the Missouri Synod had been discussing establishing altar and pulpit fellowship with officials of The American Lutheran Church (TALC). In 1962, commissioners of both church bodies met in Chicago and drafted a “Joint Statement of the Representatives of The American Lutheran Church, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and the Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches” (the Slovak Synod which became the Slovak District of the Missouri Synod in 1969). However, despite long-standing theological differences on the issues of church and ministry, open questions, confessional subscription, chiliasm, and predestination, these issues were not addressed. Further negotiations consisted primarily of formal letters exchanged between President Fredrick Schiotz of TALC and President Oliver Harms of the LCMS. At TALC convention in 1968, altar and pulpit fellowship with both the LCMS and the LCA was declared. The 1969 Missouri Synod Denver convention, after electing conservative J.A.O. Preus as President of the Synod, disregarded Preus’ recommendation against fellowship with TALC, and approved the “Joint Statement” as a basis for altar and pulpit fellowship with this church body. The triangulation of TALC’s fellowship with both the LCMS and the LCA was not the only issue impacting the doctrinal integrity of the Missouri Synod. In 1970, TALC convention approved the ordination of women into the pastoral office. Fellowship between TALC and the LCMS continued throughout the Preus presidency of the Missouri Synod, and was finally broken at the 1981 Missouri Synod convention, at which Preus retired and Ralph Bohlmann was elected.[34]
As noted above, the functional view of the doctrine of the ministry was adopted by some within the Missouri Synod during the first half of the 20th century. In 1962, the Council of Presidents resolution separating ordination and the pastoral office from the congregation was adopted. The denigration of the Office of the Holy Ministry continued through the Mission Affirmations of 1965 where the distinction between the pastoral office and the priesthood of all believers was blurred:
VI. THE WHOLE CHURCH IS CHRIST’S MISSION:
WHEREAS, Every Christian is commissioned a missionary through baptism, for through the selfsame water and Word the Holy Spirit makes us both God’s children and His witness to the world when He says: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you”….[35]
Then, in 1974, Oscar Feucht published a book entitled Everyone a Minister: A Guide to Churchmanship for Laity and Clergy.[36] Feucht stressed that the pastor’s main job is equipping the saints for the work of the ministry according to his erroneous exegesis of Ephesians 4:11-12. Everyone is to be taught that they are ministers and have a ministry in the places where they live and work in the world. In order to have an active, living, growing church, the pastor must be a “change-agent” and a “dispatcher.” Brent Kuhlman has noted:
The parallels between Everyone a Minister and pietism are unmistakable. Both Spener and Feucht offer proposals for reforming the church. Both of their proposals reflect a shift in theology from God’s objective external gifts [Word and Sacrament] to the subjectivity and activism of the believer.
For both Spener and Feucht the real center of the church’s life is not the divine service where Jesus delivers the benefits of his dying and rising through the preached gospel and the sacraments…For Feucht, the goal is changing the believer’s life so that he exercises his priesthood by doing his ministry of evangelism. When the believer carries out this one vocation, Christ is present, and an irrelevant church becomes a most relevant church….
The Pietism of Pia Desideria and Everyone a Minister is quite dangerous. The extra nos character of the preached gospel and the sacramental gospel are exchanged for an intra nos subjectivity and activism of the believer. This is a confusion of law and gospel that does not serve the church faithfully or well.[37]
This position of Everyone a Minister would have a profound impact on the Missouri Synod after the 1974 Seminex Walkout through the Synod’s evangelism programs and support of the Church Growth Movement during the Bohlmann Presidency.
Opposition to the theological changes within the Missouri Synod had been loosely organized prior to the 1960s, while those who fostered change had long been well organized and were in positions of power throughout the Synod. Paul Burgdorf had begun publishing The Confessional Lutheran beginning in 1940. In 1962, Herman Otten began publishing a weekly paper, first called Lutheran News and then Christian News.
In 1964, the “Faith Forward—First Concerns” group was organized, presenting its confessional concerns to President Oliver Harms in a formal statement signed by 7,000 members of the Synod or synodical congregations, including 1,500 pastors and 24 district presidents. Between the1965 and the1969 synodical conventions, the United Planning Council (UPC) was organized. The publication, Balance, was issued approximately one month before the 1969 Denver convention, published out of Springfield, IL by A.O. Gebauer, John Lutze, Larry Marquardt, E.J. Otto and J.A.O. Preus. J.A.O. Preus became the group’s candidate to unseat Oliver Harms. However, Balance, Incorporated, was not formally organized until after the synodical convention that elected J.A.O. Preus. Preliminary meetings were held in November 1969 in Chicago, IL. The First issue of “Table Talk,” a communication sheet, was published in January 1970. Dr. Robert Preus was elected the first President of Balance, Inc. on June 26, 1970. The first issue of Affirm was published in March 1971.[38]
In discussing the development of conservative/confessional political opposition to the liberal movement within the Missouri Synod in his Memoirs, Dr. John Tietjen overlooks or ignores the long history of political activism on the part of those who were trying to change the Synod’s theological position. He particularly passes over the machinations of the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, of which he was a member, giving the impression that those who organized to stop the doctrinal changes were the first to be involved in politicking within the Synod.[39] In time, those seeking to change the Synod’s long-standing position of doctrinal integrity would continue to ignore or overlook this important fact.
On May 19, 1969, John Tietjen was notified that he had been elected as the new president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. He was the choice of then Synodical President Oliver Harms. Then on July 12, 1969, conservative forces at its convention in Denver succeeded in electing J.A.O. Preus president of the LCMS, unseating incumbent Oliver Harms. With both opposing forces on the track with a full head of steam, the long-anticipated Missouri train wreck was now imminent.
In Seminary President Tietjen’s first meeting with his faculty in September 1969, various professors raised questions about certain theological emphases in an article he had published entitled “The Gospel and the Theological Task.”[40] The theological differences at Concordia Seminary were further brought to light in January 1970, when a St. Louis based group, which included several seminary faculty members, protested the non-reappointment of Dr. Richard Jungkuntz as executive secretary of the CTCR by issuing a document entitled “A Call to Openness and Trust.” Synodical president, J.A.O. Preus addressed this directly:
Make no mistake about this, brothers, what is at stake is not only inerrancy but the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself, the authority of Holy Scripture, the ‘quia’ subscription to the Lutheran Confessions, and perhaps the very continued existence of Lutheranism as a confessional confessing movement in a Christian world.[41]
So the battle lines were drawn between Preus and Tietjen. The Seminary, with the support of its Board of Control, continued to assert that all was well and that no false doctrine was being taught. Students, a minority of the faculty, and the people of the Missouri Synod knew better. Early in 1970, Dr. Scharlemann wrote President J.A.O. Preus requesting him to conduct an inquiry into the theological situation at the Seminary. Preus responded by appointing a Fact Finding Committee. Tietjen—a PR expert—used the tactic of issuing news releases regretting the investigation and denying that the faculty was teaching false doctrine. Faculty interviews began in late 1970, and continued through March, 1971. During the period of the interviews, the faculty majority repeatedly issued individual statements as well as a combined formal resolution condemning the investigation. In June, 1971, the Fact Finding Committee submitted its report to the synodical president, which included hundreds of pages of transcripts. The July 1971 Milwaukee convention directed the Board of Control to take appropriate action on the basis of the report. However, the Seminary Board of Control proceeded to conduct its own interviews with the faculty while basically ignoring the content and conclusions of the Fact Finding Committee report.
In early 1972, President Preus issued “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles,” which he intended to be used as guidelines by the Board of Control in identifying and dealing with the doctrinal issues, particularly with respect to the normative nature of Holy Scripture. The Board of Control decided not to use “A Statement” as a guideline.
Then in June, 1972, the Board of Control issued a report stating that in their interviews they found no false doctrine among the members of the seminary faculty. However, two members of the Board, Dr. E.C. Weber and Mr. Walter Dissen, vigorously contested the Board’s evaluation.
On September 1, 1972, President Preus issued the “Report of the Synodical President to The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod” (the so-called “Blue Book”). It was a summary of the findings of the Fact Finding Committee. The Blue Book documented that some of the professors held or permitted the following:
1. A confusion on the doctrine of Scripture, especially its verbal inspiration and inerrancy, as well as disagreement on the relationship between the formal and material principles of Scripture.
2. A commitment to the use of the historical-critical method as a valid and preferred method for the interpretation of the Bible.
3. A possibility that many of the Old and New Testament stories are not really historical.
4. An acceptance that words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were in fact never spoken by Him, but were later additions or interpretations made by the Christian community after the death of Jesus.
5. A reluctance to attribute Old Testament prophecies as pointing directly to Jesus Christ; that is, the minimalization of predictive prophecy in the Old Testament.
6. An insistence that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, Isaiah did not pen his entire book, and Paul may not have written all the books attributed to him in the New Testament.[42]
Later that year, Tietjen issued to the entire Synod a thirty-five page document entitled “Fact Finding or Fault Finding” (the so-called “Brown Book”) which took issue with the entire Fact Finding Committee, its inquiry, and its report, claiming it to be slanderous and filled with inaccuracies and half-truths. In the “Brown Book” Dr. Tietjen and the faculty majority accused President Preus and the members of the Fact Finding Committee of false doctrine, misrepresentation, and ignorance.
The Council of Presidents, through Central Illinois District President Rudolph Haak, requested that the faculty provide a concise statement of its position on certain doctrines. Instead of responding directly to the Council of Presidents, the faculty majority, in January 1973, sent its response to the pastors and congregations of the Synod in the form of a document entitled “Faithful to Our Calling—Faithful to Our Lord.” This booklet contained a joint faculty majority confession of faith, personal confessions of faith from each professor, and material to aid in the discussion of the controversial issues.
Things came to a head at the convention of the LCMS in New Orleans, July, 1973. That convention adopted “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” as a clear and concise doctrinal statement in accordance with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. The convention further adopted a resolution acknowledging the deviations in doctrine of the faculty majority with respect to the subversion of the authority of Scripture, Gospel reductionism, which included a denial of the third use of the Law, and charged the Board of Control of the seminary to deal with these charges. Several new members were elected to the seminary Board of Control by the convention. John Tietjen was given opportunity to resign as President of Concordia Seminary, which he declined. The convention then passed a resolution turning the case of Dr. Tietjen over to the Board of Control, after first deciding that it did not have sufficient time to deal with the issue at the convention itself. John Tietjen then addressed the convention, calling the actions of the convention unconstitutional, saying that he had been grievously wronged, and then declaring that even though he had been grievously wronged, he “forgave” the convention delegates because he did not think they knew what they were doing.
The seminary faculty majority issued a formal protest stating that the convention distorted their position, violated the synodical constitution and bylaws on the procedures for evangelical discipline, judged them by a theological standard different from Article II of the Synod’s constitution, elevated tradition above Scripture, and used coercive power to establish the true doctrine of Scripture. The faculty protest also called for the formation of an anti-synodical protest movement throughout the church body. In August, 1973, Evangelical Lutherans in Mission (ELIM) was formed in Chicago. In October, this group began publication of Missouri in Perspective.
The seminary Board of Control, now with a conservative majority, elected new officers and prepared to respond to formal charges that had been filed against Tietjen by Pastors Harlan Harnapp and Leonard Buelow. A meeting was held August 17 between Dr. Tietjen and his accusers. Tietjen protested the action as illegal. In his meeting with Harnapp and Buelow, Tietjen told the pastors that they had not properly approached him privately (in accord with Matthew 18), to which they responded that this was a matter of public knowledge. The Board then decided to give Dr. Tietjen ample time to respond to the charges. Meanwhile, with the formation of ELIM and the beginning of the publication Missouri in Perspective, the faculty majority and even some students then began circulating throughout the Synod, speaking at various congregations, rallies, and pastoral conferences. On January 20, 1974, the Board met again, and formally suspended John Tietjen. On the morning of January 21, the students held an assembly at which John Tietjen accused the synodical president and Board of Control of collusion and called the proceedings a “sham,” a “mockery,” and a “charade.” The students voted to declare a moratorium on all classes.
Finally, on February 19, 1974, the majority of faculty members and students made their exodus from Concordia Seminary and marched into self-imposed exile, after leaving cross-like grave markers in the main quadrangle and boarding up the entrances to Luther Tower with the word “Exiled” inscribed across the boards. Of course, there was ample media coverage of the entire event. The next day, those who left formed a seminary in opposition to Concordia Seminary, first called Concordia Seminary in Exile (Seminex) and later Christ Seminary in Exile (still Seminex). They initially met in classrooms provided by St. Louis University and Eden Seminary. As time went by, Seminex gradually declined and became no longer viable as an institution. Finally, in the summer of 1982, the Seminex faculty disbursed to join the faculties of TALC and LCA institutions. But the split had happened, and has continued to have an impact on the LCMS to the present day.
After the Walkout at Concordia Seminary and the formation of Seminex, a colloquy program was established for Seminex graduates to be called and ordained to serve in Missouri Synod congregations. However, eight district presidents defiantly ordained Seminex graduates apart from the established synodical colloquy program. The 1975 Synodical Convention resolved that district presidents should ordain or authorize the ordination of only those candidates who are endorsed through the duly authorized synodical process. If they could not in good conscience uphold the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod, then they should resign from the office of district president. If such district presidents did not resign or alter their position in ordaining Seminex graduates, then the synodical president was authorized to suspend them from office. Of the eight district presidents who persisted in ordaining uncolloquized Seminex graduates, President J.A.O. Preus eventually suspended four of them.
The Coordinating Council for a new church body made up of disgruntled LCMS pastors and congregations met in 1976. By the end of April they were incorporated in the state of Illinois as the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC). The number of congregations that helped form the AELC or that joined it later was considerably less than expected by the Coordinating Council, only 250 even though Martin E. Marty had confidently predicted that a third of the Missouri Synod would follow Seminex. Concerning this situation, John Tietjen writes:
A number of factors worked to keep the AELC small. Pastors who wanted to join could not bring their congregations along because they had neither properly informed them about the events in the Missouri Synod nor adequately prepared them for the formation of a new church. In many instances a majority of congregational members could not make the move into a new church because they could not get the necessary two-thirds majority required by their constitution. Vocational and security concerns caused previously outspoken pastors to be silent when the time for decision arrived. Some pastors and congregations chose rather to “stay and fight.” Some did not want to risk conflict within the congregation for the sake of their mission. Others decided that institutional affiliation was not that important.[43]
The fact that many pastors and congregations, who sympathized with the theology and practice of the Seminex faculty and those who formed the AELC, then decided to stay in the Missouri Synod has had serious implications for the LCMS to this day, particularly with respect to maintaining the Synod’s doctrinal integrity. More on this later.
At its 1978 convention the AELC adopted “A Call for Lutheran Union” to try to unite the more liberal Lutheran church bodies. In 1979, a Committee on Lutheran Unity (CLU) was established with representatives from the AELC, TALC, and LCA. The CLU met regularly, drafting proposals for a planned merger. On September 8, 1982, the three church bodies held concurrent conventions, but in separate locations. At approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time the AELC, TALC and LCA all voted for a new church body. The constituting convention for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) took place in Columbus, Ohio, April 30-May 3, 1987. At 12:01 a.m. Central Standard Time, January 1, 1988, the three predecessor church bodies formally dissolved into the ELCA. Thus was created by merger the largest Lutheran denomination in the United States—a church body in which liberal theology predominated, and outreach was emphasized at the expense of doctrinal integrity.
Concluding Comments
The rise of Gospel reductionism paved the way for use of historical criticism in Biblical studies, a new mission emphasis that no longer focused on the formation of confessional Lutheran congregations, an altering of the Synod’s position on church fellowship and fellowship practices, and a differing view on the doctrine of the ministry that separated the Office of the Holy Ministry from the congregation, the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments, eventually declaring everyone a minister. The result was outreach to the exclusion of doctrinal integrity within the Synod. This led to marked struggle within the Missouri Synod between those who wanted to maintain the Synod’s confessional Lutheran integrity and those who wanted to alter or change it. Approximately 250 congregations and their pastors left the LCMS to form the AELC, which eventually helped unite with the LCA and TALC to form the ELCA. Yet, many remained within the Missouri Synod who sympathized with the views of John Tietjen, the Faculty Majority involved in the Walkout, and those who formed the AELC. This would have marked repercussions within the Synod in the years that followed, continuing even to the present.
4.
Despite the split that took place within the Missouri Synod in 1976, many pastors and lay people who held views similar to those who formed the AELC remained within the LCMS. Three movements that are prominent throughout American church life made further inroads into the Missouri Synod: the liberal movement, the evangelical movement, and the charismatic movement. Because of this, there would continue to be a marked struggle over doctrinal integrity and outreach. This struggle can be particularly noted in the areas of women’s issues, missions, and church fellowship. Although a member of the faculty minority at Concordia Seminary during the years of the Walkout, Dr. Ralph Bohlmann would allow or further these movements within the Synod. When he was unseated as synodical president by Dr. Alvin Barry in 1992, Dr. Bohlmann would work within dissident groups to promote further change. In 1999, three dissenting groups came together to form Jesus First/DayStar, which would continue to stress outreach to the exclusion of doctrinal integrity within the Synod. This attempt at a hostile takover of the Missouri Synod was vigorously opposed by a group of more conservative, or confessional, pastors and theologians, led by Dr. Robert Preus, President of Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne. The confessional Lutherans, while not neglecting outreach--the Ft. Wayne seminary has been a beehive of mission activity, particularly in the foreign field--has sought to restore a proper emphasis on doctrinal integrity to the LCMS.
After the temporary suspension of Dr. John Tietjen as President of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Dr. Martin Scharlemann was appointed as Acting President. Due to the intensity of the harassment he received, Dr. Scharlemann resigned from this position in April, 1974. Dr. Ralph Bohlmann was then appointed Acting President, and in May, 1975, he was installed as the seminary’s seventh president, then in 1981 was elected President of the LCMS. In 1992, he was unseated by Dr. Alvin L. Barry.
At some point after the Walkout at Concordia Seminary, Dr. Bohlmann’s theological position changed. While serving on the CTCR in the early 1970s, he was intricately involved with the drafting of “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles,” which takes a strong stand against Gospel reductionism. Similarly, two papers by Dr. Bohlmann, presented to the Division of Theological Studies for LCUSA entitled “The Poisition of the LCMS on the Basis for Fellowship” and “Our Commitment to the Gospel” represent a conservative/confessional stance on church fellowship.[44] By 1995, however, Dr. Bohlmann was lauding the influence of the ALPB in his own life and advocating “A Statement” of the 44 for its “Gospel primacy.” As we have seen, this document also promoted selective fellowship.[45] More on this to come. In an interview with Rick Mueller, this change was noted directly:
Sentiments such as these have caused some to wonder whether Bohlmann has changed. “I am not conscious of really changing my convictions,” he said. “I’ve become more ‘basic’ in my own faith and theology … less concerned with 16th-century minutiae” and more concerned about whether family and friends “are strong in their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.” He said he’s “more conscious of the lack of certainty about a lot of theological questions. There are things I was once quite sure of [as a young, practicing, academic theologian] … but today, I don’t know.[46]
Between 1988 and 1992, Synodical President Bohlmann became personally involved in trying to remove Dr. Robert Preus from his office as President of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. Concerning this sad situation, Dr. Robert Preus wrote:
No, there is only one logical and charitable explanation for the radical and unprecedented action of forcing me out of my call as president of the Seminary. Although many of the majority Board members do not realize it and would not admit it, the reason I was put out of my office and the reason the leaders of the BOR persisted in their actions so intransigently is doctrinal. Again and again the Seminary faculty with me as its president opposed and even foiled the plans President Bohlmann had for the Synod in the area of doctrine. We opposed his new erroneous doctrine of church fellowship and his impossible theory of levels of fellowship or relationships. Our Exegetical Theology Department’s position on the place of women in the church displeased him. We thoroughly disagreed with his views on the “ministry of laymen and women in the church,” pushed forth at the Wichita Convention of the Synod. We were too aggressively critical of the “Church Growth Movement.” Our doctrinal assessment of the newly formed Evangelical Lutheran Church in America interfered with his plans for the Missouri Synod posture toward the ELCA. In all the aforementioned doctrinal issues Bohlmann was overtly critical of the Seminary, and many district presidents and other leaders in the church agreed with him. By 1988 the majority of the Board decided it would be to the advantage of the seminary if I retire and am removed from the scene. I had always tried not to aggravate Bohlmann as I tried to lead the Seminary to remain faithful to our confessional Lutheran heritage, but in retrospect I see could not please him.[47]
Following his defeat at the 1992 synodical convention, Dr. Bohlmann sent what many saw as a bitter letter to all Missouri Synod pastors, condemning church politics. In that letter, he also tried to explain that the reason he sought to remove Dr. Robert Preus was doctrinal. Referring to a “Highly organized network” which had opposed his presidency, Bohlmann said:
A few comments about its theological focus might be helpful…. In fact, many in the political network hold positions to the right of the Synod’s in such key areas as women in the church, inter-Christian relationships, the pastoral office, and the manner of exercising Christian discipline. They have labeled their own position as ‘confessional’ or ‘conservative’. [48]
After that, Dr. Bohlmann became instrumental in both the “Lutherans Alive” and “Jesus First” political organizations noted below. Dr. Alvin Barry died unexpectedly in office while visiting family in Florida on March 23, 2001. Dr. Gerald Kieschnick was then elected as synodical president at the convention held during the summer of that year.
Following the formation of the AELC in 1976, three dissenting movements have remained within the Synod, movements that are also dominant in American church life today: liberal, charismatic, and evangelical. These three dissenting movements have now joined forces to form one dissenting organization called Jesus First; its organizers and supporters intent on altering the doctrinal integrity of the Missouri Synod, under the banner of “outreach”.[49]
The development of the liberal movement in the Missouri Synod has been noted above with its emphasis on Gospel reductionism, the use of the historical critical method in Biblical studies, and ecumenism or church fellowship based on a standard that is less than that articulated in the Lutheran Confessions. Not all of its adherents left the Missouri Synod at the formation of the AELC.
In response to the confessional or conservative movement that proved dissatisfied with the Bohlmann presidency, and which resulted in the election of Dr. Alvin Barry as synodical president at the 1992 convention, many of those involved in the liberal movement within the Missouri Synod formed a counter political organization called Lutherans Alive in 1995. This group published a regular newsletter entitled Forward under the editorial leadership of Pastor Henry Koepchen, former Atlantic District President. This group attempted to present itself as holding a mediating position within the Synod. Lutherans Alive continued their political activities until they participated in the formation of Jesus First in 1999. An excerpt captures the dissident tone of these groups:
Lutherans Alive began in early 1995 when some leaders in Synod and District came together in response to the 1992 Synodical convention. In reporting for the 1995 convention it was felt that many in the Synod were not being heard. There were voices on the right and on the left. Lutherans Alive desires to resist either of those extreme positions and to have the Missouri Synod move forward as an Evangelical and Confessional Lutheran Church. For nearly a generation, there have been groups formed to circulate their views throughout the Synod. Some have tried to find a Balance, while others wanted to Affirm their understanding of the issues. Christian News has been publishing for nearly 40 years. One laymen’s group declared itself the Vanguard of the faithful and has since gone out of existence. In most cases, these groups often turn vicious in their attacks on leaders in our Synod and Districts. They come together to control the Synod from their particular viewpoint. Some like to call themselves conservatives and view all others as rampant liberals. The reality is that in most cases they are “Confusionists.” By their attacks they reveal they do not have mind of Christ. [50]
The evangelical movement in America can be traced to John Wesley and the First Great Awakening in the mid 1700s. This mutated and arose again in the Second Great Awakening of the early 1800s, which involved “New Measures” such as the anxious bench and revival meetings. Evangelicals share a Reformed rejection of the sacraments as a means of grace. They believe that natural man has sufficient ability to approve of the divine Law and to accept God’s offer of grace in the Gospel. These American Protestant influences were of course felt in Lutheranism in the 19th century, as seen particularly by Samuel Simon Schmucker’s radically altered edition of the Augsburg Confession—a classic case of neglecting doctrinal integrity in favor of outreach. In the 1900s, Evangelicals began to use altar calls, which stressed the ability of an unregenerate sinner to make a personal decision for Jesus Christ. Such conservative evangelicals were instrumental in the founding of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, the journal Christianity Today, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), and the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI). During the “Battle for the Bible” within the Missouri Synod several confessional LCMS leaders became involved in the ETS or ICBI, and some LCMS pastors attended Fuller Theological Seminary for postgraduate studies. At Fuller Theological Seminary, Donald McGavern and C. Peter Wagner developed the Church Growth Movement. In 1979, Concordia Seminary President Ralph Bohlmann was instrumental in bringing Dr. Elmer Matthias on the faculty. Matthias, a graduate of Fuller, taught Church Growth and Evangelism. Meanwhile, Pastor Leroy Beisenthal, a synodical executive, adapted the Evangelism Explosion of the successful Presbyterian minister Dr. James Kennedy for Lutheran use, calling it Dialogue Evangelism and providing seminars at Concordia Seminary and throughout the Synod. Dr. Kent Hunter, a prolific writer, has written several books on the Church Growth Movement for use in Lutheran churches, as has David Luecke. Both are rostered LCMS pastors with close ties to Fuller and the Church Growth Movement. Both Dialogue Evangelism and the Church Growth Movement are heavily saturated with the perspective of Oscar Feucht in Everyone a Minister. The pastor is identified primarily as an equipper and manager so that congregational members “do ministry.” Marketing techniques, sociological principles, and management tools coupled with a good dose of contemporary worship practices and the use of small groups designed to “meet peoples’ needs” are used to “grow the church.” Accordingly, they argue, only those churches that use such Church Growth practices are considered to be vibrant.
In order to further train and equip pastors in these practices, the Pastoral Leadership Institute (PLI) was established in 1996 by Pastors Greg Smith, Steven Hower and Vernon Gundermann. PLI is governed by principles of the Church Growth Movement. The primary theological principle of the Church Growth Movement is that the true church is visible and can be measured. A church is measured by its growth and size – the bigger, the better! This is in direct opposition to articles VII and VIII of the Augsburg Confession, which assert that the true church is invisible and therefore cannot be measured. Furthermore, the Augsburg Confession professes that the visible church is a mixture of members of the true church, of hypocrites, and of evil men, and only God knows who are truly members of the Una Sancta (the One, Holy Christian or catholic Church). Once again, we see here a classic case of ignoring doctrinal integrity in favor of outreach.
The modern charismatic movement grew out of early 20th-century Pentecostalism, which in turn had sprung from the Holiness groups of Methodism. Thus there are theological ties between Pentcostalism and Evangelicalism. John Wesley (1703-1792) had taught that there was a “second blessing” unto complete sanctification following conversion, though he never claimed to have received it himself. The American revivalist Charles Finney (1792-1875) taught a special “baptism of the Holy Spirit” and used methods that led to emotional responses in his hearers. In October 1890, revivalist Charles Parham began Bethel Bible College in Topeka, Kansas, which taught that the evidence of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” was speaking in tongues. In April 1906, a student of Charles Parham, William J. Seymour, began holding meetings at the Azusa Street Mission in Los Angeles. A sustained Pentecostal revival began. The Pentecostal movement then spread throughout North America. Denominationally, it can be found in the Assemblies of God, the Four Square Gospel churches, the Church of God in Christ, the Pentecostal Church, as well as in many independent, non-denominational congregations. During the 1950s, the Pentecostal movement spilled over into mainline Protestant churches, spread predominantly through the Full Gospel Businessman’s Fellowship, offering prayer meetings with a charismatic emphasis. Larry Christenson, a graduate of Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN, began speaking in tongues in August 1961, and became the founder of the Lutheran charismatic movement.
Charismatics within the Missouri Synod began coming together in the 1970s, and went on to form an organization called Renewal in Missouri (RIM) in 1988 with a publication using the same name. RIM stresses that their members love Jesus, believe the Gospel, emphasize the gifts and power of the Holy Spirit, want to be in agreement with the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and emphasize personal experience in relationship with Jesus. By 2001, the Rev. Del Rossin, head of RIM, maintained that there are 600 charismatics on the LCMS clergy roster.
Despite clear Scriptural and Confessional testimony that God does not work apart from the means of grace, the charismatic movement is characterized by a firm belief in God’s direct communication to believers apart from Word and sacrament through the speaking in tongues, prophesies, and an inner voice. Regarding doctrinal integrity, the Evangelicals have an old saying, “Deeds, not creeds.” Or as the pentecostals/charismatics put it, “It’s better felt than telt.” One can see how both these groups would share an aversion for dogma and intellectual rigor. What is not so apparent to the casual observer is the natural affinity of Evangelicalism and Pentecostalism—superficially conservative in some areas such as biblical inerrancy, women’s ordination, and opposition to abortion--with classic Liberalism. The common ground of all three groups is subjectivism. The subjective approach to religion grew out of the Romantic Movement in 18th century Germany and influenced the teachings of theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), from whom all liberalism derives. In reaction to the dry intellectualism of the Enlightenment, Schleiermacher put forth his “taste and feeling for the infinite,” resulting in a personalized and ego-centered approach to Christianity. With this in mind, one can easily see how all three groups would find common cause against the confessional Lutherans who insisted on doctrinal integrity.
From its origins in Lutherans Alive, Jesus First was founded as a not-for-profit religious organization in 1999. A connected organization, DayStar, sponsors symposiums and publishes papers and articles espousing views similar to that of Jesus First. The Jesus First magazine encourages its readers to attend DayStar free conferences, and leaders of Jesus First have been speakers at these symposiums. The groups overlap in membership, but are distinguished in that DayStar is an informational network and Jesus First is a political action group. Jesus First was instrumental in electing Gerald Kieshnick—an ostensibly conservative Church Growth advocate whose platform was “Mission is Job One”—as president of the Missouri Synod in 2001, and both Jesus First and DayStar continue avidly in their support of his policies.
In the May 2001 issue of Affirm, Dr. Martin Noland provided a detailed analysis in an article entitled “What Is ‘Jesus First’?” He concluded that this organization is made up of a diverse network of dissenting groups within the Missouri Synod,[51] comprising liberal, evangelical, and charismatic theological orientations. Dr. Noland observed that in June 2000, there were 522 people who endorsed the Jesus First statement entitled “A Call to Affirm Jesus-First Leadership.” Of these endorsers, pastors outnumbered lay people two to one. The Missouri Synod pastors who endorsed the Jesus First statement constituted 18% of all LCMS pastors on the synodical roster. Noland further analyzed the pastors who endorsed the Jesus First statement, and found that many had belonged to other dissenting groups, including supporters of Seminex and John Tietjen.[52]
In summarizing the nature of Jesus First and the intent of those involved in this organization, Dr. Martin Noland stated:
I believe that “Jesus First” may best be described as a “coalition of dissenting organizations and movements.” Chief among the dissenters are: 1) Seminex supporters, 2) Charismatics, 3) “Church Growth Movement” advocates, 4) advocates of “contemporary worship,” 5) advocates of woman’s ordination, 6) advocates of open communion, and 7) advocates of ecumenical fellowship practices. In order to succeed politically, these divergent dissenters have been forced to work together for a common cause, i.e., the overthrow of traditional Lutheran theology and practice in the Missouri Synod.[53]
Gospel Reductionism and Jesus First/DayStar
At the heart of this dissident movement in the Missouri Synod today is the same Gospel reductionism that began in the latter part of the first half of the 20th century, opened the way for the use of the historical critical method, fomented the Walkout and led to the schism that was the formation of the AELC. Now it continues to impact the Missouri Synod in the areas of women’s issues, missions, and the nature and practice of fellowship.
The fiftieth anniversary of “A Statement of the 44” was celebrated by the ALPB at a banquet in White Plains, New York, on October 22, 1995, with Dr. Ralph Bohlmann serving as guest speaker. Dr. Bohlmann expressed his appreciation to the ALPB for the catalytic role they have played in American Lutheranism, and in his own life. Dr. Bohlmann stated that the issues raised by the 44 are issues that still concern Lutherans in every age. He notes that “A Statement” identified the deep cleavage that exists among those whose theology and practice are Gospel centered, and those whose focus is in large part driven by the Law. He sees the Statementarians as having a sense of Gospel primacy. Hence Dr. Bohlmann also asks:
Why do so many forget the freedom of the Gospel as they seek to turn our synodical conventions and other gatherings into opportunities to gain power or exercise control? Why? Because, simply put, it is the Law, not the Gospel, that dominates such actions. We too, like the 44 and many others in the course of church history, need to encourage one another to let the Gospel hold sway among us, as we stand fast in the liberty with which Christ has made us free.[54]
Of course those who push for doctrinal integrity are seen as legalistic Pharisees who have no passion for lost souls. Stephen C. Krueger, a Seminex graduate who entered the LCMS by colloquy and writes frequently for DayStar, calls for acceptance of a Gospel without accountability or responsibility. Those who maintain a third use of the Law as set forth in Formula of Concord Article VI are referred to as legalists who impose a “rigid and dead pathology onto the rest…”[55]
Gospel reductionism coupled with changing societal influences have impacted the life of the church in many areas. We note especially the influence this has had on the role of women in the church and the understanding of church fellowship, specifically, what constitutes unionism and syncretism.
The feminist movement that overtook our society the latter half of the 20th century had a marked impact within the Missouri Synod as well. As noted above, the first female ordained as a Lutheran pastor occurred within TALC in 1970. Those who supported Seminex also favored the ordination of women, and after the AELC was formed, that church body began ordaining women. It is no secret that there are some women in the Missouri Synod who strongly advocate the ordination of women within the Synod; there are men, including pastors, who advocate this position also. Many of them are associated with the ecclesio-political group Jesus First and its connected organization DayStar. If the ordination of women cannot be done directly and expeditiously by way of convincing delegates to adopt such a resolution at a synodical convention, then it will be attempted by the process of absorption or evolution. Women will fill more and more positions traditionally known as “male-only” or which were traditionally filled only by ordained men until finally the thought of a female pastor would be readily accepted throughout the Synod.[56]
In a survey of current LCMS female institutional chaplains, three women have indicated that they served in institutional chaplain positions since the 1970s, one as early as 1972. Several others acknowledged holding this title since the 1980s. Most LCMS female institutional chaplains are trained as deaconesses either at Valparaiso University or Concordia University, River Forest, IL. However, a few of the women listed as institutional chaplains have received training outside of Missouri Synod institutions or Valparaiso University. Serving as institutional chaplains has enabled some LCMS women to preach and administer the sacraments and conduct a ministry of personal pastoral care without ordination and apart from direct male pastoral supervision.
Probably the most vocal proponent of women’s ordination in the Missouri Synod is Dr. Mary Todd, professor of history at Concordia University, River Forest, IL. Like many proponents of Gospel reductionism, Dr. Todd reduces the Word of God to a narrow understanding of the Gospel and rejects the normative nature of Scripture as a whole. She thereby also rejects the verbal inerrancy of Scripture. As a consequence, she questions the Missouri Synod’s stated position prohibiting the ordination of women, which is based on specific Scriptural passages and the theological concept known as the order of creation. Further, Dr. Todd rejects the objective mediation of a call as articulated in Augsburg Confession Article XIV, basing a call to the Office of the Holy Ministry on subjective feelings. Because she and other women “feel” called to the pastoral ministry in the Missouri Synod, Dr. Todd asserts that this is both necessary and sufficient to override the Synod (which she identifies as the dominating male clergy), the long-held position of the historic catholic church, Scripture and anyone else that tells her she cannot be a pastor in the LCMS.[57] In other words, for the sake of “love” the Missouri Synod should relax its doctrinal integrity and admit women pastors.
Church Fellowship and Changing Involvement in Interfaith Services
The balance and tension between doctrinal integrity and outreach has been seriously tested with respect to the Synod’s position on church fellowship and participation in interfaith events, particularly in regard to the understanding of Article VI.2 of the Synod’s Constitution, “Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description.” There are many, especially in Jesus First/DayStar, who are pushing for a change in this area of the Synod’s doctrine and practice.
On September 9, 1998, Atlantic District President David Benke participated in an interfaith prayer service in New York City. The service included vested clergy of the Roman Catholic Church and Muslim ministers. After appropriate ecclesiastical oversight and admonition by then Synodical President Alvin L. Barry, Benke signed an apology, stating, “My participation in this service was a direct violation of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions, and consequently, violation of the Constitution, Bylaws and doctrinal resolutions of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. … I therefore sincerely and publicly apologize to the Synod for my actions in this connection. I assure the Synod that I will not repeat this error in the future by participating as an officiant in ecumenical services.”[58]
The 2001 synodical convention passed a resolution commending “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” and “A Report on Synodical Discussions” for continued use and guidance in building unity of doctrine and practice in the Synod. Then Texas District President, Dr. Gerald Kieschnick, served as chairman of the CTCR for the triennium leading up to this convention, which prepared these documents. It is important to note that this CTCR document, together with the “Report on Synodical Discussion,” was not adopted as an official doctrinal statement of the Synod (comparable to “Church and Ministry” in 1851, “A Brief Statement” in 1932, or “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” in 1973). These documents were adopted simply as guidelines for use in building unity of doctrine and practice. They do not redefine or supersede the synodical Constitution.
On September 8, 2001, Dr. Gerald Kieschnick was installed as the 12th President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Less than 72 hours later, on September 11th, terrorists crashed airplanes into the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field outside of Pittsburgh, PA. The Atlantic District President was directly involved in providing pastoral care and relief to those in need, as well as supervising the pastoral response of Missouri Synod clergy in the New York City area. For his tireless efforts, only months after recovering from a heart attack, Dr. David Benke should be commended.
Then on September 23, 2001, despite his previous apology, District President Benke participated in the nationally televised interfaith “Prayer for America” service at Yankee Stadium in New York City. Synodical President Gerald Kieschnick supported his participation in this public prayer service based on the statements from the 2001 convention-approved “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship” and “A Report on Synodical Discussions.” In this emotional service, sponsored by the Mayor of New York City, Rudolph Giuliani, and organized and directed by celebrities Oprah Winfrey and James Earl Jones, one member of the clergy after another stepped up to offer prayers or readings from their scriptures: Jews, Roman Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, Sikhs, and Eastern Orthodox. District President Benke was introduced by the Rev. Calvin Butts, who identified him as “the Rev. Dr. David Benke, who is President of the Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church, the Missouri Synod.” President Benke called everyone sisters and brothers, told them that they are stronger due to their participation in the service, asked them to hold hands and join him in prayer.
Reaction both for and against the involvement of Benke and Kieschnick was immediate and pronounced. Twelve pastors and one congregation pressed formal charges against District President Benke. President Kieschnick continued vigorously to support Benke. From an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Shouldn't everyone recognize that there are many different ideas about spirituality, all of them to be respected? Shouldn't the members of one faith feel comfortable worshiping their God, even in the company of people worshiping another? Aren't we more alike than different?" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 3, 2001). The conclusion seems unavoidable: the participation of a Christian pastor in the interfaith service at Yankee Stadium gave the impression that prayers to gods other than the true God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are compatible with Christian piety and belief.
On December 27, 2001, the faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, issued “A Pastoral Response to the Events of September 11, 2001.” In the classic form of a Gutachten (German term for a faculty opinion, judgment or decision), the Fort Wayne faculty analyzed the prayer service and concluded that the involvement of District President Benke in this service evidenced both unionism and syncretism.
Synodical President Kieschnick and District President Benke maintain that the Yankee Stadium “Prayer for America” was not a prayer service, but rather a civic event. Dr. Kurt Marquart answered this with the following:
Finally, I deeply deplore the fact that instead of applying the true balm of Gilead to our Synodical wounds, as is your solemn duty, you in fact deepen the confusion by continuing to misapply a brief CTCR reference to “civic events” as though that was ever meant to justify crass syncretism like that of the Yankee Stadium affair. To make a mere “civic event” out of what the whole world knows to have been an “inter-faith service,” consisting largely of pagan readings, “meditations,” and prayers, and framed within Roman Catholic and Jewish “invocations” and Greek Orthodox and Hindu “benedictions,” is to destroy the obvious and honest meanings of the words. President Benke himself bore witness to this truth when he said that “this field of dreams” had become not a civic event but a “House of Prayer.”
The Lord rescue our poor Synod from bureaucratic and pragmatic evasions—however well disguised under frothy rhetoric about “missions”—and restore to us the truth and unity of the purely preached Gospel and Sacraments. It is my earnest prayer that you, Brother President, may yet prove to be not an obstacle but rather our gracious Lord’s instrument in the restoration of our lost evangelical unity. To Him and His mercy I commend us all.[59]
The other argument given by Synodical President Kieschnick and District President Benke is that this was a “once-in-a-lifetime” event. However, as noted above, even those Missouri Synod individuals who participated in the St. Louis V-E Day celebration, which could certainly be classified as a “once-in-a-lifetime event,” took great care to insure that it was a predominantly civic event. Moreover, in the time of Walther the city of St. Louis was devastated by fire on Ascension Day, May 17, 1849. There is no record that the first president of the LCMS advocated or participated in any kind of interfaith or unionistic service even in the face of a once-in-a-lifetime disaster. Furthermore, in a sin-filled world where major catastrophes occur with fair regularity in every generation, one must ask: what is a “once-in-a-lifetime” event? Those who serve in the armed forces, police forces, fire departments, medical professionals and those involved with disaster relief are confronted with catastrophes regularly, each of which could be considered a “once-in-a-lifetime event.”
A more realistic appraisal would identify the Yankee Stadium “A Prayer for America” as an opportunity for those who are dissatisfied with the Synod’s longstanding position on syncretism and unionism, as articulated in the synodical constitution, to change or alter that position. DayStar has been very active publishing articles that view the Yankee Stadium service as an opportunity for change within the Synod. In his lengthy response to charges against him, District President Benke articulates his call for change. In this regard, it is also important to note that on January 14, 2002, the Rev. Dr. David Benke served as guest speaker at an interfaith Martin Luther King, Jr. Service at the First Congregational Church of Middletown, New York. Was this “Memorial Service” also a “once-in-a-lifetime civic event”?
Despite the clear prohibition against going public during the dispute process as set forth in the synodical constitution (Bylaw 8.21) together with the CCM ruling which substantiated that this also applies to the synodical president, and despite the admonition of the synodical Board of Directors, Synodical President Kieschnick and District President Benke have repeatedly given publicity to the matter in dispute and offered their opinions as to who is right or wrong. Examples of this include President Kieschnick’s participation in interviews such as appeared in the July 18, 2002 issue of Newsweek magazine, and Rev. Benke’s interview on a PBS “Frontline” documentary.
Hardball church politics ensued. Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz, serving in his capacity as Second Vice President of the Missouri Synod, completed his investigation and found all charges against District President David Benke to be substantiated, and thereupon placed the Rev. Benke on suspended status. Then Lutheran Hour Ministries issued a “Crisis Statement” and announced that the Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz had been relieved of his duties as Lutheran Hour Radio Speaker. This action was reportedly taken due to adverse telephone calls threatening a withdrawal of support from Lutheran Hour Ministries by those who opposed Dr. Schulz’ decision on the Benke matter. The Lutheran Hour Ministries Board stated that Dr. Schulz could be reinstated to “some” position at the Lutheran Hour “if” he agreed to certain unspecified conditions. When Dr. Schulz refused to agree to the undisclosed, specifications set forth by Executive Director Rodger Hebermehl, he was terminated as an employee of the ILLL.
“A Prayer for America” at Yankee Stadium has become a catalyst for further change in the Missouri Synod according to the agenda of Jesus First and DayStar.[60] Both District President Benke and Synodical President Kieschnick, along with other District Presidents and officials in other synodical organizations, are part of this call for change, placing outreach over doctrinal integrity within the Missouri Synod. The retaliatory action of the ILLL, an auxiliary agency of the Synod, in suspending the Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz from his position as Lutheran Hour Speaker for the action he took in his capacity as Second Vice President of the Synod, has added yet another dimension to this drive for change and has created further polarity within the Missouri Synod.
There is no denying the deep polarization within The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod at present. However, it should be recognized, as this paper demonstrates, this is not a recent occurrence. It has been developing for some time. Nor can it be characterized simply as a political power struggle. In reality, for more than fifty years there has been a battle within the Synod over the both/and of doctrinal integrity and outreach, as well as over the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. While some have sought to advocate outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity, confessional pastors and lay people have sought to pull the pendulum back from an either/or to a both/and. The outcome of this ongoing struggle is unclear.
Members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod must take seriously their Lord’s call to maintain both doctrinal integrity and outreach. It is who we are as confessional Lutherans. The current polarization within the Synod results from a denial or a rejection of this paradoxical imperative.
I have also shown that the both/and of doctrinal integrity and outreach is closely linked to a proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Again, there is a tension involved. However, this tension is not resolved by excluding the third use of the Law. In difficult issues of casuistry, where it seems as though one may sin or cause offense no matter what is done, we must not discard Scriptural mandates, claiming freedom in the Gospel. The Law still stands, and when Christians break God’s Law, we turn to our gracious God for forgiveness, trusting that for Christ’s sake, He graciously gives it. This is the Gospel. Therefore, both Law and Gospel stand!
Finally, there is the issue of integrity and trust with respect to the stated position of the Synod’s Constitution, which under conditions for membership includes renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description. Military personnel and government officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Violations of this pledge can be considered a matter of treason or insurrection. As a Navy chaplain now and as a member of the Armed Forces for over twenty-nine years, I am very much attuned to this. The mission of a command, good order, morale, comradeship, esprit de corps, all depend on people bearing good faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution. Should allegiance in spiritual matters and in what is often referred to as “churchmanship” be considered less significant or less binding than matters of a civic nature? Can we expect anything but tension, conflict, a lack of trust, and polarization within a church body when people do not hold to that to which they have agreed – namely, an unconditional subscription to the Holy Scriptures as God’s Word, the Lutheran Confessions as a true exposition of the doctrine set forth in Scripture, and as members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, to abide by the Synodical Constitution?
It is regrettable that we have such turmoil in the Missouri Synod at present. The average Missouri Synod parishioner says, “Why can’t we just stop all this hair-splitting and squabbling about abstruse points of doctrine and get on with the mission of the church: to save souls.” It is unfortunate that Jesus First and other groups that press for outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity should make such vicious attacks on those who seek to restore balance in the LCMS with accusations of being Nazis, the Taliban of Christianity, Pharisees, and other such malicious rhetoric. None of us wants to fight. But at such a critical time in our Synod, we should bear in mind the words of our first synodical president, C.F.W. Walther:
Manifold are the difficult and arduous tasks of a minister of Jesus Christ; but the most difficult and arduous of all, beyond question, is the task of proclaiming the pure doctrine of the Gospel of Christ and at the same time exposing, refuting, and rejecting teachings that are contrary to the Gospel. The minister who does this will discover by practical experience the truth of the old saying: Veritas odium parit (telling the truth makes enemies).
If faithful Athanasius in his day had been content to proclaim his doctrine that Jesus Chris is true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary; if he had not at the same time vigorously attacked Arius and the Arians, who denied this doctrine, he would undoubtedly have finished his life in honor and pleasant peace, for he was a highly gifted man. Had Luther followed the example of Staupitz of quietly teaching the pure Gospel to his brother monks without at the same time attacking the abominations of the Papacy with great earnestness, not a finger would have been raised against him. …
Worldly men and all false Christians cannot but attack those who teach a faith and doctrine different from theirs and to regard them as disturbers of the peace, as peace-hating, quarrelsome, and malicious men. These unfortunate people have no idea of the blindness which enshrouds them; they do not know how gladly the boldest champions of Christ would have kept peace with all men, how much they would have preferred to keep silent, how hard it was for their flesh and blood to come out in public and become targets for the hatred, enmity, vilification, scorn, and persecution of men. However, they could not but confess the truth and at the same time oppose error. Their conscience constrained them to do this because such conduct was required of them by the Word of God. …
The Church is not a kingdom that can be built up in peace; for it is located within the domain of the devil, who is the prince of this world. Accordingly, the Church has no choice but to be at war. It is ecclesia militans, the church militant, and will remain such until the blessed end. Wherever a Church is seen to be, not ecclesia militans, but ecclesia quiescens, a church at ease, that—you may rely on it!—is a false church.” [61]
It may seem to some that the confessional movement in the Missouri Synod today is emphasizing pure doctrine at the expense of outreach. But the opposite is the case. There has been for too long an emphasis on outreach at the expense of doctrinal integrity. True Lutherans know that both doctrinal integrity and outreach must be kept in balance. For if pure doctrine is lost, we are reaching out with an empty message. St. Paul understood this, and kept his own ministry in balance as both theologian and missionary. The early church understood this as well, as Hermann Sasse points out:
What would have happened if in the second century Basilidians, Valentinians, Marcionites and Catholics, Montanists, Theodotians and Modalists had had a round table discussion and said: For the sake of missions, let us bury the war hatchet. As followers of Jesus we desire nothing other than to follow the Master, to build one church in which everyone may carry on his particular tradition within the realm of a common truth, over against the one Lord of the one church. What would have come of the church of the fourth and fifth centuries if for the sake of the mission task it had not battled through the Arian and Nestorian controversies, if Arian, Homousian, Homoiusian, Nestorian, Monophysite, Pelagian and followers of Augustin had allowed themselves simply to be united in one great ecclesiastical communion? This question is posed in order to find the only answer which can be given to it: Today the church would simply no longer exist. The church would have been ruined. Just as a man whose kidneys no longer eliminate poisons which have accumulated in the body will die, so the church will die which no longer eliminates heresy.[62]
In summary, it should be crystal clear to pastors and laity throughout our Synod that both doctrinal integrity and outreach are vital to our identity and mission as confessional Lutherans. Hermann Sasse once noted:
The old Missouri Synod—and I hope in this respect it will never change in spite of all legitimate theological growth—has been for all churches in America the great example of a church that cares for purity of doctrine. In spite of all mistakes and shortcomings it has shown to other churches that the Gospel of the saving grace of God in Christ, the proclamation of the love of God is inseparably linked up with the never ceasing fight against the heresies with which the old evil foe tries to destroy it. But this fight must begin in ourselves with the daily prayer that God may keep us in His Word. We ourselves cannot do that.[63]
At a recent Navy Senior Chaplain Leadership Conference, Robert Greenleaf’s Servant Leadership concept was studied, which is derived from Jesus’ leadership example. And a statement was made that is worth pondering: “Leaders manage meaning.” In his acceptance speech at the 1992 synodical convention in Pittsburgh, Dr. Alvin Barry said: “Keep the message straight, Missouri. Get the message out, Missouri.” Dr. Barry had a way of putting things simply and clearly, and thus, he had a gift for managing meaning. Doctrinal integrity and outreach: our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, has indeed called us to both. “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to God our Savior, who alone is wise, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and forever. Amen.” (Jude 24-25).
Soli Deo Gloria
Captain John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., CHC, USN, is currently serving as Force Chaplain for FIRST Naval Construction Division, Naval Construction Force Command – the Navy Seabees. He is ordained to the pastoral office of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.
[1] The Book of Concord, Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), pp. 5-6.
[2] “Our First Synodical Constitution,” translated by Roy Suelflow, Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly [CHIQ] 16 (April 1943): 2-3.
[3] August R. Suelflow, Servant of the Word: The Life and Ministry of C.F.W. Walther (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House [CPH], 2000), p. 215.
[4] Richard Wolf, Documents of Lutheran Unity in America, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), pp. 98-104.
[5] The movement at the middle of the 19th century which sought to accommodate Lutheranism to its American environment, resulting in the issuance of the Definite Synodical Platform.
[6] C.F.W. Walther, translated by Herbert J.A. Bouman, Editorials from “Lehre und Wehre,” Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther, August R. Suelflow, series editor (St. Louis: CPH, 1981), p. 116.
[7] John O’Sullivan, “Ideologues Without Borders,” in National Review (September 30, 2002): 34-37.
[8] Cited in O’Sullivan. Ibid.
[9] O.H. Pannkoke, A Great Church…Finds Itself (Quitman, Ga.: Private Printing, 1966), pp. 44-45.
[10] John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., “The Missouri Synod’s Unity Attempts During the Pfotenhauer Presidency, 1911-1935,” unpublished S.T.M. Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1982, pp. 158-166. This is based on personal interviews with Dr. C.W. Spiegel who was pastor at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Cleveland at that time and Dr. Martin Scharlemann who was in attendance at the convention. Excerpted from John W. Behnken, first draft of This I Recall, in the possession of William J. Schmelder.
[11] A.T. Kretzmann, “The Statement of the 44,” CHIQ 55 (Summer 1982): 163.
[12] Thomas Coates, “’A Statement’ – Some reminiscenses,” CHIQ 42 (November 1970): 163.
[13] It is important to note that Theodore Graebner shifted his theological position. In 1918, he had raised the issue of unionism with regard to the Missouri Synod’s involvement in the National Lutheran Commission for Soldier and Sailor Welfare. However, by 1945, he was a signer of “A Statement.”
[14] Theodore Graebner, Prayer Fellowship (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1945), pp. 3-4.
[15] Ibid., p. 7.
[16] Ibid., p. 30
[17] Theodore Graebner, The Borderland of Right and Wrong, (St. Louis: CPH, 1951), p. 110.
[18] Daniel Preus, “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: Holiday from History,” http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/dantalk.htm , pp. 11, 13.
[19] Richard Caemmerer, “The Melanchthonian Blight,” Concordia Theological Monthly [CTM] 18 (May 1947):321-338.
[20] Scott R. Murray, Law, Life, and the Living God (St. Louis: CPH, 2002), p. 53.
[21] Ibid., p. 67.
[22] LCMS, 1959 Proceedings, p. 189. LCMS, 1959 Reports and Memorials, pp. 483-486.
[23] LCMS, 1959 Proceedings, pp. 191-192.
[24] James Adams, Preus of Missouri, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1977), p. 127.
[25] Martin Scharlemann, “God’s Acts As Revelation,” CTM 33 (April, 1961): 209-210.
[26] LCMS Public Relations Department news release, January 24, 1974, cited in Daniel Preus, “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Holiday from History,” http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/dantalk.htm , p.11, 13.
[27] Murray, p. 111.
[28] Ibid., p. 112.
[29] Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 62.
[30] Ibid., p. 1.
[31] Ibid., p. 23.
[32] Kurt E. Marquart, Anatomy of an Explosion (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 119-120.
[33] Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, “The Mission of the Christian Church in the World: A Review of the 1965 Mission Affirmations,” September 1974.
[34] LCMS, 1981 Proceedings, pp. 153-155. See also August Suelflow, ed., Heritage in Motion (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1998), pp. 126-128.
[35] LCMS, 1965 Proceedings, p. 81.
[36] Oscar E. Feucht, Everyone a Minister: A Guide Churchmanship for Laity and Clergy (St. Louis: CPH, 1974).
[37] Brent Kuhlman, “Oscar Feucht’s Everyone a Minister: Pietismus Redivivus,” Logia 8 (Reformation 1999): 35.
[38] Information attained from Mr. David Tuttle, current President of Balance, Inc.
[39] John H. Tietjen, Memoirs in Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 14.
[40] John Tietjen, “The Gospel and the Theological Task,” CTM 40 (June, July, August 1969): 114-123.
[41] Board of Control, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, Exodus from Concordia: A Report on the 1974 Walkout, (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary Publicity Office, 1977), p. 20. The word quia means “because.” A quia subscription to the Lutheran Confessions is a subscription “because” they are the correct teaching of Scripture. This is in contrast to a quatenus or “in so far as” subscription. A quia subscription is unqualified, while a quatenus subscription is qualified or conditional.
[42] J.A.O. Preus, “Report of the Synodical President,” The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, September 1, 1972, pp. 21-25.
[43] Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 269.
[44] Ralph Bohlmann, “The Poisition of the LCMS on the Basis for Fellowship” and “Our Commitment to the Gospel,” The Function of Doctrine and Theology in Light of the Unity of the Church, Lutheran Council in the USA, 1978.
[45] Ralph Bohlmann, “Missouri Lutheranism, 1945 and 1995,” Lutheran Forum 30 (February 1996): 13. It should also be noted that in 1981 both Balance, Inc. and Christian News supported the election of Ralph Bohlmann for Synodical President. That support was withdrawn by 1992, and both supported the election of Dr. Alvin Barry.
[46] Rick Mueller, “Interview with Ralph Bohlmann: LCMS & ELCA: Patience, Please,” http://www.thelutheran.org/9608/page40.html Dr. Bohlmann went on to show his affinity toward the ELCA: “As a past or who headed a large churchbody for 13 years and as a former seminary president, Bohlmann has high praise for the ELCA’s new bishop, H. George Anderson, who shares a similar background. “I think highly of his theological orientation toward the gospel. He knows his Scripture. He’s an extremely good historian and a likeable man, who can deliver his point of view with crispness, with authority and with humor.” Anderson, he added, is a person of great “modesty,” who recognizes “he doesn’t have all the answers to all the problems.””
[47] Robert Preus, “A Report by Robert Preus Delivered at a Conference in St. Louis,” (October 15, 1993), p. 8. This can also be substantiated by Mr. Robert Doggett, who served on the Missouri Synod Commission on Appeals, which, in 1992, exonerated Dr. Robert Preus of the charges pressed against him by Ralph Bohlmann, August Mennicke, Robert King, Robert Sauer, Eugene Bunkowske, and Walter Maier.
[48] Ralph Bohlmann, “Letter to Pastors” (August 1992), p. 3.
[49] Martin Noland, “An Unholy Trinity: The Liberal, Charismatic, and Evangelical Movements in the Lutheran Church Today,” a paper delivered at the Lutheran Bible Conference at Lutheran Church of Our Savior, Cupertino, CA, June 20, 2001. http://www.lcos.org/f/newsArchive/2001_07_02/un.pdf
[51] “Out of the thirteen member board of directors (a.k.a. the “Steering Committee”), eight hold an office or serve on a working committee for publications or elections. Of those eight, six have been associated in the past with dissenting groups in the synod: 1) Richard Lessmann has been a member of “Renewal in Missouri (hereafter RIM), a group of charismatic pastors and lay leaders advocating tolerance toward charismatic teaching and practice. Lessmann was also an author for the “Lutherans Alive” group in their magazine “Forward!”, which advocated a liberal agenda on issues of church relations, altar fellowship, and women’s issues at the 1995 and 1998 conventions. 2) David Luecke has been an editor for “Worship Innovations,” a glossy, full-color magazine produced by the “Fellowship Ministries.” “Fellowship Ministries” advocates the use of Evangelical hymns and worship practices, under the guise of “contemporary” or “blended” worship. Luecke has authored several books defending this position, coining the phrase “Evangelical style and Lutheran substance.” He also was a co-signer of the 1974 “Pastoral Letter” of the St. Louis clergy in support of John Tietjen and his allies. 3) Wayne Graumann is one of the officers of the “Pastoral Leadership Institute,” (hereafter PLI) an organization dedicated to indoctrinating LC-MS pastors in the principles of the “Church Growth Movement.” The fact that the synod’s Board for Higher Education refused “Recognized Service Organization” status to the PLI indicates that a number of people have serious concerns about its theology. 4) Charles Mueller, Jr. has been an editor for “Worship Innovations,” was associated with “Fellowship Ministries”, was an author for the “Lutherans Alive” magazine, and is a PLI officer. 5) Vernon Gundermann was a “Lutherans Alive” author and a PLI officer. 6) August Mennicke, a former Vice-President of the synod, was an author for “Lutherans Alive”. This listing of names and associations is not intended to pre-judge the merits of the respective organizations or their causes. It simply proves that “Jesus First” has a history in previous groups and that its leaders are connected to a diverse network of dissenting organizations.” Noland, “What Is ‘Jesus First’?”, Affirm (May 2001): 6-7.
[52] “Each number represents the number of endorsers of the “Jesus First” statement which have been also involved with the following groups: 1) Signers of the July 1973 “A Declaration of Protest and Confession,” which consisted of Concordia St. Louis faculty and staff protesting the New Orleans’ convention of the synod = 1; 2) Signers of the January 1974 “A Pastoral Letter Regarding the Seminary Controversy,” which consisted of St. Louis area clergy in support of John Tietjen and the seminary faculty majority = 5; 3) Signers of the statement in the March 1974 Badger Lutheran, which consisted of Milwaukee area clergy protesting the suspension of the Concordia St. Louis professors who had “walked out” = 2; 4) “Evangelical Lutherans in Mission” (ELIM) District Chairmen = 2; 5) Seminex graduates = 8; 6) District Presidents ordaining Seminex graduates and disciplined by J.A.O. Preus = 1; 7) Frederick W. Danker’s Honor Roll of the “Martyrs” who suffered for the cause of Seminex = 2; 8) “Lutherans Alive” Executive Committee = 1; 9) “Lutherans Alive” Authors = 14; 10) Members of the Committee for “A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding and Practice,” in favor of open communion = 9; 11) RIM members = 15; 12) “Fellowship Ministries” associates = 4; 13) Authors of “Different Voices/Shared Visions,” advocating woman’s ordination = 1; 14) PLI officers = 4. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of the endorsers of “A Call to Affirm Jesus First Leadership” have sympathized with one or more of these organizations or causes.” Ibid., p. 8.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ralph A. Bohlmann, “Missouri Lutheranism, 1945 and 1995,” Lutheran Forum 30 (February 1996): 13.
[55] Stephen C. Krueger, “The Promising Tradition,” p. 1, http://www.day-star,net/promising.htm.
[56] See Mary Todd, “Unopened Gifts: Women and the Call to Public Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” The Crescent 56 (March 1993): 4-9.
[57] Mary Todd, Authority Vested: A Story of Identity and Change in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000) , pp. 259-280.
[58] “Benke Apologizes to Synod over Prayer Service,” LCMS News, Nov. 20, 1998:
http://www.cuis.edu/ftp/lcmsnews/999581-BENKE_APOLOGIZES_TO_SYNOD.-981120
[60] In another interview, Synodical President Kieschnick stated: “While some may see it as a rift, I see it as a pivotal moment in defining who we are and why we’re here.” Jim Suhr, “Rift In Lutheran Denomination Widens,” Waterville Morning Sentinel , Waterville, ME, August 3, 2002. Also, in this regard, consider the anniversary memorial service for 9/11 at Valparaiso University Chapel on September 11, 2002. http://www.standrewslcms.org/tracts/crisisinlcms/valpo.htm ; http://www.standrewslcms.org/tracts/crisisinlcms/valpotext.htm . The Rev. Joseph Cunningham, Dean of Chapel at Valparaiso University and an LCMS pastor, coordinated an interfaith service at the campus chapel that included clergy from various religions.
[61] C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. St. Louis: CPH, 1929, 1986. pp. 265-266.
[62] Hermann Sasse, “The Church’s Unity on the Mission Field,” in The Lonely Way, Volume II, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, forthcoming).
[63] Hermann Sasse, “On American Lutheranism,” Logia 4 (Reformation/October 1995): 53.