Because people have commented on it, I felt the need to announce a change to the BJS homepage.
The “Flashback” feature was originally designed to bring some of our “oldie but goodie” posts to your attention periodically. Unfortunately for a year or so it’s been broken — one of the WordPress upgrades broke it; I didn’t notice it immediately, and by the time I noticed it it was too late to try to figure out which update broke it.
Anyway, I finally got fed up with it and researched the problem and am pleased to announce that it’s now fixed!
You will notice the 6th box down on the homepage has the Flashback graphic on the left side of it. Each time the homepage is replotted, 10 random posts are pulled from the “Flashback” category and cycle through that box. You can use the left/right buttons to go to a post you want if you see one you want to read more of.
You can also review all of our Flashback posts by clicking here or on the Flashback graphic to the left of the slider.
We would welcome recommendations for other posts that should be placed in this category .. since it has been non-functional for so long we haven’t even attempted to classify any new posts, and we didn’t do a complete survey of all our posts when we initially came up with the idea at our last redesign of the website. I’m sure we have many posts written since we first created this blog in June of 2008 that would welcome a reread. Of course, I’m sure there are some posts that we’d all rather forget about, but that the life of a blog.
Thanks for your attention, and a very blessed Reformation celebration to you!
P.s. sorry to all those who “complained” about it not working .. yes, I read your comments; I just couldn’t fit the time in to dig into the code to figure out what went wrong.
And .. for your enjoyment, here’s a duplicate of the flashback slider as seen on the homepage:
(from Mollie) Gene Veith pointed the way to a few otherbloggers who have been looking at the LCMS-specific numbers coming out of that massive Pew report on religion in America:
The survey found that only 84% are absolutely certain there is a god; 12% are fairly certain.
9% seldom go to church; 2% never do.
Only 42% said the Bible should be taken literally.
28% believe there is one correct way to interpret scripture.
I gather that the assorted bloggers thought these numbers were bad. Actually, I’m not so sure. The percentage of people not going to church is very low compared to other churches and it’s somewhat out of our line of thinking to expect sinful people to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy 100 percent of the time.
As for the other figures, I kind of think the questions are bad. I wrote a little bit about this elsewhere, but here is just one of the questions that Pew asked:
Do you think there is a heaven, where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded?
How would you answer that question? Yes? No? I believe in heaven — I don’t believe in people in people who have led good lives.
Another question asked people if they believe in a “literal” interpretation of Scripture. We hopefully all believe the Bible is the word of God. But do you believe in a “literal” thousand year reign? Do you believe Jesus is literally a door?
I think the survey had some serious limitations. But what do you think of the results?
Our Lord said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:19) What part of that do we not understand? In regard to the whole topic at hand, when it comes to “headship,” be it in the church and home, that about covers it all, wouldn’t you say? Headship belongs to Christ.
In his letter to the church at Ephesus, St. Paul talks about how God the Father raised Christ from the dead “and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:20-23)
We also have these wonderful words in Paul’s letter to the Colossians, that Christ “is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” (Colossians 1:15-19)
Do me a favor and reread both of the previous passages and consider all that they say about our Savior, the One to whom “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:10-11)Indeed, you and I in our personal devotions cannot spend too much time considering what it means that Jesus is Lord… that Jesus is my Lord and the ramifications of the same.
I would venture to say that most people do, in fact, understand conceptually that Christ is the head of the church. They likewise understand that He is the head of the home. The problem or issue is not a matter of “comprehending.” Rather, it is one of accepting, embracing, admitting and confessing this spiritual truth with one’s lips and in one’s very own life. How is that working for you?
In our daily reflection of our life in Christ, we need to again and again ask ourselves if we are only paying lip service to the fact that Jesus is Lord and that He is head over all things in heaven and earth. Certainly, Christ’s headship is not contingent upon our acknowledging the same and living accordingly. He is head and Lord over all regardless of our actions. Still, we fervently pray that Christ may truly be head over our lives – in our home and in our church – and that this is oh-so evident in the way we think and in what we do and say.
So how does that happen? It happens when we, by the power of the Holy Spirit, listen to and obey the words which come from the holy mouth of our most sacred Head. It happens when we read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the Scriptures and apply the same to any and all aspects of our lives. Then and only then are we upholding the headship of Christ.
When our Lord says one thing in His holy word and we have the audacity to say another, when we change and rearrange His words (even if it is ever so slightly) or interpret His will to fit our will, our desires… we have, in reality, triedto usurp the power and authority of Christ. In these instances, we have tried to take Christ’s headship from Him and make it our own, declaring ourselves to be in charge.Dare I say that we, through our actions, declare ourselves to be God? And if not God, we try to at least be His “vicar,” standing in His place, functioning and acting like some pope.
Sadly, this happens a lot in our homes and in our churches. It has been the case down through the centuries and it is still to this very day. So how is it in your home? How is it in your congregation? How is it in our Synod? In these places, is Christ the head? He is, of course. He always is. But is it true in regard to what we are doing?
As I mentioned in my first article, we will now turn our attention first to the home and examine what all is happening there in regard to spiritual headship. Such a discussion will be anything but boring.
Often the topic of how God governs all things comes up in parish life during suffering and struggles. Questions will arise about God being the cause of something (sin is the cause of this damned mess), allowing something (as if He is distant from things and is often merely wordplay), or even sending something. This is of course a difficult topic, and it deserves much attention in the lives of Christians who indeed will suffer in this life.
Recently I had a opportunity to sing and meditate upon one of my favorite hymns, “Why Should Cross and Trial Grieve Me” (LSB 756, but if you want a longer version check out TLH, although an even older English version includes even more stanzas to it [truncation of hymns is bad hymnal practice and often reflects a desire to avoid the hard stuff]. There are several points in the hymn where Gerhardt lays even sadness and suffering squarely at God’s feet as the one who sends them.
Is God sending sadness or suffering such horrible news? From one point, suffering sucks. Life in a fallen world is not fun, no matter how much we think we have advanced or progressed, in the end the fallen world catches up with us and grabs hold of us. Sometimes it is at death, more than often it is during a time of great trial or suffering. Then all of the fake gods have to move aside, all of the petty idolatries we have set up for ourselves show their powerlessness to maintain our good life. At that point it is only God and us who are left and it appears we will not last long. So what is wrong with saying that God sent suffering?
Nothing. I don’t want to endure suffering that happens by chance or by some distant God allowing it and watching on. I don’t want the cliche which tries to paint a rosy picture in a fallen world. I don’t want a theoretical or philosophy daydream of a god. I don’t want anything other than the God who I know, or more importantly Who knows me. He has to be the one to lay down a heavy cross or burden upon me. Why? Because I know that God, for He has revealed Himself to me as a God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who is slow to anger, merciful, compassionate, abounding in steadfast love – the God who in the Son gave Himself up for my temporal and eternal benefit. The God I want pushing down on my flesh is the very same one who gave up His flesh for me and still feeds the same along with His blood to me each week. The God I want sending the waters over every last bridge and breaking the dams in my life has to be the very same God who baptized me and claimed me as His own. The God I want to receive a cross from has to be the One who endured the cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father. The God I want to hear words of sorrow from is the God who has spoken to us by His Son, a man of sorrows and well knowing of grief. This God is with me, the God named Immanuel (God with us), Jesus.
If my suffering is not from Him, that same God who baptizes, preaches, teaches, and feeds – then who can know my suffering or bring relief to it? If it is by chance, then by chance I will come out of this. If it is only allowed by God, then I suppose maybe He will allow relief? If it is sent by Him – the very God of very God who cared for my life and well-being more than anyone else ever could, then I suppose there is something greater to it. If it is sent by THAT God, then it can be somehow good (What God ordains is always good). This is a matter of faith, of trust – but there is no one except the Triune God who deserves such trust, even when He sends sadness.
So as you experience suffering, trial, sadness, loss, and all of the various other crosses which come in this life take heart – God your loving Savior sends them. He has been faithful to you for all of your days up to now, and He will not leave you now either.
Forty years ago, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) was in an uproar. Its Saint Louis seminary president, John Tietjen, was suspended in the January 20, 1974 meeting of the seminary’s Board of Control. On January 21st the majority of the seminary students declared a “moratorium” on classes and the majority of the faculty went on strike. This resulted in the well-known “walk-out” of most of the faculty and students on February 19th, viewed on broadcast television throughout the United States. Subsequently the majority of students and faculty formed the “Seminex” seminary, graduating its first class on May 24, 1974. Two years later, in December 1976, the “Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches” (AELC) was formed with 250 former LCMS congregations and with “Seminex” as its partner seminary and guiding light.
What was the issue in this intense church struggle? The doctrinal issue was expressed at the 1973 LCMS convention when it adopted Resolution 3-01, which included a resolved to accept “A Statement of Scriptural and Confessional Principles” (hereafter “1973 Statement”) as the expression of “the Synod’s position on current doctrinal issues.” What was the result of this struggle within the LCMS? The standard reference work by E.T. & M.B. Bachmann, Lutheran Churches in the World: A Handbook (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) states that by means of the departure of the Seminex faculty and the AELC, as well as the severing of fellowship with the ALC, the LCMS ’reclaimed its historic confessional stance on the doctrine of the authority of Scripture’ and reaffirmed its ban on the ordination of women to the pastoral office.(ibid., p. 607).
“Biblical inerrancy” was the most contested idea and term in this struggle. Biblical inerrancy was affirmed absolutely, with plenary range and without qualification, in the 1973 Statement, which declared: We therefore believe, teach, and confess that since the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, they contain no errors or contradictions but that they are in all their parts and words the infallible truth. We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures. We recognize that there are apparent contradictions or discrepancies and problems which arise because of uncertainty over the original text. (see This We Believe: Selected Topics of Faith and Practice in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod[St Louis: The LCMS, n.d., p. 78]; also see online ).
Conservative Protestants in the United States recognized that the struggle within the LCMS was similar to their own struggles. In 1978, four years after the “walk-out,” the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy adopted the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (see Normal L. Geisler, Inerrancy [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979], 493-502; also see online ). The 1978 Chicago Statement has become a reference point for the definition of “biblical inerrancy” among conservative Protestants and Evangelicals. But then I have recently noticed—due to a number of books by Evangelical publishers, articles by Evangelical journals, and indications in Evangelical institutions–that the Chicago Statement and “biblical inerrancy” is being ignored, considered passé, even attacked. What does this mean?
I cannot answer what this means for conservative Protestants and Evangelicals in America, since I do not participate in their conferences, conventions, or societies. But I can answer the question of what a rejection of “biblical inerrancy” means. It means that the Christian who attacks “biblical inerrancy” has uncritically accepted the arguments of Liberal Protestants; or maybe in some cases, has actually apostasized from the faith. I recognize that there are many laypeople in mainline and Evangelical churches who don’t affirm “biblical inerrancy” because they have never been taught it, or they don’t understand its significance. They affirm and believe in the saving faith as expressed in the three Christian creeds, and so for that reason are bona fide Christians.
My concern is with all people who reject or attack “biblical inerrancy” when its meaning has been properly explained, e.g., in the 1973 Statement or the 1978 Chicago Statement. Such people are not bona fide Christians, but Liberals.
I don’t mean “liberal” in the way it is commonly used as an adjective. I mean “Liberal” in the sense of a comprehensive philosophy of life that may include religious components. This is the definition of “Liberal” employed by Dr. Gary Dorrien, the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary—New York and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. In his magisterial three-volume history of American Liberal Theology, Dorrien carefully defines the term “Liberal” in this way: Fundamentally [liberal theology] is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority (my emphases; see Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900 [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001], xxiii).
Notice that Liberal theology is a third worldview, which Dorrien calls a “third way” between atheism and traditional Christianity (ibid., xxi). Liberal theology rejects external religious authority, i.e., it rejects the authority of the Pope, of Patriarchs, of creeds and confessions, of church councils, of church fathers, and especially of the Bible. In this respect, the 1973 Statement was absolutely brilliant when it declared: “We hold that the opinion that Scripture contains errors is a violation of the sola scriptura, for it rests upon the acceptance of some norm or criterion of truth above the Scriptures.” The norm or criterion of truth for Liberal theology is the internal authority of the religious-person’s own mind, informed by the preaching of the Liberal preacher and scholarship of the Liberal professor. So according to the Liberal perspective, whatever the religious-person finds offensive, or disagreeable, or contradictory, or problematic in the Bible must be an error and rejected by definition. The idea of “Biblical inerrancy” is thus not just an affirmation of the quality of the Bible, but is really a rejection of the fundamental principle of the Liberal worldview.
Because of this historic-and-contemporary conflict in worldviews, i.e., between a Christian faith based on the external authority of Scriptures and the Liberal faith based on an internal authority, “Biblical inerrancy” has become the homoousion of the 20th and 21st centuries. It will never cease to be a dividing line, until the one worldview or the other collapses. Those Protestant churches which affirm the external authority of Scripture cannot abandon “Biblical inerrancy,” as explained either by the 1973 Statement (for Lutherans) or the 1978 Chicago Statement (for Evangelicals), without thereby actually adopting the Liberal religious worldview in whole or in part. And such a worldview is not Christian.
In the last few months I have heard two different stories of folks thinking about moving from a Church Growth parish to a confessional one. What was the reason they could not make the switch? In both cases they could not leave their small group. So I ask, what exactly is the connection to the Church in these situations. It looks to me like there is a small group addiction.
We have asserted on this site that small groups are not good for the church and these stories support that point. In each case the individual sensed that it was right to move from a heterodox church (mixed teaching) to an orthodox church (right teaching) but could not break the tie with their small group. So the small group has inculcated a belief that church is about making connections to other people.
Now church is certainly about making connections to other people but that is secondary to right teaching. Connections to other people combined with mixed teaching puts one’s soul in peril. In addition, most small groups are organized around Bible study. That begs the question, who is the teacher in the small group? Teaching the Scriptures is no easy task just as brain surgery is no easy task. Brain surgeons have temporal life held in balance by the scalpels they wield. The pastor holds something far more important than temporal life in the scalpels of his Words. He holds the eternal souls in balance and so with a surgeons skill he operates on the heart making sure that he does not slip the slightest to the left or the right but always holding the proper balance of law and Gospel. I have sat in many small groups and witnessed botched spiritual surgeries that either scar the soul with the law apart from the Gospel or leave the cancer intact because of a false desire to administer a candy-coated Gospel apart from the law.
So do the right teaching parishes without small groups leave people without connections? Not at all. Walther teaches that churches should have societies so that Christians can socialize. Before the Rogerian psychology of the 60’s and 70’s messed us up, the church was quite happy having Walther league, couples clubs, card clubs, bowling leagues, and the like. Prayer and Bible study was understood to be done at the divine service. These groups were for fun and socialization. Add to the mix of humanistic psychology a little bit of false Reformed and Pentecostal theology of levels of sanctification and you have people thinking that they need small groups to really connect to God through others and have some kind of meaningful spiritual experience. Connecting to God through Christ’s body and blood in the Divine Service is apparently not enough for these emotion starved, humanistic psychology desiring people and so they become addicted to their small groups and cannot leave for a right teaching parish.
Connections to other Christians are important but they are secondary. They are not the Gospel. The Gospel is the Gospel, the forgiveness of sins. That happens in the Divine Service through Holy Absolution, Holy Baptism and Holy Communion. Now that is something to be addicted to!
In the comments section of Friday’s post by Pastor Rossow titled “Per DP’s Advice LCMS Pastor Cancels Participation in Joint Service but Still Supports Unionism,” arguments were made that having a joint worship service with congregations of other fellowships, such as Methodists, or Baptists, or Presbyterians, is not unionism. Holy Scripture, our Confession, Lutheran theologians, and our own synodical statements disagree with that position. Here are a few quotations from across the centuries to illustrate the point.
From the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Constitution:
“Article VI Conditions of Membership
“Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following:
1. Acceptance of the confessional basis of Article II.
2. Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:
a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church;
b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession;
c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities.” [emphasis added]
The official position of the Synod from “Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod”:
“28. On Church-Fellowship. – Since God ordained that His Word only, without the admixture of human doctrine, be taught and believed in the Christian Church, 1 Pet. 4, 11; John 8, 31. 32; 1 Tim. 6, 3. 4, all Christians are required by God to discriminate between orthodox and heterodox church-bodies, Matt. 7,15, to have church- fellowship only with orthodox church-bodies, and, in case they have strayed into heterodox church-bodies, to leave them, Rom. 16,17. We repudiate unionism, that is, church-fellowship with the adherents of false doctrine, as disobedience to God’s command, as the real cause of the origin and continuance of divisions in the Church, Rom. 16,17; 2 John 9.10, and as involving the constant danger of losing the Word of God entirely, 2 Tim. 2,17 ff.”
From the Christian Cyclopedia on the LCMS website:
“Religious unionism consists in joint worship and work of those not united in doctrine. Its essence is an agreement to disagree. In effect, it denies the doctrine of the clearness of Scripture.” (Quoted from The Concordia Cyclopedia, St. Louis, 1927)
From the 1974 CTCR document “A Lutheran Stance Toward Ecumenism”:
“C. On the Congregational Level
“When congregations become members of the Synod they voluntarily accept certain limitations of their autonomy. For the sake of good order and the benefit of all, congregations consent to regulate the exercise of their rights according to a compact freely entered into and mutually accepted. Congregations, for instance, agree to be served only by such pastors as have been certified for placement by the Synod’s seminary faculties and who are members of the Synod. Similarly, congregations agree that they will practice fellowship only with those congregations which belong to a church body with which the Synod is in fellowship. Once such an agreement has been made, confusion and disorder result when congregations act
independently by practicing selective fellowship. The Synod has, therefore, on several occasions stated its position on selective fellowship. Key sentences from a resolution adopted in 1969 give the Synod’s position:
“WHEREAS, The members of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod have voluntarily united in a fraternal agreement to determine fellowship relations with other church bodies or congregations, not individually but through convention action (Handbook 1.21) . . . ” Resolved, That the Synod urge all its members to honor their fraternal agreement with all members of the Synod by refraining from practicing altar and pulpit fellowship with congregations of church bodies with whom the Synod has not yet declared fellowship.
“D. On the Individual Level
“1. In the exercise of their office pastors will follow synodical policy. Except in emergency situations and in such cases where their action cannot rightfully be construed as disregard for pure doctrine, for the responsibilities of their office, or for the concerns of their brethren in the ministry, pastors will ordinarily commune only those individuals who are members of the Synod or of a Lutheran church body with which the Synod is in fellowship. Pastors will not participate in joint worship services with pastors of denominations with which the Synod has not established fellowship relations. When pastors affiliate with ministerial alliances or associations, they will participate in such activities and service opportunities as do
not imply ecclesiastical fellowship where it does not yet exist.”
From the 2001 CTCR document “The Lutheran Understanding of Church Fellowship”:
“The promise not to participate in worship services with those not in church fellowship with the LCMS applies particularly to pastors, who are the official representatives of both their congregations and the LCMS. Their solemn commitment to the scriptural and confessional position of the LCMS must be their guide and will supersede personal feelings or preferences. Trust among LCMS pastors, congregations, and leaders allows everyone to carry out their commitment to fellowship practices to which they have mutually agreed. This trust is undermined when these commitments, as they are set forth in the official documents of the LCMS, are openly violated. Public knowledge of such violations strains relationships and makes reasoned discourse of real issues difficult. This in turn hinders pastors from exercising discretion in unclear situations.”
The following quote is taken from the September 18, 1917 edition of The Lutheran Witness. It points out that the LCMS would have no joint worship services with other Lutheran synods on the Reformation Jubilee, because there was no unity in doctrine. Obviously, this refusal to hold joint worship services with other Lutheran synods would also apply to other non-Lutheran denominations:
“Joint Reformation Celebrations. — Many of our congregations will take part in joint celebrations of the Jubilee. The churches of the Synodical Conference in many centers of population will gather in imposing union services. But there will be no participation of our churches in general Lutheran or Protestant gatherings.
“The reason for this position of our Synod has been stated before, but in view of the approaching celebration demands restatement.
“We hold it to be self-evident truth that, where there is no unity of faith, there ought to be no unity of worship. If the texts of Scripture which forbid unionism (for example, Rom. 16, 17; 1 Tim. 6, 3 ff.) do not apply here, they are devoid of meaning.
“We hold it to be a truth that may be readily verified by investigation that there are real differences in doctrine between the synods composing the Synodical Conference on the one hand and, for instance, the Ohio Synod, the Iowa Synod, the General Synod, the General Council, and the United Synod of the South, on the other. [The predestinarian controversy is mentioned.]
“…There are other differences, as, for instance, on the Sabbath question and other adiaphora (liquor question, etc.). The evolution doctrine is taught in some church-papers. For a full discussion of these differences and others read Prof. Bente’s book: Was steht der Vereinigung der lutherischen Synoden Amerikas im Wege? which contains a sufficient array of facts to convince the Christian reader that there are very real and effectual bars to Lutheran union. But where there is no unity, there can be no joining worship nor joint celebrations of the Jubilee.
“The question is not: What do individual Christians in these bodies believe? but this: What is the public and official stand of these synods in matters of Christian doctrine? We believe that there are true Christians in all these Churches, because the essentials of the Gospel are still preached. Even so there are, no doubt, children of God in the Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, even in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic Churches. But all these Christians are permitting men who have departed in some point from the Gospel of Christ to determine the public and official doctrine of their bodies. These Christians are misled. They follow blind leaders. We may make every allowance for human weakness, and thus, in a measure, condone their fault. We recognize the stress of circumstances. But we cannot do one thing: we cannot enter into relations of fellowship with them so long a they do not obey the word of Jesus and proclaim their undivided adherence to His teachings.
“These words are not written for the purpose of instructing our own people, to whom all these statements are commonplaces, but for the benefit of the outsider. No Missouri Synod Lutheran rejoices in the fact of division. But he recognizes the fact. And by dispassionately exhibiting this fact, we appeal to the conscience of all good Christians who are now separated from us because of affiliation with men who teach falsely, and would have them remove the offense from their midst in order that there may be Lutheran unity throughout the length and breadth of the land.
“There is no other possibility of the removal of division except by speaking plainly to Christians concerning the error which they support by their membership. In the performance of this duty we must not grow negligent, not even in this year of Jubilee.”
Hermann Sasse, “Concerning the Unity of the Lutheran Church,” Letters to Pastors, No. 25, translated by Matthew C. Harrison:
“True ecumeny, which sees the one church of Christ wherever the means of grace are yet preserved—through which the Lord calls to His church—even beyond the boundaries of one’s own ecclesiology, stands opposed to false ecumeny, which treats Christians of all denominations as brothers in faith. This false ecumeny tries to make visible and tangible that which we humans cannot see and touch, the church as the people of God, as the Body of Christ, as the temple of the Holy Spirit. This false ecumeny changes the ‘article of faith’ about the church into an ‘article of sight.’ It understands the unity of the church, which only the Holy Spirit can create and maintain, as something which we humans can produce. And it tries to produce this unity, in that it works to realize the one faith, the one baptism, the one sacrament of the altar as a compromise of various forms of faith, various interpretations of baptism, and various understandings of holy communion. In so far as it does that, this false ecumeny overlooks [the fact] that the various understandings of the means of grace are not only different possibilities of understanding the truth, but rather that soul-murdering errors and church-destroying heresy also hide among them. True ecumeny sees this. Therefore, it is able to recognize the true unity of the church only there, where it recognizes the one correct faith, the one correct baptism, the one communion of the Lord Christ. True ecumeny asks, therefore, not first about unity, but rather about truth. It knows that where the true church is, there, and there alone, is also the one church. In this sense it understands the high priestly prayer of the Lord, too, in which the ‘that they may all be one’ is linked inseparably with ‘sanctify them in Your truth; Your Word is the truth’ (John 17:17, 21).”
Wilhelm Loehe in Three Books About the Church:
“Let the great ‘It is sufficient’ with which the Augsburg Confession insists upon unity in doctrine and sacrament be our war cry, our watchword, our banner.”
Dr. Franz Pieper, from “Unity of Faith”, an essay delivered at the 1888 Convention of the Synodical Conference, translated by E.J. Otto:
“We dare not allow any other concept of unity to arise among us than the unity of faith which is in harmony with Scripture, the agreement in all articles of Christian doctrine.”
Charles Porterfield Krauth, from “The Right Relation to Denominations in America,” in Lutheran Confessional Theology in America:
“When the Lutheran Church acts in the spirit of the current denominationalism it abandons its own spirit. It is a house divided against itself. Some even then will stand firm, and with the choosing of new gods on the part of others there will be war in the gates. No seeming success could compensate our church for the forsaking of principles which gave her her being, for the loss of internal peace, for the destruction of her proper dignity, for the lack of self-respect which would follow it. The Lutheran Church can never have real moral dignity, real self-respect, a real claim on the reverence and loyalty of its children while it allows the fear of the denominations around it, or the desire of their approval, in any respect to shape its principles or control its actions. It is a fatal thing to ask not, What is right? What is consistent? but, What will be thought of us? How will the sectarian and secular papers talk about us? How will our neighbors of the different communions regard this or that course? Better to die than to prolong a miserable life by such compromise of all that gives life its value.”
Johann Gerhard, quoted from Cyberbrethren, trans. by Rev. Dr. Benjamin Mayes:
“Not just any unity of faith and doctrine is a mark of the Church, but only the unity of true faith and doctrine, that is, of prophetic and apostolic doctrine, for that alone is of immovable and perpetual truth. Therefore the unity of faith that is a mark of the Church must be based on one foundation of doctrine: the apostolic doctrine. Accordingly, the Church is said to be ‘built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles’ (Eph. 2:20). It is said about the heavenly Jerusalem that “its wall has twelve foundations and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”( Rev. 21:14). Accordingly, in Zech. 8:19 ‘truth and peace’ are joined. In fact, truth is set ahead of peace so that we may understand that God approves of only that peace, concord, and unity which enjoys the foundation and bond of truth. John 8:31: ‘If you remain in My Word, you are truly My disciples.’ John 17:21: ‘That they may be one in Us.'”
Johann Michael Reu, from the pamphlet “In the Interest of Lutheran Unity'”:
“We find this attitude of tolerance quite frequently among unionists. It is often used to assuage a troubled conscience, one’s own as well as that of others; for the unionist declares that every one may continue to hold his own private convictions and merely needs to respect and tolerate those of another. This attitude is totally wrong, for it disregards two important factors: (a) in tolerating divergent doctrines one either denies the perspicuity and clarity of the Scriptures, or one grants to error the right to exist alongside of truth, or one evidences indifference over against Biblical truth by surrendering its absolute validity; and (b) in allowing two opposite views concerning one doctrine to exist side by side, one has entered upon an inclined plane which of necessity leads ever further into complete doctrinal indifference, as may plainly be seen from the most calamitous case on record, viz., the Prussian Union.”
Dr. Theodore Graebner, from his essay “The Leprosy of Unionism”:
“No one believes that any Missouri Synod man would dare to propose at this time (1918) official synodical collaboration with the Reformed sects in church-work. That is a late development at which one does not arrive at a jump. On the other hand, the danger is ever present that on the specious plea of advancing the cause of “Lutheranism,” we be tempted to enter into fellowship with members of synods Lutheran in name, but only partly Lutheran in doctrine and practice. There is danger that we get a taste of applause and flattery; that we become eager for “recognition” as a great church-body; that we compromise our doctrinal stand for the purpose of meeting emergencies. And the time to become aware of that danger is NOW.
“It is a bad sign when hearers become angry at their pastor for “preaching against other churches.” It is a worse sign when pastors, bowing to such disapproval, begin to withhold instructions concerning the errors of the sects. It is a most alarming symptom when pastors and parishioners fraternize. . . with those who represent a different conception of Lutheranism. It becomes denial of the Truth when they associate with such for the purpose of “making church-work more effective” or “keeping the Lutheran Church on the map.”
“As we love our church, let us so teach our people so that they will fear the contagion of error as they would fear to breathe the air of a small-pox hospital. Let us exhibit to them the damnableness of false doctrine. Let us preach Luther on this point, who saw only the work of Satan in every deviation from the truth of Scripture. If our people learn to recognize every false doctrine as a snare of the devil, spread to catch victims for hell, they will not need to be held with a rein lest they stampede into unionism. .. .
“Let it be understood that any undertaking or activity which is, in effect, the doing of religious work jointly with those from whom we ought, according to Scripture to separate, is unionism. Here, if ever, the old sayings must apply: “Nip the evil in the bud.” Our first duty is that of watchfulness. There is no higher duty now because there is no greater danger.”
Dr. Martin Luther, quoted in F. Bente’s Historical Introductions to the Lutheran Confessions:
“Whoever really regards his doctrine, faith, and confession as true, right, and certain cannot remain in the same stall with such as teach or adhere to false doctrine.”
Pastor Charles Henrickson passed along this timely summary of a report given to the synod back in 1961 when structural changes were being considered. It was written by LCMS historian August Suelflow and is summarized for us here by Dr. Ken Schurb, formerly the assistant to synodical president Al Barry.
As you read Dr. Schurb’s summary of this report notice how things have changed in our synod. Notice that there was formerly much more emphasis on doctrinal supervision. Notice how the role of the circuit counselor (originally called the “circuit visitor”) has morphed from a doctrinal supervisor to an administrative promotional man for the district and synod, a great loss indeed. Notice too that the synod formerly paid the salaries of its college and seminary teachers. These days, they have all been forced to support themselves financially setting the stage for individualism and a lack of unity. It used to be the case that each district was responsible to pay dues to the synod so that the proceedings of their district convention, particularly the doctrinal paper, be sent to all other members of synod so that all would know what was going on in each district. (Notice that those doctrinal papers were reviewed by the St. Louis Seminary faculty for doctrinal purity. Today we have a beauracratic board – the CTCR – doing the work that should be done by our seminaries.) This practice of inter-district communication has long been lost. As a matter of fact, district conventions do not even have doctrinal papers presented anymore. Look for these and other changes as you read this insightful paper.
The synod of the past was far from perfect but there is a clear sense that the synod of old made doctrinal purity and theological unity top priorities. Let’s remain vigilant by learning more about what is going on in the synod today so that we can be informed participants. BJS will be providing more resources along these lines in the weeks to come.
Be sure to check out comment #16 on the “Being Steadfast Includes Being Vigilant” string for some more excellent resources on LCMS structure. Thanks to Rev. Jack Bauer for pointing these out for us. Pastor Wilken has given a firm endorsement for the “Three Walls” article listed there.
Also, if anyone has any news about proceedings at the convocation in St. Louis, please post your news and reflections here.
We are pleased to announce the videos are now available from the recent Brothers of John the Steadfast 2015 Conference held at Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL on Feb 20-21st. Thanks to Peter Slayton for helping getting these recordings ready and published.
To view them on youtube click here to view all 7 videos.
To listen to the audio presentations, click here (it may be easier to listen to these files if you have a slow internet connection)
Why do we need Lutheran schools? Why do Lutheran schools need Lutheran teachers? Though these are simple questions, their answers get at the whole reason that the extensive system of Lutheran schools exists in the first place. Lutherans in North America have been school-builders from the beginning. In fact, the opportunity to establish schools apart from the purview of the State was at least as enticing to these first Lutheran immigrants from Europe as freedom from a state religion.
But why? After all, schools are a lot of work. All the planning, budgeting, instruction, assessment, recordkeeping — operating a school requires immense sacrifice of time and money on the part of the congregation. Yet in spite of all that, Lutherans (especially those most interested in a confessional identity) have insisted upon operating schools all across the country. So what drove them to establish all these and work tirelessly to keep them open?
Put simply, it’s all about the gospel. Lots of other sorts of schools can teach lots of different things. Any school can teach children to behave and to be good boys and girls. Any school can dig deep into the wisdom of the ancient Greeks — in fact, there is much we all could learn from the founders of Western civilization. Any school can teach citizenship and character and morality. But all of that is of the Law, and we Lutherans know better than anyone that while the Law is good and wise, it lacks the power to save.
It is wise for us to ask the question “What problem is the school designed to solve?” Naturalists like John Dewey would say that the primary problem that a school is designed to solve is that of ignorance of the world. We Christians, in contrast, might concede that a child ought to know something of the world, but that knowledge is of secondary importance when compared to the gospel, which alone can save us from death. In fact, ignorance is not the greatest problem facing man — death is. All worldly knowledge cannot fix death. Only the gospel of Jesus Christ saves sinful man from sin and death. Lutheran schools do teach math, grammar, and history — and many of them do so quite well. But above all, Lutheran schools proclaim this gospel — that Jesus Christ has taken away death and sin and hell by His atoning death. Many students in Lutheran schools don’t get to hear that on Sunday morning. Many of the children in Lutheran schools are members of the congregation who attend the Divine Service faithfully — but they still need to hear what God has done for them in Christ.
Lutheran schools are in the business of preparing young people for the Last Day when the dead are raised and the saints in Christ stand with Him in eternal peace and bliss. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews asks, “How shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” Christians must contend with fallen flesh, the world, and the devil — all of whom would snatch the precious gift of eternal life from us were it not for the Spirit’s work through this gospel to keep us firm in the faith until that Day.
But why Lutheran? After all, there are lots of other Christian schools and Christian teachers. Why does Lutheran identity matter? Simply put, it is when Lutheran schools are staffed with Lutheran teachers that the gospel has the best chance of being proclaimed in its purity. (For the record, the word “Lutheran” here refers more to one’s actual confession than simply on which roster one’s name appears.) To be sure, there are lots of Christian schools and Christian teachers and they are dedicated and sincere. But any adulteration of the gospel runs the risk of the Christian doubting — or worse, in causing him to trust someone or something other than Christ for his eternal salvation. The world thinks this is unloving, but it’s why Lutheran schools ought to be for Lutheran teachers. No one else confesses justification the same as the Fourth Article of the Augsburg Confession. No one else’s theology is designed to reflect salvation by grace alone through faith alone in all its articles. No other theology ought to be taught in our schools, and the way to ensure this is twofold: First, the pastor ought to oversee the theological curriculum and instruction of the school (if not outright do all the instruction himself). Second, teachers ought to hold to the confession of the Evangelical Lutheran churches (and remain diligent in the study of that confession) so that any time theological matters are discussed in class, students can be directed to the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.
They seem like simple questions, and they are. But like so many simple questions, they matter a lot. Lutheran schools, at their best, deliver the gospel to students and strengthen them for the Last Day when the dead are raised and the saints stand with the Lord. And it’s precisely for that reason that Lutheran schools ought to care about an unapologetically Lutheran identity.
(Editor’s Note: Pastor Otten writes the BJS regular column “Steadfast Lessons from the Past.” The columns are archived here. Walter Bouman, well known liberal, of whom he writes here left the LCMS and became an ALC pastor in 1977. He died in 2008. The lesser known pastors and laymen that brother Otten brings to our attention are the real heroes.)
“Brother Rossow you want two columns a month under the theme STEADFAST LESSONS FROM THE PAST?”
His reply, “Yes, old man, just dig into your files!”
That digging revealed those who were “steadfast” in the past.
The March 19th, 1967 issue of THE LUTHERAN WITNESS REPORTER indicated that the Board of Control of Concordia Teachers College of River Forest, Illinois was considering giving tenure to Dr. Walter Bouman, a member of the faculty. The REPORTER indicated that the Board of Control was asking for information from the church at large concerning Dr. Bouman.
Two years earlier THE LUTHERAN WITNESS REPORTER reported on a presentation that Dr. Bouman had given at the Northwest Indiana Pastor’s and Teacher’s Conference held at Valparaiso, Indiana. The conference dealt with the theme “Evolution and/or Creation.” Besides Dr. Bouman two pro evolution professors from Valpo were participants, as well as Dr. John Klotz, Dr. Paul Zimmerman and Professor Rusch, all creationists. The REPORTER article included the words, “In his theological analysis Dr. Bouman advanced arguments supporting the thesis that the conflict in the evolutionissue is not posed by science or by the nature of the Bible texts or by the position of the Lutheran Confessions, but ‘by a theological opinionabout the nature of inspiration.'” The article continued, “He found fault with the ‘theory of inspiration’ held by Lutheran dogmaticians which makes inspiration the ‘direct communication of otherwise unknowable information.'”
Dr. Bouman’s actual words at the conference were “If, in the process, he (the scientist) discovers facts which do not support the world view of the biblical writers, the church today really has very little difficulty living with both the fact that is discovered and with the Scriptures which is still continues to listen to…The point I’m trying to make here is this. That where the scientific research confronts us with a fact, there we can manage to find a new way to interpret the Scriptures even though a man as revered in our own tradition as I’m sure all of us revere Dr. Pieper thought otherwise.”
Dr. Bouman had said essentially the same thing in an article he prepared for the 1965 LUTHERAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION YEARBOOK. In his unedited copy he wrote, “The evangelical approach, because it hears the Word of God as Law and Gospel, is neither bound to Biblical cosmology nor deaf to the Word of God as expressed through biblical cosmology.” In that article, which evaluated Lutheran education materials, he wrote of the Primary Religion Series for the 8th grade,
“In the 8th grade one of the objectives is that the children accept the ‘biblical account of creation’ and receive ‘the courage to support and defend it.’How sad. Our children deserve something better than this. If one begins with Law and Gospel, then learns something about the literary history and the literary nature of the Genesis prolog…then we should have no fear of theories which can possibly expand our vision of God’s working.”
What did the Board of Control hear from the church at large when it asked for information concerning granting tenure to Dr. Bouman, when hehad so publicly written and spoken? Who would teach us a lesson of STEADFASTNESS?
There were seventeen “letters of protest.” The names of those who wrote such letters of protested are perhaps not know by many, now forty one years later.
Four of the seventeen letters came from laymen. Their names are here mentioned out of deep respect for these Brothers of John the Steadfast, who for the most part are now in the presence of Him Whom they confessed and served. Three of the four were from the Northern Illinois District. One was Gerhardt Freundt, a consulting engineer. If the open hearing that preceded the 1962 Cleveland convention of the Synod was recorded, and that recording were still available, one today could hear his evangelical and dramatic appeal to Dr. Martin Scharlemann to no longer hold the views that he expressed in his controversial essays. (Dr. Scharlemann eventually recanted his views and became a staunch supporter of conservativism but prior to that had embraced elements of the liberal higher criticism.)
Another who protested was Karl Heinecke of Western Springs, Illinois. Karl served his Lord in a most unassuming way. It was he who was most responsible for THE WEST TOWNS DAILY CHAPEL over station WTAQ. For many years the Gospel was broadcast daily on this program from this station at 8:00 a.m. It reached all of Chicagoland and Northern Indiana. Countless homebound Christians were daily sustained by it. It was he who organized and scheduled 10 Missouri Synod pastors for their biweekly Gospel broadcast.
Another layman, who sent a letter of protest, was a dear friend of this writer, Marv Toepper, deeply committed to Christ, Christian education and Lutheran confessionalism from his earliest days at Grace Lutheran Church of Chicago. Grace was then served by Pastor Elbert, a member of the old Chicago Study Club, whose members read THE CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN with gratitude.
The one layman who protested, who did not come from Illinois, was Ralph Lohrengel. His home was in Michigan. Ralph alone remains as the one of the four laymen who still serves as a “steadfast” servant in the church militant.
Five of the “letters of protest” came from pastors of the Northern Illinois District. Pastors Robert Kamphoefner of Immanuel in Dundee; Pastor Martin Lopahs of St. Paul, Round Lake;Pastor John Lutze of Immanuel, Downers Grove; Pastor Ray Wessler of St. John, Calument City; and Pastor Harold Krueger of Lake Zurich all dear friends wrote urging the Board of Control of the River Forest college not to grant tenure to Dr. Bouman. One of these pastors and his congregation, St. Paul’s of Round Lake, left the Synod after the 1971 Milwaukee convention of synod for the failure of that convention to fully address and faithfully confess all the issues then facing the synod. Dr. Bouman was still on the River Forest faculty, with tenure.
Four congregations, either via their voter’s assembly or board of elders, submitted “letters of protest.” The board of elders of Bethlehem Lutheran Church of Chicago, served by Pastor A.O. Gebauer\ and the board of elders of Holy Cross Lutheran Church of Cary, Illinois, served by Pastor Robert Hess urged the Board of Control not to grant tenure. St. Andrews Lutheran Church of Chicago, served by Pastor Martin Frick and St. Paul Lutheran Church of Brookfield, Illinois, served by this writer, also so urged that tenure not be granted. St. Andrews of Chicago, and their pastor, Martin Frick, would also leave the Synod after the Milwaukee convention for the same reasons as did St. Paul of Round Lake.
Four “letters of protest” came from outside Illinois. Pastors Richard Borchers of Fairmount, North Dakota; Pastor Harold Braun of St. Paul, Minnesota; Pastor C.A. Rathjen of Muscoda, Wisconsin; and Pastor Waldo Werning of Milwaukee all expressed their desire that Dr. Bouman not be given tenure.
There were fifteen “letters of commendation.” With one exception these were letters from individuals. The one exception was a letter from the church council of Ascension Lutheran Church of Riverside, where Dr. Martin Marty held membership. Ascension Lutheran Church would leave the LCMS in the Seminex days.
Individual “letters of commendation” came from Dr. Alfred Fuerbringer, president of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. In his letter he told the Board that Dr. Bouman had taught summer courses at the St. Louis Seminary.
Dr. Arthur Repp, the Academic dean of the St. Louis Seminary also wrote a “letter of commendation.” He also mentioned the fact that Dr. Bouman had taught at the seminary.
The executive director of the CTCR, Dr. Richard Jungkuntz, urged the board to grant tenure, as did the former President of the Northern Illinois District, Pastor Erwin Paul. The word “former” in identifying Pastor Erwin Paul has much to do with Dr. Walter Bouman, but that’s for another column.
It was forty one years ago so the fact that some of these letters were handwritten is not unexpected. Such a letter was received from the President of the Minnesota District, urging tenure. It was written by President Alfred Seltz.
The Dean of the Chapel at Valpo, Pastor William Buege, also urged the Board to grant tenure, as did Dr. Bouman’s own pastor, Dr. F. Dean Lueking of Grace Lutheran Church of River Forest, a congregation that also left the LCMS.
The chairman of the Theology Department of Concordia Teacher’s College of River Forest wrote similarly. That chairman was Dr. Ralph Gehrke, who himself was found guilty of teaching contrary to the Word of God.But that’s another story.
A “letter of recommendation” came from the Secretary of Campus Ministry, Pastor Reuben Hahn.
Other pastors who supported the granting of tenure were Pastor Kurt Grotheer of the Lutheran Church of St. Luke in Itasca, Illinois, Pastor Daniel Fuelling of Zion, Bensenville, Illinois, Pastor Walter Lamp ofMount Olive in Rockford, Illinois, Pastor Dennis Schlecht of Christ the King in Schumberg, Illinois, and Pastor James Manz of First St. Paul, Chicago.
Space and time do not permit comments on the content of all the letters. Some of those supporting tenure were very careful in what was said. To share the contents of these letters would be most revealing, but hopefully the source for all of the above “BOOK 1, MATERIAL FOR THE ELECTORS of CONCORDIA TEACHERS COLLEGE, River Forest, Illinois, MEETING, MAY 23, 1967, 2:00 P.M.” is available at Concordia Historical Institute and not only in the files of this writer. Many of those letters reveal even more clearly the issues that gave birth to Seminex than the Blue Book.
President Oliver Harms was ultimately involved in the matter. The May 23rd meeting did not find the Board granting tenure. President Harms subsequently wrote to those opposing tenure to supply adequate documentation for their opposition to the granting of tenure. “BOOK 1, MATERIAL FOR THE ELECTORS of CONCORDIA TEACHERS COLLEGE” contains a 20 page response to the request of Dr. Harms. That response is most revealing. But this 20 page document did not stop the granting of tenure, it was ultimately granted. To some it seemed that the granting of tenure was unnecessarily long delayed. The Board heard from those concerned about the delay. One such letter came from Pastor Rueben Spannaus, head of Lutheran Child and Family Services.
But who were the “STEADFAST” ones in this matter. Werethe church leaders the steadfast ones? Was it the Seminary President or the seminary Dean, or the CTCR executive secretary? Were they the “steadfast” ones? Were the District Presidents the “steadfast” ones? Was the chairman of the theology department “steadfast?” No, rather the response of these men revealed the deep theological and confessional dilemma the Synod was facing.
Who were the steadfast ones? They were laymen and “just” pastors of congregations, yes, one was a district Stewardship Exec, but the others were pastors without any position in the Synod except a “divine call” to serve a Christian congregation.
And now, as Paul Harvey says, for “the rest of the story.” In a paper delivered April 9th, 2002 entitled “CONFESSIONAL LUTHERAN RESOURSES FOR ADDRESSING THE STUDY OF HUMAN SEXUALITY” Dr. Bouman, by then a member of ELCA, not because he had been disciplined by Missouri, employing the same theological principles he did in the 1965 LEA YEARBOOK, discusses homosexuality, and those theological principles are for still another column. It is a 30 page paper, heavy with footnotes. He says that there are three options or alternatives suggested for the one who is homosexual or lesbian. One of the suggested alternatives is “celibacy.” He writes, “The one alternative which is not open to the Lutheran tradition is the requirement of celibacy.” He supports his assertion that celibacy is not an option by quoting a famous theological source which says “No human law or vow can nullify a command or institution of God.” From whence does this assertion of Dr. Bouman come? It comes from the Augsburg Confession. Where is it found? It is found in the article on the Marriage of Priests. He writes of this quotation of the Augsburg Confession “This seems to be equally applicable to the situations of persons with homosexual orientation.” So we cannot expect a homosexual to be celibate.
Calling a new pastor is a great and glorious occasion. It can however be a hard time as well. Your congregation is going through a lot of things after losing its pastor. There is grief in many situations at his departure. There may be some who are glad. To make matters worse everyone seems to get an opinion on what should happen next.
The following are some general thoughts/opinions/suggestions/clarifications about the Call Process.
First of all, you will want to be familiar with your congregation’s constitution and bylaws to see the procedure that needs to be followed. It may be very specific, but could also be generic. Whichever it is, you will want to follow it to the letter.
Your District President will likely want to be involved in the process. The call process is your congregation’s call process. It is not the District President’s process. Follow your Constitution and Bylaws. The Call List normally involves the input/counsel of the District President (and normally it should), but it does not always have to. Here is the exact section of the LCMS Bylaws which spells out the congregation’s responsibility and also District’s in regards to calls (District Bylaws cannot contradict these). Please note the only requirements are that you seek counsel of your District President (2.5.1) [the exact definition of “counsel” is not known] and that you call a man who is on the clergy roster of the LCMS (2.5.2) or follow the appropriate call process for calling from the seminaries. That is the congregation’s responsibility to follow for its continued membership in the LCMS. Anything else is recommendation or advice only.
2.5 Calling Ministers of Religion by Congregations
2.5.1 Congregations shall seek the counsel of their respective district presidents when calling ordained or commissioned ministers.
2.5.2 Congregations that are members of the Synod shall call and be served only by (1) ordained ministers who have been admitted to their respective ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod; (2) candidates for the pastoral ministry who have satisfied the qualifications and requirements for assignment of first calls by the Council of Presidents acting as the Board of Assignments; or (3) ordained ministers who are members in good standing of church bodies that have been formally recognized to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod when agreements for such calls are in place.
2.5.3 Congregations that are members of the Synod shall call only (1) commissioned ministers who have been admitted to their ministries in accordance with the rules and regulations set forth in these Bylaws and have thereby become members of the Synod; (2) candidates of LCMS colleges and universities who have satisfied the qualifications and requirements for assignment of first calls by the Council of Presidents acting as the Board of Assignments; or (3) commissioned ministers (or those holding positions comparable to commissioned ministers) who are members in good standing of church bodies that have been formally recognized to be in altar and pulpit fellowship with the Synod when agreements for such calls are in place.
2.5.4 Congregations that violate these requirements and persist in such violation shall, after due admonition, forfeit their membership in the Synod.
There are really two directions which a call can go out to – the field and the seminary. The process changes based upon which type of call you want to pursue. Calling from the seminary involves an application for a candidate (a man ready to be ordained) and follows the bylaws involving the seminary and the Council of Presidents placement procedures.
Calling from the field will follow more of what I describe below with nominations, sorting through the mix, and finally calling. Calling from the field indicates that the man you want to call is already ordained and on the roster (Minister of Religion – Ordained [we use IRS language]) of the LCMS. This man could already serve a congregation or could be on what is called “candidate” status. Much has been written on Candidate (formerly CRM) status, but to put it simply – a “Candidate” who is already ordained is a man ready and willing to serve an LCMS congregation. The rhetoric used about “damaged goods” or whatever about a Candidate is a violation of the 8th Commandment and should be rebuked. There are many reasons men may end up as candidates, but their official LCMS status says they are ready, able, and willing to be actively serving congregations as pastors. If such a man was unfit for the ministry he would be removed from the roster (which is the job of the District Presidents).
There are different things which may be brought up in the way of counsel from District Presidents. These things are I believe brought up with the best of intentions, but may not serve the best interest of the congregation – getting a regular, faithful pastor sooner rather than later. Also, they tend to increase the length of pastoral vacancies (and in general the shorter the vacancy the better). Things like Intentional Interim Ministers might be brought up. In my opinion they are not a good option because of the temporary nature of their call, which is rather muddy when considered against the lifelong nature of a Divine Call (here is a good presentation paper on the topic of Interim Ministry). If there is reason to try an interim, why not just call a pastor who can help and stay rather than a man who is there for a bit and then gone? Having a regular, faithful pastor is the best (and simplest) option for any congregational situation. Similarly there are numerous self-studies or inventories or surveys which can be done in the congregation. This may provide some information as to the condition of catechesis in the congregation, but not much more. In my opinion they delay the best thing for a congregation – a regular, faithful pastor serving among God’s people.
Usually there is a time when the congregation takes nominations from its own members. This can be a very good thing. Some members may ask other pastors for input or names. They may be familiar with pastors from their travels. They may be familiar with pastors from the internet. The #1 quality you want in any pastor is faithfulness to the Scriptures and Lutheran Confessions. Sadly, in a Synodical situation such as ours, some research about candidates may be necessary. The internet can very helpful in seeing the kind of pastors that are faithful shepherd types. Do a search for each pastors name and read some of his writings (Google Tip — put quotes around his name to find the specific pastor if it is a common last name). These names may be submitted to the counsel of the District President (remember it is still the congregation’s call process) and often will make it onto the official Call List for the call committee and congregation to consider. If the District President removes names from the nominations it is permissible to ask why the names were removed (sometimes reasons may be that the pastor has just taken another call, sometimes it may be an arbitrary rule like a pastor has to serve 3 years in his first parish [an unwritten rule which by no means has to be followed if the congregation desires to call a rostered clergyman with less than 3 years parish experience]). If he adds names to the ones nominated it is permissible and a good suggestion to ask why the names were added (in my present parish situation, the District President added some excellent names that had not come up from the congregation). In the end, so long as the congregation follows their constitution and bylaws with regards to process, consults the District President and then calls a man who is on the clergy roster of the LCMS, they can call anyone. Remember, it is the congregation’s call process.
Usually a formal Call List will be established with the help of the District President. When you start getting official information about pastors, each one will have two documents, one will be called a SET (Self-Evaluation Tool). This includes a number of questions and answers on hot topic issues in the LCMS (worship practices, closed communion stuff, women and men, etc.). These answers will vary greatly. Plain speech is good to read, but often answers are not so plain. Some pastors will fill every space with their beliefs/practices, some will be brief. Some specific, some generic. Some theological, some political. It can be a hard document to read, and even harder to read between the lines. An opinion on the SET – The SET is a sad piece of evidence to the diversity of beliefs and practices allowed in the LCMS. It should be unnecessary, but since there is such diversity, it is necessary to be able to try to ascertain the beliefs and practices of the man you want to call.
The second document is the PIF (Personal Information Form) which is usually completed by both the pastor and his own District President. This has more basic family and living situation information with some theological/practical commentary by the District President. The commentary (often in the form of rating) is usually on strengths and weaknesses of the pastor. There is also some commentary (rating) on worship and preaching. The commentary (rating) is very subjective to the individual District President’s own views of things (or possibly another District President’s view if it has not been updated), which can be helpful if you know that District President, less so if you don’t. The PIF comes from the candidate pastor’s District President, which of course may not be the same as your own. Some tips for dealing with the subjectivity of the ratings could include asking the District President how many times he has heard the pastor preach (sometimes they may not have heard a sermon but still have to give a rating), what his last sermon was like, what does he mean by rating him as “liturgically flexible”, etc. Clarifying questions like those can help get a sense for what the District President really means (after all, that way of rating things isn’t exactly fair to them either).
In more recent years, interviewing has become another way to sort through the candidates for a call. Interviewing in my opinion should be unnecessary, but in such an environment of the LCMS today it may indeed be necessary. This and the SET (and section of commentary on the PIF) are things that testify against us and we should grieve over their need to be used.
From these things and your requirements for the call process (from your congregation’s constitution and bylaws) the Call meetings should proceed. The best result for any Lutheran congregation is to extend a call to a faithful candidate and have him accept it and work to begin his new pastorate serving God’s baptized people in your congregation. Some things along this:
After a congregation extends (or issues) a call after the appropriate procedure, that pastor will need to be notified and information will need to be sent (Call Paperwork, other information [the sky is the limit here, newspapers, school information, extra congregational information, Constitution and Bylaws, anything to help in the deliberation process]). The pastor will begin his deliberations of the call (using prayerful reason). If he serves a congregation already he will need to notify them (this can be a time of anxiety in his current congregation). It is also an anxious time in the pastor’s family (if he has one). In the era of facebook and so forth, it is best to keep the call private until it has been publicly announced to the congregation he currently serves. He may set a deadline to his deliberation, but he may not (there is no hard and fast rule). If he accepts the call, he will begin his transition to your congregation (wrapping up at his current congregation, moving, installation dates, etc.). If he doesn’t accept it (returns the call), your congregation will have to have another Call meeting to extend the call to another pastor.
This process is one that is a great and glorious, although as you can tell it has any number of opportunities for sin and temptation as well. Work together as a congregation, knowing that the Lord God who sends out laborers into the harvest is going to send a man to serve Him in your congregation.
Here are some other tips while this process is ongoing:
Pray. Prayer is essential to the call process. God has commanded us to pray in all situations, and even better, He has promised to hear our prayers. We expect God to provide pastors for His flocks (having a pastor is a need of the baptized, God supplies our needs). We are tempted to become anxious or despair. Prayer teaches us who is in control. It is an exercise of faith and piety. It helps us guard against the evil one. Pray for your congregation, your future pastor, his family, his congregation (if he is currently serving), your District President and Circuit Visitor, your congregational leadership, your vacancy pastor and whoever else is involved in the process.
Love each other. The call process can quickly bring up divisions in congregations. Love covers a multitude of sins. Forgive one another as God in Christ has forgiven you (see the Lord’s Prayer in the Small Catechism).
Study the Scriptures. The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus) are a great resource when thinking about pastors. The texts about the pastoral office are also a great read. Here are just a “few” that you will likely hear at an ordination (a pastor’s first call) or installation (at any pastor’s subsequent call):
Matthew 5:13-16; Matthew 9:35-38; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 22:24-30; Luke 44-49; John 10:11-16; John 20:21-23; John 21:15-17; Acts 20:28; Romans 10:14-17; 1 Corinthians 4:1-5; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25; 1 Corinthians 15:58; 2 Corinthians 3:4-9; 2 Corinthians 4:6-7; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; 2 Corinthians 10:17-18; Ephesians 4:11-12; Philippians 1:3-8; 1 Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Timothy 4:6-7; 1 Timothy 4:14-16; 2 Timothy 1:13-14; 2 Timothy 2:1-5; 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Titus 1:5-9; Hebrews 13:17; Hebrews 13:20-21; 1 Peter 5:2-4; Joshua 1:7-8; Psalm 20:1-2; Psalm 27:1, 14; Psalm 84:7-8; Isaiah 6:1-8; Isaiah 40:9-11; Isaiah 42:1-9; Isaiah 52:7-10; Jeremiah 1:4-9; Jeremiah 15:19-21; Ezekiel 33:7-9; Ezekiel 34:11-16; Daniel 12:3.
Study the Catechism. Here two parts are very important (study it all – its very short and even the most “mature” Christians ought to study it regularly). The Fifth Chief part on the Office of the Keys and Confession (absolution) and the Table of Duties on Preachers and Hearers.
Prepare yourselves to receive your new pastor. Yes, this means planning for helping with the move and settling in. Yes, this means congregational celebrations. Yes, this means being a big help to your pastor’s family wherever you can (in the ways they would receive help also in mind). Yes, this means helping your pastor get settled and encouraging him as he settles in (he will be going through a strange “bitter sweet” time as he has left people dear to him and is glad to be now serving you). Perhaps you would want to help him by having some of the congregation’s current traditions and practices written down so he can know those things that are free (for an article on this click here). The absolute best way to receive your pastor is to attend Church (including his installation) and Bible studies.
Augsburg Confession, article V
1 So that we may obtain this faith, the ministry of teaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments was instituted. 2 Through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Spirit is given [John 20:22]. He works faith, when and where it pleases God [John 3:8], in those who hear the good news that God justifies those who believe that they are received into grace for Christ’s sake. 3 This happens not through our own merits, but for Christ’s sake.
4 Our churches condemn the Anabaptists and others who think that through their own preparations and works the Holy Spirit comes to them without the external Word.
Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 33.
Augsburg Confession, article XIV
Our churches teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call.
Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 39.
What I mention in this article is my opinion and thinking out loud. It was prompted by the Synod President’s comments after the same-sex marriage decision of the Supreme Court (see his interview with Issues Etc.). He stated that student loans may become a problem which would greatly affect the Concordia University System. Here is a way around it I offer as merely a starting idea (which would of course require all sorts of expertise to actually make happen). I know many people are tied to their colleges and they have served a good purpose in the past, but if we are looking at losing the whole system, it may behoove us to be forward-thinking enough to prepare to sustain something for the good of the church.
Time to disconnect from the government’s provisions (that money comes with strings attached, and we will see them very clearly in the future). This means likely that we could sustain only one University/Seminary on our own and keep it viable. The solution then is to sell off/rearrange/reallocate the Concordias.
The trick would be to pick which one to keep. An obvious suggestion would be Concordia Austin as it resides in a state that has shown itself more protective of religious freedom than others. Another probable situation would be the Fort Wayne campus, which has room to expand, but also has some stipulations that it reverts back to the original donor if Synod tries to close it down or sell it. (there would be financial gain from selling Austin). There are probably other properties with similar arrangements, but I don’t know of them.
The sell off would be interesting. We have a lot of premium property. There is a lot of money that could be raised for the support of the new single Concordia University and Seminary. This would still be in keeping with the purpose of the Concordias because the goal is to have one that is sustainable without government funding.
The rearrangement of staff could also be good. There have been problems reported from the Concordias in regards to teaching and the need for more Lutheran teachers. A consolidation of universities into one allows for the “cream of the crop” to become the new faculty. Imagine a theology faculty built from the best of the two seminaries and Concordias? Other departments would benefit as well from such a centralization. The result would be a quality Lutheran education taught by outstanding Lutheran teachers no matter what major.
The reallocation is the biggest question mark for me. No doubt, many gifts and endowments have been given to the various Concordias. How they all get moved to the new one is a legal matter I have no expertise over, but someone out there has it, and honestly the point of this article is to get people thinking about how to get “lean and mean” as a Church, starting with one of the areas that will likely be hit first.
Think of other possibilities. The headquarters for the LCMS could also be housed in this new campus, and the current corporate headquarters could be sold and its proceeds could help support the church’s work in the new place.
The changing landscape of American culture should stir us to forward thinking about how to prepare. If we wait to react on many of these kind of things, it will be too late.
This is all just ideas. The Synod Convention is an opportunity for some of these ideas (or others) to be brought forward to be acted on (even if study is necessary as a first step). Please feel free to comment with ideas about the Concordia Universities below.
(Editor’s Note: Early on this website has included much in the way of theological critique. Our goal is to not only teach the Brothers (and others) how to critique bad theology and practice but to also proactively train the Brothers in good practice and theology and so we will be offering more columns such as this new one that teaches about the liturgy. This is the second in a twenty two part series. We thank Pastor David Oberdieck for letting us use it. We cannot say everything about every part of the liturgy in this series so if you think there are significant things left unsaid please use the comment section to help grow the Brothers.
These were initially intended to be put into bulletins or read at the start or end of the service to educate the laity on the different parts of the service. As we develop them we hope to put them in a form that can be used in that manner, or inserted into newsletters or other methods of distribution.)
Notes on the Liturgy #2 — THE INVOCATION
There are three significant elements in regard to the invocation. First, when the pastor calls out, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” it acts as a simple creed. We are confessing whom we believe the one true God is. We worship the Trinity and none other. When outsiders come to the Divine Service, if they are paying attention, they will realize that the people they are with are worshipping the Triune God. We are clear right up front, in whose name we gather and who we are worshipping.
Second, in the Invocation, we are asking for and acknowledging God’s presence in the service. “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Matt 18:20 NIV)
Finally, it is significant that the Invocation is accompanied by the sign of the cross. We received both the name of the Trinity and the sign of the cross at Baptism. We received the name of the Trinity by divine command. Since Baptism gives us the benefits of the cross, the sign of the cross was placed upon us according to the tradition of the catholic church. This then should be a reminder to us that God, who washed us and claimed us in Baptism, is the one who has brought us into the worshiping community. “We do not come as those who deserve to come because of what we have done.” We come because He has called us through the Holy Spirit in the water and Word of Baptism.
These notes were originally written in 2001 by Pastor David Oberdieck and have been edited.
Here is a posting that we found on the Vocation in the Valley (yamabe.net) written by Brian Yamabe, one of the commentors on this site. (Vocation in the Valley has been a past Issues Etc blog of the week.) While the arguments put forth below may not convince someone with a contemporary mindset, it will give people with a confessional bend some issues to use in an attempt to retain traditional services at their church. Brian was a delegate to the CNH district convention, and has some insights on that he has posted to his blog.
I’m not a scholar and I’m only a theologian in so far as “everyone is a theologian,” but I’ve been trying to write a paper comparing and contrasting the “traditional” and “contemporary” services that we have at my congregation, Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church. Continue Reading…
A few weeks back, I contacted Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller for information regarding the beautiful baptismal certificates I saw him advertising here. He responded quickly, and carefully laid out the details of the ordering process. A few days later, electronic versions of customized baptismal certificates for our congregation arrived in my inbox. Along with the certificates, I received a helpful FAQ document explaining the purpose of these certificates and providing helpful hints and instructions on how to make the most of them.
I couldn’t be more pleased with these certificates. First, they are absolutely beautiful! The artwork and Scripture passages which appear on them serve to teach the marvelous treasure which belongs to all who have received the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit in the Blessed Sacrament of Holy Baptism. Second, these customized certificates now belong to our congregation. Having paid the one-time fee of $35, we own the rights to these certificates and can print as many as we like and use them however we see fit – forever. No more periodic ordering of baptismal certificates for us! Third, the ease of using these certificates is a treasure in itself. You simply fill in the appropriate info on your master pdfs and you’re ready to go. They are designed to print on 11×17 paper, but if your printer does not have that capability, you can save the master pdfs to a flash drive, CD, etc., take them to a local copy shop, fill in the appropriate info, and make your copies. Lastly, the beauty and high quality of these certificates make for wonderful and treasured keepsakes. They look absolutely gorgeous framed and hanging on a wall. And because we own the rights to our certificates, we do not have to limit our use to future Baptisms, but can offer to print certificates for those who have received the Sacrament of Holy Baptism in the past, which they can hang as a beautiful reminder of the eternal blessings they have as beloved children of God.
I highly recommend these certificates and encourage everyone to follow the link above to give them a look and consider ordering. I am very thankful to Pr. Wolfmueller and his partner in this endeavor, Jason Hanson (the clever combination of their names results in “Wolfson Creative”), for providing the beloved gift of these wonderful certificates to the Church.
Go now and check them out. You won’t be disappointed. They are awesome!
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Rev. Thomas C. Messer
Peace Lutheran Church
Alma, MI
Ecclesia semper reformanda est – I don’t know who coined that phrase, but it’s ever so true. And always has been – see Galatians. In this sense, there has never been a golden age and we should not be disheartened by the mess our little patch of the una sancta finds herself in. The Missouri Synod is indeed by schisms rent asunder, by heresies distressed: the worship wars, Seminary Lite (SMP), a few charismatics here, a few would be women-ordainers there, usw.
So where to begin? What should Confessional Lutherans be focusing on in Missouri? I appreciate the work that folks like the ACELC are doing – but we need focus. You can’t move on all fronts at once. We need an issue that captures the attention of all Confessional Lutherans and one that is theological (not political), clearly based in the Scriptures and the Confessions, and as objective and black and white as possible.
It just so happens that we have this issue: Missouri’s 1989 revision of the Augsburg Confession sans Article XIV (it is the shortest article, so it’s a small revision, right?). “Lay ministry” – the intentional, “licensed,” and ongoing practice of having men who have not been called to and placed in the Office of the Ministry administer the Sacraments and preach the Word in our parishes. This is simply contrary to the Scriptures, contrary to the Confessions, and contrary to all the practice of historic Christianity.
If Confessionals cannot unite to undo this wrong, then what is the point of being Confessional? Let us make 2013 the Year of AC XIV.
Gottesdienst is getting the ball rolling with a one day conference on AC XIV and Lay Ministry in Kearney, Nebraska, on July 25th. While the whole Synod is affected by this problem, the Great Plains and the Northwest are the epicenters. Pastors, lay people, district officials, and the lay ministers themselves are invited and encouraged to attend.
Especially if you are in Nebraska or Kansas, please make plans to attend. If you know folks in those areas, tell them to attend. If you are for or against the Missouri Synod’s present practice, come and join us to study this issue. Here is the full conference information:
AC XIV and Lay Ministry Zion Lutheran Church, Kearney, NE July 25, 2012
Schedule
9:00 – Registration (Coffee and rolls)
9:30 – Matins
10:00 – Presentation and breaks
12-1:30 – Lunch (at local establishments of your choice)
1:45 – 3:00 – Panel Discussion
3:00 – Gemuetlichkeit
Registration fee: None. The offering at Matins will defray Zion’s costs.
To register email Rev. Micah Gaunt mgaunt2000 at yahoo dot com.
XIV Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
“…it is with those who are legitimately chosen and called by God through the church, therefore with the ministers to whom the use or administration of the ministry of the Word and the sacraments has been committed.” Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Volume II, p.97
…[I]t is the response of the Lutheran theologians to the charge that John Eck made in his 404 Propositions that the Lutherans denied the existence of the sacrament of orders, called it a figment of human invention, and asserted that any layman at all can consecrate churches, confirm children, and so on (Wilhelm Gussmann, D. Johann Ecks Vierhundertvier Artikel zum Reichstag von Augsburg 1530 [Kassel:Edmund Pillardy, 1930], nos.267 to 268, pp.134 and 177-78). The Lutheran response is that laymen are not admitted to the really crucial tasks of publicly and responsibly proclaiming the Gospel and of administering the sacraments. Arthur Carl Piepkorn. “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church.” in Michael P. Plekon and William S. Wiecher. The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn. (Delhi, NY: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau Books, 1993); p.62
…the word rite in rite vocatus implies in the normal terminology of the 16th century a formal ordination as something over and above a mere calling. Both vocatio (“calling”) and ordinatio (“ordination”) are extensively used in this period to describe the whole process of election and ordination. […] [T]he Confutatio pontifica accepted Article 14 in principle. It would not have done so if it had understood the article as suggesting that ordination was not necessary. The particular point on which the Confutatio insisted was that a bishop perform the ordination. This is clear from the Apology on Article 14. […] The Apology makes it clear that it has no quarrel with ordination or even with episcopacy, but that Episcopal ordination is not available to the proponents of the Augsburg Confession. The implication is that they may have no alternative but to avail themselves of ordination by clergymen in presbyter’s orders. Arthur Carl Piepkorn. “The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church.” in Michael P. Plekon and William S. Wiecher. The Church: Selected Writings of Arthur Carl Piepkorn. (Delhi, NY: American Lutheran Publicity Bureau Books, 1993); pp.62,63
Since the meaning of the public office is lost, ministry is limited to the private sphere. Willy-nilly Christianity becomes simply a private cult and the rationale for ordained ministry in Lutheranism threatens to disappear altogether. Here I expect is a major reason for the erosion of the understanding of ordained ministry among us. When the church becomes merely a private cult it is difficult to say why just any Christian cannot perform most if not all the functions ordinarily assigned to the ordained. It appears presumptuous in a democratic society to suppose that some are raised to a different level by ecclesiastical monkey business. And since it is, after all, only a “private” matter, what difference does ordination make? Furthermore when members of the clergy themselves capitulate and no longer do what can be called public preaching, teaching, or absolving but rather just make a public display of private emotions and experiences or invest most of their effort in private counseling, what does one need ordained clergy for? What matters is not the public exercise of the office but what “personal skills” or what kind of a (private) person the leader is. There is no way that ordination automatically imparts any skills or makes a person nice. So what is it for? Cannot properly sensitized or trained lay persons do just as well, or better? Gerhard O. Forde. “The Ordained Ministry” in Todd Nichol & Marc Kolden (ed.) Called and Ordained: Lutheran Perspectives on the Office of the Ministry. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); p.126
The great majority of our theologians, Luther in the forefront, believe that the holy Supper should never be administered privately by one who is not in the public preaching office, by a layman. That is partly because no such necessity can occur with the holy Supper, as with Baptism and Absolution, that would justify a departure from God’s ordinance ( I Cor 4:1; Romans 10:15; Heb 5:4); partly because the holy Supper “is a public confession and so should have a public minister”; partly because schisms can easily be brought about by such private Communion… C.F.W. Walther. Pastoral Theology. Trans. John M. Drickamer. (New Haven: Lutheran News Inc, 1995); p.134
And what must the Christians do who are held captive in Turkey? They cannot receive the sacrament and have to be content with their faith and desire which they have for the sacrament and the ordinance of Christ, just as those who die before baptism are nevertheless saved by their faith and desire for baptism. What did the children of Israel do in Babylon when they were unable to have public worship at Jerusalem except in faith and in sincere desire and longing? Therefore, even if the church would have been robbed completely of the sacrament by the pope, still, because the ordinance of Christ remained in their hearts with faith and desire, it would nevertheless have been preserved thereby, as indeed now in our time there are many who outwardly do without the sacrament for they are not willing to honor and strengthen the pope’s abomination under one kind. For Christ’s ordinance and faith are two works of God which are capable of doing anything. Martin Luther. “The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests” (Luther’s Works, AE:38; p.207)
In the Formula of Concord’s denial that, “No man’s word or work, be it the merit or speaking of the minister,” brings about the real presence is not to deny that the body and blood are, “distributed through our ministry and office” FC-SD, VII.74-77.
How the congregation organizes itself, for this no prescriptions are given, just as there are none for how the church’s ministry is to be organized. The apostles came to recognize that it would be helpful for their ministry if they were relieved of the work of caring for the poor and attending to money matters. So the office of the deacons was created as an auxiliary office. But the church was the church already before this office was created. So the church can at any time create auxiliary offices to meet the needs of the time. Examples of this in the history of the church are the office of an episcopate, or superintendency, or any other offices, whatever they may be called. But all these offices have their right of existence only insofar as they serve the one great office of the preaching of the Gospel and the administering of the sacraments. A bishop may be entrusted with the task of seeing to the running of a great diocese. But the meaning of such an assignment can only consist in this, that he thereby gives room and support to the church’s ministry. His actual office is the office of pastor, also when he is a pastor for pastors. By human arrangement he may have the work of superintendency. By divine mandate he has solely the office of preaching the forgiveness and justification of sinners for Christ’s sake. Hermann Sasse. “Ministry and Congregation” (1949) in We Confess the Church. Trans. Norman E. Nagel. (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1986); pp 71,72
My church has “forever” had communion every Sunday, but at alternate services. Early service for the 1st and 3rd Sundays, and late service for the 2nd and 4th Sundays. So people who wanted every-Sunday communion could do it by simply alternating which service they attend each week.
I’m pleased that as of Easter Sunday 2011, we moved to communion in every Service. We spent a year working with the congregation talking about the change (We are Lutherans .. we don’t like change!), which included using CPH’s book, The Blessings of Weekly Communion.
I can say that after several months, the congregation has fully accepted the practice and we are all enjoying the benefits of communion offered at every service.
Here is the article written by our pastor from our April 2011 church newsletter; mailed out to all congregation members prior to the change. I thought it well written to describe the reasons for making the change, and perhaps useful for other congregations who are interested in moving towards every Sunday communion.
Your Pastors and Elders have been studying the biblical wisdom of having Holy Communion at every Sunday and Wednesday service for well over a year now. During this time the Board of Elders and Pastors have read and discussed a very persuasive book entitled, “The Blessings of Weekly Communion” filled with convincing reasons why we should restore this practice of every service, every Sunday Communion.
To appreciate the Sacrament of the Altar, and desire it regularly, you first have to understand what it is, and why Christ wants us to receive “often”. Far too many regular church-goers don’t understand. They think that they are doing God a service by coming to church. While they’re willing to do this for an hour or so each week, they’re unsure whether they want to commit to the longer Communion worship format each week. They feel like we are asking them to “up” their commitment to the Lord by asking them to stay in church twenty minutes longer every other Sunday morning or Wednesday evening.
But attending church is not a service we perform for God’s benefit. It’s the other way around. God is doing us a far greater service when we come to church. For God has gifts that He wants to give to us in the divine service. Gifts found only in His Word and Sacraments. God’s reason for wanting you in worship is so that you can freely receive His gifts of forgiveness, life, and salvation. For worship is where God gives us these gifts in His Word and Sacraments.
Long ago, Jesus Christ won forgiveness and peace with God for us by His cross. Then Jesus Christ gave us eternal victory over our enemies sin, death, and the devil by His resurrection. We call this good news — the Gospel. Christians gather weekly to hear this Gospel preached to us, and to receive this very same Gospel visibly, tangibly, and personally by receiving Christ’s body and blood. God wants to give us a double portion of His love and grace for us in Christ in worship centered on His preached Word and distributed Supper of forgiveness.
As Christians we gather weekly in the confidence that Christ is present among us in His Word and Sacrament. For these, along with Holy Baptism, are the means of grace by which Christ has chosen to save us. Just as we come to church in order to hear about what Christ accomplished for us by His obedient suffering and death, so we come to receive with our lips that same Christ who comes to us in His own true body and blood.
Like the sermon, the sacrament is the way that Christians shed their sins, receive God’s mercy and Christ’s forgiveness. Do we have to receive the Sacrament of the Altar weekly? Of course not. But should the church make the Lord’s Supper available for those who do desire it that frequently? Yes. When you realize that the Lord’s Supper is God’s gift to His people in Christ to strengthen faith, to forgive sinners, to turn hearts back to God, and to bring us Jesus — making it available every Sunday and every Wednesday really seems like a “no brainer”.
Luther and the Lutherans after him thought so too. In our Lutheran Confessions, which all Lutheran Pastors and Congregations are sworn to uphold, we learn that during the Reformation Era and after, it was the practice of every Lutheran congregation to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at every service on every Sunday because of the extremely high importance that Lutherans have historically placed on the Gospel comfort that Holy Communion provides. The early Lutherans understood that as sinners Christians are constantly in need of what the Lord wants to give us in the Lord’s supper.
It’s unfortunate that in the years following the Reformation that this church practice of offering the Sacrament of the Altar in every service faded away and was forgotten. Pietism and other spiritual movements within Christianity lessened the importance of the Lord’s Supper in the life of the Lutheran Church. When these lower views of the Sacrament became dominant, it lessened the frequency of a Christian’s desire to receive the Sacrament. People even became afraid of the Sacrament which God had intended only to bring abundant comfort and reassurance to believers. At this, the Lutheran Church’s lowest theological point, the Sacrament was only celebrated four times a year so that members did not run what they considered the great risk of receiving it unworthily. This happened as strict spiritual preparation for the Lord’s Supper became more important than the Gospel intent of the Lord’s Supper. Over time our Biblical understanding of the Lord’s Supper as Gospel, and the frequency of its use have made a comeback in Lutheran congregations.
Most of the arguments against the practice of every Sunday, every service Communion are really not biblical objections at all, but rather utilitarian concerns such as: “Won’t it take too long?” Others will worry that it will take away from the specialness of the Lord’s Supper. However, we preach the Gospel every Sunday without any similar concern or objection. Others will fear that it will turn into a form of legalism by making members feel that they must come forward to the altar every time the Lord’s Supper is offered. However, we want it to be abundantly clear that our congregation is only making the Sacrament available to those who may desire it on a given Sunday, without making any judgments about those who will continue to prefer taking it less often. Finally, there are some logistic concerns that we need to work out. We are concerned that the service not run too long. We are also concerned with how to continue to fit in the children’s message. We ask for your love, your prayers, and your patience as we work through these details to get them right.
I am thankful to serve a congregation in our more secular times which still recognizes the biblical importance of the Lord’s Supper and treasures its Gospel reassurance. I hope you are thankful to belong to such a church.
God’s Steward of the Mysteries of God,
Pastor Mark Elliott
St John Lutheran Church
Champaign, IL
(Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of five posts by Pastor Preus on Holy Communion.)
In May of 2007, a graduate of the Ft. Wayne seminary named Clint Stark produced a paper based on a questionnaire which he had sent to all pastors and seminary students in the LCMS. The questionnaire sought to ascertain the worship practices of the pastors of the synod including their practice of admitting people to the altar. Almost half (46.2 % or 3000 respondents) of those polled actually responded. This is a remarkably large number and provides data which have a high degree of accuracy. This is what Rev. Stark found.
In the question about admittance to the Lord’s Supper Rev. Stark gave five options to the question: “Who do you admit to the Lord’s Supper?” These options were: “Baptized Christians, Lutherans, Only members of the LCMS and her sister synods in good standing, Those who confess the real presence, Anyone sincerely desiring to commune.”
Now such polls inevitably evoke protests from all quarters because the person writing the questions has not nuanced them so precisely as to capture the subtleties of 6000 different practices in the synod which correspond to the 6000 pastors of the church. But let’s just forgive Brother Stark if he had to limit the number of responses to five rather than 6000. What he discovered is that 50.2% of the pastors in the synod actually restrict communion to those with whom we are in fellowship. And over a third (35.53%) of the pastors apparently give communion to anyone who believes in the real presence. Setting aside for the sake of discussion that the confessions of the church do not use the expression “real presence” and that it seems to be of Reformed origins let’s just analyze the responses.
First, no other option of the five received even 10% of the vote. So the two dominant practices of our synod are: 1) communing only those in fellowship with us and 2) communing anyone who accepts the real presence.
Second, we are hopelessly divided on the issue. Someone from the ELCA would presumably believe in the real presence. So would most Roman Catholics. Even Calvinists accept the real presence of Christ’s spiritual body and blood in the sacrament. So, many people are admitted to the altar at one LCMS church who are not at others.
Third, this is a practice where emotions run high and there is lots of discussion often angry. We really should try to agree.
Fourth, while Rev. Stark concedes that none of the options on the questionnaire is precisely the synod’s position, it seems obvious to me that admitting “only members of the LCMS and her sister synods in good standing” does reflect the historic view of the synod much more closely than any of the other options. It also seems quite obvious to me, regardless of my own personal views, that giving to all who believe in the real presence is not the official practice of the synod.
Other data from the survey are worthy of comment. In the following districts less than 25% of the pastors actually practice closed communion which is the official position of our synod. Atlantic (23.33%), CNH 25.42%), Florida Georgia (20.83%), New Jersey (23.08%), Northwest (21.28%), Southeastern (20%), PSW (19.39%). These are all districts on the coasts. Now let’s be honest. The district presidents of these districts are supposed to carry out the will of the synod in their district. They are the ecclesiastical supervisors. Here is a divisive issue where vast numbers of their pastors simply don’t do what is the will of the synod and the DPS seem to be doing nothing at all. What kind of oversight is that? At the same time we should also recognize that these errant DPS did not get us into this sad state of affairs. What has happened over the decades is a type of civil disobedience in which pastors know our practice but simply do otherwise realizing that no one will actually do anything about it except perhaps some radical conservatives whining a bit.
Given the size of the group which defies the synod’s position it seems that we are well beyond the point of enforcing policy unless we are willing to accept the consequence which would inevitably occur – division. Perhaps these DPS realize this. I could suggest that we dialog but it seems to me that we have done that for the last half century. I could also suggest that we decide what our position is and simply expect people to follow it. But we have tried that almost a dozen times as well.
I will tell you what will not work. It will not work for leaders of the church to pretend that we are a united synod. People have strong views on the subject. Mutually exclusive and widely diverse opinions and practices are prevalent in our church body. We cannot expect peace unless someone figures out how to bring us together.
Those districts with the highest number of pastors who practice closed communion are Central Illinois (78.26%), Iowa East (85%), Montana (92.86%), North Dakota (83.33%), and Wyoming (84.85%).
If you or your congregation are considering taking that “vote” to remove a pastor (or using such a vote to coerce his resignation), check to make sure that it is for legitimate reasons (persistent adherence to false doctrine; great public shame and vice [scandalous conduct]; willful and real neglect [or inability to perform] of his office). If you are an official involved in removing a pastor check also to make sure it is for legitimate reasons…
Here are some thoughts to consider if your pastor is not teaching falsely, living in scandalous conduct, or gladly neglecting his duties (or unable to do them) in relation to the Ten Commandments:
The First Commandment
Who is your god if you have no Scriptural reason to remove this pastor and yet vote to do that or assist others in doing it? Where is your trust in such a situation where you are “firing” your pastor? God says that he is not mocked in regards to the support and care for pastors (see Galatians 6), where is your fear of God?
The Second Commandment
What does a sinful vote of a Christian congregation do to God’s Name? What does it do if something has no supporting Scripture behind it but we still call it a divine action (such as a divine removal or even a human removal of a divine call)? Luther in the Large Catechism calls the propagation of false teaching the worst violation of the Second Commandment (it’s not just about cussing), how does the unscriptural removal of your pastor teach any truth?
The Third Commandment
Are you gladly hearing and learning the word of God while you are voting out the man God has sent to you to preach and teach it? Just who are you sending away, the preacher or the One who sent Him?
The Fourth Commandment
Pastor are considered fathers in the faith, does willfully removing your pastor or aiding in it honor his position as a mask of God? Does removing his livelihood and calling honor him, serve and obey him, or love and cherish him? By throwing him out the door of your church are you despising him, one of the “other authorities” that Luther names in the Large Catechism?
The Fifth Commandment
How does removing the livelihood of your pastor help and support him in every physical need? This only gets worse if your pastor has a wife and then even worse if he has children.
The Sixth Commandment
How does the church casting out the messenger that her head, Christ Jesus sent to her work into this mystery of Christ and His Church? Do you think such a “divorce” brings glory to God? Jesus says that the ones who reject those He sends will be rejected by Him.
The Seventh Commandment
How does removing your pastor rate in relation to protecting his possessions and income?
The Eighth Commandment
Given that men who are removed from calls bear a giant black mark on their professional record, just what do you think an unscriptural removal does for his reputation? Does masking your vote under district approval or other reasons exemplify the truth or a lie? How has your conversation been about your pastor?
The Ninth Commandment
How does throwing out your pastor help or be of service to him in keeping his house or property?
The Tenth Commandment
How does casting your pastor out urge him to stay and do his duty? Are you guilty of coveting another “type” of pastor? For ear-itching pastors, see the Second Commandment again.
So you have it – sinfully removing a pastor (or helping to do it) without Scriptural cause is a good way to reap the wrath of a jealous God upon the children for the sins of the fathers for the third and fourth generation of those who hate Him (if you doubt that unscriptural removal is not hating God, then reread the questions above).
Repent. Stop the vote. Stop trying to starve him out. God takes no pleasure in it, nor does He desire to punish for it – but He is not mocked. You will reap what you sow on how you treat His messengers.
Christ did not die for you to act however you please – He died to earn the forgiveness of your sins, a forgiveness given through time and space through the means of grace – which is exactly why He sent you your pastor to publicly preach, teach, and administer for your eternal good.
As a final note, any comment attempting to talk about “bad pastors” will be deleted for being off topic and an attempted deflection of the serious matter at hand.
(from Mollie) Today we commemmorate Johann Sebastian Bach, the most wonderful composer of all time. Or, as the Aardvark put it last year:
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750) is acknowledged as one of the most famous and gifted of all composers past and present in the entire western world. Orphaned at the age of ten, Bach studied with various family members but was mostly self-taught in music.
He began his professional career as conductor, performer, composer, teacher, and organ consultant at age 19 in the town of Arnstadt. He traveled wherever he received good commissions and steady employment, ending up in Leipzig, where the last 27 years of his life found him responsible for all the music in the city’s four Lutheran churches.
Acclaimed more in his own time as a superb keyboard artist, the majority of his compositions fell into disuse following his death, which musicologists use to date the end of the Baroque Period and the beginning of the Classical Era. However, his compositional ability was rediscovered, in large part due to the efforts of Felix Mendelssohn. The genius and sheer magnitude of Bach’s vocal and instrumental compositions remain overwhelming. Also, whether due to nature or nurture, he was but one of the giants in, perhaps, the most talented musical family of all time.
Christendom especially honors J. S. Bach, a staunch and devoted Lutheran, for his lifelong insistence that his music was written primarily for the liturgical life of the Church, glorifying God and edifying His people. For an overview of the Christological basis of his work and a strong argument that he was among the theological giants of Lutheranism, please read J. S. Bach: Orthodox Lutheran Theologian?.
Today we remember his “heavenly birthday,” for it was on 28 July AD 1750 that the Lord translated Mr. Bach to glory.
Soli deo gloria — To God alone the glory! These words appear on most manuscripts of Bach’s compositions as testimony to his faith and his idea of music’s highest, noblest use.
The Brothers of John the Steadfast have asked this 1959 Concordia, St. Louis graduate to prepare a bi-monthly post for this website entitled “This Was Your Grandfather’s Church.” The editor’s instructions to me were, “Just Look through your old files and find something that reflects what was your grandfather’s church and write that up for BJS.” Those files are far removed this morning, 350 miles away, but what is at hand is Pr. Matthew Harrison’s recent book, Christ Have Mercy. Christ Have Mercy: How to Put Your Faith in Action, is a 2008 publication of Concordia Publishing House. It does reveal what was your grandfather’s church.
Each chapter begins with a quotation from the Word of God and a statement of Martin Luther, but throughout the book there are also the words of those that Missourians truly consider their grandfathers, Drs. C. F. W. Walther and F. K. D. Wyneken, the first and second presidents of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Many of the words of these grandfathers of the Synod appear for the first time in the English language in Christ Have Mercy, translated by Harrison himself. Harrison clearly demonstrates that these grandfathers of the synod were orthodox theologians in their confession of the faith, and that “mercy” was a vital part of the content and confession of their faith.
Harrison writes in the preface, “I write as a convinced, convicted, and unapologetic clergyman of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The public confession of the Lutheran Church–most fundamentally stated in the Book of Concord–is my own, without equivocation. I believe C.F.W. Walther, the founder of the LCMS, explicated the faith correctly, also on the doctrines of church and ministry. These pages will show a side of Walther’s divinely given role of the care of the needy.”
On pages 175 and 176 Harrison quotes from a sermon he recently discovered and translated of C.F.W. Walther concerning the office of the ministry. Walther proclaimed, “There are five parts here which belong to this office. The first and foremost important is teaching; the second is admonition; the third is giving or the office’s concern for the poor; the fourth is governing or the administration of discipline and order; and finally the fifth is the exercise of mercy or the concern of the office for the sick, the weak and the dying.”
Just an aside from this writer concerning Harrison’s treatment of C.F.W. Walther after reading Christ Have Mercy: any who would claim that Harrison is “anti-Waltherian” do not know Harrison and are not telling the truth. What Harrison does for us in Christ Have Mercy is to truly challenge Missouri to be more Waltherian, that is, to reach out in mercy because of the mercy and grace of God given in baptism, the Supper, the Words of Absolution and through the preaching of the Gospel by those who hold the office of the holy ministry.
Harrison does share with his readers some experiences of his own life. One that was not known to this reader was that after his graduation from Concordia, Seward he spent a year in northern Ontario as a lay missionary. He writes of the emotion he experienced with his wife after the sound of the light plane that brought them to a land of “a thousand frozen lakes alternated with dense pine forest,” faded and disappeared from sight. There in a town of 500 native Canadians he learned what it meant to be part of a community. That year “forever changed my view of individualism and life together as the Church.”
Christ Have Mercy is a challenge to Missouri to be truly what our grandfathers– Walther, Wyneken, Luther and the authors of the Book of Concord– wanted us to be. They would have us be not only orthodox in doctrine, and Harrison clearly and very practically sets forth Lutheran orthodoxy, strongly advocating historic Lutheran worship, but Christ Have Mercy also calls upon the Synod to be orthodox in practice. That is, it calls upon the synod to clearly demonstrate MERCY as well as close communion, renunciation of unionism, etc.
Harrison recently spoke at the annual conference on the catechism sponsored by Peace Lutheran Church of Sussex, Wisconsin. His topic was “Catechesis of the Fifth Commandment.” He assumed the position of one who does not preach from the pulpit, stepping out from behind the lectern. He did so, he told his audience, because he wanted to see the screen on which visuals appeared that augmented his “catechesis.” He held in his hand his Bible, a Nestle text, that is, the Greek New Testament. One might expect that a Brighton, Franzmann, Voelz or Gibbs would lecture with a Greek text in hand; one does not expect that from one who heads the Board for Human Care Ministries. Harrison is a gifted translator, theologian and writer.
The number of quotations in Christ Have Mercy that this writer would want to share with readers of this post would unduly lengthen it. Buy the book and be blessed and challenged in the reading thereof.
There might be those that would wish the book did not include as many pictures of the author as it does. Those pictures show him in the various countries in which his role as executive director of the Board for Human Care Ministries has brought him, but in none of these pictures is he wearing a tuxedo.
When a congregation begins toying with the idea of contemporary worship, one of the usual driving factors is an attempt to be more “inclusive.” “The Church needs to appeal to more people than the gray-hairs that attend every Sunday. Get rid of that tired plodding organ and get some more lively instruments in there! Why force modern Americans to sing nothing but 16th century German hymns?” The impression that advocates often give is that contemporary worship is something that opens the church up and broadens it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than providing a breath of fresh air, contemporary worship is a narrow and constrictive force that can strangle a congregation.
First, the contention that traditional Lutheran hymnals are simply a collection of music that only old people could like is rather dubious. Consider: The commonly used Lutheran hymnal (LSB) includes songs dating back from almost two thousand years ago all the way to today. Most of its hymns were written centuries before any of our elderly were even born. If they enjoy it, it cannot possibly be because it was the music of their generation–something that only they would like. Generationally exclusive music is, however, precisely what contemporary worship seeks to impose. Rather than selecting the best from a broad ocean of church music that spans cultures, continents, & thousands of years of history, contemporary worship restricts music: first to the last few decades, then to America, then to a subset of the youth. Towards the end of his book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism, James K. A. Smith describes a “radically orthodox” church service that he considers to more “catholic” than the services we may be used to. Nevertheless, the mishmash of eclectic chairs, jazz bands, and Anne Sexton poetry he advocates would only appeal to the neo-hipster, Whole Foods, communitarian demographic. That’s about as far from universal as you can get. In the name of being inclusive, contemporary worship excludes everyone but the young and hip by trading the rich heritage found in the liturgy for a handful of passing fads.
Second, Contemporary worship restricts music’s capacity to communicate. Every age has its own insights & blind-spots, and its preferred styles reflect these. One advantage to a broad hymnody is that the excesses of one age cover often the deficiencies of another. Contemporary worship lacks this safeguard. If you compare hymns written in the past 75 years or so to the hymns that preceded it, you’ll quickly notice some general differences in the lyrical structure. Older hymns tend to be built around sentences and make statements. Modern hymns, on the other hand tend to be built around phrases and are designed to give an impression. While the former style serves a variety of purposes (confession, catechesis, prayer, praise, etc), the latter style is suited almost exclusively toward praise and self-expression (it’s no accident they’re usually called ‘praise bands’). Now, while self-expression has very little place in the divine service, there’s certainly nothing wrong with singing praise songs in church. Beautiful Savior, for example, is a classic hymn that makes use of this kind of phrase-based songwriting for precisely this purpose. The problem arises when almost every hymn is like that. Practically speaking, restricting a congregation to contemporary songs restricts them to praise music. By neglecting the ability to make meaningful statements in music, the hymnody begins to forget why we’re responding to God with praise in the first place. When this goes on long enough, all that remains is a desperate attempt to use music to manipulate the emotions into producing what once flowed naturally from what God has done for us.
Finally, contemporary worship generally doesn’t make people feel more comfortable or welcome–at least not in Lutheran churches. In the movie Better of Dead, there’s a scene in which John Cusack’s family invites a French exchange student over for dinner. In order to make her feel more welcome, the hostess serves a meal consisting of French fries, French toast, and French bread. Needless to say, regardless of the hostess’ efforts, the student did not exactly feel comfortable. Frankly, this is pretty much how Lutherans come off when we pander to those young, hip Americans of whom we have only the most shallow understanding by attempting to adopt their musical styles in church. Those we pander to might (or might not) be too polite to say that such imitation looks more like a bad parody, but they’re often thinking it.
Perhaps there’s another thing we might learn from this analogy when we seek to invite unbelievers into the church. The Church is in the world, but not of it. No matter how we arrange our music, unbelievers who visit us are in a foreign land. The last thing an exchange student is looking for is a grossly inferior version of their own culture. The entire point of being an exchange student is to be immersed in something other. If the Church tries to make herself look like the world, not only will she do a poor job of it, but she will deny those who come to her the opportunity to find something more than what they already have. Our heritage is something any generation can be brought into. If we seek to be more inclusive and welcoming, we would do well to embrace it.
Did Christianity Steal the Date of Pagan Winter Solstice Celebrations? The Roman celebration discussed in this article is the multi-day festival of Saturnalia.
The Mis-Use of Roman Sources: Saturnalia
In these articles we have seen the texts from the early Christians that show their reasons why they calculated particular dates for the Incarnation and Birth of Christ. These dates were based on the Passover texts. Even their calculation for the dates of the Creation of the universe centered on the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ at the Passover.
Saturnalia
Saturnalia is often talked about as if it were the same as Brumalia. And especially with reference to Christmas, these two occasions are also blended together with other hypothetical and real unrelated pagan festivals from various cultures.
Here we are going to separate Saturnalia from Brumalia. The reason for this is simple, they are not the same thing. Though there are some ancient documents that speak about these two occasions as happening at the same general time of the year, there is considerable variation in the ancient texts as to when Saturnalia could actually be celebrated.
Often the claims are that Saturnalia is the origin for Christmas caroling, gift giving, Christmas lights, and even the notion of celebrating the birth of a particular child.
What was Saturnalia?
One of the problems in describing Saturnalia is that there is no single ancient Roman document that describes the festival fully. The closest and fullest description comes from the 5th century A.D. by the hand of Macrobius in his work titled Saturnalia.
Of course, by the 5th century the dates for the Christmas celebration had long been established. So, while the modern claim that Christmas had been moved to December 25th in order to suppress or “baptize” the Saturnalia celebration is without any merit, there are these other aspects of the Saturnalia celebration that modern Christmas revisionists claim the Church stole from the pagan festival.
Saturnalia was a festival dedicated to honoring the pagan god Saturn. In Greece the name of Saturn was Kronos. Very often there are claims that the festival involved the celebration of a special birth. T.C. Schmidt has posted extensive quotations from Macrobius’ (5th Century AD) book titled Saturnalia. The quotations concern the nature and origin and history of the festival of Saturnalia.
From the quotations of Macrobius it becomes apparent that the Romans did not have consistent stories about the origin or the dating of the festival. Macrobius outlined four different traditions for the origin:
The first tradition claims that the festival was instituted by Janus so that humans would honor their ruler Saturn (who had disappeared) for the gifts Saturn gave to humans: arboriculture, fertilizer, using symbols of Saturn’s effigy holding the sickle (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.24-26)
“[24] It was during their reign that Saturn suddenly disappeared, and Janus then devised means to add to his honors. First he gave the name Saturnia to all the land which acknowledged his rule; and then he built an altar, instituting rites as to a god and calling these rites the Saturnalia—a fact which goes to show how very much older the festival is than the city of Rome. And it was because Saturn had improved the conditions of life that, by order of Janus, religious honors were paid to him, as his effigy indicates, which received the additional attribute of a sickle, the symbol of harvest.
[25] Saturn is credited with the invention of the art of grafting, with the cultivation of fruit trees, and with instructing men in everything that belongs to the fertilizing of the fields. Furthermore, at Cyrene his worshipers, when they offer sacrifice to him, crown themselves with fresh figs and present each other with cakes, for they hold that he discovered honey and fruits. Moreover, at Rome men call him “Sterculius,” as having been the first to fertilize the fields with dung (stercus). [26] His reign is said to have been a time of great happiness, both on account of the universal plenty that then prevailed and because as yet there was no division into bond and free—as one may gather from the complete license enjoyed by slaves at the Saturnalia.”
Another tradition says the festival was instituted by men Hercules left behind on Saturn hill. In this version the festival was created to help men be respectful of gods. (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.27)
[27] Another tradition accounts for the Saturnalia as follows. Hercules is said to have left men behind him in Italy, either (as certain authorities hold) because he was angry with them for neglecting to watch over his herds or (as some suppose), deliberately, to protect his altar and temple from attacks. Harassed by brigands, these men occupied a high hill and called themselves Saturnians, from the name which the hill too used previously to bear, and, conscious of the protection afforded to them by the name of Saturn and by the awe which the god inspired, they are said to have instituted the Saturnalia, to the end that the very observance of the festival thus proclaimed might bring the uncouth minds of their neighbors to show a greater respect for the worship of the god.
A third tradition claims a different geographic origin, that the festival was instituted by the Pelasgians who had migrated into Sicily at the oracle. In this tradition the festival was made to honor and thank Saturn, Dis, and Apollo. This tradition claims that at the festival people originally offered human sacrifices, but Hercules came and convinced them to make masks and burn candles in stead of the human sacrifices. In this particular tradition it is claimed that people of position and power demanded gifts, for a while, from the poor during the festival. (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.28-33)
[28] I am aware too of the account given by Varro of the origin of the Saturnalia. The Pelasgians, he says, when they were driven from their homes, made for various lands, but most of them flocked to Dodona and, doubtful where to settle, consulted the oracle. They received this reply: “Go ye in search of the land of the Sicels and the Aborigines, a land, sacred to Saturn, even Cotyle, where floateth an island. Mingle with these people and then send a tenth to Phoebus and offer heads to Hades and a man to the Father.”8 Such was the response which they received, and after many wanderings they came to Latium, where in the lake of Cutilia they found a floating9 island, [29] for there was a large expanse of turf—perhaps solidified mud or perhaps an accumulation of marsh land with brushwood and trees forming a luxuriant wood—and it was drifting through the water by the movement of the waves in such a way as to win credence even for the tale of Delos, the island which, for all its lofty hills and wide plains, used to journey through the seas from place to place. [30] The discovery of this marvel showed the Pelasgians that here was the home foretold for them. And, after having driven out the Sicilian inhabitants, they took possession of the land, dedicating a tenth of the spoil to Apollo, in accordance with the response given by the oracle, and raising a little shrine to Dis and an altar to Saturn, whose festival they named the Saturnalia.
[31] For many years they thought to propitiate Dis with human heads and Saturn with the sacrifice of men, since the oracle had bidden them: “Offer heads to Hades and a man (xa) to the Father.” But later, the story goes, Hercules, returning through Italy with the herds of Geryon, persuaded their descendants to replace these unholy sacrifices with others of good omen, by offering to Dis little masks cleverly fashioned to represent the human face, instead of human heads, and by honoring the altars of Saturn with lighted candles instead of with the blood of a man; for the word (porta means “lights” as well as “a man.” [32] This is the origin of the custom of sending round wax tapers during the Saturnalia, although others think that the practice is derived simply from the fact that it was in the reign of Saturn that we made our way, as though to the light, from a rude and gloomy existence to a knowledge of the liberal arts. [33] I should add, however, that I have found it written that, since many through greed made the Saturnalia an excuse to solicit and demand gifts from their clients, a practice which bore heavily on those of more slender means, one Publicius, a tribune, proposed to the people that no one should send anything but wax tapers to one richer than himself.
The last listed tradition says the festival was instituted in Greece further back and adopted by Rome. “The day is kept a holiday, and in country and in town all usually hold joyful feasts, at which each man waits on his own slaves.” (Macrobius, Saturnalia 1.7.36-37)
[36] You have referred, said Praetextatus, to a parallel instance of a change for the better in the ritual of a sacrifice. The point is well taken and well timed. But from the reasons adduced touching the origin of the Saturnalia it appears that the festival is of greater antiquity than the city of Rome, for in fact Lucius Accius” in his Annals says that its regular observance began in Greece before the foundation of Rome. [37] Here are the lines:
In most of Greece, and above all at Athens, men celebrate in honor of Saturn a festival which they always call the festival of Cronos. The day is kept a holiday, and in country and in town all usually hold joyful feasts, at which each man waits on his own slaves. And so it is with us. Thus from Greece that custom has been handed down, and slaves dine with their masters at that time.
[These Macrobius quotations are Tom Schmidt’s transcriptions of Percival Vaughn Davies Edition, 1969 by Columbia University Press]
Macrobius recorded these four variants on the origin of the festival, but none of them had to do with the birth of a child or the celebration of an infant.
Notice that #3 lists the tradition of using candles and gift giving. #4 brings in feasts and master/slave role reversal.
The implication in the modern revisionists is that Christianity is so un-original:
that it could have no other real reason than stealing from Saturnalia as justification for using light to celebrate “the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.” Certainly nothing more ancient than Roman Saturnalia, like, for example: Isaiah 60; or a separate tradition at that same time of the year such as the Feast of Dedication/Chanukah (John 10:22) from the period of the Maccabees;
that without Saturnalia Christians could not possibly conceive of giving gifts in honor of the Christ Child, like those gifts the Wise Men gave to celebrate the Birth of Christ (Matthew 2); or
that the poverty of the incarnation of the Son of God, the King of Creation to serve poor sinners could not be the example for having a 19th century Anglican carol about a 10th century Bohemian king serve the poor.
No, they say, Christians must have imitated these things from the Saturnalia festival.
When Was Saturnalia?
Macrobius wrote in Book 1 chapter 10 [23-24] of his Saturnalia:
Saturnalia used to be celebrated on only one day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January [=19th Dec.], but that it was afterward prolonged to last three days: first, in consequence of the days which Caesar added to the month of December, and then in pursuance of an edict of Augustus which prescribed a series of three rest days for the Saturnalia. The festival therefore begins on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January [=17th Dec.] and ends on the fourteenth [=19th Dec.], which used to be the only day of its celebration. However, the addition of the feast of the Sigillaria has extended the time of general excitement and religious rejoicing to seven days. …
In the paragraphs preceding this quotation Macrobius lists sources, quotations, and dates for the various claims about when the Saturnalia was celebrated and for how long. T.C. Schmidt posted the entire chapter and put the date information in bold print so that the reader can see uncertainty of dates associated with this celebration. The text follows:
Saturnalia 1.10.1-23 [again, T.C. Schmid’s transcription of the Davies translation (1969)]
[ 1 ] But to return to our account of the Saturnalia. It was held to an offense against religion to begin a war at the time of the Saturnalia, and to punish a criminal during the days of the festival called for an act of atonement. [2] Our ancestors restricted the Saturnalia to a single day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January, but, after Gaius Caesar had added two days to December, the day on which the festival was held became the sixteenth before the Kalends of January, with the result that, since the exact day was not commonly known—some observing the addition which Caesar had made to the calendar and others following the old usage —the festival came to be regarded as lasting for more days than one.
And yet in fact among the men of old time there were some who supposed that the Saturnalia lasted for seven days (if one may use the word “suppose” of something which has the support of competent authorities); [3] for Novius, that excellent writer of Atellan plays, says: “Long awaited they come, the seven days of the Saturnalia” [Ribbeck, II, 328]; and Mummius too, who, after Novius and Pomponius, restored the long-neglected Atellan to favor, says: “Of the many excellent institutions of our ancestors this is the best—that they made the seven days of the Saturnalia begin when the weather is coldest” [Ribbeck, II, 332].
[4] Mallius, however, says that the men who, as I have already related, had found protection in the name of Saturn and in the awe which he inspired, ordained a three-day festival in honor of the god, calling it the Saturnalia, and that it was on the authority of this belief that Augustus, in his laws for the administration of justice, ordered the three days to be kept as rest days.
[5] Masurius and others believed that the Saturnalia were held on one day, the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January, and their opinion is corroborated by Fenestella when he says that the virgin Aemilia was condemned on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of January; for, had that day been a day on which the festival of the Saturnalia was being celebrated, she could not by any means have been called on to plead, [6] and he adds that “the day was the day which preceded the Saturnalia,” and then goes on to say that “on the day after that, namely, the thirteenth day before the Kalends of January, the virgin Licinia was to plead,” thereby making it clear that the thirteenth day too was not a festival.
[ 7 ] On the twelfth day before the Kalends of January there is a rest day in honor of the goddess Angeronia, to whom the pontiffs offer sacrifice in the chapel of Volupia. According to Verrius Flac-cus, this goddess is called Angeronia because, duly propitiated, she banishes anxiety (angores) and mental distress. [8] Masurius adds that an image of this goddess, with the mouth bound up and sealed,1 is placed on the altar of Volupia, because all who conceal their pain and care find, thanks to their endurance, great joy (voluptas) at last. [9] According to Julius Modestus, however, sacrifices are offered to Angeronia because, pursuant to the fulfillment of a vow, she delivered the Roman people from the disease known as the quinsy (angina).
[10] The eleventh day before the Kalends of January is a rest day in honor of the Lares, for whom the praetor Aemilius Regillus in the war against Antiochus solemnly promised to provide a temple in the Campus Martius.
[11] The tenth day before the Kalends is a rest day in honor of Jupiter, called the Larentinalia. I should like to say something of this day, and here are the beliefs generally held about it.
[12] In the reign of Ancus, they say, a sacristan of the temple of Hercules, having nothing to do during the rest day challenged the god to a game of dice, throwing for both players himself, and the stake for which they played was a dinner and the company of a courtesan. [13] Hercules won, and so the sacristan shut up Acca Larentia in the temple (she was the most notable courtesan of the time) and the dinner with her. Next day the woman let it be known that the god as a reward for her favors had bidden her take advantage of the first opportunity that came to her on her way home. [ 14] It so happened that, after she had left the temple, one Carutius, captivated by her beauty, accosted her, and in compliance with his wishes she married him. On her husband’s death all his estate came into her hands, and, when she died, she named the Roman people her heir. [15] Ancus therefore had her buried in the Velabrum, the most frequented part of the city, and a yearly rite was instituted in her honor, at which sacrifice was offered by a priest to her departed spirit—the rest day being dedicated to Jupiter because it was believed of old that souls are given by him and are given back to him again after death. [16] Cato, however, says that Larentia, enriched by the profits of her profession, left lands known as the Turacian, Semurian, Lintirian, and Solinian lands to the Roman people after her death and was therefore deemed worthy of a splendid tomb and the honor of an annual service of remembrance. [17] But Macer, in the first Book of his Histories, maintains that Acca Larentia was the wife of Faustulus and the nurse of Romulus and Remus and that in the reign of Romulus she married a weajthy Etruscan named Carutius, succeeded to her husband’s wealth as his heir, and afterward left it to her foster child Romulus, who dutifully appointed a memorial service and a festival in her honor.
[18] One can infer, then, from all that has been said, that the Saturnalia lasted but one day and was held only on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of January; it was on this day alone that the shout of “Io Saturnalia” would be raised, in the temple of Saturn, at a riotous feast. Now, however, during the celebration of the Saturnalia, this day is allotted to the festival of the Opalia, although the day was first assigned to Saturn and Ops in common.
[19] Men believed that the goddess Ops was the wife of Saturn and that both the Saturnalia and the jOpalia are held in this month of December because the produce of the fields and orchards are thought to be the discovery of these two deities, who, when men have gathered in the fruits of the earth, are worshiped therefore as the givers of a more civilized life. [20] Some too are of the opinion that Saturn and Ops represent heaven and earth, the name Saturn being derived from the word for growth from seed (satus), since such growth is the gift of heaven, and the name Ops being identified with earth, either because it is by her bounty (ops) that life is nourished or because the name comes from the toil (opus) which is needed to bring forth the fruits of trees and fields. [21] When men make prayer to Ops they sit and are careful to touch the earth, signifying thereby that the earth is the very mother of mortals and is to be approached as such.
[22] Philochorus says that Cecrops was the first to build, in Attica, an altar to Saturn and Ops, worshiping these deities as Jupiter and Earth, and to ordain that, when crops and fruits had been garnered, the head of a household everywhere should eat thereof in company with the slaves with whom he had borne the toil of cultivating the land, for it was well pleasing to the god that honor should be paid to the slaves in consideration of their labor. And that is why we follow the practice of a foreign land and offer sacrifice to Saturn with the head uncovered.
[23] I think that we have now given abundant proof that the festival of the Saturnalia used to be celebrated on only one day, the fourteenth before the Kalends of January, but that it was afterward prolonged to last three days: first, in consequence of the days which Caesar added to the month of December, and then in pursuance of an edict of Augustus which prescribed a series of three rest days for the Saturnalia. The festival therefore begins on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of January and ends on the fourteenth, which used to be the only day of its celebration.5 [24] However, the addition of the feast of the Sigillaria has extended the time of general excitement and religious rejoicing to seven days.
Schmidt comments:
Macrobius does an excellent job summarizing authorities that were available to him, most of which I think have been lost. His conclusion is quite clear, Saturnalia originally was one day and occurred on the 14th day before the Kalends January, but when Caesar altered the calendar it was extended to three days and started on the 16th, later a new Festival of Sigillaria extended the celebrations to complete seven days, meaning that the Festival ended on either the 10th or ninth day before the Kalends of January depending on how we count. Of course neither of these days fall on the eighth day before the Kalends of January, that is December 25.
The information from Macrobius is the most thorough. None of the more ancient sources contradict him. In fact, what we have of the ancient sources that speak of dates merely confirm what Macrobius wrote.
Based on Macrobius as well as other ancient Roman sources, the date of Christmas has nothing to do with the dating of Saturnalia.
Below is a letter of resignation from a pastor in the LCMS. It came our way and we feel it is important news for our readers and a helpful warning for us all.
By publishing this letter we are not endorsing the action of this pastor. We do not claim to know all the ins and outs of this situation but we have experienced enough doctrinal foolishness in the LCMS to recognize a warning shot when we see one. We completely understand his frustration and can imagine all that he says to be the case with maybe one exception. This pastor says he found no confessional, brotherly support in the LCMS. That has not been our experience. Are there large pockets of little or no support? Yes, and Pastor VonMehren was apparently in one of those but there also larger pockets of great support and we hope that the posts on this website are proof of such.
We are glad to see this pastor not lay his frustration entirely at the doorstep of President Harrison, Like Pastor VanMehren we are pleased with the leadership and work of President Harrison. Thanks to President Harrison and his team good things are happening in the LCMS to restore purity of doctrine and faithfulness of practice. The pace may not be the same pace as you or I might pick. Some of us would want things to happen faster and some even more deliberately than the current pace but overall, we are being steered in a good direction.
So we submit for your edification and as a warning shot over the bow of the battleship Missouri the heartfelt and accurate letter of a frustrated, former LCMS pastor. May this letter further egg us on to uphold pure doctrine and faithful practice.
Pres. Matthew Harrison
Int’l Center, LC-MS
1333 South Kirkwood Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63122-7295
22 May, 2012
Dear President Harrison,
Hope all is well with your family, health and your service to Christ’s people. I write to inform you of a decision that I have been compelled to make by both circumstances and conscience, a decision that will bring delight to my current and past district presidents, as well as my current and past circuit counselors. I am moved to tender my resignation from the clergy roster of the LC-MS effective the date of this letter. As with the painful eventuality that many have the misfortune of experiencing, a divorce, the end of a slowly dying marriage, I grieve; not for what was, but for what should have been.
I have served in the LC-MS for 15 years and I have finally had enough of, on the one hand, the open heterodoxy in both word and practice that is not only tolerated, but promoted and encouraged in the LC-MS. On the other hand, I tire as well from being treated worse than a heathen infidel by those who deceitfully claim to be “servants of servants.”
I was recently forced to resign from a parish I served for 8 years, Emmaus Lutheran, Redmond, OR for no reasons. I was charged or accused of absolutely nothing, not a single reason was brought to my attention as to why I needed to resign. Even when directly asked, those responsible for this travesty would just shrug their shoulders and give no response. Yet, when it happened, my district “servant of servants”, with no reason given, no communication attempted or made, no letter, no phone call, no email, no contact whatsoever, put me under discipline effectively terminating my career.
The circuit meetings I have attended have been nothing but a shameful waste of time. Not only do the pastors not engage in any theology, casuistry or brotherly support or admonition, several seem to delight in nothing other than sheer buffoonery. I do not exclude the circuit counselors (“circuit clownselors”).
There still has been no indication that Missouri recognizes the public sin of Dr. Benke, nor that it ever will. Faithful pastor’s have no friends in Missouri. They and almost exclusively they take their career and Calling in hand caught between the all too frequent viciousness of goats in their own congregations and the lying hypocrisy of other “brothers” and their “servants of servants” in their district offices. It has been and is open warfare against faithful shepherds as those whose father is the devil work to subvert and destroy them.
The Holy Ghost indeed calls and gathers sinners into His Christian church. Unfortunately, they then begin industriously building their Towers of Babel a.k.a. institutions (synods). They then begin serving “the company” rather than Christ. All with the best of intentions of course. Missouri is the victim of her own “success.” Too many pastors have purchased their peace and retirements with obsequies service to “the company.” On the other hand, too many in the pew agree, eschewing any semblance of honor and respect for the Holy office and the catechesis that should be coming from it. Added to that is the aforementioned deceit and treachery of “ecclesiastical supervisors.” I suppose if monies to district came through and at the pleasure of pastors rather than congregations, there would be a sudden and drastic turn of affairs in the relations between pastors and district presidents. Then, all the “company men” would stand in gaping wonderment, declaring gleefully, “Look at what the Spirit did; the Spirit, O the spirit!” In the meantime, Missouri gladly ignites itself and would have gone down in flames had you not have had the God blessed faith, integrity and spine to put out the blaze.
I do thank God for you and what God has and is doing through you. Ever since the first Emmaus Conference you attended with the presidents of the WELS and ELS I have led my then congregation Emmaus in prayers every Sunday for all three of you. May God bring about a (what needs to be) massive upheaval of renewal and restoration within Missouri.
All of the sins and folly I have described herein that I have seen and experienced within Missouri appears to be starkly absent in the ELS which I am colloquizing into. Brothers are not shy of either supporting or admonishing one another; they actually do theology at their Winkles and act respectably. The Lutheran Confessions are actually known, believed and put into practice. There are no parasitic district offices and little to no “company” (at least as far as the local pastors and congregations are concerned) to lure men away from Christ and into the service of “the company”; they issue no grey flannel suits like Missouri does.
Again, to the delight of my district presidents, past and present, and my circuit counselors, past and present, I bid Missouri a sad but free adieu.
May god continue to forgive me my tongue which is all too often too sharp and for a faith that is all too often weak and insufficient with a patience that is at times entirely absent. May He also give to you and those working with you His continued blessing of strength, courage, integrity and health, both you and all your family’s. God’s blessing!
______________________
Pastor Randy VanMehren
Grace Lutheran Church
4125 SW Salmon Ave
Redmond, OR 97756
cc: Mr. Paul Linneman
Mr. Peter Pagel
Pastor Randall Ehrichs
Pastor Doulas Fountain
President John Moldstad
Pastor Steve Sparley
Pastor Glen Obenberger
Mr. Warren Schumacher
Mr. John Luther
Often the topic of how God governs all things comes up in parish life during suffering and struggles. Questions will arise about God being the cause of something (sin is the cause of this damned mess), allowing something (as if He is distant from things and is often merely wordplay), or even sending something. This is of course a difficult topic, and it deserves much attention in the lives of Christians who indeed will suffer in this life.
Forty years ago, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (hereafter LCMS) was in an uproar. Its Saint Louis seminary president, John Tietjen, was suspended in the January 20, 1974 meeting of the seminary’s Board of Control. On January 21st the majority of the seminary students declared a “moratorium” on classes and the majority of the faculty went on strike. This resulted in the well-known “walk-out” of most of the faculty and students on February 19th, viewed on broadcast television throughout the United States. Subsequently the majority of students and faculty formed the “Seminex” seminary, graduating its first class on May 24, 1974. Two years later, in December 1976, the “Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches” (AELC) was formed with 250 former LCMS congregations and with “Seminex” as its partner seminary and guiding light.
What I mention in this article is my opinion and thinking out loud. It was prompted by the Synod President’s comments after the same-sex marriage decision of the Supreme Court (see his interview with Issues Etc.). He stated that student loans may become a problem which would greatly affect the Concordia University System. Here is a way around it I offer as merely a starting idea (which would of course require all sorts of expertise to actually make happen). I know many people are tied to their colleges and they have served a good purpose in the past, but if we are looking at losing the whole system, it may behoove us to be forward-thinking enough to prepare to sustain something for the good of the church.
A few weeks back, I contacted Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller for information regarding the beautiful baptismal certificates I saw him 
Here are some quotes when considering 
If you or your congregation are considering taking that “vote” to remove a pastor (or using such a vote to coerce his resignation), check to make sure that it is for legitimate reasons (persistent adherence to false doctrine; great public shame and vice [scandalous conduct]; willful and real neglect [or inability to perform] of his office). If you are an official involved in removing a pastor check also to make sure it is for legitimate reasons…
