What is going on in WELS: The Disintegration of Church Fellowship, and the Rise of Unionism?

Ichabod recently featured a sermon from Grace Lutheran Church, a WELS church in downtown Milwaukee whose chief shepherd is WELS First VP, Rev. James Huebner. The Ichabod post can be found here. The sermon can be found here. I responded to this post, offering my opinions on the posted sermon, and Dr. Jackson reposted those comments as a new blog entry, here. Both of those entries resulted in a number of comments by concerned readers, prompting yet a third Ichabod blog entry in as many days on the same theme, here – which has also attracted a number of comments. What was the theme of these posts? Fellowship and Unionsim in the face of the Church Growth Movement, and the status of WELS teaching and practice on these matters.

With a cheapening of practice resulting from the expediency- and pragmatism-oriented Church Growth Movement, comes a necessary dilution of doctrine. It's impossible to endorse carte blanche freedom in church practice in an environment permeated by strong doctrinal perspectives, as practice in such an environment is used as a vehicle for teaching and confessing cherished Scripture doctrine. Moreover, if one is going to import the practices of the heterodox while maintaining an oblivious regard for doctrinal or confessional impact, the main doctrine to be attacked, maligned, and redefined is the doctrine which serves as the immune system of the Church: the Doctrine of Church Fellowship.

For these reasons, the topic of Church Fellowship comes up frequently in discussions regarding the Church Growth Movement. It came up recently on Bailing Water, as well, here. As the discussion following this blog entry progressed, the topic naturally turned to Fellowship. I offered the following by Rev. Egbert Schaller, featured essayist in the NPH title, Essays on Church Fellowship, from his essay "Concerning Christian Brotherhood and Christian Fellowship." It distinguishes the “Christian Brotherhood,” which is invisible, from the visible recognition of "Christian Brothers," and is particularly enlightening. Here are a few quotes:

“It should not require extensive demonstration to establish active fellowship as an essential fruit of the Christian brotherhood. Fellowship is the confessional act of belonging together which Christians owe one another” (pg. 159).

“The critical question is: What must be the basis of Christan fellowship? ...Let us begin by stating that, while the basis of the Christian brotherhood is regeneration and true faith, the basis for recognition and the practical exercise of Christian fellowship is not regeneration and faith. The reason obviously is that recognition must precede fellowshipping, and recognition must have as its object something that can be seen. Faith cannot be seen. Hence, it is impossible to recognize a brother by his faith, and equally impossible to fellowship with him on that basis... Personal faith cannot be the basis of Christian fellowship. Instead, Christian fellowship can be based only on profession of faith, by word and deed, which is something else again... This passage [referring to 1 John 4:1-3], in urging discrimination and recognition of the spirit that is in men, sets up the confession of a man as basis of recognition... We must now amplify the statement that confession is the basis for fellowship by saying that the deciding factor in establishing Christian fellowship is that of a common and correct confession” (pp. 160-161).

“Out of the confusion of those who have been unwilling or unable to analyze the scriptural doctrine of the communion of saints and the fellowship of believers, there has come a welter of confused attitudes, theories, principles, and practice in matters of fellowship. Symptomatic and not actually new is the proposal of selective fellowship..., a practical recognition of individual Christians or congregations, by word or deed, which ignores synodical affiliation. It argues for the right to call a man a brother and treat him as a brother when he is formally separated by synodical lines. ...Membership in a church body is confessionally decisive for conclusive action regarding fellowship. ...We are not concerned with whether or not [one] is a Christian. Christianity in others is a matter of faith with us, not of determination. But practical fellowship is purely a matter of outward confession” (pp. 162-163).

“Can anyone who does not recognize heterodox affiliations be said to practice in accordance with God's Word? Is not that a contradiction in terms? If a man, or a congregation, does these two things simultaneously: (a) Make a verbal confession that is correct; and (b) Make and uphold a second confession by affiliation with a heterodox church body – then those two confessions form one whole. And together they form one false confession. ...Fellowship practiced under such circumstances constitutes recognition of a confession which is thoroughly in conflict with divine truth” (pg. 164).

“We do not, in other words, feel bound to declare anyone a Christian, by word or act of fellowship, simply because we believe or hope he may be one. ...Only if we refrain from trying to see the invisible and content ourselves with careful weighing of the visible, audible evidence, can we truly establish fellowship with brethren and successfully avoid syncretistic affiliations” (pg. 166).

So, what is going on in the WELS?
That was the question asked by the fourth commenter on my review posted on Ichabod. Regarding this, the following email recently landed in my inbox. I know the layman involved, and I know the WELS Pastor involved, as well. I also knew of the situation as it was occurring last Summer. In contrast to E. Schaller's points above, this email explains vividly what is happening among us, what is happening among those who should function as our “Royal Guard” against doctrinal impurity, and what they are doing with Scripture's teaching regarding Church Fellowship.

Freddy,

Last Summer, growing concerned over what I perceived to be loosening fellowship standards, I submitted the following post to WELS Q&A. I informed my Pastor, and he was encouraging, and asked that I let him know when I received an answer. Here is a link to the original post: http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=23231. Here is the content of that post:


Q: In a recent Q&A posting entitled "Christian Unity vs. Doctrinal Unity," the Responder used the following phrase in reference to an individual of heterodox confession: "...you as a Christian brother." Over the past 18 months, or so, I think that I have seen WELS Q&A refer to individuals of heterodox confession as "Christian Brothers" at least a half-dozen times, finally prompting me to ask this question: "Are we changing our terminology, theology, or practice concerning the Fellowship and heterodox?" I ask especially since in the same Q&A posting that I reference above, the Responder recommends that the Questioner consult "Essays on Church Fellowship," in which E. Schaller's 1948 essay (pp. 157-166), after a preamble briefly defining the "Christian Brotherhood" as the Church Universal, makes plain in Part II that our recognition of "Christian Brothers" is based on their confession, not the presumption of their faith, and that Scripture "commands that brethren be of the same mind and speak the same things..." (pp. 161-162). In Part III, he labels as "Selective Fellowship" the practice of identifying heterodox Christians as "brothers" – a practice which was endorsed by the ALC at that time. In short, "Christian Brothers" are only those with whom we share Fellowship in the Visible Church, since calling someone a "brother" requires that we apply confessional standards that would identify him as such. Indeed, as a person who travels extensively for business, I can confirm that this is widely taught in our Synod, that "We cannot refer to the heterodox as our Christian brothers" (recent quote from a WELS Pastor in Ohio). I must say, that a loosening of terminology such as this is of great concern to me, especially now, as it comes at a time when Fellowship standards also seem to be loosening – particularly around attitudes toward Worship Fellowship. Perhaps I am suffering from a perception problem, and there is nothing at all to be concerned about. Perhaps also, your reference to heterodox Christians as "brothers" is nothing more than an attempt to communicate with them using terminology familiar to them, in the way they normally would understand it. I can appreciate this, but would also warn of the potential confusion and offense that may result among your Brothers, who rely on you to be as accurate and precise as possible. Not an easy balancing act, I'm sure! Anyway, thank you very much for your hard work, and for maintaining this service. I look forward to your response.

A: Thank you for identifying and expressing concern about the different use of terminology that may be found in our circles and the subsequent confusion that might result. While this potential confusion has existed for some time, the value in recognizing the potential problem and offering clarifications remains fitting.

You appear to be quite well-read on the subject, so I ask you to compare the use of terminology that E. Schaller used in 1948 to the parallel terminology J. Brug used in 1996 (Church Fellowship, p. 20). While there are obvious similarities – and identical theological and doctrinal convictions – there are also differing use of terms. We are dealing with manner of expression, not with the substance of what is being expressed.

Perhaps the primary point is that we judge any professing Christian on the basis of his or her confession, not on the presence or absence of saving faith in the heart, which we cannot see or verify. If this confession reveals (and is not simultaneously denied by the person's practice or lifestyle, which is also part of the confession) that he is relying on Jesus Christ, we believe we may acknowledge him as a "Christian brother" and member of the "Christian brotherhood," the Holy Christian Church. This is the more contemporary use of the term "Christian fellowship" that is used among us today. If that confession is heterodox we may not express unity by calling him a "confessional brother" or in joint activities that would express such unity. E. Schaller's use of "Christian fellowship" focused more on that point and by the term "fellowship" he was referring to activities or expressions of unity (see his essay, p. 159,160) and not simply to the status or relationship itself. Today we (for better or worse) more consistently use the term "church fellowship" for those expressions and activities. But the substance of what is believed and taught and practiced has not changed. A reading of the texts within their contexts will demonstrate this.

One may legitimately ask if it is OK or wise to speak of heterodox believers as "Christian brothers." I believe the language of the Apostle Paul shows it is legitimate and may be used properly (concerning professing brothers whose current confession is heterodox due to weakness or ignorance; when a professing Christian persists in error despite warning and instruction, we often withhold the term since willful clinging to error is not compatible with saving faith). Viewing 1 Corinthians 15:31,58 ("my dear brothers") with 1 Corinthians 15:12 (some among these "brothers" were denying the bodily resurrection) may be helpful. Paul's words in Galatians 5:11,13 ("brothers" again) alongside his words in Galatians 5:4 (declaring the soul-destroying nature of falsehood found among the Galatians) may also be instructive here. Nevertheless, the greater value is to consider the context and whole message of Paul (as well as WELS writers on the subject) and to be aware that different uses of certain terms may be found when the same doctrinal convictions prevail, and so potential confusion and a need for periodic clarifications should also be admitted.

Finally, you share the observation that "fellowship standards" among us "seem to be loosening." As you say, this may merely be a "perception problem" rather than reality, but due vigilance and loving interest will never go out of style, biblically speaking. I pray you will continue to address the subject whenever and wherever appropriate, and in a positive, loving way to testify to the truth.

I was not at all satisfied with this response, and I let my Pastor know. He was not entirely satisfied, either, and so encouraged me to send a follow-up question. Here is the content of my follow-up question:


Q: Brothers, forgive me if I seem unnecessarily persistent. However, after reviewing your response to my original post, and corresponding with my pastor, I felt prompted to follow-up. I'm not sure that your answer actually brought clarification. The point, as I see it, is that to identify someone as a "Brother" is to identify that person as a member of the "Christian Brotherhood," or the Church Universal. Since we are unable to see a person's faith, which is the true measure of such membership, Scripture appoints Doctrine and Practice (in the case of Church Fellowship) or Confession and Works (in the case of Christian Fellowship) to identify someone as sharing such unity with us. That is, unless a Christian's Confession is in full agreement with Scripture, and unless their Works are consistent with their Confession, we are not free to assume the faith that would make them a member of this "Brotherhood." To say that we can sift true statements from an openly heterodox confession, and on the basis of only those true statements recognize a Christian with that confession as a "Christian Brother" seems to entirely overthrow the Scriptural requirement that Brothers are to be united in mind and spirit, are to "speak the same words and think the same thoughts." Further, invoking the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship in order to divide "Christian Brothers" from "Confessional Brothers" is also confusing – I have never heard of this before, and I am quite sure that I have never seen this in Scripture. It also seems particularly dangerous to identify levels of "Brothers" in this way, as it seems to cast seed from which a teaching of "levels of fellowship" may easily sprout. My understanding regarding the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship is not that they establish different criteria for identifying who a Brother is, or what kind of Brother he is, and not that they establish different Fellowship criteria, but that they distinguish the nature of "Fellowshipping" in these (quite) different scenarios. A much greater degree of imperfection is expected when applying Fellowship principles in Christian Fellowship scenarios, as individuals apply sanctified judgment in an effort to balance competing priorities in the ministry of their personal lives. Regardless, I don't see the criteria for the recognition of a "Brother" as different in either case, nor do I see the definition of Fellowship as different. Finally, the Scriptures referred to in your answer did not seem to be entirely helpful. Paul addresses these congregations, and their members, as "Brothers." He was not addressing a heterodox congregation. He shared Fellowship with them. In this context, if he identifies false teaching among them, is he not admonishing erring Brothers and calling them to repentance? This is the way that I would understand these verses. I would not infer that he was referring to openly heterodox Christians (i.e., "persistent errorists") as "Brothers." Certainly, if someone gives all indications that they are relying on Jesus, we call them Christians. But "Brotherhood" requires unity, and since we cannot see faith, confession and works are the measure Scripture commands us to apply. As a result, we simply cannot say that we share unity with Christians of heterodox confession, because the visible measure of this unity is not satisfied. Maybe we do share unity with them in the Church Universal, and maybe we don't – only God knows. But, it seems to me, we do not have the authority to declare that we share unity with specific individuals of heterodox confession, by referring to them as our "Brothers." In short, and to return to E. Schaller's essay, I see his point as this: to recognize someone as a "Christian Brother" is at the same time to declare Fellowship with him. Thank you for continuing to bear with me in my confusion. I look forward to your response.

This follow-up question was not posted on WELS Q&A, but it was answered with a direct email to me. In my opinion, their follow-up answer only made matters worse, and I corresponded with my Pastor, as follows:


Paster,

WELS Q&A supplied a response to my follow-up question, but will not post it in public, signaling to me that they no longer wish to discuss or comment on the issue. They did not invite further discussion via email. This has gone from bad to worse in my opinion. I hate to burden you with this, as I am sure that you have much better things to be doing, but the WELS Q&A author is clearly saying something other than what I have learned from my reading of Scripture and other orthodox Lutheran works, and from what I have learned from you. The substance of his words, below, depart significantly from my understanding of the Bible's teaching of Fellowship.

I do not consider this a trivial matter, at this point. The distinctions he is making are not Biblical (that I can tell), he supplies no Biblical support for the Fellowship distinctions that he is making and is applying. I understand attempts to think about things differently, but sound doctrine rests only on clear statements of Scripture. I am aware of no such statements in the Bible that support what this author is saying – and what he is saying definitely seems to qualify what has up to now, in my understanding, been regarded as quite clear.

If you could, would you be able to make a study of these issues? Please definitively correct my understanding where it is lacking, show me from Scripture where the WELS Q&A author is correct and I am incorrect, so that I can be brought into agreement with the WELS Q&A author. If no agreement is forthcoming, we will need to determine how to escalate this.

The author's reply below is in bold italics. My original comments are in regular un-bolded black. I supplied my thoughts in response to the points in his reply [bracketed in blue], and I have highlighted in bold red italics the specific points in the author's reply that I was responding to in blue. Hope this makes sense.

Thank you for your time and attention to this.

[name deleted]


-------- Original Message --------

Hello [name deleted],

We have answered your question on WELS Topical Q&A but decided not to post it to the system for others to view it. This may be on account of the topic being too private and sensitive, or perhaps this questioned has already been asked. Your question and our response follows.

You asked:
...[snip ...posted above]...

This is our reply:
Thank you for writing again. I regret that the previous reply was not helpful to you. I am inserting my replies into your comments and questions below. I'll italicize my replies to distinguish them from your comments.

Brothers, forgive me if I seem unnecessarily persistent. However, after reviewing your response to my original post, and corresponding with my pastor, I felt prompted to follow-up. I'm not sure that your answer actually brought clarification. The point, as I see it, is that to identify someone as a "Brother" is to identify that person as a member of the "Christian Brotherhood," or the Church Universal. Since we are unable to see a person's faith, which is the true measure of such membership, Scripture appoints Doctrine and Practice (in the case of Church Fellowship) or Confession and Works (in the case of Christian Fellowship) to identify someone as sharing such unity with us. That is, unless a Christian's Confession is in full agreement with Scripture, and unless their Works are consistent with their Confession, we are not free to assume the faith that would make them a member of this “Brotherhood.” We agree fully on the fact that we appraise another on the basis of his confession. Your final statement, however, says more than that. To insist on full agreement on all of Scripture before we can acknowledge a confession of Christian faith deserves clarification since it sounds presumptuous and arbitrary. We may say that a believer, in principle, assents to all of Scripture. [Does this mean that by default all professing Christians are therefore "Christian Brothers" unless they are determined, case-by-case, to be otherwise? Where is this in Scripture? The author of this response cannot make any of the statements that follow unless he makes this assumption.] But because of ignorance or weakness, for example, such a person might still give a heterodox confession. We take both aspects of that person's confession seriously as long as we can -- the portion that professes reliance on Jesus Christ as Savior and the portion that departs from Scripture on some point. You seem to be saying that any and all doctrinal errors outweigh or functionally negate the confessed truth of saving faith. [I am not concerned with the "truth of saving faith" -- I have no means of measuring it in another individual. Nor am I concerned with a "confession of faith." Faith can only be assumed of "Brothers" with whom we share confessional agreement. Show me in the Bible where it says otherwise, and I'll change my thinking on this. Error may or may not negate the faith of a person -- it does, however, negate his confession, and make it impossible for us to recognize him as a "Brother."] But only when I have learned that the person persistently and willfully spurns Scripture would I not be free to assume that his confessed faith is true. [Is this not the definition of "Christian of heterodox confession?" Isn't a heterodox Christian one who, by their public confession, is in a state of persistent error? Is this not what is in question here? Again, I question: is the author of this response assuming that all professing Christians are "Brothers" unless, one-by-one he rules out by personal knowledge that they are not? I make no such assumption, and, rather, require the opposite, as I have been taught and as I have seen it taught in Scripture: no Christian can be recognized as a "Brother" unless I know his confession is orthodox.]

To say that we can sift true statements from an openly heterodox confession, and on the basis of only those true statements recognize a Christian with that confession as a "Christian Brother" seems to entirely overthrow the Scriptural requirement that Brothers are to be united in mind and spirit, are to "speak the same words and think the same thoughts." I do not agree that taking seriously all portions of a heterodox confession overthrows the Bible command that we seek and express unity. [Is this not wordplay? Is the author of this response not attempting to use the phrase "taking seriously all portions of a heterodox confession" to slight the significance of error in an "openly heterodox confession?" How seriously, after all, can or should we take the error in their confession?] When Paul urged such oneness among the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 1:10) he made it clear that (1) the Corinthians did not enjoy such unity at that time, but (2) he still appealed to them as his "brothers" (see verse 11, etc.) even while rebuking and exposing the disunity. Our task is to work with the weak, affirming what is true and opposing what is false. [Again, this is Paul, addressing a congregation with whom he was in Fellowship. He was addressing the congregation and it's members -- putting this squarely in the context of "Visible Church" where even the author of this response must admit that "Church Fellowship" principles apply, not so-called "Christian Fellowship." This is not a heterodox congregation, it is not a congregation that Paul has declared "in persistent error." He was addressing error among his Brothers in order to draw their attention to it and to call them to repentance. These references have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue: that of referring to individual Christians, who have not been recognized as Brothers on the basis of confessional agreement, who, further, are of known heterodox confession, as "Christian Brother" solely on the basis of what we recognize as true in their heterodoxy (whether or not we refer to this as "taking seriously all portions of their heterodox confession..."] (Nor would I say that I am advocating a "sifting" through confessional statements, picking up on some but neglecting others. That would be presumptuous. Rather, I advocate taking ALL of the confession equally seriously). [How is this not, "sifting through confessional statements, picking up on some but neglecting others?" Is the author of this response recognizing "Brothers" on the basis of the error in their confession? No, he could only make such recognition on the basis of the truth of their confession in spite of the error. The fact is, the author cannot make the claim that he is admonishing erring Brothers in such a situation unless he first assumes that everyone who professes Christianity is automatically a "Christian Brother," and can only one-by-one rule them out of such a status after he personally admonishes them, has had such admonishment rejected, and on the basis of this rejection declares them persistent errorists. I have been taught, and have read in Scripture, that the opposite is the case: only those who are first recognized as Brothers (not globally assumed as Brothers) can be considered Brothers.]

Further, invoking the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship in order to divide "Christian Brothers" from "Confessional Brothers" is also confusing – I have never heard of this before, and I am quite sure that I have never seen this in Scripture. The note is well taken that the Bible itself does not use the same terminology and that such ecclesiastical terminology needs defining and clarifying. The use of such terminology does not strike me as particularly recent or unheard of, but I have not researched this point.

It also seems particularly dangerous to identify levels of “Brothers” in this way, as it seems to cast seed from which a teaching of "levels of fellowship" may easily sprout. My understanding regarding the distinction between Christian and Church Fellowship is not that they establish different criteria for identifying who a Brother is, or what kind of Brother he is, and not that they establish different Fellowship criteria, but that they distinguish the nature of “Fellowshipping” in these (quite) different scenarios. A much greater degree of imperfection is expected when applying Fellowship principles in Christian Fellowship scenarios, as individuals apply sanctified judgment in an effort to balance competing priorities in the ministry of their personal lives. Regardless, I don't see the criteria for the recognition of a "Brother" as different in either case, nor do I see the definition of Fellowship as different. The so-called "levels of [church] fellowship" that are advocated by false ecumenists receives no support at all from a proper distinguishing of elements in a professing believer's confession. The error you refer to ignores and downplays confessional differences and ultimately does not take them seriously in considering joint expressions of fellowship (worship, prayer, etc.) [This only applies if one assumes a prescriptive distinction between "Christian Fellowship" and "Church Fellowship." I have only recognized such distinction as descriptive since Biblical criteria for recognizing a Brother only comes to us in the context of the congregation. There is only one form of Fellowship in the Visible Church. Anywhere that two or more are gathered in agreement constitutes a congregation. This is "Visible Church." There can be no recognition of "Brothers" on any level outside the context of the "Visible Church." Therefore, recognizing "levels of Brothers" necessarily results in "levels of Fellowship." There is no distinction in Scripture, that I can find, between so-called "Christian Fellowship" and "Church Fellowship." Show me that there is, and I will change my thinking.] But taking a believer's confession seriously will acknowledge what is true as well as what is not true, and can lovingly affirm what is right and rebuke and avoid what is wrong. [No disagreement here. We can lovingly and joyfully affirm Truth in another Christian's confession, while at the same time rebuking the error. My understanding from Scripture, however, is that the error prevents an orthodox Christian from referring to a heterodox Christian as a "Brother," regardless of whether we rejoice in orthodox aspects of their confession.] Since full unity in doctrine and practice is required for expressions of fellowship (joint worship, prayer, etc.), however, we are not talking about that.

Finally, the Scriptures referred to in your answer did not seem to be entirely helpful. Paul addresses these congregations, and their members, as "Brothers." He was not addressing a heterodox congregation. He shared Fellowship with them. In this context, if he identifies false teaching among them, is he not admonishing erring Brothers and calling them to repentance? This is the way that I would understand these verses. I would not infer that he was referring to openly heterodox Christians (i.e., "persistent errorists") as “Brothers.” You are correct and wise to identify that the weak and erring members in Corinth and Galatia were part of orthodox churches. You are also correct to say Paul is clearly admonishing them and calling them to repentance. But to conclude from this that we can only deal in this manner with members of orthodox churches is, in my opinion, concluding more than Scripture says. [I am not concluding anything from these Scriptures, really. Criteria for recognizing a "Brother" -- namely, confessional agreement -- are clearly spelled out elsewhere in Scripture. I am applying those abundant, well-known, and clearly stated Scripture references to this anecdotal reference. The author, however, seems to be using these anecdotal references -- generally unclear according to sound Lutheran hermeneutics -- to qualify or question those clear statements of Scripture by which I interpret these anecdotes. This is not Lutheran hermeneutics, in my understanding, which is to interpret the less clear (i.e., anecdotal references) using the more clear references (i.e., direct, positive statements of Scripture). Such an approach the author seems to be using, however, is a hermeneutical approach common to modern Evangelicals, like Wayne Grudem, for instance (whose Systematic Theology I am familiar with).] The subject here is dealing with people, not congregations or church bodies. [More fully, the subject is dealing with people who are members of congregations with whom Paul was in Fellowship. "Church Fellowship" principles therefore apply. Erring Brothers within this Fellowship are being admonished and called to repentance within the framework of "Church Fellowship." I do not deal with individuals with whom I share confessional unity, who I refer to as "Brothers" in my congregation, according to criteria outside of what is expected within a "Church Fellowship" context. I don't refer to them as "Brothers" in two different senses at the same time -- as "Christian Brothers" and then as "Confessional Brothers". Is the author of this response assuming that a high standard of "Church Fellowship" applies only to the organizations we call congregations in the Visible Church, and that a weaker standard of "Christian Fellowship" applies only individuals, whether they are heterodox or not? Again, I don't see this teaching in Scripture. By my reading, there is only one standard for recognizing a Brother, and there is only one Fellowship with identical standards.] It is every Christian's privilege to affirm truth and rebuke departures from revealed truth when confronted by such in the daily Christian walk. [No disagreement here. But this in no way establishes criteria for referring to Christians of openly heterodox confession as "Christian Brothers." We deal with all sinners the same way. False doctrine is sin, the same as any other sin -- and we call sinners to repentance. We don't need to refer to such sinners as "Brothers" in order to lovingly admonish them and call them to repentance. In fact, we are required to be separate from them, not to surreptitiously declare some sort of hidden, extra-congregational unity with them by calling them "Brother" outside the context of the congregation. I simply see this nowhere in Scripture, and read quite the opposite.]

Certainly, if someone gives all indications that they are relying on Jesus, we call them Christians. But "Brotherhood" requires unity, and since we cannot see faith, confession and works are the measure Scripture commands us to apply. As a result, we simply cannot say that we share unity with Christians of heterodox confession, because the visible measure of this unity is not satisfied. Maybe we do share unity with them in the Church Universal, and maybe we don't -- only God knows. But, it seems to me, we do not have the authority to declare that we share unity with specific individuals of heterodox confession, by referring to them as our "Brothers." Thanks for restating your assumptions to make sure I grasp them. Perhaps this is (still) the crux of the matter. You are saying that we must share with others a complete and orthodox unity in our confession before we have the right or freedom to acknowledge the others as Christians or Christian brothers. [No. I thought that I was clear on this point. I am definitely not saying that we need to share confessional agreement with someone in order to refer to them as a Christian. I just stated that, above, in fact. I am, instead, reserving the use of the term "Brother" to those with whom we share confessional agreement, since use of this term requires that we first recognize a Christian as a Brother on the basis of his confession. So, I am specifically ruling out equivalency of the phrases "Christian" and "Christian Brother". The label "Christian" is based on one's profession of faith in Christ, without regard to anything else he says. The term "Christian Brother" is based on one's recognition of another Christian as a Brother on the basis of confessional agreement. Brother is a term reserved for those with whom one shares a common confession, because a common confession is the criteria required in Scripture by which we recognize a Brother.] I am saying that we have the right and freedom (and privilege) to take all aspects of their confession equally seriously as long as we can, with the result that we may refer to weak and erring professing believers as siblings in Christ unless there is evidence to the contrary. [Again, apparently an "openly heterodox confession" is not evidence to the contrary? I have no basis by which to recognize anyone as a sibling in Christ, since I cannot see his faith! Scripture only provides confession and works as such a measure, and only provides the criteria of full agreement! Show me in the Bible where this is not the case!] To use your words, I believe "the visible measure of this unity" is sufficient to affirm a Christian fellowship even though it may not be sufficient to express this in church fellowship (joint worship, prayer, etc.). [I don't see this anywhere in Scripture. First, the only place in Scripture where we are given criteria for the recognition of "Brothers" is in the context of the congregation, i.e., the Visible Church. Second, to identify "Brothers" outside the context of the congregation simply does not make sense. The Bible defines "Brother" as those who share full agreement (show me where this is not the case). By the declaration of Christ, any two or more Christians who share such agreement constitutes a congregation, thus their association under this agreement falls within the context of the Visible Church, and the criteria of "Church Fellowship" applies. This is why I have, up to this point, seen the distinction of "Christian Fellowship" from "Church Fellowship" as only descriptive terminology referring to the relative imperfection of Fellowship standards among individuals versus among congregations. They are not two distinct systems of recognizing Brothers and of associating with them under this recognition. Frankly, at this point, these terms are proving to be the cause of far to much confusion, and in my growing opinion, abuse. They are not useful and should be dropped.]

In short, and to return to E. Schaller's essay, I see his point as this: to recognize someone as a “Christian Brother” is at the same time to declare Fellowship with him. Thank you for continuing to bear with me in my confusion. I look forward to your response. Again, you are understanding "Fellowship" as both Christian fellowship (membership in the Brotherhood, or Una Sancta) and church fellowship (joint expressions of doctrinal unity) as inseparable and all-or-nothing in our dealings with others. I am not convinced that this is what Schaller meant and do not believe subsequent church fathers endorsed such an idea. [If Christian Fellowship is recognition of another person in the Una Sancta, I can only do so, definitively, on the basis of his faith. I cannot see another person's faith. The point of Schaller's essay is that neither individuals nor churches are free to assume the faith of another Christian apart from recognizing them as Brothers on the basis of full confessional agreement. Certainly, he is discussing what the author would call "Church Fellowship," but Schaller steps out of this context in several places and directly addresses individuals and who they recognize as Brothers, whether on their own or in the context of the congregation, and makes it plain that there is no difference: Brothers in either context are recognized by the same criteria, and Fellowship standards are what describe their association under this recognition. This is what a close reading of E. Schaller reveals, it is what I have learned in my study from the Scriptures, and is the reason for my having brought up this line of questioning.]


My Pastor did take this issue seriously. He shared it with several of his family members, who are WELS clergymen. He escalated it to the Seminary, being careful to avoid the author of this Q&A response (he wouldn't tell me who it was) and to avoid Bivens (he didn't tell me why, but I can guess). The men he spoke with at the Seminary (he wouldn't tell me who they were, either) indicated that the author's response is “out in no-man's land,” that his use of the anecdotal 1 Corinthians reference does not apply since "heterodox congregations" didn't exist at the time. There was no such thing – you were a Christian congregation, or you weren't Christian (of course, I think that by the time John wrote Revelation, we can say that heterodox congregations existed, as Jesus identifies a number of them for us...). As my Pastor explained his discussions to me, I could see the look of extreme disappointment on his face, and hear it in his voice. I think some of the Pastors he spoke with defended the author of the response, and several didn't know what to think. At the end of our conversation, he said with exasperation, "I'm just a parish pastor. I don't know what else to do or say."

We want so much to believe in our own orthodoxy without measuring it, and when it comes time to measure it, when the truth becomes obvious that we are not united, so many want to view the disunity through cow-eyes. They are orthodox, they have to be... I must misunderstand them... They must be speaking too deeply for me...

The sermon I reviewed on Ichabod is an example of a sharp and significant departure from WELS and Scripture's teaching on Church Fellowship. It embraces a "Fundamental Doctrines" threshold of Fellowship, and a unionistic regard for who we recognize as "Brothers" in the Faith. But can we say that such sentiments have originated with the leadership of Grace Lutheran Church in dowtown Milwaukee? Or has this descended to them, and other parishes, from higher up, from those whose job it is to protect pure teaching for the entire Synod, train our workers, and disseminate sound teaching to us? Given that we have WELS pastors leading ministries publicly confessing LCMS doctrine (i.e., Rev. Jeske and Time of Grace, read here, here, here and here), that we have WELS parishes which have publicly become ministry extensions of Purpose Driven Church and Willow Creek Association, given that the worship practice of a number of our congregations has been given over entirely to heterodox priorities, we must gouge-out our cow-eyes and begin to see words and actions as they lie naked before us.

<-- The Course of Error in the Church (Krauth/Kretzmann)