New LCMS Creed
Convinced Mormons to Seek Fellowship
by Rev. Jack Cascione
The Gospel is being lost in the LCMS because many clergy and the C.O.P. refuse to limit their confession of the Gospel to three Creeds. They don’t believe or understand that the three Creeds are the very foundation of the Church and the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Such a statement just 25 years ago, made by an LCMS pastor, would have been unthinkable. Now a pastor who claims that we should confess three and only three Creeds is openly called a legalist.
Yes, the church is founded on Christ, according to Matthew 16:18 and 1Cor. 3:11 and the church is founded on the writing of prophets and apostles according to Eph. 2:20. However, the visible church must have a public confession of Christ and the Gospel just as Peter made his good confession to Christ in Matthew 16:16. Just saying we believe in Jesus and the Bible is nonsense. "...the devils also believe, and tremble." (Jam 2:19) A great number of LCMS pastors now believe they can write their own creeds and have their congregations confess them. A still greater number have maintained their personal loyalty to confess the three ancient Creeds but keep silent about the practice of others who do not. Pastors’ ethics are now "confess and let confess." Thus the public confession of Gospel is being lost in the LCMS.
Pastors and congregations now openly confess unauthorized creeds in the name of Christian freedom. Could the devil have greater victory in their congregations? Where the Gospel is confessed by chance rather than conviction it becomes the Gospel of opinion polls and situation ethics and no gospel at all.
The following is an account of the events that led the Mormon Church in South Eastern Michigan to seek fellowship with the LCMS based on a Creed confessed at a Bi-Circuit Communion Service.
The following is a letter from Pastor Jack Cascione, Redeemer Lutheran Church, July 8, 1996 to the Bi-Circuit.
Dear Brother Pastors of the Bi-Circuit:
The first part of this letter was distributed to our own members. The second part of this letter contains my direct comments to you and an invitation to attend our July 30 Elders meeting here at Redeemer.
A New Creed was confessed at the Bi-Circuit Communion Service on June 10, 1996, at <name withheld> Lutheran Church. Your pastor was in attendance with some 14 pastors. The entire liturgy could be described as contemporary. The words to the Invocation, Confession of Sins, Creed, Lord’s Prayer, Agnus Dei, Thanksgiving, and Benediction were like no other your pastor has ever seen. We were also asked to sing contemporary songs like "Shine, Jesus Shine" and "Lamb of God," which your pastor believes contains false doctrine.
Just before the service began, your pastor put up his hand and asked, "Could we use the Creed of my baptism and my confirmation?" Your pastor was told by the pastor standing in the chancel, "Nope, that is your problem, Jack." I didn’t like the response so I didn’t take Communion with the other pastors that day.
Fellowship at the Communion rail in the Lutheran Church is based on doctrinal agreement, not on who is your buddy. The first basis for fellowship is agreement with the Creed, the same Creed into which we were baptized. It is also the same Creed to which we promised, on the day of our confirmation, that we would rather choose death than give up. Your pastor may be the first pastor in the history of the LCMS who was told that his adherence to the Creed is his problem in a communion service....
In our day any LCMS pastor can sit down at his word processor and dream up a creed, and if you don’t want to confess it before you take Communion that’s your problem. It isn’t that all the other pastors don’t agree with the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, it’s that they will agree with just about anything that someone else puts together, and they expect lay people to do the same. While they are at it, why don’t we all let pastors rewrite the deed to your house, your life insurance policy, your will, and the U.S. Constitution. If the Creed on which all our hopes of heaven are based is flexible, surely variations in these other temporary, earthly documents should mean nothing to us as well. Individually, these pastors are just your average friendly guys but collectively, they don’t stand for much.
This is the creed they wanted me to confess.
We confess the Father, Lord of all Creation,
All things in both heav’n and earth were fashioned by His hand.
We confess the Father, Lord of all Creation,
Who, by His Word, guards, blesses our dear land.We believe in Jesus, Son of God Almighty,
By His suffering and His death has ransomed all mankind.
We believe in Jesus, Son of God, Almighty,
Risen, Good Shepherd, comes the lost to find.We confess the Spirit, Lord of all the living,
Like a fire He fills our hearts, and brings us peace within.
We confess the Spirit, Lord of all the living,
Speak through Your Word; that we, the lost, may win.The second verse is not clear on the deity of Christ. Any Mormon, Jehovah Witness, or Christian Scientist would agree with it. It leaves out: "conceived by the Holy Ghost," "born of the Virgin Mary," "under Pontius Pilate," "crucified," "descended into hell," "ascended into heaven," and "from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead." We have no idea who the lost are in this creed or why they are lost.
The third verse says we confess the Holy Spirit, Lord of all the living. We know the Holy Spirit is God, but such designation in the Bible is for Christ and not the Holy Ghost. We don’t say the Holy Ghost is born of the Virgin Mary, nor do we say that the Holy Ghost is Lord of all the living in this context. The Nicene Creed says the Holy Ghost is the Lord and the giver of life. Yes, He gives eternal life in this context to believers. However, to say the Holy Ghost is "Lord of all the living" in the third article presents a God with limitations. What about the dead? Therefore it presents a limited atonement. Is He only Lord of those who believe in Him? If the Holy Ghost is God then He is also Lord of all the unbelievers as well. "Living" can mean anything the author wants in this creed. In other words, the third verse is just bad, confused doctrine.
Instead of confessing what the Holy Spirit creates and gives, such as "the Holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting," it says the Holy Spirit fills our hearts with fire. Where is that in the Bible? The Holy Spirit put tongues of fire on the Apostles’ heads at Pentecost for one day. Nowhere in the Bible does it say He puts fire in our hearts as a statement of fact. This is just a bit of charismatic emotional trash in place of the facts that are left out. The last line is totally confused. The placement of commas means that we win, but what do we win? If the commas are wrong, then we use the Word of God to win others, which is true. However, what we feel in our hearts or what we do can’t possibly be a Creed. Creeds are supposed to be statements of doctrine, not feeling and metaphor. This Creed is false doctrine not only by what it says, but by what is doesn’t say.
There are times when I have sung Luther’s Hymn "in place of the Creed," but we never said it was "The Creed." Luther’s hymn also happens to be a little bit more precise than this creed.
(The following was only written to the pastors of the Bi-circuit.)
The New Creed published here is not my Creed. I will not confess it. I will not baptize nor confirm with it, nor will I take Communion with it, nor do I believe those who take Communion with it are publicly confessing the true doctrine. If it came from creative worship in St. Louis, that only demonstrates the level of deterioration in the Synod. If you pastors want to confess McDonald’s hamburger wrapper creeds, that is your problem. I spit on this creed and the fellowship that you expect from me with it.
The thought that you would expect members of your congregation to confess flexible creeds is an abomination. We, the members of Redeemer, invite you pastors to come to an open Elders meeting on July 30 at 8:00 p.m. We want you to justify the use of this "Creed," which I don’t believe you can. Anyone who will take Communion with this creed has lost their understanding and the value of the Lutheran Confessions.
In the Preamble, the Augsburg Confession says that our goal is to lead people to the fountains of the Apostles’ Creed. The Creed is part of my Catechism. The Creed is part of our Church Constitution. How dare you pretend to change, delete, or alter one word.. If you can’t defend it to us, how will you defend it to the Lord to whom you will have to give an account at the judgment.
After I asked that we use a correct Creed for Communion and was refused, it is no longer my problem, it is no longer adiaphora, it is your problem, and your members’ problem, and the Synod’s problem. If you don’t come and justify your "Creed," we cannot help but come to the conclusion that your doctrine is not worth defending, let alone dying for.
We make our confirmands publicly confess that they would rather die than give up the confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and then we tell them to agree with the Apostles’ Creed, not the trash you confess. A creed here and a creed there, just keep those pay checks coming....
Maybe you have looked back at the incident and decided it was all a mistake, but, what am I supposed to think? Taking Communion on a Creed is a little bit more than your word on a handshake.
Please come to the meeting. Show me the light. Teach me the error of my ways. Show me why your creed is just fine for fellowship at Communion. Like Paul confronted Peter, I may need your theological counsel and not even know it. Our Elders and members may need some of your pastoral wisdom. Why don’t you bring some of your own Elders with you? You may really need to straighten me out in front of my own members for the benefit of the Circuit and the LCMS.
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Jack Cascione
As the reader contemplates the intentional harshness of the above letter please consider the circumstances under which this author finds himself in the LCMS. From the beginning of their seminary training the clergy have been taught in the Prastoral Department by the psychologists of both seminaries to place a higher value on "feelings" than facts. This is the opposite of the philosophy taught by the rest of the seminary. The pastors have been bombarded by the philosophy that dialectic analysis leading to synthesis is more important than the ridged, cold, unfeeling, facts of theology. In other words when two people disagree they work out their differences and come to a compromise. Yet, there can’t possibly be "synthesis," that is a compromise, on doctrine or the "Creeds."
The vast majority of clergy are constantly attending District sponsored seminars and conferences where they are taught to demonstrate "leadership" by discovering and complying with the wishes of the "group" or the congregation. Hence the majority of the LCMS clergy are virtually impervious to arguments based on reason and logic from Scripture. Yes, they understand, but they are trained not to react to the consequences of facts but to react to emotions and feelings. Hence, the only way to really communicate is with a factual and also highly emotional letter. Still, only four of the 13 clergy responded. The following responses react to the facts of the situation but have difficulty understanding how this writer can be so "unfeeling" as if "feeling" has anything to do with changing the words of the Creeds, the civil code, astronomy, or tax returns. The only way to bring the Bi-Circuit to the realization of their apostasy, regardless of their feelings, was the encounter with the Mormons that followed six months latter.
These letters record a spectrum of responses. I wrote the toughest letter possible, in the hope that some of them would come to the meeting and defend how they could take Communion without agreement in doctrine. I gave them an opportunity to attack me in front the Elders of Redeemer Lutheran Church. The confession of fantasy creeds is accepted practice in many districts. Most pastors are also not prepared to respond to someone who is not seeking an office, their support, their vote, but clear defence of their practice based on doctrine.
Matthew 18:15ff, which deals directly with difference on personal issues is now used to squelch public criticism of public false doctrine. If the Pharisees had the benefit of that portion of Scripture they would most certainly have used it against Christ, who publicly criticized them before speaking to them individually. Without using a literary two by four, my letter would have been virtually ignored as little more than one of my personal concerns. The youngest of the four pastors in the group was idealistic and eager to show his practice was correct. The reader will also notice C.O.P. President, John Heins support for this young pastor, his failure to acknowledge the problem, and his typical support of procedures to prevent any conversation about the Gospel. Caiaphis would say, "Well done good and faithful servant."
<name withheld> Lutheran Church, July 18, 1996, Dear Jack,
I am very sad at the letter I received from you. Jesus makes it clear that when a brother has a grievance with another he is to, "Go and show him his fault, just between the two of you." (Matthew 18:15). By distributing this grievance to your congregation before talking to me alone (your comments on June 10 were certainly not alone), you sinned against me. I now bring this sin to you. Jack, please repent of this sin. An apology through the media in which you chose to air this grievance is in order. Please do not discount this call to repentance. Living in unrepentant sin destroys faith and places salvation in jeopardy. My Elders and I are praying for you.
In Christ,
Rev. One
<name withheld> Lutheran Church, July 22, 1996, Dear Jack,
Greetings to you in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
I’m writing in response to your letter of July 8, in which you critiqued the contemporary service at <name withheld> , June 10.
I am, unfortunately, unable to attend your July 30 Elders meeting. Nevertheless, I trust you will read this letter in its entirety to your Board.
Jack, let me first address my own sin--a sin of denial. I will do so with a reference to Peter. You’ll recall that he vowed to fight for the Lord, even to give his life for Him (Matthew 26:33-35). But soon after, and even at the prompting of a little servant girl, Peter denied his Lord three times.
Upon completion of my seminary studies, I vowed to keep and uphold all the doctrines of the Christian faith as rightly taught and practiced in our LCMS. But on June 10 at our Winkel, I failed to uphold that vow. I don’t believe I’m guilty of false doctrine here; but I should have spoken up against what we were doing that day. I should have recognized the problems in that worship order. I would liken my weak conviction to that which Peter felt in his own context: a sudden, unexpected moment in which to speak up or remain silent. I fell down in that hour....
Why do you not also gently treat your brothers in the ministry when they err? Instead, how unforgiving, unloving and vengeful you are! How unlike the Saviour whom you represent!....
While I recognize the many problems and pitfalls with "contemporary" worship formats, I also respect the reason many pastors attempt their usage. To be sure, God doesn’t need our help in the conversion of dead souls to faith; but He does use us to reach out where people are and in the languages they speak.
My point, Jack, is this: I would hope to come to a Pastors Winkel and there be able freely to discuss, listen to, try out, critique many ideas, struggles, problems, issues etc., in the context of pastors who care to love, support, help and advise one another. Based on our June 10 experience, we have a great opportunity to examine and discuss the pros and cons of contemporary worship. But now you have ruined this opportunity, polarized our men, and closed the doors of free speech and fellowship....
Your sharp criticism only serves to divide the otherwise open and valuable forum our Winkels ought to be. In this regard, I believe you owe us all an apology.
I look forward to seeing you again in September, and I pray that we can all respect, encourage, lovingly correct, and build up one another. After all, our real battle is against the principality of darkness. Let us stand with Christ and win!
Your brother in Christ,
Rev. Two
Rev. Three, July 22, 1996
Dear Rev. Cascione:Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I see that your concern for your fellow pastors is great. Even more to your credit, you have a greater love for the people of God under their care.
Thank you for your letter concerning the last Bi-circuit meeting. Considering the gravity of your charges, I know they can not go unanswered. After praying over this matter and speaking with other brethren, I have decided to address your letter with the seriousness it deserves. Therefore, I would like you to take these charges before the district president so that all things may be done in proper order and that I may be placed under the proper church discipline.
The following is a list of charges against me as I understand your letter:
- I base my altar fellowship upon friendship not doctrinal agreement (paragraph 4)
- I agree with just about anything1 (paragraph 5)
- I expect my members to agree with just about anything2 (paragraph 5)
- I confess false doctrine (paragraphs 9, 11, & 15)
- I expect members of my congregation to confess false creeds (paragraph 12)
- I have lost my understanding and the value of the Lutheran Confessions (paragraph 12)
- I am more interested in receiving a paycheck than orthodoxy (paragraph 14)
Any one of these charges is grounds for expulsion from our Synod as stated in Article XIII of the Constitution of The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. Bylaw 2.27 indicates that you need to write a complaint to our district president. I will submit myself to whatever discipline is right and necessary.
Concerning your invitation to appear at your elders meeting, I have one concern. Whatever is discussed and resolved there has no binding authority upon me. Should I decide to ignore any resolutions, you have no authority to deal with the matter. I feel that going through the proper channels our congregations have agreed to follow has binding authority. In addition, a proper record of the incident and its resolution will be recorded should any questions arise in the future....
I look forward to hearing from you so that we may take swift and decisive action. I have already sent a letter to President Heins with a copy of your letter and this response. Also, I have enclosed a copy of this letter to President Heins. May all this be to the glory of God and the benefit of His Church.
In Christ,
Rev. ThreeCc: Rev. John L. Heins, Michigan District President
Rev. Three, <name withheld> Lutheran Church, July 22, 1996
Dear President Heins:
Greetings in the name of our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I regret to inform you that a matter has arisen concerning my suitability as a pastor in the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. Out of love for me and concern for God’s people, Rev. Cascione of Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Clair Shores has charged me before his congregation with confessing and teaching heresy. The specifics of these charges are contained in enclosed copies of his letter to me, as well as, my response to him.
Due to the serious nature of these charges, I feel that you need to be aware of the situation and take proper action. I desire that God’s will be done in this matter so that the Church may benefit and our Lord be glorified. So many pastors and churches seem to live under innuendo and gossip. I do not wish this for <name withheld> Lutheran Church or for myself. Therefore, I request that a record be kept of this incident and how it was resolved.
God grant you wisdom through Jesus Christ.
In Christ,
Rev. ThreeCc: Rev. Jack M. Cascione
Lutheran Church of <name withheld>,
Rev. Four, Tuesday, 23 July 1996Dear Reverend Cascione:
I am writing you to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 8, 1996 pertaining to pastors’ participation in the Bi-Circuit Communion Service hosted by <name withheld> Lutheran Church <location withheld>. In your letter you extend an invitation to me and my Board of Elders to attend your Board of Elders meeting and present a ‘defense’ of my actions in communing with brother clergy of the two circuits, when a ‘false’ creed had been confessed/professed in the course of the printed service.
In my own defense I would only say that that particular worship service cited above is a perfect example of why a departure from the traditional liturgy as printed in our Synodically-approved hymnals is always dangerous (at least as far as I am concerned).
Around this country laity arrive at LCMS churches on Sunday mornings, are handed a bulletin with a printed order of service inside (often greatly departed from the traditional liturgy of the hymnal), and without any time to read or examine closely that order of service, are led into reciting the words, responses, ‘creeds’, etc. that are contained within.
I will readily admit that many of your objections stated in your letter about the printed ‘creed’ are valid. If I had been given more time to study the service, I would have chosen not to commune as well! I glanced quickly at the ‘creed’ when you voiced your objections to it. But that was hardly enough time to evaluate it in my estimation. Perhaps if you had cited the specific objections to it at the time, some or most of us would have been led to make other choices. You merely stated that this ‘creed’ was not the creed of your Baptism and Confirmation. In this ‘unfortunate’ age when everyone and his music committee feels qualified to create creeds, one ‘tries’ to put the best construction on it, hoping that false doctrine is not being deliberately encouraged. There are song aplenty, for example, that talk about letting Christ ‘blaze’ forth from us--in use by the Lutheran High Schools, women’s organizations, and pastoral conferences. I would have a difficult time believing that Pastor One would deliberately create and distribute a creed where he was deliberately trying to mislead his congregation into heresy of false doctrine. Perhaps if he hadn’t been ‘put on the spot’, so-to-speak, he would have listened to your concerns and better realized the soundness of your counsel to use one of the 3 creeds universally accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ....
But Jack, you have to convince people of the truth without harsh accusations. The time for accusations may eventually come, but winsomeness and forbearance have great value as well. Please do not make enemies of pastors in the Circuits and District. You will only harm the ‘cause’ that you are trying to represent and promote.
Fraternally yours in Christ Jesus,
Reverend Four
<name withheld> Lutheran Church,
To Rev. Jack Cascione, July 30, 1996Dear Jack,
I got home from vacation and sorted through all the interesting mail. Your letter was most interesting - along with all the pieces of mail concerning yours.
Your truth is noted. Our lack of forthrightness, as our indifference and apathy in response to things that are less than what they should be in truth and practice, is not only regrettable but needs repentance and change. God expects more of us. I confess these sins to Him in sorrow and contrition. I also know His Good News of forgiveness and new life and power to be different.
The Creeds are always used at <name withheld>, in that I share your zeal.
I’m enclosing a copy of some Lutheran Worship Notes that come from the Synod’s Commission on Worship. They speak of shortening the Divine Service II liturgy. There is in it no creed at all. I’m not really sure whether there is Confession and Absolution in that shortened outline. All this makes for even greater confusion as to what constitutes proper Lutheran Worship.
I would also encourage you to examine #4 of the "Commitments of the Shepherd" document. I know that you don’t think much of the C.O.P. - I appreciate that. The document, however, did, if I remember correctly, receive Synod endorsement....
Regarding attendance at your elder meeting, I have no business there, nor do you at my elder meeting.
God be with you.
Rev. Five
From: Michigan District President John Heins, August 30, 1996
To Rev. Three, <name withheld> Lutheran Church
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ!
Your letter of July 22, 1996, is before me. Thank you for sharing with me a copy of a letter addressed to you by the Reverend Jack M. Cascione, Pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church. The letter includes an invitation to an open meeting of the elders, to be held at Redeemer Lutheran Church on July 30, 1996. As I read and re-read Pastor Cascione’s letter to you, it is very clear that the procedures he has suggested are improper in following charges against a brother pastor. You are very correct in your response to him that you are responsible to the Board of Elders of <name withheld> congregation, as well as under the doctrinal supervision of the District President.
Since, as of this writing, I have received no correspondence from Pastor Cascione, submitting charges against you or any other pastor of the two circuits, my conclusion is that you are not to respond to his accusations since they are improperly filed. Pastor Cascione does not seem to understand the meaning of Matthew 18. Unless and until he is ready to sit down privately with you as well as with all of the other pastors responsible for the communion service, no response on your part is called for. I certainly regret the lack of brotherliness on his part, but we need to remember Brother Cascione and his congregation in our prayers. To that end may God continue to bless you and your ministry!
In His service and yours,
John L. Heins, President
Michigan District LCMScc: Rev. Jack Cascione
Rev. Five
The following was my general response to the above letters:
July 26th, 1996
Dear Pastors,
Thank you for your <date> response to my letter and invitation. I notice you do not plan to appear on July 30 to defend your Creed. Your reference to Matthew 18:15 is sadly misapplied. According to your interpretation Peter should have accused Paul of violating Matthew 18:15 for publicly challenging Peter in front of the congregation in Galatians Chapter 2:11-14. Paul said Peter was changing the Gospel. Also notice Paul published his complaint in the Bible for all to read with Peter’s name in print forever. Perhaps Peter should have sued Paul, or at least brought him up on charges?
If you read the letter I never did mention your name in any "media." My congregation has no way of knowing who said what. If you recall, the Vice President was supposed to conduct the service. For all my readers know it could have been him, if they had even known that much.
I think you are taking cover behind Matthew 18 because you don’t want to answer in public for what you confess in public. The Creed, as you say, may be my problem but ordination vows are your problem. How dare you try to make the Catechism your private domain.
You will need to be more righteous than saying I sinned against you. What! Do you own the copyright on the Creed? Your spiritually impoverished, ignorant elders, who permit you to rewrite their faith at your whim, don’t know their left hand from their right.
I appreciate your elders prayers but who is going to tell them the Gospel does not change every week because the pastor feels like making changes.
This is what our confirmands confess at Redeemer every year after they confess the Apostle’s Creed.
Do You Also, as a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, intend to continue steadfast in the confession of this Church, and suffer all even death, rather than fall away from it?
I do so intend, with the help of God.
(Rite of Confirmation, Page 24, The Lutheran Agenda)
You claim I am sinning against you but you want the privilege to publicly spreading your false doctrine throughout the church. The Holy Spirit may be burning in your heart like a fire according to your Creed but your Creed is a pain in my buttock.
You may claim people like me who publicly disagree with your public teaching are breaking the Eighth Commandment. What other tactic would a false teacher take? You claim that you were slandered, but you slander the Gospel and the worship of Jesus Christ.
"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 know 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".3
In paragraph 274 of the Eighth Commandment in the Large Catechism, Luther includes pastors among those whose office it is not to allow false teaching to go uncondemned. As the pastor of a congregation who is being influenced by local congregations whose common practice is to rewrite and confess Creeds; who are giving up the clear public confession of Gospel; and who promote a flexible faith in their worship services, if I don’t condemn you and your teaching I would 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." (same as above)
What about the dumb lay people of this circuit who object to the false doctrine you want them to confess? Are your elders praying for them as well? When they complain, they are treated like misguided, backward, gospel inhibiting, freedom restricting, legalistic, tradition bound, paradigm restricted, fools.
Walther, in his Pastoral Theology, fifth edition, 1906, Published by Lutheran News, Inc., New Haven, Missouri; gives the following statement Section 11. "The requirements of Public Preaching" on page 64:
"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]. (See the rest of this quote as an addendum to this letter.)
Quite frankly, I want to go to heaven, which I believe is mine to lose, not to win. The elders at your church aren’t sure what they must believe and what they can’t change to enter heaven and you obviously aren’t going to tell them. They don’t know the meaning of fellowship based on God’s word. If I don’t attack you, I believe my salvation is in jeopardy. If our Confirmands would rather die than give up the confession of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, complaining about your Creed is easy.
Again Walther states in the same work and section on page 82:
"There never was a more timely preacher than our Luther. The constant treatment of the Pope, monasticism, self-chosen works, and the like in his sermons may now give the impression that he overdid it. But that is a testimony to Luther’s serious concern not only to preach God’s Word purely but also to work against the specific corruption of his time. A preacher of our time is following Luther only if he learns from him to consider the contemporary time as he did."
Why don’t you come and bring your elders with you on July 30? If you can defend your Creed, which I expect you and your elders to do if they stand like men by their faith and religion, I will apologize. But this you will not do. How did my condemnation of your cheap creed become a private matter? I suppose the Bible you use and the U.S. Constitution are also private matters to you.
You have only proved exactly what I suspected. You believe this is your religion and your right to confess and make others confess whatever Creed you choose. I pity the lay people of the Bi Circuit. Their pastors are free to rewrite the Creed as they choose and the pastors will all take Communion on that Creed. I don’t take Communion with gurus and their guru Creeds.
You know that the Apostles Creed was written in order to confess exactly what is necessary to get to heaven. The Nicene Creed was written to defend the Apostle’s Creed, and the Athenasian Creed was written to defend the Nicene Creed. The Augsburg Confession was written to defend all three Creeds. The rest of the confessions were written to defend the Augsburg Confession. The only place your Creed will lead people is to heresy and hell.
You want me to repent. I want you to Confess the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the three ecumenical Creeds and only the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the three Creeds. If you want to make changes in the faith why don’t you call for an Ecumenical Council? If you and your elders promise you will only confess three Creeds, no more and no less, in your church, from now to eternity, I will negotiate a printed apology with you.
You pray for my repentance and I will pray you keep your ordination vows. I hope you show this letter to your elders.
Yours in Christ,
Pastor Jack CascioneCopy to the other pastors.
Four of our elders met with Pastor Three and myself. I gave him first shot and he read a statement and condemned me for 45 minutes. Within another 75 minutes of conversation, he repented, said he had been in error, was not correctly schooled at the seminary, apologized, promised he would only confess three Creeds for the rest of his life, and we shook hands. At this time I have nothing but admiration for Pastor Three. Heins did everything he could to prevent that encounter. If you notice he called a meeting on such issues out of order. Naturally he wouldn’t want the pastors settling their disagreements without the involvement of the "Dispute Resolution Process."
Meeting With the Mormons And Their Letter of Fellowship
After attending the September and November meetings of the Bi-circuit, this writer could not get the Bi-circuit to address his concerns on fantasy creeds. They simply ignored my speeches and threat’s that members of Redeemer were instructed to walk out of their communion services if they heard a creed they did not know. In total frustration this author then sent the new creed they had confessed to the local Mormon bishop and asked for a meeting and possible fellowship based on the new creed. (It will be easier for this writer to refer to himself in the third person for the remainder of the article.)
On Monday, December 9, at 3:00 p.m., a meeting was held at Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Clair Shores, Michigan, between area LCMS pastors and representatives of the Mormon Church. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the possibility of fellowship with the Mormon Church based on the new creed confessed during the Bi-Circuit worship service with Holy Communion on June 10, 1996, in <name withheld>, Michigan.
Attending the meeting for the Mormons was Ward First Counsel and theologian, Mr. Donald Perkins, Elder Tucker, Elder Pulsipher, Virginia Tuten; for the Lutherans - Pastor Jack Cascione, Pastor David Ulm, Elder from Redeemer Lutheran Church, Jerry Schott.
The meeting began with Mr. Donald Perkins, who is also a trial lawyer in Mount Clemens, presenting his written approval of the new creed confessed at the Bi-Circuit worship service on June 10, 1996. The Mormons accepted the new creed because it did not contain the words "of one substance with the Father," as does the Nicene Creed, which they reject.
At the meeting, Mr. Donald Perkins first presented their letter of agreement and stated that he loved Jesus and believed the entire Bible to be God’s Word. During the meeting he said he approved of the new creed as the basis for fellowship in a joint worship service with Lutherans as long as the Nicene Creed was not confessed.
During the meeting, Mr. Perkins observed that Cascione was a literalist and really didn’t like the new creed. He suspected that Cascione thought it was so watered down that a Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness could confess it. Cascione agreed, but said that in his Bi-Circuit at least ten of the fourteen pastors who were present for that communion service in June would agree with Mr. Perkins in practice. Cascione also informed Perkins that confessing new creeds is now a common practice in the LCMS and the possibilities for fellowship with the Missouri Synod and Mormons is now the best it has ever been.
Perkins and Cascione engaged in a spirited discussion on the two natures of Christ. Perkins agreed that passages like John 1:14 could be used to support the view that Christ is equal with God. However, he said the majority of passages show Christ’s subordination. Therefore, Perkins said the Mormons believe that Christ must be entirely subordinate. Being both equal to God and subordinate according to His humanity at the same time is not an option for Mormons. He also felt that the Mormon view of the Lord’s Supper is closer to the Baptists, and that the Lutherans are closer to the Catholics on that point.
Response from the Mormons:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
East Shores Ward
Bloomfield Hills Michigan StakeNovember 16, 1996
Redeemer Lutheran Church
ATTN: Jack Cascione
30003 Jefferson Avenue
St. Clair Shores, MI 48082RE: Ltr dtd. 8/22/96 sbjt. New Creed
Dear Pastor Cascione:
Thank you for soliciting the input of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) as to your Synod’s proposed new creed for the Lord’s Supper.
The nature of our Church’s centralized hierarchy prevents us from offering you any sort of official statement as to our position on such a matter. Permit me, however, speaking as a member of the presiding council of our local organization only, to comment on your proposed change from the perspective of Mormon theology.
We do not accept the Nicene Creed as a correct formulation of Christian truth primarily in one matter only---the assertion that the Lord Jesus Christ is "of one substance" with the Father. On the contrary, we believe a correct reading of New Testament scripture is that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, one in purpose, but not in bodily substance. We further believe the Father and Son are each personages of flesh and bones, while the Holy Ghost, as the third member of the Godhead, is a personage of spirit.
To that extent, therefore, the new creed which your Bi-Circuit is now using is more accurate from our perspective than the Nicene Creed, since your new creed avoids the formulation of the Son being of one substance with the Father.
Again, while the above does not represent an official Church statement of any sort, I believe it stands as an accurate statement of Mormon (LDS) belief.
Let me add, additionally. that I personally find the new creed to be quite appealing in its poetic expression. I like its symmetry in giving praise and confession separately to each member of the Godhead. I find it to be quite spiritually satisfying, and I make this comment as someone who has always appreciated what I regarded as the beauty of the old Nicene Creed as well. I have visited Lutheran services on a number of occasions over the years, including those of the Missouri Synod, and have always enjoyed the spirit I found expressed therein.
For your information, I have enclosed the Sacrament prayers which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints uses each Sunday in our own celebration of the Lord’s Supper.
We appreciate your solicitation of our views, and if we can provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
Donald N. Perkins
1st Counselor, East Shores Ward BishopricCC: K. Sorensen, D. Myers
SACRAMENT PRAYER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS OFFERED OVER THE WATER
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this water to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen
SACRAMENT PRAYER OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS OFFERED OVER THE BREAD
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen."
Show Down With the Bi-Circuit
On January 13, 1997 Pastor Jack Cascione presented the above proposal of fellowship with Mormon Church based on the Bi-Circuit’s creed to the Bi-Circuit. Mormons don’t play the intellectual games of separating faith from public confession as commonly practiced in the LCMS. In other words the Mormons believed the pastors meant what they confessed. The pastors present became visibly upset and suspended the regular order of business. During the meeting, Cascione was called divisive and told that he had violated Matthew 18. Cascione stated that a difference on the three Creeds and any other that a pastor dreams up can’t be a violation of Matthew 18 because the Creeds are public, not private, doctrine.
The pastors voted to have a special meeting just to deal with the issue of how many Creeds could be confessed at a communion service. They also voted to hold a special preliminary meeting with two Circuit Counselors, Cascione, and the pastor who wrote the new creed, to draw up the agenda for that meeting.
At the preliminary meeting, after two hours of debate, the following resolution was drawn up for a vote at the special Bi-Circuit meeting. "Whenever a Creed is confessed at a communion service it will be one of the three ecumenical Creeds."
The special Bi-Circuit meeting opened on Monday, January 27, at St. John’s Lutheran Church in Fraser, with seventeen pastors present. One pastor requested that the conversation in the meeting be kept confidential, that is, not appear in print or get back to the congregations. Cascione responded, "Not a chance. If you don’t want your opinions on the three Creeds known, then stay in the closet. You all took your ordination vows in public; now, you want what you really believe about the Creeds kept private." Cascione vowed to file charges of heresy against any pastor who would not vote for the resolution as written.
An hour and a half debate followed these opening remarks. There were charges of legalism, violation of Article X of the Formula of Concord on adiaphora, claims that the three Creeds were not inspired, that use of a hymn in place of a Creed was accepted practice in LW Divine Service III, and that pastors have freedom to write their own liturgies. There were also questions about the purpose of Creeds, and more.
Cascione responded that, as a Synod, we had already voted on the liturgies in Convention according to Article VI, Section 4. He said that was how we said we would walk together. There is no adiaphora in time of a controversy, according to the Formula, Article X. The same people who approved and wrote the Creeds at Nicea also decided which books were supposed to be in the Bible. If they didn’t know what they believed about the Bible as stated in the Nicene Creed, then how can we be sure we have the right books in the Bible?
We have officially agreed on the Creeds as our public definition of the Gospel. When the Creeds are changed, the Gospel is changed. Divine Service III does recommend a hymn, but it says it is a hymn, not a Creed. We don’t tell the people in the church a hymn is our official Creed or statement of faith. There are only three Creeds and no hymns in the Book of Concord. No pastor has been asked to swear to the words of a hymn in the Book of Concord.
If we use Luther’s explanation of the three articles we have already agreed on that language and we all know they are not the Creed. But telling lay people that something the pastor wrote is "The Creed" is outright deception. Congregations care very little if the pastor makes up a new liturgy, but the Creeds are not liturgy. They are the foundation of the LCMS. Without the Creeds, the Augsburg Confession and the LCMS do not exist.
There was brisk debate. The pastor who wrote the new creed that Cascione despised and the Mormons loved withdrew it. He apologized and said it was a mistake. He then began defending the importance of the Creeds and their use to the other pastors. He had previously written a letter saying Cascione was a sinner in need of repentance. Cascione asked if the pastor had a conversion experience. The pastor replied he always agreed with what Cascione was saying about the Creeds, he just did not approve of Cascione’s methods. At that point Cascione was not about to argue. A man needs space to retreat.
Other pastors began to defend the use of the three Creeds and what Cascione had done. One of the Circuit Counselors called for a vote on the resolution and reminded those present that Cascione would charge anyone who disagreed with heresy. All seventeen pastors present stood up and voted yes to the resolution.
The resolution was written so that no one was forced to use a Creed during a communion service. This is why the word "whenever" was used. Some of the pastors wanted to make the use of a Creed standard practice, but that would not have passed. The wording also permitted the use of properly labeled hymns and sections of the Catechism in place of the Creed.
The use of the Creeds was only recommended for a communion service because, at the present time, there is no way to tell if a worship service is actually taking place in the LCMS unless the Lord’s Supper is served. Even in the LCMS conventions the Lord’s Supper is served on Saturday evening, and on Sunday morning they hold a service of "Celebration" with women speakers, dancers, etc., because it is not a worship service. It should also be noted that the Synod cannot hold a communion service unless it is conducted by a guest pastor from a local congregation. According to official LCMS doctrine only the local congregation is a church and not the LCMS.
If a pastor wants to write a creed for a non-worship service, there can’t possibly be any charges of heresy because we can’t prove it was worship. Cascione believes that "religious services" intentionally designed not to be "worship services" are blasphemy and a violation of the Second Commandment. They lead people to think they are worshipping God, when there is actually no intention of invoking His presence and seeking His gifts of repentance, forgiveness, and the Holy Spirit.
The pastors also discussed the possibility of not only rewriting Creeds, but also not rewriting the Lord’s Prayer and the Gospel lesson. All this is possible without protest in a non-communion setting. It was pointed out that every hymn and every sermon is actually a re-write of the Creeds. Cascione’s view is that the use of three and only three Creeds is part of every LCMS congregation’s constitution.
The meeting closed with prayer. A request was made that Cascione publish that the Bi-Circuit was now in agreement. Pastors from two congregations were not present. Cascione was humbled by the many expressions of agreement and apologies after the meeting. He is not any better than any of them. Some pastors said they really hadn’t understood the issues and how important the use of these Creeds are. Another pastor observed that the Church Growth Movement had affected their practice more than they realized. Others said they were sorry for not speaking up sooner. Cascione was speechless. This writer cannot read these words without being filled with emotion and thanks to a gracious God.
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. By anything, I assume you mean that I will agree with heterodox teaching.
2. Same as footnote 1.
3. Concordia Triglotta, Large Catechism, the Eighth Commandment, par. 284, page 661, also Pastoral Theology, by John Fritz, 1932 page 235.
April 17, 1999