Conclusion

1 Copyright John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., 2002. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced and distributed free of charge for all educational and/or religious non-commercial purposes provided that the text is not altered and that this copyright notice is included. Other permissions may be secured from the author by contacting him by e-mail at jjwohlrabe@suscom-maine.net or by post at 904 Fitch Ave., Brunswick, ME 04011.

2 Some have used the phrase “pure doctrine and missions” to describe this same idea. I prefer “doctrinal integrity and outreach” because it seems more comprehensive than “pure doctrine and missions.” Doctrinal integrity includes pure doctrine, but also more. It involves doctrine and practice. It embraces honor and honesty; saying what you mean and meaning what you say. Similarly, outreach is a broader, more comprehensive term that includes missions, but involves confession, social welfare, the recognition of Christian fellowship and more. Dr. Alvin Barry used the terms “doctrine and evangelism” in his excellent article, “Doctrine and Evangelism: Always Both/And—Never Either/Or!”, http://www.lcms.org/president/literature/essays/doctrineandevangelism.asp. Here Dr. Barry writes: “Therefore this paper is entitled, "Doctrine and Evangelism." It is really just one more way of playing that one same violin string: "faithfulness and outreach," keeping the message straight and getting the message out.” Ibid. As Dr. Barry noted, others have suggested using “faithfulness” in place of “doctrinal integrity” or “pure doctrine.” However, “faithfulness” could be misunderstood to be a reference to the fides qua creditur (the faith that is believed or personal faith), rather than the fides quae creditur (the faith that is confessed). Because only God can know and judge the fides qua creditur, we focus our attention on the fides quae creditur or the confession of faith and how that confession is put into practice (doctrine and practice). No matter which terms are used, there is the risk that someone will think that his or her personal “integrity,” or “purity of doctrine,” or “faithfulness” is being impugned. Therefore, it should be understood clearly that only the public profession of faith (fides quae creditur) is being analyzed and compared to the standards of Holy Scripture as God’s Word and the Lutheran Confessions as a true and correct exposition of doctrines set forth in Holy Scripture.

3 Dr. Barry wrote: “Doctrine and evangelism are wedded in the history of the early church. This union lies embedded, for example, in the book of Acts. Let no one put asunder what God has joined together! I like to recall that two events stood out as so important in the church of the apostolic era that each comes up three times in Acts. First is the conversion of St. Paul, which is described in chapter 9. Paul repeats it when he defends himself in chapter 22 and again in chapter 26. The other event is the conversion of Cornelius' household. Acts 10 gives that account. Peter, who preached to Cornelius and his family, tells the story again in chapter 11 and mentions it once more in chapter 15. These two incidents provide a powerful clue to the message of Acts. They also say something about the church's faithfulness and outreach, not as an "either/or" proposition but a "both/and." Ibid.

4 Arius (d. AD 336) was a priest in a suburb of Alexandria Egypt who denied the deity of Jesus Christ, holding that he was created, was not true God, and not eternal.

5 Nestorius (d. AD 451) was a patriarch of Constantinople who taught that there is no communion of natures in the person of Christ, that Mary is not the mother of God (theotokos), and that according to his human nature, Jesus Christ is in effect the Son of God only by adoption.

6 Monophysitism is the view that there is only one nature in Christ, namely the divine.

7 Pelagius (d. AD 420) was a British ascetic who held that man’s nature is not depraved since the fall but is still in its original state of moral indifference. Thus, neither grace or salvation by Christ are necessary. Peaglius was opposed by Augustine.

8 Jacobus Arminius (AD 1560-1609) was a Dutch minister who taught that man cooperates in his conversion by free will.

9 John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) was a French theologian who established a church in Geneva, Switzerland and who stressed the sovereignty of God, which included God’s election of some to salvation and the rest to damnation as well as irresistible grace and final perseverance (once-saved-always-saved).

10 The Book of Concord, Translated and edited by Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), pp. 5-6.

11 Consider David Scaer, “Missouri at the End of the Century: a Time for Reevaluation,” Logia 7 (Epiphany 1998): 39-40.

12 Theodore Graebner, former editor of The Lutheran Witness, professor at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis until 1948, and signer of “A Statement” of the 44 in 1945, felt that the Missouri Synod, in dealing with its past, carried a burden of infallibility: “That there is in our Synod a tendency to give undue weight to the opinions of the fathers is evident from…factors absolutely unique in the history of the Lutheran Church. In the first place, no discussion of any doctrinal subject has taken place within the last thirty years which has not operated without quotations from Luther, Walther, Pieper and the first thirty volumes of Lehre und Wehre and our body of synodical essays….The assumption is that our testimony has been infallibly and incontestably Scriptural and sound in the past.” Theodore Graebner, “The Burden of Infallibility: A Study in the History of Dogma,” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly [CHIQ] 38 (July 1965): 88-94. Although Theodore Graebner expresses a valid concern, it is important to note that in attempting to validate this concern, he himself made historical errors. His intention was to justify the position of the "Statementarians,” which we will address later. Further, in raising a concern over the Synod’s use of its past, he does not offer an appropriate corrective, which again opens the door for the other extreme, namely, holding that there is no truth in the past to be found.

13 George Santayana (AD 1863-1952), philosopher and Harvard professor who tried to justify religious myth on the basis of intellectual grounds.

14 See Erling Teigen, “Confessional Lutheranism versus Philippist Conservatism,” Logia 2 (Reformation 1993): 32-37.

15 Walter O. Forster, Zion on the Mississippi: The Settlement of the Saxon Lutherans in Missouri 1839-1841 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953), pp. 171-506.

16 The German original is found in J.F. Koestering, Auswanderung der saechsischen Lutheraner im Jahre 1839, ihre Niederlassung in Perry Co., Mo., und damit zusammenhaengende interessante Nachrichten (St. Louis: A. Wiebusch u. Sohn, 1867), pp. 51-52. Forster, Zion on the Mississippi, pp. 523-525.

17 August R. Suelflow, “Walther’s Significant Contributions to Lutheranism in America,” Proceedings of the Eleventh Convention of the Montana District of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Assembled in Laurel, Montana October 2-6, 1961, p. 28. See also Carl S. Meyer, ed, Moving Frontiers, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), pp. 142-143.

18 David A. Gustafson, “A Confessional Lutheran Encounters American Religion: the Case of Friedrich Conrad Dietrich Wyneken,” Logia 2 (Holy Trinity, July, 1993): 44-48; Moving Frontiers, pp. 90-97.

19 Ibid., p. 99. In the Schwabacher Erklaerung of October 9, 1851, nine theologians under the leadership of Loehe stated: “There is no emergency situation which demands mixed communion. And so we maintain that there cannot be any such situation. Emergency knows no commandment; but it knows the Commandment of God. God’s Word is above emergency. God’s Word prohibits Altar Fellowship with those who have different teachings and will not desist from them; it prohibits such a narrow fellowship with them. “Martin Wittenberg, “Church Fellowship and Altar Fellowship in the Light of Church History,” translated by John Bruss, Logia 1 (Reformation/October 1992), p. 23.

20 Walter A. Baepler, A Century of Grace (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), pp. 71-74. W. H. T. Dau, ed. Ebenezer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1922), pp. 87-94; Moving Frontiers, pp. 104-117.

21 “Our First Synodical Constitution,” translated by Roy Suelflow, CHIQ 16 (April 1943): 2-3. Christoph Barnbrock makes clear that both the Saxons of Missouri and the Loehe Sendlinge played a substantial role in drafting the constitution. Christoph Barnbrock, “Composing a Constitution in Context: Analytical Observations on the First Draft of the Missouri Synod’s Constitution (1846),” Concordia Journal [CJ], 27 (January 2001): 38-56.

22 What is now VI.2 of the current Synodical Handbook: “Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following:…2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as: a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church; b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession; c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.” The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Handbook of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 2001 Edition (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2001), p. 8.

23 August R. Suelflow, Servant of the Word: The Life and Ministry of C.F.W. Walther (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), p. 215. E. Eckhardt, in his Homiletisches Reallexikon Nebst Index Rerum, defines Glaubensmengerei as “Ineinandermengen von Wahrheit und Irrtum” – “the mixing together of truth and error.” E. Eckhardt, Homiletisches Reallexikon Nebst Index Rerum (St. Louis: Success Printing Co., 1907-1917), Vol. 6, p. 14. Franz Pieper, in his Christliche Dogmatik uses Unionismus, Religionsmengerei, and Synkretismus together, offering a firm Biblical prohibition against all three. Franz Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1917-1924), Vol. 3, p. 490. “Religionsmengerei” or “religion mixing” is inexplicably omitted from the text of the English translation. Christian Dogmatics (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950-1957), Vol. 3, p. 425.

24 Moving Frontiers, pp. 57-61. Lutheran Cyclopedia, edited by Erwin L. Lueker (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, revised edition 1975), p. 784. Nicholas Hope, German and Scandinavian Protestantism, 1700-1918 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 336-348. Concerning this movement, Hermann Sasse noted: “The Union movement which passed through Germany from 1817 on, belongs to the fanatically revolutionary movements which shake the church from time to time, and which are not victorious because of truth, but because they satisfy emotional desires.” Hermann Sasse, “Union and Confession,” Christ and His Church: Essays by Hermann Sasse, Vol. 1, Matthew C. Harrison, ed., (St. Louis: The Office of the President, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1997), p. 11.

25 Moving Frontiers, pp. 102-103.

26 Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions, Vol. 6, The Pelican History of the Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1964), p. 324, 348-351.

27 Roy A. Suelflow, “The Relations of the Missouri Synod with the Buffalo Synod up to 1866,” CHIQ 27 (April 1954): 1-19; CHIQ (July 1954): 57-73; CHIQ (October 1954): 97-132. August Suelflow, “Walther’s Significant Contributions to Lutheranism in America,” pp. 40-41.

28 This was adopted at the 1851 synodical convention. Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt (Erlangen: Verlag von Andreas Deichert, 1852). Resolution 7-17a, adopted by the 2001 Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod convention, upheld “Kirche und Amt” as the official position of the Synod on the doctrine of church and ministry. It should also be noted that there are those who are critical of the doctrinal position set forth in “Kirche und Amt.” See Lowell C. Green, “Grabau and Walther: Theocentric versus Anthropocentric Understanding of Church and Ministry,” Logia 5 (Eastertide 1996); 25-40.

29 C.F.W. Walther, Walther on the Church translated by John M. Drickamer, Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther August R. Suelflow, series editor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981), pp. 45-46.

30 Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther, Die Stimme Unserer Kirche in der Frage von Kirche und Amt (Erlangen: Verlag von Andreas Deichert, 1852), pp. 174-343. Resolution 7-17a, adopted by the 2001 Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod convention, upheld “Kirche und Amt” as the official position of the Synod on the doctrine of church and ministry.

31 John H.C. Fritz, “Missouri and Iowa,” Ebenezer, edited by W.H.T. Dau (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1922), pp. 160-173. Walter A. Baepler, A Century of Grace (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1947), pp. 106-108. Moving Frontiers, pp. 122-125. C.F.W. Walther, “Foreward to the 1860 Volume, Do We Draw the Lines of Fellowship Too Narrowly,” Editorials from “Lehre und Wehre”, translated by Herbert J.A. Bouman, Selected Writings of C.F.W. Walther, August Suelflow, series editor (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981), pp. 74-101.

32 Richard Wolf, Documents of Lutheran Unity in America, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), pp. 98-104. Moving Frontiers, pp. 41-44. Abdel Ross Wentz, Pioneer in Christian Unity: Samuel Simon Schmucker (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), pp. 216-219.

33 C.F.W. Walther, “Vorwort zu Jahrgang 1856,” Lehre und Wehre 2 (January 1856): 3, translated by Erwin Lueker, in “Walther and the Free Lutheran Conferences of 1856-1859,” Concordia Theological Monthly [CTM] 15 (August 1944): 532. Also, consider John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., “Walther and Confessional Lutheranism in America: a Distinguishing Factor,” CJ 15 (October 1988): 337-362.

34 Walther, “Vorwort zu Jahrgang 1856,” pp. 3-6. Lueker, p. 534.

35 A thorough account of the four meetings can be found in Erwin Lueker’s article, “Walther and the Free Lutheran Conferences of 1856-1859.” Ibid., pp. 543-563.

36 The movement at the middle of the 19^th century which sought to accommodate Lutheranism to its American environment, resulting in the issuance of the Definite Synodical Platform.

37 In reaction to the Definite Synodical Platform and the “American Lutheranism” of the General Synod, a confessional movement was initiated and several of the more confessional Lutheran synods and ministeriums formed the General Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church November 20-26, 1867. However, the General Council did not go far enough in addressing such issues as unionism, lodge membership, and millenialism to suit the Missouri Synod. In 1917, the General Council merged with the General Synod and the United Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the South to form the United Lutheran Church in America (ULCA), whose congregations are now in the ELCA.

38 August Suelflow, “Walther’s Significant Contributions to Lutheranism in America,” p. 39.

39 Roy Suelflow, “The Relations of the Missouri Synod with the Buffalo Synod up to 1866,” CHIQ 27 (October 1954): 127-131.

40 Fred W. Mueser, The Formation of the American Lutheran Church (Columbus, Ohio: The Wartburg Press, 1958), pp. 58-59, 280.

41 Sigmund Fritschel, “Worin besteht nach dem Sinne der Aelteren lutherischen Kirche die Uebereinstimmung in der Lehre, welche nach Art. 7 der Augsburgischen Confession zur kirchlichen Einigkeit noethig ist?” Theologische Monatschefte 1 (1868): 17-25, 47-55, 83-92, 97-109; translated in Lutheran Confessional Theology in America 1840-1880, Theodore G. Tappert, ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 78-100.

42 C.F.W. Walther, “Die falschen Stuetzen der modernen Theorie von den offenen Fragen (Fortsetzung),” Lehre und Wehre 14 (Juli 1868): 202; “The False Arugments for the Modern Theory of Open Questions,” translated by Alex Wm. C. Guebert, CTM 10 (September 1939): 657-658.

43 Ibid., p. 663.

44 Wolf, pp. 180-185. Moving Frontiers, pp. 262-264.

45 Consitution der Deutsch-Evangel.-Lutherischen Synode von Wisconsin und andern Staaten, 1863 (Watertown, Wisconsin: Gedruckt in der Weltbuerger Office, 1863). Cited in August Suelflow, “Walther’s Significant Contributions to Lutheranism in America,” p. 42.

46 Missouri Synod Proceedings, 1869, pp. 87092. [C.F.W.] W[alther], “Wieder Eine Friedensbotschaft,” Der Lutheraner 25 (November 1, 1868): 37-38.

47 Ibid. Wolf, pp. 181-182.

48 John Philipp Koehler, The History of the Wisconsin Synod, edited and translated by Leigh D. Jordahl (St. Cloud, Minnesota: Sentinel Publishing Co. 1970), p. 129.

49 Ibid. Wolf, pp. 181-182.

50 English Evangelical Lutheran Conference of Missouri, Proceedings of a Free English Lutheran Conference, Held in the Town of Gravelton, Wayne Co., Mo., August 17-20, A.D. 1872 (Columbus, Ohio: John J. Gassmann, Printer, 1872): p. 33.

51 Wolf, p. 196.

52 For an analysis of the Predestinarian Controversy, see: William Schmelder, “The Predestinarian Controversy, Review and Reflection,” CJ 1 (January 1975): 21-33; Roy A. Suelflow, “A History of the Missouri Synod During the Second Twenty-Five Years of Its Existence, 1872-1897,” unpublished Th.D. Dissertation, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO., 1946, pp. 68-203. J.T. Mueller, “The Predestinarian Controversy,” Ebenezer, pp. 406-421; Moving Frontiers, pp. 267-278; Wolf, pp. 198-206.

53 C.F.W. Walther, “Rede zur Eroeffnung der Sitzungen der Allgemeinen Synode von Missouri, Ohio u.a. Staaten, gehalten in der Dreieinigkeitskirche zu St. Louis, Mo., am 31 October 1866,” Lehre und Wehre, translated by Herbert J.A. Bouman, Editorials from “Lehre und Wehre”, p. 116.

54 “The individual resigned from the Synod….In other words, they understood they had a choice: resign voluntarily or be removed against your will. In either case the result was the same. Early Missouri tolerated neither immorality nor false doctrine on the part of its pastors and teachers and doctrinal purity was an extremely high priority.” Daniel Preus, “When Is Enough Enough? What Are the Limits, Historically?” http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/Enough.html

55 Karl Wyneken, “Missouri Molds a Ministry for Mission,” CHIQ 45 (May 1972): 69-88. Karl Wyneken, “The Development of the Itinerant Ministries in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1847-1865,” unpublished S.T.M Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO 1963.

56 Karl Wyneken, “Missouri Molds a Ministry for Mission,” p. 71.

57 “New measures” included tent revivals, synergism, use of the anxious bench, and emotional displays such as rolling in the isles and the “barks.”

58 The Missouri Synod did have an itinerant ministry from its very inception. In the Synod’s first Constitution, Article V.8, the position of Besucher (visitor) was established. At the 1847 Chicago convention Candidate Carl Fricke was sent out to tour southeastern Wisconsin. The Besucher was to gather information, which would lead to the organization of congregations and the calling of resident pastors. Because Fricke was not ordained at that time, the Beuscher was considered to be a layman. He could do some teaching, as well as emergency baptisms. However, his instructions set limitations on the actual pastoral duties he could perform. Fricke completed one tour and then accepted a call to a congregation in Indiana. The 1848 convention proposed that they send Pastor Fricke out again, and a neighboring pastor would fill in for him while he was gone. However, this second trip never took place. A discussion ensued that basically continued in the Synod until 1865. Should a formal call be extended by the Synod so that an ordained Besucher could “serve the scattered Lutherans with Word and Sacrament?” This proposal was opposed by those who maintained that such a call could only be extended by those who would be served. It was finally decided that: “. . . a Besucher might consider himself called to work among the scattered and forsaken Lutherans only to the extent that the law of brotherly or neighborly love and the authorization of Synod gave him a call to help them fulfill in their stead the duty incumbent upon them.” Ibid., p. 76.

59 Ibid.

60 The following significant points were made: “9. Love is the queen of all laws, more so than all regulations, i.e., in cases of necessity it knows no commandment, much less any regulation. Matt. 12:7; Rom. 13:10. 10. There are cases of necessity in which also the regulation of the public office of the ministry cannot and should not be observed. Exodus 4:24-26. 11. A case of necessity occurs when, by legalistic observance of the regulation, souls would be lost instead of saved and love would thereby be violated.” It was granted that the Synod or a district could authorize such ministries, but only on the grounds of the law of love, and not by virtue of the fact that it was the church-at-large. Ibid., pp. 85-86. Another form of the Office of the Holy Ministry, which in some ways is itinerant, developed in the midst of the debate over itinerant ministers. In March 1862, Pastor Friedrich Wilhelm Richmann, while serving as pastor of a congregation in Schaumburg, IL, received a call to serve as chaplain to the 58^th Regiment of the Ohio Volunteers of the U.S. Army. Richmann was the only Missouri Synod chaplain to serve during the Civil War. He regularly held worship services, baptized, and conducted funerals. After only three months of service, Chaplain Richmann returned to his congregation. During the Spanish American War, Christian J. Broders served as a chaplain with the Rough Riders. When the United States became involved in World War I, the Missouri Synod had three chaplains already serving in the military. Fred Wambsganns, Sr., “Five Decades of Pastoral Activity,” CHIQ 30 (Winter 1958): 150. Also, consider Dale E. Griffin, “A History of the Missouri Synod’s Participation in the Military Chaplaincy, Part I,” CHIQ 72 (Winter): 251-256; Dale E. Griffin, “Effects of Missouri’s Involvement in the Chaplaincy,” CHIQ 73 (Summer): 100-127.

The Lutheran Church Board for Army and Navy was appointed in 1917. The Board called and supported 194 “camp” (civilian) pastors, seventy of whom were full-time, who visited the various military installations in the United States. The Board regretted that only thirteen of some one hundred Missouri Synod pastors offering their services were actually appointed as active duty chaplains in the United States Army or Navy during the war years. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Proceedings of the Thirty-First National Convention of the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States, Assembled at Detroit, Mich., as the Sixteenth Delegate Synod June 16-25, 1920. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1920), p. 106.

61 In 1893, the Missouri Synod, in convention, resolved to open a mission in some foreign field. It was first decided to begin work in Japan. However, in India, two missionaries, Pastor Theodore Naether and Pastor F.J. Mohn, severed their relationship with the Leipzig Mission Society because of its liberal views. On October 13, 1894, both men were formally called and commissioned by the Missouri Synod. A third missionary from the Leipzig Mission Society in India, Pastor O. Kellerbauer, joined the Missouri Synod on November 25, 1895. In 1913, Miss Louise Ellerman was sent to India as a nurse, and Miss Angela Rehwinkel followed in 1921. Concerning further mission work of the Synod, William J. Danker noted: “After every war the Synod saw new opportunities to spread the Gospel of peace through Christ. After the Civil War it opened missions to the freed slaves. After the Spanish-American War it discussed missions to Hawaii, Cuba and Puerto Rico, though its primary interest centered on Germans in these places. In 1899 C. J. Broders [who had served as a chaplain] began the work in South America, in Brazil. In 1901 William Mahler became the first resident pastor of the Missouri Synod in Brazil. A seminary was established and a church paper was launched. The success of the work in South America encouraged the Synod to begin mission work in the Caribbean area. Central America, too, was the scene of further Lutheran missionary action. Moving Frontiers, p. 303. On May 1, 1912, Pastor E.L. Arndt began the Evangelical Lutheran Mission Company for China. Calls were issued to Pastor Arndt and Pastor O.E. Heilmann to serve as missionaries to China. By 1917, the Missouri Synod adopted the China Mission as its own. By 1922, the Missouri Synod’s China mission included fourteen missionaries and one woman teacher. Ibid., pp. 234-235. Karl J.R. Arndt, “The Birth of Our China Mission (1912-62),” CHIQ 35 (January 1963):113-118.

62 John O’Sullivan, “Ideologues Without Borders,” in National Review (September 30, 2002): 34-37.

63 Cited in O’Sullivan. Ibid.

64 Roy Suelflow, “The History of the Missouri Synod during the Second Twenty-Five Years of Its Existence, 1872-1897,” unpublished Th.D. Dissertation, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1946, pp. 352, 384-385.

65 Moving Frontiers, pp. 286-287.

66Baepler, p. 254-256.

67 For a more in depth analysis see 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, MO, 1982, pp. 48-53.

68 Frederick Nohl, “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Reacts to United States Anti-Germanism During World War I,” CHIQ 35 (July 1962): 63-65.

69 Neil M. Johnson, “The Patriotism and Anti-Prussianism of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod 1914-1918,” CHIQ 39 (October 1966); 103-110.

70 LCMS, 1917 Proceedings, p. 43.

71 Nohl, pp. 58-59.

72 O.H. Pannkoke, A Great Church…Finds Itself (Quitman, Ga.: Private Printing, 1966), pp. 44-45. 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. Pannkoke, the director of the New York Reformation Quadricentenary Committee took this as a personal attack. Pannkoke, p. 54. 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.

73 Erwin L. Lueker, ed., Lutheran Cyclopedia, rev. ed. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1975), pp. 28-29. Supra, pp. 92-93.

74 To assimilate the church body into American culture, making it more acceptable to the non Lutheran American public.

75 Johnson, pp. 105-107.

76 LCMS, 1917 Proceedings, p. 35. By the end of the war, 30,066 Missouri Synod parishioners would be serving in America’s Army or Navy. The Lutheran Witness 37 (November 26, 1918): 369.

77 Alan Graebner, “World War I and Lutheran Union: Documents from the Army and Navy Board, 1917 and 1918,” CHIQ 41 (February 1968): 49.

78 Minutes of the Board for Army and Navy, July 13, 1917 and July 19, 1917, Concordia Historical Institute [CHI].

79 Alan Graebner, pp. 51-52.

80 External matters were those that did not involve altar and pulpit fellowship: liaison with the government, cooperation in social efforts, and the like.

81 Documentation can be found in Minutes of the Board for Army and Navy, CHI. A complete analysis is given in Wohlrabe, “The Missouri Synod’s Unity Attempts During the Pfotenhauer Presidency, 1911-1935,” pp. 95-107.

82 Wohlrabe, “The Missouri Synod’s Unity Attempts During the Pfotenhauer Presidency, 1911-1935,” 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. John W. Behnken, in the “First draft” of This I Recall, in the possession of William Schmelder, wrote: “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.”

83 Adolph A. Brux, Re-Appeal to Synod, Private Printing, submitted to delegates of the 1938 Synodical Convention, pp.2-3. After the wording of the last paragraph of the Committee’s report had been accepted unanimously, it was felt by some of the members of the Board of Foreign Missions that the words “instruct the Board of Foreign Missions (BFM) to reinstate him in his chosen work” were unnecessarily severe in an amicable settlement and that a “recommendation” by Synod “to reinstate him in his chosen work” would serve as well. The representatives of the BFM stated that the “Board would understand the word ‘recommend’ in the sense of ‘instruct.’”

84 Ibid., pp. 57-68.

85 LCMS, 1938 Proceedings, pp. 323-324.

86 Letter from Mark Birkholz, CHI Research Assistant dated 15 April 2002.

87 John H. Tietjen, Which Way to Lutheran Unity? St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, reprinted 1975). Moving Frontiers, p. 286. Fred W. Meuser, The Formation of the American Lutheran Church (Columbus: The Wartburg Press, 1958), p. 115.

88 David Schmiel, “The History of the Relationship of the Wisconsin Synod to the Missouri Synod until 1925,” unpublished S.T.M. Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO, 1958, p. 30.

89 For a more detailed analysis and a translation, see: Wohlrabe, “The Missouri Synod’s Unity Attempts During the Pfotenhauer Presidency, 1911-1935,” pp. 76-80.

90 Meuser, pp. 250-251; Wohlrabe, “The Missouri Synod’s Unity Attempts During the Pfotenhauer Presidency, 1911-1935,” pp. 111-135.

91 LCMS, 1929 Proceedings, pp. 112-113.

92 Wohlrabe, “The Missouri Synod’s Unity Attempts During the Pfotenhauer Presidency, 1911-1935,” pp. 135-136.

93 Ibid., p. 388.

94 LCMS 1938 Proceedings, pp. 231-232.

95 John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” unpublished Th.D. Dissertation, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO 1987, p. 172.

96 “An Open Forum?” The Confessional Lutheran 1 (January 1940): 4.

97 Richard R. Caemmerer, “Recollections of ‘A Statement,’” CHIQ 43 (November 1970): 156. Thomas Coates, “’A Statement’ – Some Reminiscenses,” CHIQ 43 (November 1970): 159. Speaking the Truth in Love: Essays Related to A Statement, Chicago Nineteen Forty-Five (Chicago: The Willow Press, no date), passim. Jack Tron Robinson, “The Spirit of Triumphalism in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: The Role of the ‘A Statement’ of 1945 in the Missouri Synod,” unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1972, pp. 132-150.

98 Robinson, p. 211.

99 Moving Frontiers, pp. 422-424; Robinson, pp. 228-252.

100 Ibid.

101 The Missouri Synod had always held that church fellowship was based on complete agreement in doctrine and practice based on Augsburg Confession VII understood in light of Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration X, 31.

102 The fides qua creditur is the faith that is believed or personal faith. The fides quae creditur is the faith that is confessed or the confession of faith.

103 A.T. Kretzmann, “The Statement of the 44,” CHIQ 55 (Summer 1982): 163.

104 Coates, p. 163.

105 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.”

106 Theodore Graebner, Prayer Fellowship (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1945), pp. 3-4.

107 Ibid., p. 7.

108 Ibid., p. 14.

109 Ibid., pp. 15-16.

110Ibid., pp. 28-29.

111 Ibid., p. 30

112 Theodore Graebner, The Borderland of Right and Wrong, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951), p. 110. Even this statement could be stronger. It not only does “not agree with elementary Christianity,” it is wrong and totally inappropriate.

113 J.L. Neve and Willard D. Allbeck, History of the Lutheran Church in America, 3^rd ed. (Burlington, Iowa: The Lutheran Literary Board, 1934), p. 249.

114 George Dolak, “A History of the Slovak Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States of America, 1902-1927,” unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO 1953, pp. 88-95.

115 This information was gathered from Missouri Synod, Wisconsin Synod, and Synodical Conference Proceedings and can be found in John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” pp. 114-116.

116 John Philipp Koehler, The History of the Wisconsin Synod, translated and edited by Leigh D. Jordahl (St. Cloud, MN: Sentinel Publishing Company, 1970), p. 234.

117 Wohlrabe, “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” pp. 118-120.

118 Koehler, p. 238.

119 Wohlrabe, “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” pp. 120-122..

120 Ibid., pp. 144-

121 Ibid., pp. 197-204.

122 Ibid., pp. 205-213.

123 A.C. Mueller, “Do I Have a Divine Call to Teach Arithmetic?” Lutheran Education 83 (March 1948): 391-397; Wohlrabe, “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” pp. 1231-239..

124 Ibid., pp. 241-247. In the Eggen Case of 1949, significant statements on the status of the Lutheran teacher were presented before the Federal Government. In order to secure for teachers the tax-free housing status that pastors enjoyed, synodical officials presented to the Internal Revenue Service a doctrinal position that was more closely in line with the Wisconsin Synod’s teaching on the ministry than that of the Missouri Synod as set forth in Kirche und Amt. The result was that the Synod adopted nomenclature that would satisfy the government’s requirements for offering clergy tax benefits to teachers and others serving in churchly offices. This new nomenclature did not necessarily reflect long-standing ecclesiastical terminology or the Synod’s doctrinal position with respect to the Office of the Holy Ministry and churchly offices. Those called to the Office of the Holy Ministry, the Preaching or Pastoral Office, were called “Ministers of Religion – Ordained,” while those holding churchly offices were called “Ministers of Religion – Commissioned.” Eventually, this was changed to “Ordained Ministers” and “Commissioned Ministers,” which the Synod uses today, but which still does not accurately reflect either ecclesiastical terminology or our Synod’s doctrinal position. For a more in depth analysis, see: John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” pp. 247-252; or John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., Ministry in Missouri until 1962 (Private Printing, 1992), pp. 43-47.

125 Daniel Preus, “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: Holiday from History,” http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/dantalk.htm , pp. 11, 13.

126 This term is derived from the name of Philip Melancthon, lay professor in Wittenburg during the Reformation and author of the Augsburg Confession, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, and the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, all contained in the Lutheran Confessions, The Book of Concord.

127 Richard Caemmerer, “The Melanchthonian Blight,” CTM 18 (May 1947):321-338. See Scott R. Murray, Law, Life, and the Living God (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pp. 46-50.

128 Jaroslav Pelikan, From Luther to Kierkegaard (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950). Murray, pp. 50-53. The third use of the Law is the didactic or teaching aspect of the Law for Christians. It teaches those who have been brought to faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, which the Holy Spirit has worked through the Gospel, what should and should not be done to lead a God-pleasing life. It serves as a guide. However, the power to live according to the Law comes from the Gospel. Luther’s Small Catechism with Explanation (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1991), p. 95.

129 Murray, p. 53.

130 A third volume to the Abiding Word collection of essays was published in 1960. Todd Peperkorn, “The Use of C.F.W. Walther’s Kirche und Amt in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to 1947,” unpublished Master of Sacred Theology thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, IN, May 1999, p. 130.

131 Murray, p. 74.

132 Moving Frontiers, p. 429.

133 Murray, p. 67. Concerning the influence of Werner Elert, David Scaer has noted:

“Werner Elert, who out of all the Bad Boll conferees on the German side would make the biggest impression on the Missourians, was part of the Erlangen tradition. He had been a pastor and professor in the Breslau Synod, a church body that has grown closer and closer to the Missouri Synod. He also appeared as a chief attacker of Karl Barth on the matter of Law and Gospel. Elert’s essay Law and Gospel was a direct reply to Barth’s Gospel and Law. All this endeared Elert to the Missourians. But the elevation of “Law-Gospel” as the controlling theological theme was the weakness of Elert’s position. The Missourians did not determine that Elert had provided no basis for his theology apart from a functional use of Scriptures and Luther. Elert like Barth had a Scripture divorced from history. Elert was in fact a “Lutheran-Barthian.” His “Law-Gospel” principle hung suspended in theological thin air, almost in the same fashion as the Erlangen theology a century before.” David Scaer, “Law Gospel Debate in the Missouri Synod,” Springfielder 36 (December 1972): 162-163.

134 LCMS, 1959 Proceedings, p. 189. LCMS, 1959 Reports and Memorials, pp. 483-486.

135 LCMS, 1959 Proceedings, pp. 191-192.

136 The titles of the essays were “The Inerrancy of Scripture” (1958), “The Bible as Record, Witness, and Medium” (1959), “God’s Acts as Revelation” (1961), and “This Matter of ‘Inerrancy’ Once Again” (1961). The original manuscripts are located in the Concordia Seminary Library Rare Book Room, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO. For a thorough analysis of the controversy over Scharlemann’s essays see Richard Donald Labore, “Traditions and Transitions: A Study of the Leadership of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod During a Decade of Theological Change, 1960-1969,” unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1980, pp. 123-225.

137 James Adams, Preus of Missouri, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc., 1977), p. 127.

138 Martin Scharlemann, “God’s Acts As Revelation,” CTM 33 (April, 1961): 209-210.

139 Martin Scharlemann, “Revelation and Inspiration,” Concordia Seminary Library Rare Book Room, St. Louis, MO. Karl Barth (1886-1968), was a leading proponent of Neoorthodoxy in Europe.

140 From the Greek word “to seem;” as to imply Scripture only seems human. In the Early Church, Docetism was a form of Gnosticism which maintained that Christ only seemed human.

141 Martin Scharlemann, “The Inerrancy of Scripture,” Concordia Seminary Library Rare Book Room, St. Louis, MO.

142 Beginning with the November 1959 issue, the Scharlemann controversy dominated the pages of The Confessional Lutheran until well after the 1962 convention. LCMS, Reports and Memorials to the Forty-Fifth Regular Convention of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Meeting at Cleveland, Ohio, June 20-30, 1962 (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962), pp. 164-165. Also see John Behnken, This I Recall (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1964), p. 199.

143 LCMS, 1962 Proceedings, pp. 106-107.

144 [Editorial] “Resolution 9,” American Lutheran 45 (April 1962): 5-6.

145 LCMS, 1962 Reports and Memorials, passim. See Wohlrabe, “An Historical Analysis of the Doctrine of the Ministry in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod until 1962,” pp. 368-371.

146 The 1962 Cleveland 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). Ibid., p. 372; LCMS 1962 Proceedings, pp. 66, 103-109, 123-124, 130-131, 154.

147 Martin W. Mueller well summarized this shift toward outreach over doctrinal integrity in an editorial entitled “Turning Point” in The Lutheran Witness, although he undoubtedly saw this as a positive move.

Interestingly, this is also the last entry in the 1964 “Readings in the History of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod,” entitled Moving Frontiers, edited by Carl S. Meyer. This section of the book was co-edited by Thomas Coates, a signer of “A Statement.” [Martin W. Mueller], editorial, “Turning Point,” The Lutheran Witness, 81 (21 August 1962), pp. 406, 407, 415; Moving Frontiers, pp. 431-435.

148 LCMS Public Relations Department new release, January 24, 1974, cited in Daniel Preus, “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Holiday from History,” p.3.

149 Murray, p. 91-95.

150 Ibid., p. 105.

151 Ibid., pp. 106-107.

152 Ibid., p. 111.

153 Ibid., p. 112.

154 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. 7.

155 Ibid., p. 13.

156 Edgar Krentz, “A Survey of Trends and Problems in Biblical Interpretation,” CTM 40 (May 1969): 286.

157 Edgar Krentz wrote: “The Bible’s time-conditioned words speak to specific situations in the literary conventions and forms of their day. They have the appearance of the accidental because they are written more humano et historico (in a human and historically conditioned manner). As the ancient dogmatic formula put it, the Scriptures are panta anthropina, completely human. This basic recognition about the nature of the Bible entails the axiom that one interprets the Bible by the same methods and procedures used on any other book. No serious Bible student denies this evaluation.” Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 62.

158 Ibid., p. 1.

159 “Faith believes in response to the address of the Word of Promise – and that is the sole basis. It needs no support in a doctrine of the Bible that offers a guaranteed, inspired history. It is free and open to every means that God has given the mind for the understanding of the Bible…” Edgar Krentz, “Book Review: After the Purifying by Paul G. Bretscher,” Lutheran Quarterly 3 (August 1975): 260.

160 “Accordingly, the inspiration of the written Word pertains to the effective power of the Scripture to bring men and women to salvation through the Gospel. We affirm, therefore, that the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God.” “Faithful to Our Calling, Faithful to Our Lord,” An affirmation in two parts by the Faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1973, p. 36.

161 Ibid., p. 23.

162 Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, p. 55.

163 Kurt E. Marquart, Anatomy of an Explosion (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 119-120.

164 LCMS, 1962 Proceedings, p. 96.

165 Martin L. Kretzmann, “The Self-Understanding of the Church,” CTM 36 (April 1965): 230-238.

166 Herman Otten, “The Convention Workbook,” Lutheran News (May 3, 1965): 3-5.

167 LCMS, 1965 Proceedings, pp. 80-81.

168 Ibid., pp. 88-89.

169 LCMS, 1967 Convention Workbook, pp. 77-78.

170 LCMS, 1967 Proceedings, p. 93.

171 LCMS, 1969 Proceedings, pp. 80, 239-240.

172 See various articles in Spectrum, (October 4, 1972): 4-5; Herbert T. Mayer, “Structure and Mission,” CTM 43 (November 1972): 643-644.

173 LCMS, 1973 Convention Workbook, p. 11.

174 Ibid., p. 13.

175 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.

176 LCMS, 1975 Convention Workbook, p. 30.

177 Edward C. Fendt, The Struggle for Lutheran Unity and Consolidation in the U.S.A. from the Late 1930’s to the Early 1970’s (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1980), pp. 263-286.

178 Ibid., pp. 293-296.

179 Ibid., p. 297.

180 See Lutheran Council in the USA, “The Function of Doctrine and Theology in Light of the Unity of the Church,” 1978, passim.

181 Hermann Sasse has noted: “The serious Roman Catholic, the serious Lutheran, the serious Calvinist, the serious Anglican, the serious Baptist, all stand nearer to the eternal truth than the one who hazards making no confession, because he maintains that the truth is finally undiscernible…There is no unity of Christianity without deep and serious wrestling over the truth; without the seriousness that, in the dialogue of confession with confession, glosses over no difficulty…But where the gospel and the sacraments have been displaced by heresy, there, for the sake of the truth, we can exercise no church fellowship, because we can have no fellowship with false doctrine. But we will still believe that the Una Sancta remains in such churches, so long as the gospel has not been totally lost and the sacraments are generally still administered.” Hermann Sasse, “The Question of the Church’s Unity on the Mission Field,” translated by Matthew Harrison, Logia 7 (Holy Trinity 1998): 59.

182 John H. Tietjen, Memoirs in Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), p. 9. Tietjen notes: “During my years as a parish pastor I served also as editor of the American Lutheran, an influential independent journal within the LCMS, which advocated such causes as fellowship with other Lutherans, participation in the ecumenical movement, a common hymnal for all Lutherans, and responsible advocacy of social issues before state and federal governments. Ibid., p. 7.

183 John H. Tietjen, Which Way to Lutheran Unity? (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1966, reprinted Clayton Publishing House, 1975), p. 151.

184 Wolf, pp. 301-312.

185 The fides qua creditur is the faith that is believed (subjective), while the fides quae creditur is the faith that is confessed (objective). Tietjen, Which Way to Lutheran Unity?, pp. 150-159.

186 Tietjen, Memoirs in Exile, p. 11. Consider also what Tietjen wrote: “Observers described the Cleveland [1962] convention as a turning point in the life of the Missouri Synod, signaling a move away from rigidity in theology and isolation in church life toward more openness in both theology and mission. Within a few years under Harms’s (sic) leadership the LCMS had helped form the LCUSA, was proposing to enter into fellowship with the ALC, had begun discussions looking toward fellowship with the Lutheran Church in America, and had adopted a series of profoundly significant mission affirmations to help shape its work of outreach around the world.” Ibid., p. 6. It is unfortunate that an effort to maintain doctrinal integrity was viewed and characterized as “rigidity in theology and isolation in church life.”

187 Fendt, pp. 300-314.

188 LCMS, 1981 Proceedings, pp. 153-155. See also August Suelflow, ed., Heritage in Motion (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1998), pp. 126-128.

189 LCMS, 1965 Proceedings, p. 81.

190 Oscar E. Feucht, Everyone a Minister: A Guide Churchmanship for Laity and Clergy (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1974).

191 Brent Kuhlman, “Oscar Feucht’s Everyone a Minister: Pietismus Redivivus,” Logia 8 (Reformation 1999): 35.

192 Information attained from Mr. David Tuttle, current President of Balance, Inc.

193 Tietjen, Memoirs in Exile, p. 14.

194 Ibid., p. 6.

195 Ibid.

196 Ibid., p. 3. The details of the events that led to and involved the Walkout at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis and the formation of the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC) are well documented in the Concordia Seminary Board of Control book Exodus from Concordia, as well as John Tietjen’s Memoirs in Exile. However, it is recommended that one read Tietjen’s Memoirs with Exodus side-by-side to compare the facts and interpretations given. This paper will touch on a few of the pertinent details.

197 John Tietjen, “The Gospel and the Theological Task,” CTM 40 (June, July, August 1969): 114-123. Dr. Scharlemann prepared a set of propositions he called “animadversions,” which noted major theological difficulties in the Tietjen article. Tietjen believes that this was done out of spite because Scharlemann was not elected as Concordia Seminary president. Memoirs, p. 21 “Animadversion” means “a critical and usually censorious remark.”

198 Exodus from Concordia, 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.

199 Ibid. The 1971 Milwaukee synodical convention resolved to “repudiate the inadequacies of “A Call to Openness and Trust,” admonished “all those who have disturbed the Synod by circularizing this document,” and finally resolved “That the Synod ask those who are publicly identified with this document to publicly assure the Synod through the office of the President of Synod that they are faithful to the confessional stance of the Synod and repudiate the inadequacies pointed out by the CTCR.” LCMS, 1971 Proceedings, p. 128.

200 Exodus, p. 22.

201 Ibid., pp. 24-25.

202 Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 23

203 Ibid., pp. 35-36.

204 Exodus, pp. 25-28.

205 LCMS, 1971 Proceedings, pp. 165-166.

206 Exodus, pp. 30-31.

207 Ibid., p. 32.

208 Ibid., p. 33.

209 J.A.O. Preus, “Report of the Synodical President,” The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, September 1, 1972, pp. 21-25.

210 Exodus, p. 36; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 103-113.

211 Exodus, pp. 38-39; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 116-119.

212 Exodus, pp. 39-40.

213 Ibid., pp. 53-60; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 149-159.

214 Exodus, pp. 61-62, 163-164; Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 170.

215 Exodus, p. 63.

216 Ibid., pp. 68-69, 75.

217 Ibid., p. 65.

218 Exodus, p. 67; Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 164-165. "Necessity requires one to report evil, to prefer charges, to attest, examine, and witness….where the sin is so public that the judge and the whole world are aware of it, you can without sin shun and avoid the person as one who has brought disgrace upon himself, and you may testify publicly concerning him. For when an affair is manifest to everybody there can be no question of slander or injustice or false witness. For example, we now censure the pope and his teaching, which is publicly set forth in books and shouted throughout the world. Where the sin is public, the punishment ought to be public so that everyone may know how to guard against it." Martin Luther, “The Large Catechism,” The Book of Concord, Theodore G. Tappert, translator and editor (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), pp. 402-403.

219 Exodus, p. 67-68; Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 166-167.

220 Exodus, p. 73-74

221 Ibid., 77-86; Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 177-178.

222 Exodus, pp. 89-90; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 183-184.

223 Exodus, pp. 93-94; Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 185.

224 Exodus, pp. 94-96; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 187-196.

225 Exodus, pp. 100-101; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 196-198.

226 Exodus, pp.105-112; Tietjen, Memoirs, pp. 198-206.

227 Exodus, pp. 115-117.

228 Ibid., pp. 119-128.

229 Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 312.

230 LCMS, 1975 Proceedings, Resolution 5-02A, pp. 122-124.

231 The following four district presidents were suspended: Herman Frincke - Eastern District, Harold Hecht - English District, Rudolph Ressmeyer - Atlantic District, and Robert Riedel - New England District. The following four district presidents were not suspended: Herman Neunaber - Southern Illinois, Paul Jacobs - California & Nevada, Emil Jaech – Northwest, and Waldemar Meyer – Colorado. Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 268.

232 Ibid., p. 269.

233 Ibid., pp. 300-303.

234 Ibid., p. 314.

235 Ibid., pp. 327-335.

236 Edgar R. Trexler, Anatomy of a Merger (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991), pp. 231-243.

237 Tietjen, Memoirs, p. 341.

238 The faculty minority included Ralph Bohlmann, Richard Klann, Robert Preus, Martin Scharlemann, and Lorenz Wunderlich. This group of men did not participate in the Walkout, and upheld the historical theological integrity of the Synod. However, Ralph Bohlmann was on a leave of absence from Concordia Seminary at the time of the Walkout to serve on the CTCR. Ralph Bohlmann was instrumental in the formulation of “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles,” which was adopted at the 1973 synodical convention and used to identify false teaching with respect to the faculty majority.

239 Exodus, pp. 102-103.

240 Ibid., pp. 145-147.

241 Heritage in Motion, p. ii. Both Balance, Inc. and Christian News strongly supported the election of Alvin Barry as synodical president.

242 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.

243 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.

244 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.””

245 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.

246 Ralph Bohlmann, “Letter to Pastors” (August 1992), p. 3.

247 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

248 “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.” http://www.li-christian.com/non-profit/LutheransAlive.htm

249 This was a phrase used by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), pp. 72-88.

250 Ibid., pp. 20-23.

251 This is based on personal experience as a M.Div student at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, from 1978-1981.

252 See Klemet Preus, “The Theology of the Church Growth Movement: An Evaluation of Kent Hunter’s Confessions,” Logia 10 (Epiphany 2001); http://www.confessionallutherans.org/papers/klemet.html .

253 When Dr. Oesch announced his call as Executive Director of PLI to the congregation he was serving, St. John’s Lutheran Church, Orange, CA, on February 18, 1998, he stated the following about PLI:

“I want to say a word about the Pastoral Leadership Institute. It is to create an in-service training program for 300 of the top pastors, the most promising pastors in our Synod, trying to get them equipped with leadership skills, to be able to lead large and very large or mega church congregations, like ours is.… to try to engage in the task that is set before me, it takes something that is only in a creative mind, on paper, and bring it to reality. And maybe the picture that will help you to see that more clearly is like creating a seminary without walls.” Georgann McKee, “Presentation to the Lutheran Concerns Association on the Pastoral Leadership Institute,” http://www.concordtx.org/cpapers/mckee.htm . Other PLI officers include Dr. John Kuddes, the Rev. Ron Burcham, Ms. Michelle J. Chaffee, Col. Carol Reineck, Dr. Karen Soeken; Advisory members include The Rev. Dr. John Johnson (President of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis) and the Rev. Dr. William Meyer, (Executive Director of the BHE). See also Florence Misseldine and Georgeann McKee, “Update on PLI Investigation,” Consensus 1 (October 2002): 3.

254 The official stated vision for the organization is: “PLI provides an opportunity for LCMS pastors to gain advanced knowledge and skills helpful in fulfilling the Great Commission. PLI will maximize on the proven experience of more seasoned pastors, theologians, and leadership experts to assist younger and less-experienced pastors. PLI will do so by providing positive peer and mentor relationships, allowing for courageous ministry visions to take shape. PLI will remain committed to Biblical and Lutheran confessional standards. And PLI will challenge and empower pastors to pursue their full potential as gifted servants of the church, called to lead their congregations into excellence in mission and ministry as they connect people to Jesus.” http://www.pli-leader.org/overview/index.html

255 Noland, “An Unholy Trinity,” pp. 25-27.

256Renewal In Missouri began publication of the newsletter Renewal In Missouri in the fall of 1988 after a summit meeting May 11-13, 1988. “Over 400 Attend RIM Summit May 11-13,” Renewal in Missouri 1 (Summer and Fall 1988), p. 1.

257 Delbert Rossin, “From The Editor,” RIM Report, Issue 48 (July 2001), p. 2.

258 Consider: “The Charismatic Movement and Lutheran Theology,” A Report of the CTCR, 1972; “The Lutheran Church and the Charismatic Movement: Guidelines for Congregations and Pastors,” A Report of the CTCR, 1977; “Spiritual Gifts,” A Report of the CTCR, 1994.

259 http://jesusfirst.net/

260 http://www.day-star.net/index.htm

261 Martin Noland, “What Is ‘Jesus First’?”, Affirm (May 2001): 8.

262 http://209.219.130.233/ and http://www.day-star.net/index.htm

263 “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’?”, pp. 6-7.

264 “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.

265 Ibid.

266 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.” Ralph A. Bohlmann, “Missouri Lutheranism, 1945 and 1995,” Lutheran Forum 30 (February 1996): 13.

267 Stephen C. Krueger, “The Promising Tradition,” p. 1, http://www.day-star,net/promising.htm

268 Krueger goes on to state: “The legalists claim to champion this central doctrine [justification by faith alone]…Yet, if they believed that Christ alone was the only justification necessary for all our lives before God, then why do they persist in imposing rule after rule, Synodical resolution after resolution on us all, as if the Gospel alone was not the sole sufficient norm for the Church? If Christ alone was the only justification necessary for all our lives before God, then why do the legalists persist in charge after charge against anyone who dares speak out differently than merely to puppet the “official position of Synod?” Ibid., p. 3.

269 Krueger further charges: “The legalists have not understood the essence of Christian freedom. They are worried that Christians who are free will abandon Biblical Christian doctrine. What they do not understand is that it is precisely that Christian doctrine which authorizes Christian freedom.” Ibid., p. 4. Krueger also basis his position regarding Christian freedom on a study of Luther on Galatians (1531). Stephen C. Krueger, “The Blessed Duel: How Christ Is the Christian’s Victory over Law, A Brief Study in Luther’s Galatians (1531),” http://www.day-star.net/duel.htm . Yet, Krueger ignores more recent Luther studies, which show that Luther did hold to a third use of the Law. See Scott Murray, Law, Life, and the Living God, pp. 213-219. One must ask Pastor Krueger: where will this freedom lead? Where does it stop? Consider the announcement of the Gay Pride Week interfaith service at Central Lutheran Church, Seattle, WA (ELCA): “With the Pride Week’s interfaith service theme, “The Doors Are Opening,” the doors of Central Lutheran Church were wide open on June 23 and invited the Gay community to come in. Each year, the interfaith service grows in attendance. This year’s service was no exception. At Wednesday’s service, where Christian, Jewish, Wiccan and Buddhist faiths were represented, organizers said 155 people turned out compared to 108 last year.” Seattle Gay News, “Religious Doors: They Are a Opening,” http://www.sgn.org/Archives/sgn.6.25.99/faith.htm

270 David Scaer, “The Law Gospel Debate in the Missouri Synod.” Springfielder 36 (December 1972): 167.

271 Marquart, Anatomy of an Explosion, pp. 143-144.

272 Murray, Law, Life, and the Living God, p. 138. Consider Dr. Richard Klann’s analysis of this issue: “The Christian no longer lives under the Law (legalism), nor above the Law (antinomianism), but in the Law. ‘To live in the Law’ is the equivalent of asserting the congruence of the will of the Christian with the will of God in sanctification. The Christian never asserts any kind of moral or ethical autonomy. Christian discipleship is obedience to God’s will.” Richard Klann, “Reflections on Disputes Regarding the Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel,” CJ 1 (January 1975): 35. Horace Hummel noted: “The problem of how to take a firm stand against breakdown of discipline and dogmatic aberrations without stifling theological creativity and genuine ecumenical engagement is anything but new. It is, however, especially acute today, especially among those whose concepts of ‘freedom’ are apparently more informed by certain modern ideologies than by the Gospel, and for whom, as a result, the very notion of doctrinal discipline is offensive and to whom virtually any authority represents ‘authoritarianism.’ The possibilities of miscarriages of church discipline are great (how liberalism loves to highlight them!) and, obviously, everything should be done to prevent them. But I submit that most recent Protestant history better illustrates the sad results of its absence than its excesses. Any organization maintains some sort of discipline consonant with its raison d’etre, and if doctrine ceases to be a significant part of the Church’s discipline, then obviously only factors really extrinsic to the essence of the Church are externally holding it together.” Horace Hummel, “No Other Gospel!” Lutheran Forum (October 1969): 4. At that time, Hummel was teaching at Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, after having left Concordia Seminary in the 1950s. After the Walkout, Dr. Hummel rejoined the LCMS and taught again at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis.

273 Murray, p. 145.

274 Jesus First, http://209.219.130.233/ , DayStar, http://www.day-star.net/index.htm .

275 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; 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. 259ff. This has happened in the Southern Baptist Convention (see Leon McBeth, “The Changing Role of Women in Baptist Life,” Southwestern Journal of Theology, 22 (1980): 84-96; and Leon McBeth, “The Ordination of Women,” Review and Expositor, 78 (1981): 515-530 and the Christian Reformed Church (see “Synod Allows Endorsement of Female Military Chaplain,” http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/reformed/archive98/nr98-062.txt ).

276 The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, The Lutheran Annual, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002), pp. 360-360. Some 440 institutional chaplains are listed, including fire and police chaplains. In comparison, there are 253 military, VA, and Civil Air Patrol chaplains listed under Military Chaplains. This includes 83 active duty chaplains (1 of whom is Canadian), 126 reserve or guard chaplains (6 are Canadian), 16 CAP chaplains, and 27 VA chaplains, 11 of whom are full-time.

277 Interestingly, from 1987-1990, only J. Schmidt was listed without the full first name being given. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, The Lutheran Annual, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1990). Information provided by e-mail from Mark Loest, mloest@chi.lcms.org, Concordia Historical Institute, dated 12 February 2002 and e-mail from Mark Birkholz, reference@chi.lcms.org, Concordia Historical Institute, dated 27 February 2002.

278 A questionnaire was sent to the female institutional chaplains listed in The Lutheran Annual (2002), twenty-one in all, as well as to Deaconess Kristin Wassilak, Director of the Deaconess Program at Concordia University, River Forest, IL. Out of the twenty-one queries solicited from institutional chaplains, twelve responses were received. Deaconess Dorothy Prybylski stated: that “My service in chaplaincy ministry has endured for thirty years.” Deaconess Kathy Brown responded: “I have been an institutional chaplain since I was consecrated as a Deaconess in 1977.” Deaconess Dianna Bonfield verified that she has served as an institutional chaplain for 24 years.

279 Valerie A. Karras, “Women in the Eastern Church: Past, Present, and Future,” 10^th Annual Conference of Orthodox Christian Laity, http://www.voithia.org/content/qmpCWINWOR3.htm; Paula D. Nesbitt, “Women’s Ordination: Problems and Possibilities: Five Lessons from Episcopal Women Clergy,” Women’s Ordination Conference 20000, http://www.womensordination.org/pages/Nesbitt.htm . It is interesting to note that a female Roman Catholic sued the Veterans Administration to be admitted as a Roman Catholic chaplain, but lost the suit because she was not endorsed as an ordained Roman Catholic priest. “Catholic Women Chaplains: Yes and No in Veterans’ Hospitals,” Christian Century 110 (May 19-26, 1993), p. 547.

280 Recommendations for this expanded role of women’s ministry can be found in various sources, including the following: Mark Chaves, Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), pp. 22-23; “Clergy Women: An Uphill Calling,” Hartford Institute for Religion Research, http://www.hartfordinstitute.org/bookshelf/clergywomen_abstract.html; Paula D. Nesbitt, “Women’s Ordination: Problems and Possibilities Five Lessons from Episcopal Women Clergy;” “Women’s Service in the Church,” Issues in Christian Education 26 (Fall 1992): passim; Barbara Brown Zikmund, Adair T. Lummis, Patricia Mei Yin Chang, Clergy Women: An Uphill Calling (Louisville, KE: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), pp. 117-119.

281 Mary Todd, Authority Vested, pp. 259-280; Mary Todd, “On Fences and Fears,”

http://www.day-star.net/fences.htm. Compare this to the position against women’s ordination as articulated in official LCMS statements and by various theologians: A.L. Barry, “What About…The Ordination of Women to the Pastoral Office,” Unchanging Truth in Changing Times, (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, The Office of the President, 2001); Peter Brunner, The Ministry and the Ministry of Women (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971); Armin-Ernst Buchrucker, “The Ordination of Women and Feminist Theology,” Logia 9 (Epiphany 2000): 9-20; Ulla Hindback, “Women and the Ministry,” Logia 9 (Epiphany 2000): 21-22; John W. Kleinig, “The Ordination of Women and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” from Reformation Today Web Site, http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/kleinigpaper.pdf; “The Ministry: Offices, Procedures, and Nomenclature,” A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, September 1981; Samuel H. Nafzger, “The Doctrinal Position of the LCMS on the Service of Women in the Church,” CJ 18 (April 1992), pp. 112-131; David P. Scaer, “Christology and Feminism,” Logia 9 (Epiphany 2000): 3-7; Robert W. Schaibley, “Gender Considerations on the Pastoral Office in Light of 1 Corinthians 14:33-36 and 1 Timothy 2:8-14,” Logia 2 (Reformation 1993): 48-54; George F. Wollenburg, “The Office of the Holy Ministry and the Ordination of Women,” (Minneapolis, MN: University Lutheran Chapel, Private Printing, 1990); “Women in the Church: Scriptural and Ecclesial Practice,” A Report of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, September 1985.

282 When the ELCA was formed in 1988, LCUSA was disbanded. However, the LCMS continued to work closely with the ELCA in mission and chaplaincy work. In 1997, the ELCA declared itself in full fellowship with the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church in America and the Presbyterian Church in the USA. That same year, the ELCA also declared that there is no longer any substantial disagreement between the Lutheran and Roman Catholic understandings of the doctrine of justification. Finally, during its church-wide assembly in August 1999, the ELCA voted to adopt full communion with the Episcopal Church and the Moravian Church in America. Even before the ELCA declared itself in full fellowship with various Reformed bodies and the Episcopal Church, questions of Lutheran identity and confessional commitment were ignored in various mission areas. The LCMS does not believe, teach, and confess the same as the ELCA with respect to the nature of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, confessional subscription, the ordination of women, church fellowship, the sanctity of human life, and membership in certain ecumenical organizations. With the recent ecumenical declarations of the ELCA, the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper, the doctrine of justification, and the doctrine of the ministry are called into question as well. Furthermore, the ELCA has permitted on its clergy roster pastors and theological professors who deny or question the following: the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, whether the New Testament teaches that the death of Christ was an atonement for sin, whether Jesus Himself actually claimed to be God, whether Jesus did, in fact, speak the words of institution, and whether the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture are real or merely myths. See John C. Wohlrabe, Jr., “Needed: A Paradigm Shift In Missouri’s Mission Outlook,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 64 (April 2000): 149-154.

283 Matthew Harrison, “Lutheran Missions Must Lead to Lutheran Churches,” Logia 7 (Holy Trinity 1998): 29-34.

284 A personal e-mail exchange this author had with a Missouri Synod mission executive, who will remain nameless, will further illustrate the change in mission emphasis. He wrote: “Dear John, I just wanted to share a quotation I remember from Werner Elert’s, The Structure of Lutheranism, where he quotes Luther’s view of moving forward aggressively with the Gospel in the world of the unbeliever without even a call, ‘But when the Christian is at a place where there are no Christians, there he needs no other call than that he is a Christian who is inwardly called and anointed by God. There it is his obligation to preach to the erring heathen and non-Christians and to teach the Gospel as a duty of Christian love, even though no one calls him to do this.’ (WA 11, 412, 11ff. Ehlert, pp. 389-390) Brother John, I am troubled by your statements… God’s very mission is at stake when we communicate with others “charges” that fan the flames of dissension. Jesus’ very high priestly prayer shows concern for the Gospel moving forward, ‘May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me.’ John 17:23. As God’s “sent ones” we need to use every ounce of energy to move the Gospel forward. We should constantly ask ourselves, ‘What is the ultimate goal of my activities and communications? Are they to reach the souls of those who are heading straight to eternal damnation?” My response: “Dear [‘so-and-so’], I would like to share a quotation from Luther’s ‘Sermon on suffering and the cross’ (W.A. 32.37f): ‘And we can see – unfortunately it is a general thing – that many abuse the Holy Gospel, behaving as if they were freed from all obligations through the Gospel and that there is nothing more they need do, or give or suffer. This is a sin and a shame.’ In Jesus’ high priestly prayer, our Lord also says: “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.’ (John 17:17) Christ calls us to reach out with the Gospel (outreach), true; but He also calls us to be faithful (integrity). Brother [‘so-and-so’], I am troubled by what seems to be an ‘exception makes the rule’ approach, or worse yet, a no rule approach (antinomian, Gospel Reductionism) to missions in our beloved Synod. Christ calls us to make disciples of all nations by baptizing in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and by teaching ALL that He has commanded. It is not an either/or; it is a both/and! Outreach and integrity must go hand-in-hand. I can share with you many horror stories, beginning with my vicarage, but particularly involving 20 years as a Navy chaplain, where those LCMS pastors, chaplains, and missionaries who repeatedly let the exception make the rule caused severe damage, gave a faulty or poor witness, and made things extremely difficult for those who followed and who sought to remain faithful. As Luther said, “This is a sin and a shame.” By the way, no reply to this e-mail was received.

285 “Article VI Conditions of Membership: Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following…2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description….” LCMS, 2001 Handbook, p. 8.

286 LCMS, 1998 Convention Workbook, pp. 170-171. Gerald Kieschnick, “The Dr. Martin and Regina Maehr Lecture Series, Concordia University – Seward,” March 7, 2002. http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/kieschnick-seward-2002.pdf; http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/seward.doc;

http://www.consensuslutheran.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=181&mode=nested President Kieschnick also noted: “As soon as these actions became known on the convention floor, one delegate rushed to the microphone and, with words that would be echoed by many three years later in the aftermath of the Yankee Stadium event, said, “It’s a sad day when a pastor of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has to apologize for doing something pastoral!” His short speech was met by spontaneous, sustained applause and an emotional standing ovation by many, if not most, of the delegates.” Yet, this understanding of what is “pastoral” appears to be based more on emotions and situational ethics in matters of casuistry than on the objective truth of God’s Word and the Scriptural doctrine of the Lutheran Confessions.

287 Bylaw 2.27 g reads: “Because the President of the Synod has ecclesiastical supervision of all District Presidents, the President of Synod shall proceed in the same fashion as a District President if he receives a complaint relative to a District President. In cases under this subparagraph the synodical President shall not participate as a member of the Praesidium (section 1., 1 and b). If disqualified for the reasons set forth in section b, the next qualified officer of the Synod shall function in the place of the President.” LCMS, 2001 Handbook, p. 27.

288 “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 also recognize that my participation in this interfaith prayer service was a violation of my duties and responsibilities as an elected officer of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. While well-intended, what I did was wrong. 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.” “Benke Apologizes to Synod over Prayer Service,” LCMS News, Nov. 20, 1998:

http://www.cuis.edu/ftp/lcmsnews/999581-BENKE_APOLOGIZES_TO_SYNOD.-981120

289 “Not every occasion where worship takes place is necessarily a manifestation of church fellowship. There are situations where discretion is appropriate….

“… Offering prayers, speaking and reading Scripture at events sponsored by governments, public schools and volunteer organizations would be a problem if the organization in charge restricted a Christian witness. For instance, if an invitation requires a pastor to pray to God without mentioning Jesus, he cannot in good conscience accept. Without such a restriction, a Lutheran pastor may for valid and good reason participate in civic affairs such as an inauguration, graduation or a right-to-life activity. These occasions may provide opportunity to witness to the Gospel. Pastors may have honest differences of opinion about whether or to what extent it is appropriate or helpful to participate in these or similar civic events. In these cases, charity must prevail.

“There are also “once-in-a-lifetime” situations. It is virtually impossible to anticipate all such situations or to establish rules in advance. Specific answers cannot be given to cover every type of situation pastors and congregations face. These situations can be evaluated only on a case-by-case basis and may evoke different responses from different pastors who may be equally committed to LCMS fellowship principles. The LCMS has always recognized this.” LCMS, 2001 Convention Workbook, p. 50.

290 http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/elcajointservice.pdf This detailed, printed bulletin was prepared in advance. Yet, President Kieschnick maintains that his participation in this service (actually two services were held) was impromptu, and he did not know what to expect.

291 http://listserv.elca.org/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0109&L=elcanews&D=1&H=1&O=D&F=&S=&P=1745 Atlantic District President Benke wrote a summary of the 2001 LCMS synodical convention in his district newsletter. Here he explained to the people of his district his involvement in Jesus First and DayStar: “What is important is what Jesus First and Daystar represents. You should know that, because I have been involved in them, and I want NOT to be a voice of divisiveness in our church body. Jesus First and Daystar represent the following, in my opinion: A desire for a mission-driven denomination A desire for open and honest communication, exploring differences without assigning of blame and guilt Progressive voices not “stuck” in past traditions. Gospel and means of grace as central, rather than rules and rulebooks. Synod as advisory to its members, both individual and congregation, as originally constituted. A desire for expanded ecumenical exploration and action in this country and globally. A desire for the utilization of the gifts and talents of all of God’s people, the “priesthood of all believers.” Appropriate respect for the office of the holy ministry.” http://www.day-star.net/exine/dp_comments/01-08-23.htm. Although this site is no longer available, the information has been quoted in its entirety

292 http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/gdrive/ter092301_nyprayer.rm , New York City Prayer Service: Beginning at 2:14:41; http://www.cspan.org , Watch New York City Prayer Service: Beginning at 2:05:22; http://www.msnbc.com/news/628163.asp?cp1=1; http://web.journalgazette.net/content/fwgazette/2001/09/24/news/24i_2a_nws_memorial.htm ;

http://www.elca.org/dcs/disaster/sept11.html#Sept.20

293 For a good summary of Oprah Winfrey’s views on spirituality, see Amy Welborn, “The feel-good spirituality of Oprah,” http://www.osvpublishing.com/periodicals/show-article.asp?pid=645

294 “Oh, we’re stronger now than we were an hour ago. And you know, my sisters and brothers, we’re not nearly as strong as we’re going to be. And the strength we have is the power of love. And the power of love you have received from God, for God is love. So take the hand of one next to you now and join me in prayer on this “field of dreams” turned into God’s house of prayer:

O Lord our God, we’re leaning on You today. You are our Tower of Strength, and we’re leaning on You. You are our Mighty Fortress, our God who is a Rock; in You do we stand. Those of us who bear the name of Christ know that You stood so tall when You stooped down to send a Son through death and life to bring us back together, and we lean on You today.

O Tower of Strength, be with those who mourn the loss of loved ones; bring them closer to us day by day.

O Heavenly Father, we pray at this time that You might extend Jacob’s ladder for those who ascended the stairways to save us, as others escaped the fire and flames.

O Tower of Strength, open innocent and victimized hearts to the sacrifice of the Innocent One; pour Your consolation upon the traumatized, especially our children.

O Heavenly Father, un-bind, un-fear, un-scorch, un-sear our souls; renew us in Your free Spirit. We’re leaning on You, our Tower of Strength. We find our refuge in the shadow of Your shelter. Lead us from this place—strong—to bring forth the power of Your love, wherever we are. In the precious name of Jesus. Amen.” http://www.cat41.org/News/Archives/BenkeResources/YSTranscript.txt ; http://www.msnbc.com/news/628163.asp?cp1=1

295 “Missouri Synod President Faces Charges for September 11 Prayers,” New York Times, November 20, 2001.

296 http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/ccmruling.htm

297 http://reformationtoday.tripod.com/reformationtoday/id12.html

298 “Reviewing what happened will prove helpful. To introduce the event, Oprah Winfrey said: "To give the invocation for today's service here are Edward Cardinal Egan, Archbishop of New York, and Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Chaplain of the Fire Department of New York City." Examples of doctrinal confusion and error continued throughout the service. For example, The Most Rev. Thomas V. Daily, Roman Catholic Bishop of Brooklyn, while mentioning the Father and the Holy Spirit, concluded his prayer, "Mary Queen of Peace, pray for us." Rabbi Alvin Kass, New York Police Department Chaplain, struck a distinctly universalistic note when he prayed that the families who had lost loved ones might be comforted by the fact that "these victims have now been welcomed into the arms of the almighty, where they can know no more hurt; and from on high, where they will bless us." Dr. Inberjit Singh of the Sikh Temple, Richmond Hill, New York, opened his remarks: "In the name of our God, who is true, who is without fear, who is without enmity, who is timeless, who is self-created." Imam Izak-EL M. Pasha, New York Police Department Chaplain and a Muslim cleric, prayed to the "the merciful benefactor, the merciful redeemer" and stated that we "beg for assistance, we beg for strength and guidance, and his mercy," and stated that "we witness that he is one, and we witness to all of his messengers and prophets." He further said: "We are one with members of faith, both Jewish, Christian, and others here today and those who are absent. We are believers." Because Islam holds that Jesus is no more than a special prophet and not God, the "redeemer" in his prayer is the Islamic god. Shortly after President Benke's prayer, Oprah Winfrey closed the event with these words: "Here with the benediction for today's service, His Eminence Archbishop Demetrious, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop of America. Archbishop Demetrious will be followed by Pandit Roop Sukhram of the Hindu Sreeraam Temple in Brooklyn, who will offer a Hindu prayer."

The combination of such prayers, statements, and readings gave the impression to many that all participants prayed to the same god, or that the gods of all religions were equal. For example, Pastor Chuck Boyer, LaVerne Church of the Brethren, comments on the Yankee Stadium event:

"I believe that praying or worshiping with persons of other faiths implies that one recognizes that the Creator works in and through a variety of religious institutions and manifestations. Since I believe that no religion, including my Christian branch of the faith tree, contains all the truth, I am happy to participate in interfaith services. Isn't it presumptuous to imagine that the Holy One has revealed all wisdom to only one group?" (Letter to the Editor, Los Angeles Times, December 7, 2001).

Again, consider this comment 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.

To pray to Jesus means to pray only to Jesus. To pray or to appear comfortable with prayers to Jesus and any other entity blurs His exclusive Lordship and places an obstacle in the way of His life-giving Word and presence.

The Holy Scriptures speak clearly about these things:

"You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3, The First Commandment)

"All the gods of the nations are idols." (Psalm 96:5)

"Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry.... No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons." (1 Corinthians 10:14,20-21)

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: 'I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.' 'Therefore come out from them and be separate.'" (2 Corinthians 6:14-17a)

After prayers were offered to Mary, to the gods of Islam, Hinduism, and Sikhism, President Benke began: "Oh, we're stronger now than we were an hour ago. And you know, my sisters and brothers, we're not nearly as strong as we're going to be. And the strength we have is the power of love. And the power of love you have received is from God, for God is love. So take the hand of one next to you now and join me in prayer on this 'field of dreams' turned into God's house of prayer..." Faculty of Concordia Theological Seminary, “A Pastoral Response to the Events of September 11, 2001,” adopted December 14, 2001; http://www.ctsfw.edu/pastoralresponse.htm . Also consider “A Reply to ‘A Pastoral Response’,” on the DayStar Network, http://www.day-star.net/hannah-reply.htm

299 http://cat41.org/NICL/TTMBO/index.htm

300 http://www.day-star.net/affirmation.htm

301 http://www.ad-lcms.org/response_to_charges.html

302 http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/reporter01.01.02praesidium.htm

David Mahsman, “President Challenged Veeps Deadlock,” Christian News, January 21, 2002.

303 http://www.lcms.org/ccm/

L. Blecker, “Praesidium Finally Acts,” Christian News, February 11, 2002, p. 3.

304 Statement of the Board of Directors, Reporter, February 2002, p. 1. This statement was based on Bylaw 8.21.e. of the 2001 Handbook, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod: “While a matter in dispute is still undecided or while an appeal is contemplated or pending, publicity shall not be given to the issues in the matter by any of the parties involved.”

305 “. . . the bylaw prohibition against publicity in a proceeding under Bylaw 2.25. f. is applicable to the President of the Synod since he is a party involved in the matter. . . . The President cannot give publicity to the particular matter in dispute. Some confusion appears to exist as to the Commission’s use of the term “matter in dispute” to which the prohibition of publicity applies. This phrase includes the details of the charges or allegations made, the correspondence and other communication which follow, the status of proceedings or deliberations, the President’s actions pertaining thereto, and his opinion as to who is right or wrong.” Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes, April 15-17, 2002 Opinion 02-2251.

306 http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/marquart.htm To further address the issue of what constitutes a civic event, consider how the issue is identified in the LCMS Chaplain Guidelines. LCMS military chaplains have long had to distinguish between what is a legitimate civic event and what constitutes a worship service: “VI. The Ministry of Word and Sacrament. F. Norms for Ministry of Chaplains. 6. Inter-Christian Rites and Ceremonies (pp. 33-34): LCMS chaplains are expected to represent our church body's confessional position and practices. They will not participate in inter-Christian/Faith worship rites nor will they participate in military ceremonies in which their presence would be unfaithful to the tenets of their faith. LCMS chaplains are free to jointly officiate at worship services only with those with whom the Synod is in altar and pulpit fellowship. In facing difficult cases, a LCMS chaplain should seek counsel from senior LCMS chaplains, the Director, Ministry to the Armed Forces, or his District President. VII. Ceremonies and Military Funerals (pp. 36-37). A. Ceremonies, General: A ceremony is a patriotic or recognition event for a particular purpose; it is not a religious service and reflects no particular denominational doctrine or liturgy. A chaplain may be requested to participate along with others in conducting the ceremony. It is command oriented and often involves mandatory attendance of whole units. A ceremony may include the national anthem or other music, an invocation and/or appropriate Scripture reading, the Pledge of Allegiance, and remarks from a speaker. The military chaplain will be in uniform for such an event. Traditions of the service foster ceremonies at graduations, commissionings of ships, dedications of buildings, changes of command, etc. B. Memorial Ceremonies: A memorial ceremony is an activity recognizing a deceased member or members of a particular organization, ship, war, etc. Normally a memorial ceremony includes music, an invocation, appropriate Scripture reading, reading of the Service record, obituary and/or remarks (often from the commanding officer), prayer, a silent tribute, and taps. LCMS chaplains may conduct memorial ceremonies at a chapel, graveside or elsewhere, for deceased service members (active duty or retired). It is important to understand that this is a ceremony and not a religious service. The chaplain's presence represents the government, not the church, and carries no implication of fellowship. C. Memorial Services: While the memorial ceremony is a patriotic event with the solemnity of remembering the fallen comrade(s) and has religious implications (i.e., thanking God for the service of the deceased), the memorial service is a religious service guided by the rites of the chaplain's denomination. Attendance at a memorial service is voluntary. The chaplain has a responsibility to advise the commander on whether the memorial activity should be a ceremony or a service. D. Military Funeral: A military funeral is a worship service at which the remains of the deceased are present and the customs of the Armed Services observed. When possible, LCMS chaplains should conduct such a service in accordance with "Burial of the Dead," Lutheran Worship Agenda. Rubrics state, "This service is intended for the burial of those who departed this life in the Christian faith." The chaplain may have the commander or his representative read the service record and/or obituary.” Legitimate civic ceremonies are those coordinated through the command or by local civic leaders where the military or civic purpose predominates, not the religious, and the impression of unionism (joint worship where there is not doctrinal agreement) and syncretism (the mixing of faith) is not given. As a chaplain in the U.S. Navy, I have followed these guidelines in determining what is an appropriate civic ceremony and what is not.

307 August Suelflow, Servant of the Word: The Life and Ministry of C.F.W. Walther (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2000), pp. 80-81.

308 In a December 10, 2001 Associated Press article, President Kieschnick’s response to the charges of two pastors was noted: “It means that a few people are disagreeing with the decisions I’ve made,” Kieschnick said Monday in an interview. “But guess what? Leaders are always disappointing somebody.”

“When obstacles arise,” he said, “I just see those as speed bumps on the road.” Kieschnick on Monday said his first major speed bump as synod president is behind him. The synod’s 1847 constitution demands that its congregations and pastors reject both the mingling of Christian and non-Christian beliefs. Traditionally, Missouri Synod leaders have not led prayer services with leaders of other religions, or even other Lutheran denominations. But in Kieschnick’s view, times change. He also said that a report approved by the convention in July allows leaders to lead services with those of other faiths at civic events. “This is not your grandfather’s United States of America,” he said. “Things have changed a bunch in the past 30, 40, 50 years. Were there people of the Islamic faith in the country in the middle of the 20^th century? Maybe. But not as many as there are today.” http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/ap12.10.01.htm Regarding involvement in the Yankee Stadium service, Kieschnick also said: “We are members of the body of Christ, not a cult.” Others who have supported District President Benke’s involvement in the Yankee Stadium “A Prayer for America” have used even stronger rhetoric in attempting to characterize opponents, both explicitly and implicitly.” http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/stlpd12.24.01.htm . In a December 2, 2001 Letter to the Editor of the St, Louis Post Dispatch, the Rev. Rodger Venzke, Ministry to the Armed Forces, LCMS, wrote: “I am deeply saddened and immensely embarrassed that a few of my fellow clergy persist in giving the world the impression that The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod is the Taliban of Christianity. Regrettably, their endless obsession with inward purification of the church only results in driving more and more away from the compassionate and loving savior whom we try to proclaim. In contrast, our representative at Yankee Stadium, before thousands of suffering people, offered a clear statement of the eternal hope that is ours in Jesus Christ. How commendable of Synod President Gerald Kieschnick to support and defend such a clear Christian witness! It is high time that the laity of our church rise up to the clergy extremists among us and say “Enough already!” If we are to Christ’s ambassadors in the world, then people must see Christ in us.” The above is no longer available at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website. It is, however, printed above in total. Others have used terms like “pharisaic,” “fascist,” “Nazis,” “legalistic,” to describe those who have taken issue with Dr. Benke’s involvement in the Yankee Stadium event.

309 “Just as in our nation, however, also for the Missouri Synod these dreadful events could turn out to be productive of change for the good. One such good end would be that we re-examine the strange notion that when one celebrates the presence of God together with others, as in these public-square events in our pluralistic society, one is tacitly condoning or endorsing the divergent beliefs the others may have, and thereby compromising or watering down one’s own confession.” http://www.day-star.net/exine/terrorism_01-10-06.htm . This site is no longer available. “President Benke has called these charges an “opportunity” for dialog in the church, to see what kind of a church we want to be. God bless him for his optimism. Perhaps it is an opportunity. It certainly has the markings of a turning point as Missouri comes to a crisis. Shall we continue to turn inward and serve the myth of our superiority/purity? Or, like the Savior himself, are we willing to lay aside the theological nitpicking and get “down and dirty” in the muck and mire of human life? How long will we hide the Gospel light under the bushel of separatism? How long will we retreat from speaking the “name by which all must be saved” in the public square? How long will our “best and brightest” be hindered and jeopardized in the ministry they do among life’s walking wounded?” http://www.day-star.net/exine/weep_01-01-12.htm This site is no longer available.

310 “This point is crucial. At civic events and once-in-a-lifetime situations, and, I will posit, in the changed world situation now emerging, pastors of the church must continue, as I was, to be ENCOURAGED to participate in any and all settings in which they can pray or proclaim the Name of Jesus. The opportunity presented on September 23, 2001 to be present on behalf of God’s Lutheran people and to pray in Jesus’ Name was one that could NOT BE MISSED when it was presented. This was President Gerald Kieschnick’s crystal clear signal in granting me permission to be at Yankee Stadium. In my opinion he signaled first of all to the world a desire on the part of LCMS Lutherans to engage with the Gospel, and not absent themselves from the arena. Secondly, he signaled to the LCMS a direction and intention that I believe is most important for the future of the church body, because things have changed.” http://www.ad-lcms.org/response_to_charges.html

311 http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/01/13/nslatebr.htm ; http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2002/01/14/bedell14.htm

312 The Synod’s Board of Directors issued two statements calling for all parties in the dispute to abide by the Synodical Bylaws. The first statement was issued February 1, 2002: http://www. Crisisinlcms.org/bodstatement.htm. The second statement, issued August 15-18, 2002, specifically took issue with the Synodical President and was sent to all pastors and congregations of the Synod. http://www. crisisinthelcms.org/bodpreamble.htm.

313 http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/frontline.htm Although much of the publicity has been sympathetic to District President Benke and Synodical President Kieschnick, there have been a few articles that have presented an opposing or more balanced view: David Brickner, “The Mosque, the Synagogue and the Church,” http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/jewsforjesus01.02.htm; Hal Lindsey, “Participating with Pagans,” http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/lindsey07.10.02.htm ; Gary Stern, “Minister’s Suspension Exposes Debate on Interfaith Relations,” The Journal News, http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/o72302/23benke.html ; Mollie Ziegler, “Interfaith Is No Faith," Wall Street Journal, http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110002011 .

314 The Rev. Dr. Wallace Schulz did not release his report to the media, but sent it directly to District President Benke. The report then appeared on the DayStar web site: http://www.day-star.net/schulz.htm

and subsequently in Christian News: “Schulz Report on Allegations Against Benke,” Christian News, July 8, 2002, pp. 6-7.

315 http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/lllstatement07.12.02.htm It should be noted that the Executive Committee of the ILLL accused Dr. Schultz of violating the ILLL’s Code of Ethics. This same Committee had initially told Dr. Schulz that they would support him regardless of the decision he made as Second Vice President of the Synod in the Benke case. Then, they later asked him to recuse himself. When Dr. Schulz asked the Executive Committee to present this request to the Synodical Presidium, they did so. The Synodical Presidium responded to the Executive Committee of the ILLL that Dr. Schulz was still assigned to the Benke case. Therefore, Dr. Schulz issued a ruling on the matter as Second Vice President of the Synod. If Dr. Schulz thereby violated the ILLL’s Code of Ethics, it appears that the ILLL’s Code of Ethics are in conflict with the Synodical Constitution.

316 http://www.lhm.org/shulzreturn.htm A complete chronological listing of all these events has been compiled by the Rev. Marcus Zill and may be found at the following web site: http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/summary.htm. It is interesting to note that when the Rev. Dr. Oswald Hoffmann was called to serve as the Lutheran Hour speaker, he had already signed “A Statement” of 1945 (see above). In addition, during his tenure as Lutheran Hour speaker, Dr. Hoffmann sympathized with the Faculty Majority at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis during the Walkout. And yet, he was not considered to have engaged in unethical behavior nor to have violated the ILLL’s code of ethics.

317 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.crisisinthelcms.org/valpo.htm ; http://www.crisisinthelcms.org/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.

318 All LCMS pastors agree to this at their ordination.

319 C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel (St. Louis: CPH, 1929, 1986), pp. 265-266.

320 Hermann Sasse, “The Church’s Unity on the Mission Field,” in The Lonely Way, Volume II (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, forthcoming).

321 Hermann Sasse, “On American Lutheranism,” Logia 4 (Reformation/October 1995): 53. Although not a theologian, another expounder on American Lutheranism, Garrison Keiller, noted: “I’m wary of ecumenism. I see nothing wrong with having six or 10 or 15 different churches of Christ in town and people trouping to each one. If the alternative is some nondenominational New Agey all-purpose homogenized feel-good exercise, then give me schism.” Todd Etshman, “Visiting Lake Wobegon,” The Lutheran, February 2002, http://www.thelutheran.org/0202/page20.html