Seminex and the Sovereignty of Scripture

Forty years ago, in September 1972, the “sleeping giant” of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod “blew its volcanic top.”  “Tremors, rumblings, and vents of hot air” had warned of things to come for thirty years, but the vast majority of “sleepy villagers at the foot of the mountain” paid no attention.  “Fractures in the mountain” became evident in 1969, with the election of Jacob A. O. Preus II to Synod President, from the right side of the “mountain,” and the appointment of John Tietjen to Concordia Seminary President, from the left side of the “mountain.”

On September 1, 1972, the Synod President’s Fact-Finding Committee published its report investigating the theology of the Saint Louis seminary.  Covered in blue, with 160 pages of small print on 8.5×11” pages, this “Blue Book” proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the majority of faculty at the prestigious seminary did not agree with the confessional article of the synod’s constitution, especially as that pertained to the authority of the canonical Scriptures.

After a year of debates and conflict, the Missouri Synod’s 1973 convention in New Orleans charged the Saint Louis seminary faculty majority with abolishing “the formal principle, sola Scriptura (i.e., that all doctrines are derived from Scripture and that Scripture is the sole norm of all doctrine)” (1973 Proceedings, Res. 3-09, pp. 133-139).  On this basis, the seminary’s Board of Control, fortified with new members from the 1973 convention, received charges against the seminary president at their meeting in August 1973.  After a lengthy process of meetings, and attempted reconciliation, the seminary board suspended John Tietjen as its president on January 20, 1974.

On the day after the president’s suspension, the majority of seminary faculty (45 out of 50) and the majority of students (274 out of 381) held a “moratorium” in protest.  The protesting faculty refused to teach and the protesting students refused to attend classes taught by the five non-protesting professors.  On February 17, 1974, the Board of Control declared that the protesting faculty who did not resume their duties by February 19th were in violation of their contracts.  On February 19th, the protesting faculty and protesting students “went into exile” amid a faux funeral procession and television publicity.  The following day the protesters resumed classes at “Concordia Seminary in Exile,” also known as “Seminex,” held at Saint Louis University and Eden Seminary in Saint Louis.

Seminex became the seed bed for a new church-body.  When eight Missouri Synod district presidents ordained Seminex graduates, and four of them were subsequently removed from office, 250 congregations sympathetic to the Seminex cause started a new church body known as the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (hereafter AELC).  Seminex also soon flew its “social liberal” colors by accepting women students into the M.Div. program for the pastoral ministry.

Seminex became the de facto seminary for the AELC, but there were not enough vacant positions in the new church-body for all of the Seminex graduates.  Some Seminex students and graduates colloquized into the LCMS; others accepted a “worker-priest” ministry in the AELC; while others abandoned the pastoral ministry altogether. The American Lutheran Church and the Lutheran Church in America merged with the AELC in 1988 to form the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (hereafter ELCA).  Seminex formally ceased to exist with the formation of the ELCA, but its effects are still present in both the ELCA and LCMS today, like white ash drifting out of the sky from some distant eruption.

A recent book by James Burkee from the ELCA’s publication agency, Fortress Press, attempts to argue that the eruption was primarily due to a conservative political reaction of the American public, who were afraid of communism and the political and social agitations of the late 1960s and early 1970s.  At the January 16, 2012 conference of the Lutheran Concerns Association, Burkee’s thesis was solidly refuted by attorneys Walter Dissen and Scott Meyer.  Dissen was a member of the Board of Control of the Saint Louis seminary during the years of its conflict and gave eyewitness testimony.  Meyer is President of the Concordia Historical Institute (a.k.a. CHI, the official historical arm of the Missouri Synod), has received CHI’s Distinguished Service Award for lifetime service to the Institute, and is a church historian in his own right.  Dissen’s and Meyer’s lectures will be available in the 2012 LCA conference videos, and may also be published in the LCA’s Clarion (for more information about the upcoming 2012 videos or published lectures, click here: http://lutheranclarion.org ).

In his Anatomy of an Explosion, Dr. Kurt Marquart of the Fort Wayne seminary argued that the explosion was due both to differences in the doctrine of Scripture and in the doctrine of church fellowship.  In this view, the rupture in the Missouri Synod goes back at least as far as the infamous Statement of the 44, published in 1945.  A historian could also point to the transition from German to English in LCMS congregations, which began in the 1920s; to the synod’s overwhelming desire to call faculty with advanced degrees to its seminaries and colleges, even when such faculty had questionable doctrinal loyalties; to the influence of a liberal faculty at the independent Valparaiso University; and to the synod’s strong desire to be part of the “mainstream” of American Protestantism.

Whatever forces converged on the Missouri Synod in the 20th century to cause its “eruption,” the fact is that the decisive point was what I call the “sovereignty of Scripture” over church life and doctrine.  Accused of being “fundamentalist,” the Missouri Synod’s view of Scripture was actually part of the catholic tradition of the Christian church, reaffirmed by Luther at his trial at Worms. At Worms, Luther quoted Augustine’s letter 82 to Jerome (chap 1,3), where the Bishop of Hippo stated “I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error” (see Luther’s Works 32:11 “Defense of all the Articles”; and 32:118 “Luther at the Diet of Worms”). Without such an unerring-apostolic Scripture, the Missouri Synod would be neither part of the catholic tradition of the Christian church nor Lutheran.

 

 

Bibliography

Adams, James E. Preus of Missouri and the Great Lutheran Civil War (New York: Harper and Row, 1977).

Board of Control, Concordia Seminary, Exodus From Concordia: A Report on the 1974 Walkout. (Saint Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1977).

Burkee, James.  Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod:  A Conflict that Changed American Christianity (Minneapolis:  Fortress Press, 2010).

Danker, Frederick William. No Room in the Brotherhood: The Preus-Otten Purge of Missouri (Saint Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1977).

Marquart, Kurt E. Anatomy of an Explosion: A Theological Analysis of the Missouri Synod Conflict (Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1977).

Suelflow, August, ed.  Heritage in Motion: Readings in the History of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 1962-1995 (Saint Louis:  Concordia Publishing House, 1998).

Tietjen, John. Memoirs in Exile: Confessional Hope and Institutional Conflict (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1990).

Todd, Mary. Authority Vested: A Story of Identity and Change in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2000).

Zimmerman, Paul A. A Seminary in Crisis: The Inside Story of the Preus Fact Finding Committee (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2007).  Includes the “Blue Book” in its Appendices: Report of the Fact Finding Committee Concerning Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, to President J.A.O. Preus (June 1971); and Report of the Synodical President of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (September 1, 1972).


Comments

Seminex and the Sovereignty of Scripture — 74 Comments

  1. Interesting to read all the sentiments here–although two generations ago, we’re still suffering from PTSD. I was in grad school at the time, so feel that I can make the statement that I look with suspicion on any LCMS pastor my age or older.

  2. “I’d characterize it more in terms that the heirs of J.A.O. Preus have added “qualifications” to the Evangelical Lutheran Confession that were not taught when I took confirmation instruction.”

    See what happens when you don’t teach!!!

    People come back later and say they weren’t taught.

  3. Mrs. Hume :

    “I’d characterize it more in terms that the heirs of J.A.O. Preus have added “qualifications” to the Evangelical Lutheran Confession that were not taught when I took confirmation instruction.”

    See what happens when you don’t teach!!!
    People come back later and say they weren’t taught.

    Except, Mrs. Hume, I was taught and taught very well.

    And, as it relates to this thread, please note that I was taught that the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures are the inspired Word of God. I was NOT taught the notion of an “inerrant and infallible” Scripture and with good reason. Inerrant and infallible are attributes assigned to Scripture by men – not attributes that Scripture claims for itself. And, as a footnote, take a look at the 1943 CPH edition of Luther’s Small Catechism. Luther did not describe Scripture that way nor did the authors who compiled the questions/answers in that edition of the catechism.

    By the way, questioning the “doctrine” of inerrancy is not questioning the authority of Scripture – it is questioning the authority of human interpretations of Scripture.

  4. @Mrs. Hume #52

    Mrs. Hume, you remind me of the couple who asked their Lutheran pastor for a letter of transfer to a Baptist church. The pastor was understandably dumbfounded and asked them, “Don’t you realize the huge doctrinal differences between our churches?”

    “Pastor, you never taught us doctrine.”

  5. Ted Crandall :
    @Mrs. Hume #52
    Mrs. Hume, you remind me of the couple who asked their Lutheran pastor for a letter of transfer to a Baptist church. The pastor was understandably dumbfounded and asked them, “Don’t you realize the huge doctrinal differences between our churches?”
    “Pastor, you never taught us doctrine.”

    Correct. If the pastor had been teaching Lutheran doctrine instead of stuff like Biblical literalism, creation science, proof-texting social/political issues, etc. etc., the parishioner might have better understood the difference between Lutherans and Baptists.

  6. @Johan Bergfest #53

    I was taught and taught very well.

    “very well” as in thoroughly? Because a person can be thoroughly taught something that isn’t true.

    Anyway, I am trying to reconcile “inspired by God” and “erroneous” or “false”

    Please explain how scriptures inspired by God would not be inerrant and infallible. If they aren’t inerrant, then they are erroneous in at least one place. Which one? If they aren’t infallible, then they are false in at least one place. Which one?

  7. @Johan Bergfest #55

    If the pastor had been teaching Lutheran doctrine

    So, were the Seminex professors teaching Lutheran doctrine as they should? And were they teaching future pastors to teach the laity Lutheran doctrine as they should? Or were they teaching against “stuff like Biblical literalism, creation science, proof-texting social/political issues, etc. etc.”? Because it seems like the ELCA sure teaches against the first two by using a variation of the last one.

  8. @Johan Bergfest #53

    What???

    Per the 1943 CPH edition:

    Question 10  “By inspiration of God” means that God the Holy Ghost moved the holy men to write and put into their minds the very thoughts which they expressed and the very words which they wrote (Verbal Inspiration.)  2Peter1:21, 1Cor2:13

    Question 11  Every word of the Bible is God’s word, and therefore the Bible is without error.  John17:17, 2Tim3:16,  John10:35

  9. Mrs. Hume :So, were the Seminex professors teaching Lutheran doctrine as they should?

    They were teaching consistent with the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran church as the LCMS understood doctrine, prior to the 1973 synodical convention.

    Proof-texting is the citing of selected passages, out of context of the larger passage and out of context of the entirety of Scripture to “prove” a point. It is the method by which LCMS has “proven” that it is unBiblical to ordain women, that it is an unforgivable sin for two people of the same gender to live together in an intimate, committed relationship, etc.

    John Rixe :What???
    Per the 1943 CPH edition:
    Question 10  ”By inspiration of God” means that God the Holy Ghost moved the holy men to write and put into their minds the very thoughts which they expressed and the very words which they wrote (Verbal Inspiration.)  2Peter1:21, 1Cor2:13
    Question 11  Every word of the Bible is God’s word, and therefore the Bible is without error.  John17:17, 2Tim3:16,  John10:35

    Correct. Scripture is the inspired Word of God and, therefore, the Bible is without error.

    However, that belief is different from “inerrant and infallible” aka “The Battle for the Bible” definition, a distinctly fundamentalist understanding of Scripture. The latter understanding tends to treat Scripture in a manner similar to the way that Muslims think of the Koran or Mormons think of the the golden tablets. The prophets and apostles were not passive robots. There is a divine/human paradox in the Lutheran understanding of the inspired Word, just as there is a divine/human paradox in our understanding of the incarnate Word.

    The notion of an “inerrant and infallible” Scripture also carries with it a considerable degree of confusion between a Scripture that is without error and interpretations of Scripture that, likewise, are without error. The latter are very much the product of and limited by human understanding and none of the passages referenced in the catechism apply.

  10. @Johan Bergfest #59

    Johan, Johan! Where do I begin?

    Mrs. Hume will wipe up the floor with you quite well, I’m sure, but as long as I’m here now…

    “They were teaching consistent with the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran church as the LCMS understood doctrine, prior to the 1973 synodical convention.”

    Are you seriously trying to say that it was the LCMS who left the Confessions and not the Seminex crowd? Please explain how this could possibly be the case, when today the ELCA publicly teaches that the Lutheran Confessions are quaint records of what the primitives believed 500 years ago and the LCMS still subscribes to the Confessions as the true exposition of Holy Scripture. Are you also trying to say that before 1973 the LCMS taught that the Bible contained falsehood as well as the Word of God? (That is what the ELCA teaches today.)

    “It [citing of selected passages, out of context of the larger passage and out of context of the entirety of Scripture] is the method by which LCMS has “proven” that it is unBiblical to ordain women…”

    Au contraire. Until circa 1973 all but a few renegade denominations upheld the clear teaching of the entirety of Scripture in ordaining only some men. The ELCA joined the cultural, feminist revolution with nothing in Scripture to support the innovation.

    “It is the method by which LCMS has “proven” that it is … an unforgivable sin for two people of the same gender to live together in an intimate, committed relationship, etc.”

    That’s a euphemism for sodomy, right? (Lipstick on a pig.) The LCMS has never taught that sodomy is an unforgivable sin, but that it is a sin like all others for which Christ died. It is the ELCA who introduced the innovation against clear Scripture and 2,000 years of church history that suddenly God Almighty embraces sodomy. It is the ELCA who encourages unrepentant sinners to continue mocking God until it will be too late for them to repent. You call that love?

    Your final two paragraphs are just a crafty (and yes, I do realize what that word implies), just your crafty way of claiming to believe the whole Bible is Scripture, while you turn the clear meaning of God’s Word on its head with your “interpretation.”

  11. Scripture is the inspired Word of God and, therefore, the Bible is without error.

    However, that belief is different from “inerrant and infallible”

    Inerrant means without error. Infallible means that it can’t be false. So, how can it be different? If it can be false, then how is it true?

    They were teaching consistent with the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran church as the LCMS understood doctrine, prior to the 1973 synodical convention.

    If the whole synod agreed and it was so consistent, then why would the 1973 synod convention delegates look at it and consider it wrong? Why would the majority of the convention disagree with what they had previously agreed to?

  12. @Johan Bergfest #59
    You said, “They [CSL profs] were teaching consistent with the doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran church as the LCMS understood doctrine, prior to the 1973 synodical convention.”

    I respectfully beg to differ: In the summer of 1957, while I was preparing for my final year at Valpo, our family hosted my second cousin, who has just graduated from CSL and was by then ordained, and his father, a pastor, and his mother. During dinner, he proclaimed, “The story of Elijah going to heaven with a fiery chariot is a myth.” and “Nobody really believes that story of Johah in the fish–that’s just a myth.” His parents were plainly embarrassed. I could not believe my ears, and was shook. “I know many very faithful and sincere Christian men who believe and teach this,” he continued. At the time, it didn’t occur to me that he was referring to CSL professors. In later conversations, he claimed that the Bible says that Hindus and Buddhists will go to heaven–as I recall, he claimed that Jesus said as much.

    You said, “Proof-texting is the citing of selected passages, out of context of the larger passage and out of context of the entirety of Scripture to “prove” a point. It is the method by which LCMS has “proven” that it is unBiblical to ordain women, that it is an unforgivable sin for two people of the same gender to live together in an intimate, committed relationship, etc.”

    My second-cousin has presented lectures and his own cherry-picked collection of “proof texts” to show how mysoginistic (sic) the Bible is, especially the OT. One of his hand-outs plainly ridiculed the Bible (his favorite is Leviticus), and made fun of the LCMS’ stances on ordaining women and on homosexual behavior. By the way, the LCMS does not teach that homosexual behavior is “an unforgiveable sin”.

    I have sat thru courses on Genesis, taught by Lutheran (ELCA) pastors via the source hypothesis view, and using Phylis Trible’s “God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality” as the basic text. Von Rad’s text on Genesis (documentary/source hypothesis) was standard fare at the sem back then. An LCMS pastor gave me his copy to read–it scared the tar out of me. Former CSL professor Fred Danker’s commentary on Luke casts doubt on many passages in Luke’s Gospel, especially miracles. Just these two books are clearly a threat to faith.

    Sorry–what those men were teaching at the Sem back then was not consistent with the doctrines as understood by the Evangelical Lutheran Church (by that I mean the LCMS).

    As far as the interpretation of “infallible” and “inerrant”, I suggest that it’s time for another reading of Armand J. Boehme’s “The Smokescreen Vocabulary”: http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1648

    I’m still awating some examples to back up your claim that “the confessional Lutheran movement confuses Law and Gospel because it conditions grace with adherence to an arbitrary definition of “orthodoxy”.

  13. Sometimes it is a semantic game. Other times there is the intent to mislead. If you know that people think that true means one thing and you deliberately use it with another meaning, you intend to deceive. For example, the story of The Little Boy Who Cried, “Wolf!” contains truth even though it is not true. Some see the Bible this way, but they choose words carefully so that they can say that while allowing readers of their statements to infer that they mean true by the literal meaning rather than the symbolic meaning. I mean if Grandma Schmidt believes that it is literally true, that is fine. The ELCA won’t kick her (or her donations) out, but they won’t teach what she believes to her grandson in the seminary no matter how much she donates. The ELCA will tolerate believers as members and financial contributors, but not as leaders.

  14. @Mrs. Hume #63

    There’s no doubt about the semantics game. When I first read “The Blue Book” with the interviews of the faculty at CSL, I had to sort out the mushy language–the “Smokescreen Vocabulary” as Dr. Boehme called it. Paul Zimmerman’s “Seminary in Crisis” included the entire “Blue Book”, and it is highly instructive to read thru it. And again, I recommend the brief article by Armand Boehme, noted in #62 above.

    I have seen first-hand how the H/C method and its variations are inimical to faith. Its practitioners’ Semantical sleight-of-hand is patently dangerous.

  15. @Joe Olson #43 I’d be interested in pursuing this further, as I have never heard of Bonhoeffer described as anything but a conservative Lutheran pastor. Seems to me, with admittedly limited reading, that Bonhoeffer is writing from the same point of view as James, given the behavior of the supposedly Christian people under the Nazis. That is: yes, you are saved, but “by there fruits shall you know them,” and there was very little fruit showing.

  16. @Martin R. Noland #46
    Would this work for an analogy? –
    Borrowing from John Bunyan and Hannah Hurnard, we can analogize the Christian Way as a path, with the end goal being Heaven. The true path – the Christian Way as taught by Christ and the Apostles – is the optimal path, leading one through all trials and dangers. Our path in the LCMS is closest to this optimal path, perhaps straying here and there through a thorn bush or close to a quick-sand pit, but the best that we limited people can offer.

    Other “sects” are also reasonably close to the optimal path, but stray dangerously in certain areas. I accept that my Roman Catholic friends will be saved, but only so far as they don’t fall into the clutches of works-righteousness. I don’t know if you can really call it a probabilistic thing, but, being an engineer, I tend to use that term: the further you are from the true Way, the more likely you are to fall into a pitfall that you can’t get out of.

    Some paths, of course, such as Islam, or Hinduism, may start out going in the right direction, but deviate so far from the Way that there is no hope of getting there except by abandoning those paths entirely.

  17. Some paths, of course such as Ismal or Hinduism may start out going in the right direction..

    That is 100% WRONG. They never start out right and surely never finsh right. They are totally opposed to God and Chrsit.

  18. @Pastor Charles McClean #7
    You mentioned hearkening to the Bible and eschewing the Confession as related to “baptistification” (is that even a word?), but as one who was formerly baptistic, it’s really the other way ’round, for if “baptists” were honest (a rarity) it is Reformation churches, including but not limited to Lutherans, who are the true baptists, whereas so-called “baptists” are really properly “anabaptists” because of their rebaptizing as a result of pretending to be Biblical in requiring so-called believer baptism or credo-baptism. You’re safe in maintaining this position as long as you stay away from the Bible, but let me tell you when I searched it because I was sure I could use God’s Word to support my credo-baptism position I could not, because it’s not there, rather merely an argument from silence that is presumptuous in imagining that because the text doesn’t specifically mention infants being there that there weren’t any. How silly & lame!
    But there’s a further hypocrisy I’ve never heard anyone even mention, much less hear “baptists” own up to it: they have no problem whatsoever with the woefully truncated short form of the Lord’s Supper that is in no way what the Lord & His disciples practiced on the night in which He was betrayed, and yet they absurdly demand full immersion to be true baptism; how silly and lame. If the Church was proper in substituting a truncating of the Lord’s Supper for the real thing then you can’t say she was improper in substituting a trucating of the mode of baptism, though the proper subject to be baptized, believer or infant is another matter.
    Regarding that matter the issue of grace comes in strongly and in my view not only substantiates what I prefer to call oikos or household (versus infant) baptism over “believer” or “credo” baptism, but to me also calls into question requiring catechizing students before they can be qualified to receive the Lord’s Supper, though no such qualification was necessary for their oikos baptism. They stand or fall together, because if God’s grace is exclusively granted to whomsoever He wills solely from his free grace, then there’s nothing they can do to get it, either in baptism or the Lord’s Supper, for anyone who knows anything about kids knows very well that even those who are catechized can be great con artists and pull the wool over many pairs of eyes. I like how one LCMS fellowship invites the parents to be the proper ones to decide if their child is ready to take communion, whether or not they’ve been through catechism. I’m very pleased with this (it’s not mine) since in many ways the church improperly interferes with the father’s divinely ordained role as priest for his family under God that the pastor and his necessarily lesser and inferior authority regarding the family hinders at his peril. Now that the evil antichrist Muslim cultist 0bama has been reelected (11/7/12) one must wonder how long it will be before his persecution of Christ’s Church comes to the point where we’ll be doing jail time for our faith, though evil antichrist Mormon cultist Romney likely would have taken us down that same route, as he did in MA, happily sodomizing and aborting the people and pulling the wool over the eyes of the nation following his days as governor, proving Americans pathetically gullible fools, including most manifestly spineless evan-jelly-cals who don’t know their man’s life of gross evil, see http://www.renewAmerica.com but thankfully God doesn’t need my help running the universe.
    Soli Deo Gloria!

  19. I went to Concordia Seminary St. Louis’ webpage today, and I still haven’t found anything that looks like a statement of faith.

    What I hear here seems to confirm my impressions. I am saddened and grieved by all this, friends, and feel for all of you.

    What I can say is that I appreciate the hope and impetus that Dr Preus gave to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) (and the ICBI) and the way that enabled the SBC to turn around their now vibrant, strong and influential flagship Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) in Louisville. As an outsider, decades after the Seminex episode, I am saddened to hear that there are still so many uncertainties about liberalism in the LCMS! 🙁

    I’m not a Lutheran or a Southern Baptist, but ironically I personally feel that, except for the ICBI, perhaps Dr Preus’s greatest tangible influence on larger gospel-centred Christianity may be the way he energized the SBC for their turnaround. And SBTS is now an institution with an amazing output, high academic standards, and the highest confessional beliefs in the Word of God and orthodox Bible interpretation (for the latter must be in line with the former).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1k9HyxLiOY

    (Incidentally, touching on something I read somewhere here, President Mohler recently said that it will never be possible to complete a post-graduate degree completely off campus, with them. The stats support him that it cannot be done thoroughly, well, or at all that way.)

  20. Herman Otten, LCMS Pastor retired now after 50+ years of the ministry was at the forefront and on the right side of this “Seminex.” Pastor Otten fought hard to expose the Heretical traitors of the LCMS. Otten is featured today on the ELCA archives (YouTube) as himself and a then young LCMS Seminary Student were on Television fighting for the faith and saying “Scripture interprets Scripture!” You sure won’t find Otten on the Steadfast or LCMS site however. I respect the ELCA for that point as they had the guts to post Pastor Otten and his fighting for truth. Why doesn’t Steadfast recognize him? The President of the MS at that time took Otten side! Otten is correct but never gets any attention as the LCMS acts like Pharisees against him! Yes those good ole boys and their little club with high salaries at the top…. Then they all wonder why they are losing members and so many are leaving to form new Traditional Luther Lutherans such as ELDONA and A few others, including but not limited to the 1960 CLC! As long as they continue to hush the good Pastors and keep out any other sincere Christians, more splits will come. The real invisible body of believers are sick and tired of tip toeing around as the LCMS goes liberal. Or it doesn’t listen to us traditional Luther Lutheran Christians. Steadfast still won’t recognize Pastors like Otten or Pastor Dankoff. But God will most certainly recognize these men’s Souls on judgement day and I’ll betcha our Lord will say “Well done thy faithful Servants.” I’m proud they had the guts to speak the truth. I like truth.

  21. Anatomy of an Explosion by Kurt Marquart is referenced in Pastor Noland’s article above. This is an excellent book about Seminex and Otten’s role in speaking out about the liberal profs. The link is to the CTSFW bookstore and their printshop’s reprint of the book for only $4.99 + shipping. The original printings of the book (both used and new) are going for exorbitant prices on Amazon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.