Great Stuff Found on the Web — Gottesdienstonline on “What Harrison Can Do”

A loyal SteadfastLutherans reader pointed me to this article on Evangelism Myth #7: By Grace Alone, not “By Grace, alone through you” posted by the Rev. Eric Brown. While this one is good, a click through to CyberStones (from which I’ve posted previously) led me to the below article found here, posted by the Rev Fr. H. R. Curtis as an article for the next Gottesdienst Journal (Worship Journal).



The following will appear, Dv, in the next print issue of Gottesdienst along with other analysis of the future of traditional, confessional Lutheranism in the LCMS from many of the other Gottesdienst editors.

What Harrison Can Do

by Fr. H. R. Curtis

I have often wondered at people lamenting the LCMS’ lack of bishops. The problem with the LCMS is that she has far too many bishops. A bishop, in the Lutheran understanding, is a holder of the pastoral office exercising all the duties thereof. There is only one Office of the Ministry, and it can only be passed on whole and undivided. You can’t give some men just give a piece of the Office, as in Rome’s understanding. Some men, for the sake of good order, might not exercise all of the duties thereof – but all have the same Office, all are bishops.

Therefore a bishop acting as a bishop is a shepherd of souls – he is somebody’s pastor. He’s a steward of the mysteries and as such has the authority to see to the proper administration of those mysteries: “To this we answer that it is lawful for bishops or pastors to make ordinances that things be done orderly in the Church.” (AC XXVIII.53)

Instead of a few of these sorts of bishops, exercising all the duties of their office over a few large territories, the LCMS has thousands of these bishops over small territories. Thousands of men each and every week, who are the shepherds of souls, have and exercise the authority to make ordinances about how things are done in the services of the Church. We have lots, and lots, and lots of bishops.


The President of the LCMS does not and cannot, therefore, act as a bishop in this Lutheran sense. He is not the pastor of anybody. (At least, he hasn’t been in about half a century.) And he does not have the right to change any parish’s ceremonies and order of service. And, since he is nobody’s pastor, neither is he the pastor of the other pastors of the Synod – and thus those pastors do not owe him the obedience that “hearers owe their pastors” in these sorts of matters. Or to put it another way: the President of the Missouri Synod is not empowered to excommunicate anybody.

So, first off, curtail your expectations of the new President of the Missouri Synod. He cannot stop neo-evangelical worship and the ongoing abolishment of the Mass among us with the nod of his head. He cannot say to that Winkel colleague of yours, “Stop communing Methodists, and use the Common Service.” He is not serving as bishop. No doubt, he is by virtue of his ordination ontologically a bishop, but he is not exercising that Biblical Office over anybody; rather, he exercises an office created by the Constitution and By-Laws of the LCMS.

But here is what President Harrison can do, and what I hope he does, for the cause of confessional Lutheranism in North America and around the world.

The Rule of IV

The problems that beset us can be helpfully arranged by reference to the Augsburg Confession. And, happily enough for the mnemonically challenged, the really problematic ones these days are: IV, XIV, and XXIV. President Harrison can aid the cause of traditional, confessional Lutheranism under each article.

AC IV: Grace Alone (No, Seriously: Alone)

The outgoing leadership of the LCMS has made no bones about their focus on Missions. The Ablaze! campaign was the heart and soul of President Kieschnick’s vision for what the LCMS was to be: an evangelical powerhouse growing by way of adult conversions and critical events. He was also found of a certain rhetoric that was, frankly, Arminian in tone. It boiled down to this: Life is short, and Hell is not. Every time I snap my fingers somebody goes to Hell. Get out there and stop that from happening! If we don’t give, pray, and tell the message, people will end up in Hell to whom we could have gotten the message and saved them from such a fate.

Um, what about grace alone? What about the Election of Grace? Will God really lose one of his elect if I’m lazy and do nothing? Is the population of heaven a function of my exertion? I explored this issue in much greater detail at the Gottesdienst West conference this summer (paper here), but for now let me get right to what President Harrison can do to help turn back the tide of this Functional Arminianism and Arminian rhetoric. He can simply say something like this each time he speaks of missions: Brethren, God saves us by grace and he has promised that no one can snatch his elect from his hands. If you decide to sit around and never tell anybody about Jesus, you will not be able to take a little lamb from his hand. But how can you keep from speaking of Jesus? You are saved by God’s grace! And more grace abounds – he will use you as an instrument for speaking the word of grace so that all his elect might be gathered in from every tribe and nation. . .

AC XIV: Pastors pastor

This is the hardest theological task President Harrison will face. For twenty years now the LCMS has been, not only in practice around the edges, but officially on paper and at the center, a heterodox body. In 1989, the LCMS tossed out AC XIV and its insistence that only those placed in the Office of the Ministry shall preach, teach, and administer the Sacraments.

This is the most pressing, clear cut issue for Missouri and world Lutheranism today. If the Missouri Synod, the founder of so many confessional church bodies around the world, can simply get by without pastors in large swaths of her territory – then why shouldn’t we Russians, Haitians, South Africans, save time and money and just train laymen to do these functions as well?

This is an open scandal, a denial of Scriptural truth, and a delight to the devil, the world, and the flesh. The rejection of the Biblical mandate and need for placing men in the Office of the Ministry is firmly entrenched in many districts (not to mention many hearts and minds). But there is hope. In July 2007, the systematics faculties of the seminaries came out forcefully against the current LCMS teaching in a joint statement that was ignored by the Kieschnick administration. President Harrison could resurrect this document and use his talents as a good teacher and powerful preacher to lead us into faithfulness.

He also has the services of a First VP who has been rock solid on this issue. In fact, while he was DP in SID, now First VP Mueller not only prevented any consecrations by laity, but was even known to volunteer his time on Sunday mornings to serve areas that could not find any other vacancy pastor. Now we need these two godly men to preach and teach on this topic both publicly and at the COP table and call the Synod to repentance. This will take bravery and strength. Pray for them.

AC XXIV: Ubi missa est?

The conventions of the LCMS are notoriously hard to analyze. Why did the 2010 convention pass the bulk of President Kieschnick’s vision for the day-to-day operations of the Synod – and then hand it over to Matt Harrison to run? Verily, this is a great mystery.

But maybe it was that opening service. In 2007, when I and the greater part of the Gottesdienst editorial staff were delegates, the opening service was Divine Service, Setting 1 from LSB. During the convention proceedings some of the walking music was performed by a praise band – but it was just the walking music. Never entered the Divine Service. But on opening night of this convention, President Kieschnick’s worship planning team really let ‘er rip. Oh, it was still the DS – mostly. But there were some “fresh” lines mixed in with the Kyrie – sort of a chancel dramatic reading if not a chancel drama. And there was a “techie” TV altar. And there was a real life praise band. And there were key changes of which no one was warned. And there were. . .

This was all a first. And there were so many of these firsts. And I wonder if it wasn’t all a bit much for many of the delegates coming from nice, normal LCMS churches. How many of those 50 or so swing voters saw that worship service and thought – gosh, has it come to this? All us Lutherans in the room and we do – this?

The way forward for President Harrison here couldn’t be easier. Another local story, if you’ll indulge me. We used to have these worship wars, I am told, in the SID at pastors’ conferences. One circuit would host conference and it was all praise bandy and ex corde orders of service. Another would host and it was time to play duck the censer and keep up with the Gregorian chant tones. In other words, the corporate worship of the brethren became the time to score points. The DP (yes, this is another Herb Mueller story) finally took things in hand and encouraged the planning committee to take the worship at conferences from then on – and to just do the orders as printed in LSB.

Peace and prosperity ever since. Worship is worship again and not point scoring. When Lutherans gather, we follow Lutheran orders of service that all Lutherans know and everybody’s happy. In 2013 I’ll bet dollars to donuts that President Harrison instructs the chaplain to just do what’s in the book. And in the meantime, he can just say a few nice things here and there about the rich heritage of our Lutheran worship, how great LSB is, and how neat it is to worship just like grandpa did. That’s all he needs to do to lend a lot of support to the liturgy – the ensuing silence about “diverse forms of worship” after nine years of hearing about it will be worth more, and be more classy, than any argumentative statements he could come up with.

Of course, if President Harrison encouraged a pastor here or there to rediscover the Common Service, had a talk with the St. Louis Seminary about what’s appropriate in chapel, and wants to lead Vespers at the next Gottesdienst Octoberfest, that would be fine, too.



Great Stuff Found on the Web — Gottesdienstonline on “What Harrison Can Do” — 20 Comments

  1. I whole-heartedly agree with much in this article/post.

    Can someone help me understand this comment from Pastor Curtis’s paper:

    >he is by virtue of his ordination ontologically a bishop<

    Thanks, Clint

  2. Clint,

    I agree with you – it is a great article.

    Hopefully by “ontologically” Pastor Curtis means “he is really an overseer of real doctrine and practice by real people.” If it is meant in a metaphysical way, as in his substance is changed into a bishop, then I am with you and am wondering what that means and how it could be defended scripturally.


  3. The “ontologically” caught my eye as well when I first read this on the Gottesdienst site. I concluded Rev. Heath must have simply slightly misused the word in an effort show affiliation with a non-functionalist view of the office of ministry.

  4. Bethany,

    You are a master of “best construction.” I could learn a thing or two from you. We would love to hear from you again if you have any other papers we can serialize.

    This talk of ontology reminds me, I need to respond to your husband’s Aristotelian comment on another thread. It raises similar issues of metaphysics.


  5. Could not “ontologically” simply mean “ordained by the Church”? As in, actually sent (as opposed to many who run without being sent)

    Maybe I don’t understand the implications of the word….I am a hack afterall. 🙂

  6. Hey you “hack” let me try to help.

    Of course “ontos” means being. Since everything “is,” that is, has being, to use the word is to either be redundant, which does not make sense, or to make a point about the being of something changing.

    Normally we would say “he is a bishop” period. To say he is “ontologically a bishop” hints at something more. What that more is raises eyebrows. Bethany has given a low interpretation of it. A higher view would be the Romanist view that one’s character actually changes. What Brother Curtis means is not clear to us simpletons from Iowa (me) and Nebraska (Poppe).

    BTW – I’d rather be a simpleton than a hack, I think. 🙂


  7. I agree with the author’s point about the opening service. A delegate who I met at the regional gathering said to me on Monday of the convention, “I don’t know who to vote for, I want to do the right thing.” Then they said, “What did you think of that opening service?” They mentioned how loud it was and how we couldn’t hear the singing.

    My guess/gut is that this delegate voted for structural change, but was clearly disturbed by the service. I steered them to MH’s “It’s Time” and the next day they thanked me and said the paper was very helpful.

    Yes, and speaking of “letting her rip,” from my vanatage point at the opening service I could see the praise band and the electric guitarist was jumping up and down like it was a rock concert. . . . .

  8. @Pastor Tim Rossow #9

    I guess that’s what I meant then. Could the “change” not be the “sending” of ordination, not a substantial change in the human essence of the person sent, but the substantial giving of the ACXIV office?

    I dunno. Trying to put the best construction on it.

    And hack’s are just simpletons that don’t know any better than to try new things and fail miserably at them. 🙂

  9. Ignorant, low-order question, but I’ll ask it anyway because it caught my eye. What does Rev. Curtis mean when he states, “had a talk with the St. Louis Seminary about what’s appropriate in chapel”?

    Does anyone here know what are they doing in chapel that caused Rev. Curtis to single it out without going into detail? Are they practicing open communion and using praise bands?

  10. Great post. Concerning the question: “Why did the 2010 convention pass the bulk of President Kieschnick’s vision for the day-to-day operations of the Synod – and then hand it over to Matt Harrison to run?” I have a couple insights as a delegate.

    Mollie Hemmingway did some wonderful work interviewing delegates in the hall outside the convention. Their insights, though anecdotal, provide some answer.

    First, the convention passed the restructuring because the vast majority of laypeople see a structure that looked like it did and said “$80 mil for that? That’s a luxury we can no longer afford.” My thought is, that in all the discussion led by the BRTF, never did we talk about what we actually wanted synod to keep doing or stop doing. In my mind that would have been a nice place to start. Instead, they proposed restructuring as we saw, to include “clarifying” articles of the constitution.

    Second, and again this is from some of the interviews Molly did, these same folks looked at 9 years of decline and said, “He had his chance, time for some fresh blood.” “Any organization can benefit from new leadership after 9 years.” These are my thoughts, now. Perhaps some liked “It’s Time.” I think some were inspired by his mercy work. I think some were put off by the last minute attack by JF on LCMS WR-HC and Harrison’s fiscal responsibility, a recognized bright light in our synod. All of these put together could have gotten him 30-50 votes. Perhaps just as many who liked Harrison for these reasons, though, “We’ll give him a clean slate and see what can come of it.”

    Personally, I’m only half surprised by the convention. I really thought it was going to go the way of the past 3 conventions, and in general, the way of the past several. I’m delighted it did not. Regardless, Harrison is not even installed yet, and we already have folks speaking divisively. This post was not an example of that; it was in fact the opposite. We need more like it for the sake of folks who do not read BJS and most especially, perhaps those who do. I, for one, cannot wait to engage in the kind of theological discussion Harrison advocates. Perhaps, if we listen together, the Word can heal the great rifts in our beloved synod and become an ever stronger example of Christian orthodoxy in our world.

  11. Thanks for the kind words, fellas.

    I didn’t mean “ontologically” to imply Rome’s theory of the indelible character. We don’t go for that. But I do think that ordination is the final step in God’s calling a man to be a minister through the Church (according to Chemnitz’ Enchiridion, this begins with education, call, testing, and then ordination). Once God does that, I believe the man is a pastor, a minister, until he dies, or until the Church defrocks him for just reason. I think our practice proves that this is what the Missouri Synod really believes: retired pastors are still pastors; as are men who serve as DP’s and so forth. How do I know? Because every time they are called to fill in for somebody on vacation they are not “installed” or “re-ordained.” If “ontologically a pastor” is not a good way of speaking – then help me out with another. “Once a pastor always a pastor”? I’m open to suggestions to get across the truth that one is a minister by the Call of the whole church, which is no revoked just because he’s serving as a professor, editor, or on CRM status.

    Some say that Walther taught something different: that if you are not actually serving a parish, you are a layman. If that’s what Walther meant, I think he was wrong. If any would defend that doctrine (I’m looking at you Vehse) I’m going to want a prooftext, from, like, you know: the Bible.

    Keep on rockin’ in the free world,

  12. Similarly – I might say that a man is “ontologically a husband” by virtue of his marriage. That doesn’t effect an “indelible character” – it just means that he really is a husband, and that he can’t stop being a husband for unbiblical reasons: “he who divorces a woman causes her to commit adultery” – not fornication, adultery; she’s still “ontologically a wife.”


  13. Mr. Clark,

    There has recently been a bit of controversy over the chapel services at CSL. From way back, the services have been at the discretion of the particular professor leading chapel that day. Recently, some of those professors have indeed invited in a praise band, engaged in chancel dramas, stuff like that.

    I don’t mean to tar CSL as a whole, or even the leadership thereof. Like I said, it’s an old tradition that the professor leading can lead has he sees fit. What’s new is that some of the professors seem to want to move chapel in the contemporary worship direction. Of course, many of those professors have been saying as much in class for years. But recently they have been bold enough to put their words into practice at the Chapel of Sts. Timothy and Titus.

    So…if Pres. Harrison wanted to talk about that with them in a fraternal way, that would be great – like I said. But it would be gravy considering the Big Three issues I mentioned above.


  14. I know I probably speaking heresy here, but
    post 1973, JAO Preus and our other leaders at that time would have saved a lot of grief, and perhaps the Lutheran church in America, if they had just said, “Let’s split this thing down the middle. St Louis to the Higher Critics, Ft Wayne to the Lutherans. Any graduate who could convincingly prove that would put him in the wrong organization could move over.

    It would have been chaotic in the parishes for awhile, but perhaps less than 40 years.

  15. Thanks. I wonder how much of that shift is driven by students. We had a field worker return from his vicarage, and I overheard him *complaining* (that’s not the right word; he was simply sharing his experiences – but it sounded like he was frustrated) that he had been sent out into a congregation that used CW extensively. But the Seminary had given him virtually NO training in how to plan or lead a CW service. He wasn’t upset with the vicarage congregation or its pastor, he was mad at the Seminary for hanging him out to dry. Apparently he wasn’t the only one.

    The professors who bend under such vocal *complaints* should probably spend more time exploring the theology of CW and less on how best to flex under communal pressures.

Leave a Reply

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

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.