Response to the 102 and Their "Evangelical Lutheran
Newsletter"
Church Growth Pastors Mislead Laity Across Synod
The Gospel is easily lost to the congregation when any individual, including the pastor, is given the right to reinvent worship as he chooses for the congregation. The Christian Church has been in existence since Pentecost. The official text of the Bible and the confession of the Christian church were established in the year 325 at the Council of Nicea. The Creeds and the sacraments of the early church were adopted as the basis of faith and worship in the Augsburg Confession. The 102 represent approximately 79% of the 390 congregations in the Michigan District. Their names are reproduced at the end of this chapter. They promote anarchy, chaos, and fanaticism in the name of worship. The only thing more tragic is that the lay people of the Michigan District are so ignorant and uninformed that they accept this "change" in practice and leadership. Within less than one year the Michigan 102 joined forces with the publisher’s of "Forward" in a nationwide campaign to take their cause reviewed here in this chapter to the entire Synod and the 1998 LCMS Convention. The layman who doesn’t have his order of service in print in a hymn book is the devil’s pawn. It was Luther’s opinion that God gives people the kind of leadership they deserve, such as the Papacy, because they turned away from the Gospel before the Reformation. It is clearly happening again.
This response is an appeal to preserve the worship order and practice of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The love of God’s word is more important than the love of people or fellow clergy. Without the former the latter is not possible. The bond of love and fellowship in the church only exists when it is centered on Christ’s word (Acts 2:38).
The call to worship Christ in spirit and in truth is the call to worship Christ according to God’s word. The Christian lives a life of constant repentance and forgiveness in the worship service. Worship is not a time for entertainment, self indulgence, self improvement, self glorification, self affirmation, or self directed living now being used to help build attendance. Professional sports have a much higher crowd appeal. "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me." (Matt. 15:8)
When the publican entered the temple he put is head down to the ground and said "God be merciful to me a sinner." (Luke 18:13) Christ said this publican went home justified by God. This is exactly the kind of worship the proponents of the Church Growth, contemporary worship, and the 102 want to avoid. The worship of the well adjusted, self satisfied, and self fulfilled Pharisee who exalted himself leads to no place but hell.
It is a time to mourn and weep for the Michigan District whose clergy no longer want to endorse the exclusive use of orthodox Lutheran agenda, hymn books, catechism, and agenda in church and school. The 102 are leading the laity away from Christ to the golden calf of self-indulgence and success under the banner of the Great Commission.
Comparing the merits of so called contemporary worship with so called traditional worship is a blatant deception perpetrated by the 102 on an uninformed laity. The 102 know very well that contemporary worship has no definition and is a pretext for their own agenda. Under the cloak of contemporary worship, repentance, the forgiveness of sins, law and gospel, the Creeds, and the Lord’s Prayer, and the Synod’s constitutionally agreed upon order for worship are regularly changed or removed.
If the pastors are going to lead the lay people to give up their Lutheran worship and identity, at least the 102 should be honest and tell them what they are doing.
This new pietism is to reinvent the order for worship every week as if this human rule will lead more people to faith in Christ. No one particular order for worship can achieve this goal. However, only an agreed upon form will guarantee the lay people they are practicing Lutheran worship and not the pastor’s behavior modification, mind control techniques and charismatic, manipulative, idiosyncrasies through pop psycobabble liturgies and hypnotic trance enduing medleys.
The Pharisees were constantly attacking Christ for not keeping their rules when they worshipped. However, Christ offered no innovations on the Sabbath and always kept the Sabbath of the Old Testament at the temple and read scripture in the Synagogues. After Pentecost the entire worship of the church was changed from prophecy, sacrifice, and ceremony to fulfillment in Christ.
Every Christian has a responsibility to assemble for worship. (Heb. 10:25) The Third Commandment can only be kept in the New Testament with God’s word, law and Gospel, repentance and forgiveness as the foremost goal of worship. In his explanation to the Third Commandment Luther writes, "We should fear and love God that we may not despise preaching and His word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it." Worshippers who seek something in place of God’s word in worship "despise preaching and His word" and are not seeking Christ. Worshippers who worship in repentance and forgiveness receive all that Christ came to give.
With their signatures on the so-called "Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter," the 102 pastors have shown how divisive they are. The four Vice Presidents of the District and many circuit counselors among the 102 signatures only demonstrates the boldness of the conspirators and collapse of Lutheran doctrine and practice in the Michigan and many other Districts. None of them are fit for any elected or appointed office in the church. Any man who accepts the office of Michigan District President only demonstrates his own shoddy pastoral ethics, theology, compromise of Lutheran Doctrine, and disregard for the Constitution of the LCMS if he does not publicly condemn the "Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter".
The 102 say: "We desire that pastors treat each other with love and respect."
As a Missouri Synod pastor I took a vow to agree that the Bible is the only Word of God and the Lutheran Confessions are the correct exposition of the Bible’s doctrine. If we all agree on these we should be walking in the same direction. Obviously, the existence of the "Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter," demonstrates we do not agree and we are not walking together. Out of love for God’s word, the Lutheran Confessions, and for the members of my congregation I must respond.
At the observance of the 150th Anniversary of the LCMS there is no agreement on the doctrine of the church and ministry in our Synod. The statement of 102 does not quote any writings of Walther, the Synod’s founder, or make reference to his name. However, the concerns of the 102 center on the doctrine of church and ministry. Walther’s writings on church and ministry were adopted as the Synod’s official position in more than one convention. The 102 want the rest of us to follow their own practice of church and ministry as they reinvent it. At the same time, they claim others who disagree with them are not following correct practice. The 102 request love and respect, but they do not show love and respect for what they agreed to confess as the doctrine of church and ministry in our Synod. What a tragedy that Dr. Salminen is now joining the faculty of the St. Louis Seminary with his name on this document.
The 102 say: "We desire that the spirit of Matthew 18 be followed as a basic ethic between pastors."
The 102 hide behind their own self-righteous pietism and will not debate nor will they respond to public questions or criticism. They call this following Matthew 18. This rebuttal to the 102 was sent to every church in Michigan in May of 1997 and not one of them would respond at this writing in April of 1998.
The 102 publish their complaints against the seminaries, groups, and unnamed individuals. They condemn, criticize, and complain about the practices and writings of other pastors. Did the 102 speak to any of them? Did they contact these faculties and these pastors? They published their document to the delegates of the Michigan District Convention two months before it began on June 22, 1997. This shows the hypocrisy of the 102 and contradicts the very thing Dr. Salminen speaks against on page 2 of their news letter.
"It is our business to speak softly, kindly, gently, lovingly, compassionately, and joyfully to fellow clergy. It is our business in a joyous, spontaneous, Spirit-motivated, self-forgiving response to see each other as holy, because God in Christ has made it so."
First, their application of Matthew 18 is in error. Then, they contradict their own misapplication. In matters of public doctrine, Luther’s Large Catechism quoted by Walther and then requoted by Fritz as follows clearly shows their approach to Matthew 18 by the 102 is incorrect.
"All this has been said regarding secret sins (Matt. 18:15, the Eighth Commandment, etc.). But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody knows it, you can without any sin avoid him and let go, because he has brought himself to disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public, the reproof in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it.
1In paragraph 274 of the Eighth Commandment in the Large Catechism, Luther includes pastors among those whose office it is to not allow false doctrine to go unanswered. As the pastor of a congregation which is being influenced by local LCMS congregations that are giving up their hymn books, agendas, liturgy, the traditional wording of the Creeds, Confession and Absolution, and the Lord’s Prayer in their worship services, if I don’t condemn the 102 I will be sinning against the Eighth Commandment.
"--just so also, although no one has a right in his own person to judge and condemn anybody, yet if they to whose office it belongs fail to do it, they sin as well as he who would do so of his own accord, without such office."
Walther, in his Pastoral Theology,
2 gives the following statement on the requirements of public preaching:"The elencthic use, to reprove or refute false doctrine, also belongs to the correct application of God’s Word. The apostle says this explicitly in 2 Tim. 3:16. We see it in the example of all prophets and apostles and of our Lord Jesus Himself. As often as we see them and the Lord Himself occupied with doctrines, so often we see them add defense, not only against coarse errors (1 Cor. 15:22ff) but also against more subtle ones (Gal. 5:9); not only in a friendly way (Gal. 4:1-10) but also in a serious, vehement way (Gal. 1;8-9; Phil. 3:2) not only with reference to the false teachings but also with reference to the false teachers, with or without naming them and their sects (1 John 4:1; Gal. 5:10; Matt. 16:6; Rev. 2:15; 2Tim. 2:17; nominal elenchus [Reproof by name].
The 102 say: "The perceived role of pastors has undergone a subtle shift in which authority is claimed which the Confessions do not allow."
The phrase "subtle shift" is clearly an understatement. How about a complete reversal and the overthrow of Walther’s Church and Ministry?
On behalf of the 102, Dr. Paul Maier makes the most pointed and substantive comments in the document with no footnotes or references for his claims. His books demonstrate he is thoroughly capable of supplying documentation and references to substantiate his writing when he chooses to do so. He shotgunned so many unsubstantiated comments for the 102 it is impossible to respond to all of them.
Dr. Maier claims the final authority in ministry is mediated from God through the congregation to the pastor. I agree with this Missouri Synod position as stated by Walther "Concerning the Holy Ministry of the Pastoral Office, Thesis VI & VII."
3 I call it deceit that he waves the banner of LCMS polity authored by Walther but will not quote Walther. But how can Maier quote Walther when he disagrees with much of what Walther wrote, as do the 102? So Maier picks and choose his doctrinal jibs when it suits his taste and creates a doctrine of church and ministry for the 102 out of his own imagination. From this lofty perch he rains down his missiles on all challengers to Michiganmania.How could the 102 be wrong? Look how many there are and they all say they are "Lutheran." Just ask them. Church Growth doctrine clearly teaches that we shape church and ministry by market research which means this writer, a statistical "1" to 102, can’t possibly be right. Walther’s entire book on "Church and Ministry" was adopted by the LCMS in convention. I challenge Dr. Maier to say he agrees with the entire book instead of picking and choosing the parts he likes. Maier could also have quoted Walther’s advocacy of hymn books beginning on page 194 of "Essays for the Church" Vol. 1 but the 102 would never do that.
4Perhaps the 102 will someday tell us what their entire secret doctrine of church and ministry is and we will know on what basis Dr. Maier disagrees with the practice of others, besides the majesty of his own opinion.
Yes, Dr. Maier, ordination is not a sacrament, says Luther, the Confessions, and Walther in Thesis VI.
Why does Dr. Maier blame the seminaries for teaching students to "lord it over" congregations? He is only complaining about what the Synod’s Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) promoted in its 1985 document, "Women in the Church." They are the ones who officially promoted the "headship" of the pastor over the congregation while making numerous references to the headship of the husband over the wife. I agree with Dr. Maier. This kind of wording is not in the Confessions and certainly not in Walther. It sounds Romish. Walther’s name is not quoted by the CTCR in the entire 50 page document.
The CTCR explains why pastors and not voters now have "headship" over the congregations in its 1985 document, "Women in the Church," as follows:
"5. 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 speak of women’s roles in the public worship service. The main application of these passages in the contemporary church is that women are not to exercise those functions in the local congregation which would involve them in the exercise of authority inherent in the authoritative public teaching office (i.e., the office of the pastor)."
5In other words, the CTCR document (whose primary writer was Dr. John Johnson, President of the Concordia Seminary in St. Louis) says that the Synod’s founder, C. F. W. Walther, made a mistake when he understood that the following Bible passages refer to who has the authority to vote in the congregation instead of the pastor.
1 Cor 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
The above passages are cited by Walther as the basis for congregational authority not pastoral authority.
6Neither the pastoral office nor worship is directly addressed in these verses, as the CTCR claims they are. These verses make no distinction between a worship service and a congregational meeting. However, there is no question that in these verses God is addressing order in the "churches."
Rather than speaking about men’s authority over women in the church, the CTCR’s new interpretation of these verses is that the pastor has authority and "headship" over the congregation.
Beginning on page 27, the CTCR states that 1 Cor. 14:34 is speaking about subordination which it latter applies to the entire congregation! The CTCR’s reasoning is that the pastor has headship over the congregation (page 38), after making numerous references to the headship of the husband over the wife (pages 22, 28, 32, 37). The CTCR speaks about voting, congregational meetings, and marriage in the same document titled "Women in the Church."
The CTCR reverses Walther and states 1 Cor. 14:34 is not about the authority of male voters but the authority of male pastors. This is exactly what Walther wanted to prevent. Where does it say "headship" or "pastor" or "worship service" in 1 Cor. 14:33b-35, Dr. Maier? It says, "churches." Why doesn’t Maier identify the real problem? Is it because there is no political capitol in it? Politics, not the pursuit of pure doctrine is the real motivation of the 102.
Instead of speaking about the authority of male voters, the document makes a "subtle shift" and keeps speaking about the authority of the pastor. One can only imagine how Dr. Maier would rage at the Seminaries if they had written the following statements as the CTCR does.
"The oversight and supervision exercised in the office of the public ministry..." page 36
"...exercise of authority inherent in the authoritative public teaching office (i.e. the office of pastor)." page 38
"...the pastoral office has oversight from God over the congregation, the household of God..." page 41
"Since a ‘headship’ over the congregation is exercised through these functions unique to the office of the public ministry,..." page 42
Now that the CTCR has reversed Walther with the above statements it is clear why Dr. Maier doesn’t refer to Walther and manufactures his own doctrinal position for the LCMS on Church and Ministry.
No where does the CTCR document say the voters are supreme or have authority over the pastor as Fritz states, "The Congregation, Not the Pastor, Has Supreme and Final Jurisdiction,"
7 The CTCR document never quotes Walther or Matthew 18:15-20 in its document because they can’t.J.T. Mueller agrees with congregational authority as follows:
"This declaration rests upon the correct, Scriptural principle that the local church is divinely appointed and is vested not only with the Office of the Keys, but with supreme authority to direct all matters pertaining to church policy, Matt. 18:15-18; 1 Cor 5:11-13; 14:33-36."
8Dr. Maier also does not quote Walther’s eighth thesis on the pastoral ministry as follows: "The pastoral ministry is the highest office in the church, and from it stem all other offices in the church." Walther quotes Luther on this point in "Church and Ministry".
9 "The office to preach the Gospel is the highest of all, for it is the apostolic office that lays the foundation for all others that belong to all...1Cor.12:8."Dr. Maier is offended by the thought that the communion wafer comes from the hand of God. However, our Synodical Catechism states: Office of the Keys and Confession:
"Confession embraces two parts. One is that we confess our sins; the other, that we receive absolution, or forgiveness, from the pastor as from God Himself, and in no wise doubt, but firmly believe, that by it our sins are forgiven."
10Many Lutheran pulpits have had the verse written on them, "Sir, we would see Jesus" John 12:21. In other words, if the sermon is a correct exposition and application for the text, it is not from the pastor, the sermon is from God.
Paul says it doesn’t matter who does the baptism, Apollos, Cephas, or himself. He can’t remember who he baptized in 1 Cor. 1:11-16. "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" 1 Cor 12:13. In other words, when we are baptized by the pastor we are baptized by God. Now, the Michigan 102 object if some say the communion wafer is given by the hand of God. If it is not from the hand of God, it is from the pastor and it is no communion. What Dr. Maier calls "blasphemy" I call humility and correct doctrine. The pastor is no more than an ambassador called to give out God’s good things.
Dr. Maier claims teaching that only pastors can communicate the Gospel as a means of grace is being taught in our circles. I don’t know of anyone making such claims to what amounts to a kind of reverse Docetism. The Docetists in the 4th century incorrectly taught that sacraments given by an evil man were invalid, but here Maier says some are saying the sacraments are validated by the pastoral office which is also an error. Only the correct confession of God’s word validates a sacrament. Name the names Dr. Maier. Who is saying such things, if such people exist?
I can show you pastors right here in Michigan who claim the Holy Spirit speaks directly to them and through them. Their names appear with the pastors who belong to Renewal in Missouri (RIM) and are also included in the 102. Does this mean that all 102 support the direct communication of the Holy Spirit with the Pastor? The fact is the 102 defend the direct communication of the Holy Spirit to the Pastor which is clearly explained in Rev. David Maier’s defense of Church Growth practice in the newsletter of the 102 that will be addressed here shortly.
Dr. Maier objects to "qualified interpreters" helping lay people understand the Bible. I call this his problem with the pastoral office.
"The Holy Scriptures are not only as perspicuous as the plainest writing of men, but they are much clearer, because they have been set down by the Holy Spirit, the Creator of the languages. It is therefore absolutely impossible to prove an error or even a contradiction in Scripture if you stick to its words."
"The true knowledge of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is not only a glorious light, affording the correct understanding of the entire Holy Scriptures, but without this knowledge Scripture is and remains a sealed book."
Walther goes on to say: "Turning the leaves of the Holy Scriptures while still ignorant of the distinction between the Law and the Gospel, a person receives the impression that a great number of contradictions are contained in the Scriptures; in fact, the entire Scriptures seem to be made up of contradictions, worse than the Koran of the Turks."
11Our church officially teaches that no one is permitted to interpret the Bible apart from the analogy of faith and the Lutheran Confessions. 2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.
The Augsburg Confession and Luther say that no one may preach to a congregation without a call.
"So we say, either demand proof of a call and commission to preach, or immediately enjoin silence and forbid to preach, for an office is involved-the office of the ministry. One cannot hold an office without a commission or a call."
12All the pastors of the LCMS must agree to interpret the Bible in the context of the Lutheran Confessions. Should we ask the lay people to figure out for themselves what that context is? If someone wants to come up with, for example, a Baptist interpretation on baptism, they may not publicly confess it in the congregation.
In order to defend the 102 Dr. Maier destroys the very basis of the pastoral office, the administration of word and sacrament. If the pastor is not a "qualified interpreter" in fact the "administrative qualified interpreter" then there is no pastoral office. But, pastoral office is exactly what the 102 are attacking. They dream up their own worship and interpretation of Scripture for their members every week in worship services. They think God has given them the right to be "qualified interpreters" and inventors of everything in worship as they choose, without hymnbooks and catechisms. Their brainwashed members are so confused they don’t even know enough to raise an objection. But when other pastors, whom the 102 attack, quote traditional Lutheran doctrine and follow traditional Lutheran practice in the Confessions they are accused of forcing their interpretation on the congregation.
Dr. Maier complains that some are teaching mandatory private confession. Who is or who are these persons? Isn’t Maier simply trying to stampede the delegates to support Church Growth candidates?
The 102 say: "Legalistic tendencies are demonstrated in public statements, published articles, and regional presentations, particularly in the area of worship form and practice."
Once again we have to guess who is the target of the 102 in the article written by Rev. David Maier. Personally I liked Lenski’s
13 approach to John 4:23-24 and I also recommend Luther’s explanation in Vol. 32, page 163-167. The first purpose of worship is the forgiveness of sins.Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Acts 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
"The people are also admonished concerning the value and use of the sacrament....Such worship pleases God...."
14"This is how God wants to be known and worshipped, that we accept His blessings and receive them because of His mercy rather than because of our own merits."
15...seek the forgiveness of sins from Christ. This is the highest way of worshipping Christ.
16The obvious response to the above is to praise and thank God for His grace and mercy, which is the second part of worship according to Rev. Maier. It is not the first as some make it today. There are many fine quotations and conclusions offered by Rev. Maier. However, it could have been mentioned that there is no such thing as "spiritual" outside the Word of God.
The very thing that Dr. Paul Maier complains about, "Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock." is exactly what Rev. David Maier proposes with the following freedom he claims belongs to the clergy:
"What is necessary for those who plan worship is time spent in the "truth," the Word, and in prayer. In the atmosphere of Word and prayer, those who plan worship will receive wisdom on how best to minister in the contemporary setting where God has placed them. We live and minister in a society where change is the order of the day."
This is where the advocates of "Church Growth," which is nothing more than the back door to Stephanism
17 in $3000.00 CEO suits, shows the 102’s demagoguery and lordship over the congregation again and again. They believe God has ordained them to reinvent worship for their congregations every week. Tens of thousands worship in Michigan and many other districts without hymn books, and have no idea where the new worship forms they see every week come from. In a number of churches there are no hymn books in the pews.These gurus, "those who plan," as Maier says, "receive the wisdom" to make up their own creeds, throw out Lutheran worship forms, and literally reinvent the religion for ignorant, misled, lay people who are driven more by the culture than the Word of God. They are taught to regard worship folders with the same regard as hamburger wrappers. They are taught worship means what the pastor wants it to mean. They are taught that "truth" is in the mind of the pastor instead of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions.
Walther in his ninth Thesis on the pastoral office in "Church and Ministry" states: "The minister must not tyrannize the church. He has no authority to introduce new laws or arbitrarily to establish adiaphora or ceremonies."
18 Pastor Maier is essentially defending the clergy’s right to take full mind control and manipulation of the worship and ceremonies of the church under the pretext and fraud of "contemporary worship." Like, "The Emperor’s New Clothes," everyone knows that contemporary worship has no real definition. If it did, it would no longer be contemporary but its own tradition of worship.Pastor Maier speaks of, "those who plan worship!" Who are "those"? Could they be the church secretary who knows more about developing the new weekly worship service from the 5,000 plus songs on the Christian Copyright Licensing Incorporated (CCLI) disc than TLH or LW? Or, is this the enlightened church song leader, director of praise and celebration, or music director? Oh, wait! Maybe it’s the pastor.
According to the 102, they know better how to invent worship every week that coincidentally sounds and reads and is performed like the local Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Willow Creek, Community, Friendship, or Vineyard Church. If a pastor chooses to follow traditional worship forms it is a matter of personal taste and not a constitutional requirement. In the opinion of the 102, the Synodical commissions who wrote TLH and LW aren’t nearly as wise as the pastor who knows when he has "received wisdom" after he prays and reads Scripture. Baptists, Mormons, and the Pope also pray and read Scripture. According to the 102 they must also be LCMS Lutherans.
The 102 are wrong. They ignore the 1995 Synodical Convention Resolution 2-07, "Resolved, That congregations be encouraged to use the Synodically approved hymnals: The Lutheran Hymnal or Lutheran Worship;..."
Yes, Art. VI.4 of the LCMS Constitution says "doctrinally pure," but it also says "hymn books," hard copy, agreed upon orders of worship in print, not things the pastor with "wisdom" made up every week because he felt that old Nicea, Chalcedonian, Ecclesiastical Council, Synodical Convention, feeling coming on.
"In a word, enthusiasm inheres in Adam and his children from the beginning [from the first fall] to the end of the world, [its poison] having been implanted and infused into them by the old dragon, and is the origin, power [life], and strength of all heresy, especially of the Papacy and Mahomet...."
19Not personally having the gift of "those who plan," I seek the approval and doctrinal review of the Synod in convention by vote before orders of service worthy for worship are offered to our voters. That’s right, voters are supreme! No pastor or commission should have the right to invent worship for the entire church. The worship belongs to the members not the pastor! If a congregation chooses forms of worship not permitted in the LCMS constitution the Convention should remove the congregation from membership in the LCMS.
The 102 pastors are making the Synod safe for antinomian, lawless, schismatic, man-centered, charismatic, synergistic, non-worship forms promoted in David Luecke’s book, "The Other Story of Lutherans at Worship."
20 (see Chapter 5) Naturally, it is endorsed on the back by Michigan District President John Heins, and the Executive Pastor of the Community of Joy in Phoenix, AZ. It took four hours during dispute resolution to get Luecke to agree to use the Creed in his worship service. Without a consistently identifiable, defined, and practiced order of worship and doctrine of church and ministry the Synod cannot exist.All Rev. David Maier’s noble words become little more than a cloak that hides fanaticism. I have attended worship services at one of the large LCMS "Church Growth" congregations. There was a baptism in one service. There was no invocation, no liturgy, no Creed, no clear Absolution, no Scripture lessons, no Lord’s Prayer, no Benediction, and the pastor wore a business suit. The sermon was a "talk." The pews were filled with Baptist hymn books, "Hymns for the Family of God," out of Nashville. I couldn’t recognize most of the hymns in the medley. Why is Rev. Maier defending Assembly of God style worship in the name of Lutheranism?
He complains about the students coming out of Fort Wayne and St. Louis. Wait a minute! If the two seminaries were doing their job, we wouldn’t have so many of their graduates hitting the "Church Growth" sawdust trail in Michigan. What the 102 want is a 100% "Church Growth" student body in both seminaries for the entire Synod.
At the May South and East Pastors Conference held in Rochester, Michigan, two years ago, the Vice President asked how many of the gathered pastors sent their people to Promise Keepers, and 90% of the hands went up. He then began to praise Promise Keepers, clearly a unionistic, charismatic movement to build the church.
To suggest that the Formula of Concord, Article X
21 gives each congregation the right to make up its own worship forms means there is no reason for a Synod. Didn’t we agree to meet together and decide if, how, and when it is best to make changes in our worship?The Lutheran Confessions, which are only quoted in part by Rev. Maier, also say that in times of controversy and confession there are no matters of indifference or adiaphora.
22The President of the Missouri Synod, President A.L. Barry quotes Martin Chemnitz, editor of The Book of Concord and author of The Formula of Concord "..so as much as possible a uniformity [in worship] be maintained, and that such ceremonies serve to maintain unity in doctrine, and that common simple, weak consciences be all the less troubled..."
23Barry comments about the Church Growth Movement in the LCMS. "Notice that there are those who are not saying they want to modify the hymnal, but are advocating simply not using a hymnal at all."
24"What signal are we sending when we use hymns which come clearly from a Reformed or Pentecostal type of worship context? What are we confessing when we adopt styles of prayer which are common among, for example, Pentecostal types of church bodies? What are we confessing when our pastors do not wear the historic vestments during a worship service? What are we confessing when mission congregations do not use the name Lutheran? What are we confessing when we no longer follow the church year and use the appointed readings, prayers and other historic forms of worship? What are we confessing when we move away from historic liturgical forms of worship?
"While I suppose that there may be nothing wrong with clapping hands and waving arms during a worship service, when we import this style of worship into our congregations where this has not been the practice, again, I wonder, ‘What are we confessing?’ In many Pentecostal churches, a highly emotional, highly subjective style of worship flows from their theology that God works through such emotional experiences and not through His appointed means of grace, the Word and Sacraments."
25 Barry continually speaks and writes about the inherent problems of man centered worship versus God centered worship. The goal of worship is not to seek ourselves but God’s good things."I am troubled by the sorts of hymns and songs being used in some of our parishes which are not much more than repetitious phrases like "Give God the Glory," or "Praise Him."
26"Our Synod’s constitution points out that one of the expectations for members of our Synodical family is that we follow "exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymn books, and catechisms" (Article VI). Our Synod has considered uniformity in our worship practices to be a great strength, not a weakness."
27Just reproducing quotes from his book doesn’t give the Synodical President’s entire position. It may be purchased by mailing to the Office of the President, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1333 South Kirkwood Road, St. Louis, MO 63122.
When this article was originally published in book form, as Chapter 3 in Reclaiming the Gospel in the LCMS, it included a list of the 102 pastors connected or in agreement with An Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter. That list is available here.
The endnotes used in this work are linked from the note number in the text to the endnote at the bottom of the page, and vice versa. In addition, where a note uses "ibid." or "op. cit.", it is linked to the appropriate parent endnote information.
If you use this "ibid." or "op. cit." link, you will need to use the BACK button on your browser to return to the endnote you started with. From there, you can click on the endnote number to go back to where you were in the text.
1. Concordia Triglotta, Large Catechism, the Eighth Commandment, Par. 284, page 661, also Pastoral Theology, by John Fritz, Concordia Publishing House 1932 page 235
2. C.F.W. Walther, Pastoral Theology, fifth edition, 1906, Published by Lutheran News, Inc., New Haven, Missouri; 1995 page 64:
3. C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, republished by Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 1987, page 268
4. C.F.W. Walther, Essays for the Church Vol. I, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1992, page 194
5. Women in the Church, Commission on Theology and Church Relations of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, St. Louis, 1985, page 38
6. The Form of the Christian Congregation, first published, 1864; combined edition Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis 1989, page 48, also Pastoral Theology, first published 1872, Lutheran News, New Haven, MO, 1995, page 257. See also Dogmatics by Franz Pieper and J. T. Mueller.
7. John H. C. Fritz, Pastoral Theology, St. Louis, MO, Concordia Publishing House, page 314
8. J. T. Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, St. Louis, MO, Concordia Publishing House, 1934, page 561
9. C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry 1987, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, page 292.
10. Martin Luther, Small Catechism, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1943, page 19.
11. C.F.W. Walther, Law and Gospel, 1928, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, page 60-61
12. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, "Church and Ministry", Volume 40; American Edition, 1958, Muhlenberg Press, page 386
13. R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1943
14. Concordia Triglotta, op. cit., Augsburg Confession xxiv: 7-8, page 65
15. Ibid., Apology, Article IV par. 60, page 137
16. Ibid., Apology, Article III par. 154, page 165
17. Stephanism is the term given to those who practice the hierarchical and dictatorial view of the pastoral office over the congregation as practiced by Rev. Martin Stephan over the Lutheran immigrants in Prairie County, Missouri in 1839 until he was removed from office a few years latter and succeeded by C.F.W. Walther.
18. C.F.W. Walther, Church and Ministry, Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, 1987, page 303.
19. Concordia Triglotta, op. cit., The Smalcald Articles, Part III Art. VIII, page 497.
20. David Luecke, The Other Story of Lutherans at Worship, Fellowship Ministries, Tempe AZ, 1995.
21. Concordia Triglotta, op. cit.,The Formula of Concord, Article X, page 1053.
22. Ibid., Par. 5 page 1053, and Par. 10-11 page 1054
23. A.L. Barry, President LCMS, The Nature and Basis of Lutheran Worship, 1995, page 25
April 16, 1999