150 years ago some of the Lutheran churches in America were engaged in a fierce battle over what were called, “the New Measures

The State of the Synod Today

Easter 2006

150 years ago some of the Lutheran churches in America were engaged in a fierce battle over what were called, “the New Measures.” These were revivalistic worship innovations not dissimilar to some of the ideas promoted today in our circles. At the same time the churches were arguing over precisely how they should relate to each other. What was the basis for fellowship at the altar? What criteria was a pastor or congregation to employ to determine whether or not to commune someone.

One of the chief advocates for a confessional, liturgical posture was the great 19^th century Lutheran theologian, Charles Porterfield Krauth. He analyzed the manner in which error takes hold of the church.

When error is admitted into the church, it will be found that the stages of its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few, and weak; only let us alone; we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions. Indulged in this for a time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are two balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the church. Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it, and to make them skilful in combating it.[1]

First error is tolerated, then it is treated as equal, then it tolerates and that only for a while. I would submit that we are exactly in the middle condition of Krauth’s three phase process moving with uncomfortable alacrity towards number three.

To which areas of theological conflict should we subject Krauth’s theory? Let me borrow a page from President Kieschnick’s 2004 presidential address. There he lists four areas over which we argue: Close [sic] Communion, Church and Ministry, Traditional and Contemporary worship, The Service of Women. Kieschnick rightly claims that these issues “cry out for biblically based resolution.” [2] Let’s look at these four areas of our synod’s life to see if “truth and error are two coordinate powers” in our midst. We will discover that two different views are equally taught among us and hold equal status. Currently any movement in the synod is truly towards preservation of balance of contradictory views as a prelude to the thorough overthrow of truth.

Who should receive the sacrament?

The historic fellowship position of the LCMS need not be reviewed at great length. We merely commend for your consideration the following conventions which all assert the historic practice of limiting communion to those with whom we are in fellowship: 1870, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1986, and 1995. In this latter convention, President Barry’s first, the synod said, “Resolved that the synod reaffirm 1967 res. 2-19 that ‘pastors and congregations of the LCMS, except in situation of emergency and in special cases of pastoral care, commune individuals of only those synods which are now in fellowship with us.’” Further the synod stated that we “beseech one another in love to remember that ‘situations of emergency and special cases of pastoral care’ or ‘extraordinary situations and circumstances’ are by their nature relatively rare.” In 1996, a scant decade ago the praesidium of the LCMS issued a statement which said,

In accord with the Scriptures’ and the Confessions’ teaching about the Lord’s Supper, and the nature and basis of church fellowship, our Synod continues to reaffirm the historic, confessional church practice of close(d) communion…. We recognize the pastoral responsibility the church has not merely to accept minimalistic concessions to ill-defined and un-examined confessions of the faith, but instead to lead people into the truth of the Scriptures, so that they may enjoy the fellowship of the church as it gathers at the altar to receive her Lord’s body and blood in the Sacrament of the Altar…. We regret the fact that some members of our synodical family have persisted in their public advocacy of an erroneous position in regard to close(d) communion. Sadly, they have done this in spite of the fraternal, pastoral and faithful admonition of our Synod’s president, and of our Synod’s district presidents, who have counseled with them about this situation.

Therefore, we affirm and commend to our Synod, the pastoral application of the faithful and evangelical resolution adopted by our Synod in convention last summer reaffirming our Synod’s scriptural position on close(d) communion, Resolution 3—08. We ask that all members of the Synod, both church workers and congregations, receive, respect and conform their practice to this resolution. [3]

So the position of our church is clear. At least it was before truth and error began to exist side by side.

For the last four decades the synod has also been forced to acknowledge the troublesome phenomenon that congregations and pastors simply will not abide by our practice of closed communion and deviate as a matter of practice from the historic practice of the church. Analyze the following. All are communion statements from congregations in our beloved synod.

Communion Note

Because of God’s high standards for those desiring to partake of Holy Communion (The Lord’s Supper), please consider the following questions as you prepare:

1. Am I a sinner?

2. Am I sorry for my sins?

3. Do I believe Jesus died and rose again for my sins?

4. Do I intend, with God’s help, to change my sinful life?

5. Do I believe Jesus’ Body and Blood are present with the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper?

According to God’s Word, anyone who is able to answer “yes” to these questions is properly prepared to receive the Lord’s Supper with blessing. It is our practice to commune those in 7th grade and older who have been baptized and instructed in the Bible teachings about the Lord’s Supper. (For those who for medical or personal reasons are unable to receive wine, grape juice is available. Please speak to one of the pastors for information about receiving grape juice instead of wine.) If you have questions about our teaching or practice regarding the Lord’s Supper, please speak to one of our pastors. Thank you. [4]

Apparently you need to consult the pastor in order to consume grape juice but not if you want to eat and drink the body and blood of the Son of God. Notice also that no faith or understanding in the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the atonement, Holy Baptism, that the sacrament actually confers a blessing, etc. is required. And what if there is someone in your church who never finished the seventh grade but was nonetheless instructed and examined in preparation for the sacrament. This must be one of those “minimalistic and ill-defined confessions of the faith” of which the Praesidium warned in 1996. And what in the name of all that is holy is meant by the expression, “high standards?”

Let’s view another.

WE CELEBRATE HOLY COMMUNION TODAY

as a means of receiving the powerful working of God’s Spirit within us as we receive bread and wine. YOU ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IF: You believe in Jesus as your Savior, have been baptized, and received instruction in the basic teachings of the Christian faith; desire to turn from your sin and live as God asks in Holy Scripture; believe that our Lord is present in this meal; and you have received formal instruction in the teachings of Holy Communion. If you wish to receive the wine from an individual glass, please take one as the Elder hands you the wafer. Drink from the glass as the common cup is passed in front of you. Please sign a Communion registration card (found in the hymnal rack) and hand it to an usher as you go to Communion. [5]

This appears to be better – or not. “Believe that our Lord is present in this meal,” could, of course, apply to any meal which begins with the “Come Lord Jesus” prayer. No bodily presence is asserted, no forgiveness of sins is associated with Jesus or the Sacrament and there is certainly nothing which even approximates closed communion.

A few more are worthy of a look:

ANNOUNCEMENT TO HOLY COMMUMON

(Please hand this card to an elder as you go to Communion,)

BETHLEHEM LUTHERAN CHURCH

Ridgewood, New Jersey

I desire to receive Holy Communion today. I have been baptized in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I have learned the basics of what God’s Word teaches concerning the Lord’s Supper. I believe that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in, with, and under the bread and wine of the Sacrament. I hold no grudge against anyone and harbor no hatred in my heart. I believe that Christ Himself is inviting me to receive His body and blood, given and shed for me for the full forgiveness of my sins. I come to His table in humility, thankfulness, and joy.

Signed: Date: ________________

Address: _______ _______________________

(Visitors complete other side also.) [6]

It is a high and holy privilege to participate in the Sacrament of Holy communion. For, in so doing, we receive the forgiveness of sins and we celebrate the unity of faith which the Spirit has given to us. The Word of God, in I Corinthians 11:27-29, mandates that we make proper, personal preparation prior to the sharing of Holy Communion, In that spirit, and individually, the pastor and the elected Elders of the congregation ask that each person who plans to commune respond affirmatively to the following statements:

1) I acknowledge that I have sinned - knowingly and unknowingly - and sincerely repent of those sins.

2) I know that Jesus Christ has lived and died and was raised to new life as a full payment for my sins.

3) I accept the words of Scripture (I Corinthians 10:16, 11:24-25) that the bread and wine and the Body and Blood of Christ, together, are His Real Presence.

These are affirmations of faith given by the Holy Spirit. It is our continual prayer that this will enhance your sacramental life. Thank you and God bless you. [7]

+ Participation in the Sacrament +

We believe that as we share in this Sacrament, our Lord Jesus Christ is really present and that we truly receive His Body and Blood for the forgiveness of our sins and the strengthening of our faith to live the Christian life. We invite you to participate in this meal if you share this faith of our believing community.

Order of Holy Communion Pages 170-172

Distribution

The ushers will direct you to commune, one row at a time from each side of the church. Come forward to receive the Bread from the pastor in the center aisle. Receive the Wine from a chalice on either side of the aisle, or you may wish to intinct (dip) the bread in one of the cups on the table cit the center of the aisle. The smaller cup contains wine with alcohol. The larger chalice cup contains non-alcoholic wine. [8]

COMMUNION PREPARATION

The Lord’s Supper is Christ’s true body and true blood in, with, and under the bread and the wine. This sacrament is a special blessing for God’s people: our sins are forgiven, our weak faith is strengthened, and our resolve to live for the Lord is renewed. We are worthy to receive this sacrament when we have faith in these words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins”.

All who confess with us this understanding of the Lord’s Supper are welcome to receive the sacrament. Visitors who wish to continue to commune with us on a regular basis, or those who have questions are encouraged to speak with one of the pastors. [9]

In all of these the communicant is responsible for making the determination regarding whether or not to commune. This is specifically contrary to our confessions where no one is communed except those “who are previously examined and absolved” by the pastor. [10] Notice, also, the apparent random manner in which the articles of the faith are listed. Some expect baptism and mention the Trinity. Some mention the basic historic acts of Jesus. Some mention forgiveness of sins, some mention an amended life. But none mention agreement with the church on all the articles of faith.

And this is merely the tip of the iceberg. This reluctance to practice closed communion is rampant in our church. Why? Because there is either no resolve by the leadership of our church in addressing the issue, or when district presidents try to put a stop to the practice of open communion they are trumped by three person dispute resolution panels. Even district presidents who want to do the right thing in their ecclesiastical discipline are loathe to waste hundreds of hours pressing a case either against a pastor or a congregation which they know they will lose on appeal.

President Kieschnick certainly did nothing to help when, in his president’s report to the synod in 2004, he placed both views side by side and deftly managed to endorse both – or neither.

The official position of our Synod, which welcomes members of LCMS congregations and congregations of church bodies with whom we are in altar and pulpit fellowship, also understand this policy to include, “the necessity of exercising responsible pastoral care in extraordinary situations and circumstance” in the communing of “Christians who are members of denominations not in fellowship with the LCMS. (1986 LCMS Convention resolution 3-08)”’ There is significant disagreement about what constitutes “extraordinary situations and circumstance,” which pastors and congregations interpret very broadly and others quite narrowly.” [11]

That’s it? For reasons which you can draw for yourself President Kieschnick neglected to site the 1995 synodical resolution which interpreted the 1986 resolution. It says, “’situations of emergency and special cases of pastoral care’ or extraordinary situation and circumstance’ are by their nature, relatively rare.” [12] It’s almost as if we went strait from 1986 to 2004 with the entire Barry administration excised from the history books.

At the same time, and I speak more anecdotally here, we have all heard stories or have experiences when those who admonish neighboring pastors to practice closed communion are labeled, “intolerant,” “meddlers,” or “transgressing our covenant of love,” whatever that is. Clearly in our circles, “Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.” [13]

Who should preach the gospel and administer the Sacraments?

“It is taught that no one shall publicly preach, teach the gospel or administer the sacraments without a proper (public) call.” [14] What this means is that no one shall publicly preach, teach the gospel or administer the sacraments without a proper (public) call. That’s pretty clear and it does not allow for exceptions. This is in the confessions of our church so we have to believe it. It’s our position.

Perhaps we could state it in the form of a syllogism.

All who preach the gospel and administer the sacraments need to be regularly called.

Joe Blow is preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments.

So, Joe Blow must be regularly called.

The inescapable logic of the whole thing is a credit to the logical acumen of the early Lutherans.

But listen to what our church also holds to:

In circumstances where there is no resident pastor and no pastor available to lead worship and preach regularly, arrangements may be made by a congregation or the responsible board, in consultation with the district President, to secure the services of a layman, licensed to preach and serve under the supervision of an ordained pastor….In exceptional circumstances when no ordained clergy is available and the congregation would otherwise be deprived of the Sacrament for a prolonged period of time, the licensed layman will preside,…The administration of the Office of the Keys by means of the personal pronouncement of the absolution as it pertain to church discipline and possible excommunication ought not be carried out by those who do not hold the office of the public ministry, since this can always be provided for on behalf of the congregation by those who hold the office of public ministry. [15]

Let’s state this syllogistically.

All who preach the gospel and administer the sacraments need not be regularly called.

Joe Blow is preaching the gospel and administering the sacraments.

Joe Blow need not be regularly called.

If it sounds to you like we hold two opposing and irreconcilable views it’s because we do. We do not need to belabor this. Actually we should. We should either renounce and repent of Wichita 3-05b, the infamous resolution which allowed laymen to function as pastors, or we should publicly announce that the Augsburg Confession is wrong at least in this article. Instead, we hold both that there are no exceptions and that we must grant exceptions. We also hold, rather weirdly if you ask me, that we can always provide the office of the keys to congregations through those who hold the office of the ministry but we cannot do the same for the administration of the Sacrament of the Altar. “Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.” [16]

The role of women in the service of the church.

In 2004 the synod passed Res. 3-08a, “To Affirm the Conclusions of the 1994 CTCR Report: The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices.” [17] Space simply does not permit an analysis of LCMS res. 3-08a of the 2004 convention here. Allow me some analytical conceits. First, prior to 2004 our synod ostensibly believed that any question regarding the question of the role of women in the church must take into consideration the orders of creation. In 1969 women were granted suffrage and board membership when the synod passed resolution 2-17. In that resolution the “synod accept[ed] certain declarations as guides” in the matter of women voting or holding office. The first declaration said that the pertinent passages meant “that women ought not to hold the pastoral office or serve in any other capacity involving the distinctive functions of this office.” The synod also said in declaration 2 of 1969 res. 2-17 that “the principles set form in such (bible) passages, we believe prohibit holding any other kind of office or membership on boards or committees in the institutional structures of the congregation, only if this involves women in violation of the order of creation.” In other words women could neither be pastors nor violate the order of creation. There were two criteria to be employed in determining what function or offices women could do or hold. First, were they distinctly pastoral and second, did they violate the orders of creation. After the third declaration in 2-17 gave women the exercise of the franchise (that is the right to vote) the fourth, again, placed two criteria upon any deliberation of the role of women by asserting that any polity that is developed “conforms to the general scriptural principle that women neither hold the pastoral office nor ‘exercise authority over men.’” [18] In other words there was an exercise of authority that was not necessarily the holding of the pastoral office or the performance of it functions.

Slowly this second criteria began to lose it sway in Missouri at least judging by the CTCR. By 1995 the concern over the orders of creation had diminished considerably on the CTCR. The 1986 CTCR Document “Women in the church,” made two passing assertions of the principle and neglected to apply it to any current question. It was a principle without an application. By 1994 and the CTCR document, “The Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Offices” upon which 2004 resolution 3-08 was based, the whole concept had disappeared from consideration. According to the 1994 document, the “only stricture” placed upon women in their service in the congregations applies to those functions which “on behalf of the congregation and in the stead of Christ” the pastor performs that involve him “in the exercise of authority inherent in this authoritative public teaching office in the church.” [19] And while the 1994 document precludes women from holding the pastoral office or performing the functions of that office, it forbids nothing else. Not included in the limitations placed upon women would be the “many (humanly established) offices (which) are created for the purpose of assisting pastors…in the carrying out the duties of their office.” These human offices “should engage the service of both men and women.” [20] The Orders of Creation had disappeared.

A minority of the CTCR was alarmed back in 1994 and issued a strong warning, “The matter of the order of creation raises questions concerning the very nature of manhood and womanhood as well as the relationship between creation and the new creation of the Age to come. These matters are worthy of fundamental (re)consideration.” [21] The result was passing a 1995 convention resolution appropriately and painstakingly entitled, “To Continue to Study the Service of Women in Congregational and Synodical Office in Light of ‘Dissenting Report’ and Other Ongoing Studies of the CTCR on the Role of Women in the Church, Resolution 3-06a” [22] But no further study was adopted by the CTCR. And in 2004 we went back and approved the 1994 CTCR statement. It’s almost as if the Barry years had simply not occurred.

What does all this mean? It means that, according to the 1969 resolution we still insist that the biblical concept of the “orders of creation” may be applied to situations or offices which are not pastoral. Yet according to 2004 resolution 3-08a there is no such thing as the orders of creation and if there were they would not apply except to the office and functions of the ministry. Yet, and here is our point rather arduously arrived at, we have not changed our position. Both the 1969 position and the 2004 position, which simply and clearly contradict each other, are true and applicable in our church. “Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.” [23]

President Kieschnick did not help matters immediately following the convention. He reported in his August of 2004 letter to pastors:

It is imperative that the congregations of our synod understand clearly what this resolution [3-08a] says and does not say, what it allows and does not allow, in order to avoid widely varying interpretations of such phrases as “the distinctive functions” of the pastoral office and “public accountability for the functions of the pastoral office.”

Accordingly, I am appointing a special task force to create guidelines for congregational and District constitution committees to follow in revising congregational constitutions and bylaws to permit women to hold congregational offices so long as their assigned responsibilities do not include “distinctive function” or “public accountability for the function of the pastoral office.”

The members of this task force are:

- Dr. Samuel Nafsger, Executive Director of the Commission on Theology and church Relations

- Dr. Loren Kramer, Chairman of the Commission on Theology and Church Relation

- Dr. Arleigh Lutz, President of North Wisconsin District and chairman of 2004 Convention Floor Committee 3, Theology and Church Relations

- Dr. Al Marcis, chairman of the Commission on constitutional Matters

- Dr. Ray Hartwig, Secretary of Synod.

It is my request of this task force that these guidelines be prepared by January 1, 2005 and made available to all congregations and Districts of the Synod. [24]

Of course the creation of this task force raised a couple of questions. Doesn’t the need of such a task force suggest that the resolution is ambiguous? If so, why was the synod not told that it was passing an ambiguous resolution which would then be interpreted and applied by a task force which the synod itself did not appoint? Why could not such a group have articulated the “distinctive functions of the pastoral office” before the synod approved 3-08a in 2004?

Happily the task force made a more conservative than it was feared they would. But there is still an ominous quality to the entire surreal affair. We are in a position where two conflicting views are intentionally promoted and a task force is appointed which will sort it all out. What is to keep our illustrious president from appointing another task force next year which comes up with a different opinion? Now it seems that what will govern the synod regarding the distinctive functions of the office is this: What does the task force say that 3-08a says that “Service of Women” says that the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod says that the Bible says. How many steps must we be removed from the Bible before we start to wonder if Sola Scriptura has been replaced? But this is the only way we can function when two contradictory views are held. “Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.” [25]

Uniformity of worship [26]

Our church body was founded upon the principle that uniformity in worship is a desirable thing. Recall that at our beginnings many American Lutherans were aping the Reformed, revivalistic sects around them. Carl Mundinger says,

While the framers of the (first LCMS) constitution remained faithful to Article VII of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession in that their demand for uniformity was not absolute, they did insist rather vigorously that the member congregations leave no stone unturned in their efforts to introduce uniform ceremonies. The constitution even goes so far as to claim that uniformity in liturgy, especially if this liturgy is increased and developed according to Lutheran standards, will be helpful in purifying the American Lutheran Church of its Reformed excrescences. [27]

Fast forward one century. When the LCMS was in the midst of transitioning from a German speaking to an English speaking church she confronted many of the same problems. One Lutheran put it this way in 1934,

It is beyond gainsaying that especially our English speaking Lutheran Church has permitted much of Lutheranism’s liturgical heritage to fall into disuse and to be replaced by ecclesiastical crudities and vulgarities and by insipid sentimentalities borrowed from the hip, hip, hurrah meeting house services of the American Sects. The hours of worship in many Lutheran churches are characterized either by a crude barrenness or by silly theatricalities…The beautiful musical possibilities of the versicles, introits, graduals and psalm-tunes have not even begun to come into their own. The communion service is often rendered with strange interpolations that are offensive even to the unliturgical mind. Confusion unbounded reigns upon the liturgical field. [28]

A leading Missouri theologian of the 1930s and 40s, W. G. Pollock, observed, “Every church seems to have its own private service, different in whole or in part from any other. A visitor, if he can take part in the liturgy at all, is at a great disadvantage.” [29] The problem was that much of the English liturgical resources were simply not very Lutheran, yet English speaking pastors were forced to borrow from them. So the synod produced Lutheran hymnals and Agendas. The goal was not simply to provide another option. Rather, we needed a hymnal with a uniform liturgy for all to follow.

Upon the publication of a common liturgy and agenda in English our leaders were ecstatic. Theodore Graebner claimed in 1935, “In causing this new liturgy to be printed our synod unquestionably intended to make possible a liturgical uniformity in our congregations in order that this element might be conserved during the transition from German to English.” [30] And Pollack said, “The fond hope of having one hymnal for the churches of this body has been realized, giving us another outward manifestation of the unity of faith.” [31] Uniformity was still our way.

Move forward another half century. The controversies around worship were addressed in 1998 during the tenure of President Barry. At the convention that year a resolution was passed which reflected our heritage. It said in part, “Resolved that the Commission on Worship bring together a forum representing the diversity of practices within the Synod (on worship)…for the purpose of increasing understanding building consensus in our doctrine and practice of worship,…And be it finally resolved that everyone heed the advice of Dr. Martin Luther who penned words that speak directly to our time and place: ‘I pray all of you my dear sirs let each one surrender his own opinions and get together in a friendly way and come to a common decision about these external matters so that there will be on uniform practice throughout your district instead of disorder.’” [32] Uniformity in worship was still our way.

So, throughout our noble history the LCMS has encouraged a uniform liturgy. We did so to reflect our oneness in God’s grace, to protect ourselves from sectarian and Reformed influences and to exhibit the unity of the faith we have always enjoyed. That is why all Missouri Synod Lutherans up until recently all used the same liturgical services and could identify doctrinally similar churches by their similar liturgies. That was the sentiment behind the production of a new hymnal. Uniformity in worship is our way.

But under the leadership of president Kieschnick things have changed dramatically. In 2004 we passed the new hymnal. What a happy moment. We could all unite behind a common hymnal just like we did in the past. Whatever weaknesses the project might have had at least we would be uniform again. Not so fast. Immediately after, another resolution was passed which said, “Resolved that the synod, in convention affirm respect for diversity in worship practices as we build greater understanding of our theology of worship and foster further discussion of worship practices that are consistent with the theology.” [33] This time we did two contradictory things right after each other.

For you to get a real flavor for the type of worship envisioned by President Kieschnick’s convention you should attempt to procure and watch the tapped worship service of “Igniting Congregations” hosted by King of Kings Lutheran Church in Omaha Nebraska in 2003. The purpose of the conference and the worship service was to kickoff one phase of the Ablaze program. There were three bands on the stage. They took turns playing various songs. Some were traditional such A Mighty Fortress but were stylized by the singer and placed to a meter with a strong back beat so that no one but those who had practiced could actually sing along. After about 15 minutes of music President Kieschnick strode to the stage vested in a turtleneck and sports coat with the happy announcement, “welcome to a typical service of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.” Then he commenced to preach but only after a couple of “personal comments.” It was one of those moments when you had thoroughly buried you face in your hands and were painfully looking through your fingers. And this is the vehicle of grace.

When you go to church next Sunday I want you to imagine service with not a single hymn. All the songs are sung by the band and none teach forgiveness or grace. The congregation is unable to sing along. The pastor is not vested. Laypeople give the children’s sermon while doting parents oooh and aaaah. None of the ordinaries are present and neither is the gospel. That is the typical service at many of our churches. Next time you go to church, think about these “contemporary services” while the offering is taken. Perhaps, then, your gratitude over what you have at your congregation may shake loose from your wallet a couple more bucks. Can you watch this and hear it endorsed while attending the Divine Service of Word and Sacrament at your own church and not conclude that Charles Porterfield is correct? “Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.” [34]

Conclusion

So in those four areas of conflict over which our Synod currently struggles we find ourselves in a peculiar position. We are corporately straddling the fence. We hold two views which are not compatible but which we still hold. And president Kieshcnick has not helped matters much. Just read his “Report of the President – Part III” to the 2004 convention. First he repeats the tired litany of things we used to hold wrongly in our synod such as “It was once considered a sin to purchase life insurance” or “Lutheran were not allowed to dance” [35] as if our current disagreements are no greater than the question of preaching in English or whether the men and women sit together in the church. Then he lists the five theological controversies which have “been instrumental in defining” our synod: The controversy over the doctrine of the church at Walther’s time, the sharp disagreement about the authority of the pastoral office at the same time, the doctrine of election in the 1870s, the statement of the 44, and most recently the whole question of the authority of Scripture in the 1970s. [36] What I found frustrating about his report, and frankly alarming, is that I could not tell which side was correct in any of these past controversies. President Kieschnick certainly did not indicate that he had taken sides in any of our past theological skirmishes. For the record: The church is the assembly of believers who hear the Word. Pastors, who are holders of the office of the ministry, are called by God through the church, and have authority to forgive sins through the gospel. Those whose names are “written in the book of life” have been eternally elected by God in Christ not in view of faith and nothing can separate them from the love of God in Christ. The statement of the 45 was withdrawn and it is wrong. There is no room in the church of God for those who deny the absolute authority of the Bible as does the Seminex crowd which largely supports Dr. Kieshcnick. I suppose if President Kieschnick had actually identified that party which was correct and biblical for the last 150 years that might have obligated him to identify those who are correct and biblical today. Instead he lists four areas over which we currently argue and which we have discussed in this paper; Close [sic] Communion, Church and Ministry, Traditional and Contemporary worship, The Service of Women. These issues “cry out for biblically based resolution” says president Kieschnick but he offers no hint as to how they should be resolved.[37] I can tell you right now how to solve these problems but don’t hold your breath waiting for President Kieschnick to do so. Practice closed communion like we’ve always done. Follow article XIV of the Augsburg confession like every pastor and every congregation has sworn to do. Practice uniformity of worship like our forefathers encouraged and insisted. Apply the “orders of creation” principle to the question of the role of women in the church as the church has for 2000 years. That, however, would only work in a synod where truth and falsehood are not allowed to stand side by side indefinitely. Until then we are stuck with Krauth’s troubling diagnosis. “Truth and error are two co-ordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.” [38] And we are stuck with a president who thrives more on controversy that on actually resolving the questions before us by returning to our former biblical position.

Klemet Preus

Easter 2006

[1] Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and its Theology (Minneapolis, Augsburg, 1871) pp.195-196, italics in the original.

[4] St. Mark’s Lutheran church, Eureka, MO, pastors Dar Karsten, John Jameson

[5] Calvary Lutheran Church, Aberdeen, WA, Pastor Richard J. Peterson, May 31, 1998

[10] AC XXV, 2 The Book of Concord, Ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wangert (Minneapolis, Fortress Press 2000) 73.

[15] 1989 LCMS Convention Proceedings p. 112-113.

[24] President Gerald Kieschnick, “Letter to Pastors,” August 2004.

[26] This section is taken largely from, Klemet Preus, “Uniformity of Worship: It’s our way, Consensus, Volume 4 Number 2, Feb. March 2006, p. 1.

[27] Carl Mundinger, Government in the Missouri Synod, (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1947) 345.

[28] “Liturgical Forms” America Lutheran 17 (February 1934): 4. Cited in Michael Hinrichs, “Liturgical Uniformity in Missouri” Logia (Easter 1996 Volume V number 2) p. 17-18.

[29] W. G. Pollack, “Our Uncommon Service,” Lutheran Witness 36 (June 14, 1925): 222 Cited in Hinrichs p. 17.

[30] Theodore Graebner, “Our Liturgical Chaos,” in The Problem of Lutheran Union and Other Essays (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House 1935), 136. Cited in Hinrichs 19.

[31] Reports and Memorials (St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1941) 217. Cited in Hinrichs p. 20)