The Course of Error in the Church

Several months ago, over on Bailing Water, the characterization of Confessional Crisis was made in reference to the challenges facing the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), and Confessional Lutheranism in general, as a result of decades of pressure from the Church Growth Movement (CGM). Prior to this, in August 2008, Rev. Peter Berg (LCMS, formerly WELS) commented in a post on Bailing Water, stating, "Missouri, for all its problems, at least has a sizeable Confessional movement. While Wisconsin has plenty of conservative pastors I could probably count the confessional pastors on two hands. Most of these men have been marginalized or are lying low." At the time, I thought that the two were essentially synonymous. They are not. What Rev. Berg succeeded in doing was to show that there is a growing divergence of conservative from confessional influences in Confessional Lutheranism.

Thinking about this distinction, and investigating its consequences, it became clear that a separation of conservatism from confessionalism is destructive of Lutheranism and of the Reformation. Indeed, without the Confessional Principle, conservatism lacks reference and falls into uncertainty. C.P. Krauth says of true conservatism:

That some form of Christianity is to be the religion of the world, is not only an assured fact to the believer in Revelation, but must be regarded as probable, even in the judgment which is formed on purely natural evidence. Next in transcendent importance to that fact, and beyond it in present interest, as a question relatively undecided, is the question, What form of Christianity is to conquer the world? Shall it be the form in which Christianity now exists, the form of intermingling and of division, of internal separation and warfare? Is the territory of Christendom forever to be divided between antagonistic communions, or occupied by them conjointly? Shall there be to the end of time the Greek, the Roman, the Protestant churches, the sects, and the heretical bodies? Or shall one or other of these specific forms lift itself above the tangled mass, and impose order on chaos? Or shall a form yet unrevealed prove the church of the future?

...The history of Christianity, in common with all genuine history, moves under the influence of two generic ideas: the conservative, which desires to secure the present by fidelity to the results of the past: the progressive, which looks out, in hope, to a better future. Reformation is the great harmonizer of the two principles. Corresponding with Conservatism, Reformation, and Progress are three generic types of Christianity; and under these genera the species are but shades, modifications, or combinations, as all hues arise from three primary colors. Conservatism without Progress produces the Romish and Greek type of the Church. Progress with out Conservatism runs into Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism. Reformation is antithetical both to passive persistence in wrong or passive endurance of it, and to Revolution as a mode of relieving wrong. Conservatism is opposed to Radicalism both in the estimate of wrong and the mode of getting rid of it. Radicalism errs in two respects: in its precipitance it often mistakes wheat for tares, and its eradication is so hasty and violent that often when it plucks up tares it brings the wheat with them. Sober judgment and sober means characterize Conservatism. Reformation and Conservatism really involve each other. That which claims to be Reformatory, yet is not Conservative, is Sectarian; that which claims to be Conservative, and is not Reformatory, is Stagnation and Corruption. True Catholicity is Conservatism, but Protestantism is Reformatory; and these two are complementary, not antagonistic. The Church problem is to attain a Protestant Catholicity or Catholic Protestantism. This is the end and aim of Conservative Reformation.

Reformation is the means by which Conservatism of the good that is, and progress to the good yet to be won, is secured. Over against the stagnation of an isolated Conservatism, the Church is to hold Reformation as the instrument of progress. Over against the abuses of a separatistic and one-sided progressiveness, she is to see to it that her Reformation maintains that due reverence for history, that sobriety of tone, that patience of spirit, and that moderation of manner, which are involved in Conservatism. The good that has been is necessary to the safety of the good that is to be. There are to be no absolutely fresh starts. If the foundation were removed, the true course would not be to make a new one, but to find the old one, and lay it again.

Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. (from the Preface, pp. vii-viii).

Krauth goes on in Chapter IV of his work, The Conservative Reformation, to develop the point -- and to climax with it in Chapter V -- that the Confessional Principle is that of the Conservative Reformation and of true Lutheranism. Confessionalism and Conservatism must remain inseparable. Separated, they lead to the imbalance of Progressivism -- which is Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism.

So, how is it that error is introduced, and Progressive imbalance manifest? A few months after Rev. Berg's comments on Bailing Water, I posted the following, from near the end of Chapter V of C.P Krauth's Conservative Reformation (and I quote from BW with some minor revision):

Years ago, I read an essay by Dr. P.E. Kretzmann: Fundamental and Non-fundamental Doctrines — and Church Fellowship. In this article, Dr. Kretzmann quotes from Dr. C.P. Krauth regarding the "Course of Error in the Church." It was this quote that inspired me to find a copy of Krauth's Conservative Reformation and it's Theology, and to read it (this was before CPH started reprinting it). This is the quote:


When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages in its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: 'You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; let us alone, we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.' Indulged in for this time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the Church. Truth and error are two coordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them. From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their repudiation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it.

Krauth, C.P. (1871). The Conservative Reformation and its Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. (pp. 195-196).


This is keen insight from a man who witnessed the decline of Lutheranism first hand, who had the courage to publicly fight against the error which was causing it, and to work toward unity. His effort not only made him a celebrated figure of his time, but a largely credible one as well.

Making application to our own time, advocates of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) were asking for toleration two decades ago, and, apparently through political maneuvering, exploitation of "Brotherly indulgence," and other tactics, they were granted it. Some in our midst are still asking for toleration. Strident agents of "change," it seems, are long past asking for toleration, however. They are demanding equivalency. It seems obvious that they intend to run a parallel church before moving to Krauth's final step of asserting supremacy. This is, after all, the definition, of "change."

But, while Krauth was addressing doctrine, are we not, in our case, often looking at Lutheran practice? Yes and No. We are rightly concerned with practice as it is a reflection of what we Confess, and we see evidence of doctrinal error in the practice of the CGM crowd. When those who confess doctrinal unity with us engage in practice that is confusing or offensive, we have every right to demand of them an explanation, and they have every obligation to render one. Drawing the CGM crowd into explanation of their practice, more and more, it seems, exposes their divergence from us and their disregard for anything more than a fundamentally rhetorical unity. So, while we take our queue from confusing and offensive practices endorsed by CGM advocates, our concern is Confessional integrity.

As I continue to read and study, I am growing convinced that earlier discussions on this point are correct: WELS is facing a Confessional crisis. While advocates of the Church Growth Movement (CGM) would have us bypass the Confessions entirely, or merely give them short-shrift, this crisis will be resolved, and unity confirmed, only by an appeal to our common Lutheran Confession.

So, for those of my fellow laymen who are heading off the the WELS 2009 Convention the week of July 27, remember Krauth's admonishment regarding the Course of Error in the Church, above. Remember the Confessional Principle and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. Remember the need to maintain Unity under these Confessions; and in this regard, remember the connection of Doctrine to Practice. Understand that Lutheranism has been tortured long enough by the Church Growth Movement, and by those who desire to enculturate the Church according to the criteria of secular pop-culture, and understand that Brotherly forbearance must have some point of termination..

What is Going on in WELS? (Unionism/Church Fellowship) -->

<-- Previous Quotes from Krauth, Schmauk and Benze