“Synod Sunday” in the WELS: Mission Closings, Membership Declines, and How the Gospel can Help

The Gospel used as Law to produce guilt and motivate righteous works. "Jesus has done this for you, now you must do that for Him!"

 

I just arrived home from a truly mournful Sunday morning. If it weren’t for the Liturgy, there would have been no spiritual profit in the exercise, at all. Once a year in the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran synod (WELS), we endure what is called “Walking Together” or “Synod” Sunday – a day which should be one of celebrating our mutual Confession and the work we do together in the context of that Confession (i.e., the Lutheran Confessions as expressed in the Book of Concord, for those Lutherans under the mistaken impression that we merely confess the Bible, alongside innumerable non-confessional non-denominational Christians), but which has become a day of marketing the Synod to its members and of using Law to coerce financial contributions and using the anxiety it creates to motivate “outreach activities,” in order to “grow the Synod.” I’m sure that many church bodies in America have much the same sort of “day” which they inflict upon their own members and visitors. In our case, the Office of Church Growth, at Synod headquarters, distributed prayers, sermon outlines, and videos, to accompany the mandate of “Synod Sunday.” It was Church Growth schlock from start to finish.

The unsavory fact is, my own good and faithful pastor – a fine preacher and Confessional fellow – somehow got suckered into delivering this “Synod Sunday” Church Growth sermon, which prepared the congregation for a viewing of the accompanying post-service “Synod Sunday” video, replete with the heart rending boo-hoo’ing of missionaries in New York who are facing an uncertain future in their Vocation. I’m sure that hundreds of other fine pastors in our Synod were duped into preaching the same thing.

The Message of the Law: Are you doing everything to reach the lost?
That was the question which served as the climax of today’s “Synod Sunday” sermon. It was accompanied with a full battery statistics lamenting a decrease in giving, the loss of missions due to lack of funding, and the decrease in Synod membership supposedly as a consequence of bankrupt and closing missions. A Law imperative, hardly Gospel, it was used as the basis for suggesting that the deep dark sinner-in-the-pew reexamine how much he gives, whether his budget priorities maximize the ability of the congregation to reach out with the Gospel, and whether he himself “at all times and in every situation” is maximizing opportunities to share the Gospel. The organization is suffering uncertainty, and the sinner in the pew, of course, is the culprit – the unfailing failure who, because he can’t do “everything” as he should, is the cause of organizational distress.

Everything? Really?
Everything? Let’s examine the impossibility of even considering this question. It’s simple.

1. Hell will be populated. Vastly populated. We know this because the Bible is clear on this fact: The LORD is known by the judgment which He executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his hands... The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. (Ps. 9:16-17; cf. Re. 20:12-15 and elsewhere). The wicked, on account of their work, shall be cast into hell. “Everything” a person can think to do will not change this fact, neither for himself, nor for others. As a result, the Christian burdened with doing “everything” has no way of measuring if “everything” has been done in any given case to bring the lost to faith in the promises of Christ, or if “something more” will keep the lost out of hell.
   
   Moreover, no individual, no congregation, is guaranteed a harvest of any measurable sort. How would anyone know if “everything” has been done or not? No one can know, since unbelief abounds, since those in unbelief are still under sin (Ro. 1:18-25, 28-32; 3:9-10; Ga. 3:22), and since we know that there are those still in unbelief who suffer death and are lost for eternity as a result. If the task is ours, we can only conclude that we have not done “everything.” The question can only be answered in the negative. Thus, directing the thoughts of an individual to the question of whether he has done “everything” is not a question asked to provoke anything other than guilt – it makes the fate of the lost the fault of the imperfect evangelist, rather than the unbeliever’s own obstinacy, and places the impossible task of the Holy Spirit on the shoulders of the weak Christian, who is neither equipped nor expected to carry out His work.


2. Predestination is a reality. That’s right, we Lutherans believe in predestination (Ep. 1:3-14; Ro. 8:28-30). No one will go to hell, who, if only the guilt-laden Lutheran could have “done a little more” (or done “everything,” for that matter), would have otherwise gone to heaven. Everyone who is supposed to come to faith, and stay in faith, will come to faith – the Holy Spirit will see to it. Under the doctrine of Predestination, there is no cause for guilt whatsoever, if the individual has not done “everything” (whatever that is) to save the lost. None. After all, the Lutheran does not save the lost. The Holy Spirit does, through, and only through, the Lutheran's faithful use of the Means of Grace. It is impossible for the Lutheran to do “everything,” even to do anything, that contributes to his own salvation or the salvation of others. What’s more, the Holy Spirit does everything, and will do everything necessary to call those whom He foreknew into faith and to life everlasting.
   
   Arminians and others who reject the teaching of Divine Monergism, do not believe in the doctrine of Predestination. They object to the teaching of Total Depravity and require the ascent of man’s will to God’s gracious offer of forgiveness, life, and salvation through faith. Believers among them have the Gospel, and having it, the burden is theirs to share it. Under such teaching, the Gospel is shaped into a hammer, to beat the poor Christian into the obligation of sharing the Gospel. Love, no doubt, is part of this effort, but anxiety over the lost and guilt associated with the burden of “doing everything” to save them accompanies this love. By allowing themselves to fall under the influence of non-monergistic influences, our own Office of Church Growth seems intent upon ladling the same sort of guilt and anxiety on the members of our Synod, to work together, not for the truth, not really for the sake of the Gospel, but ultimately for the health of the organization.

“Walking Together” is principally not about sharing the Gospel, together, anyway
It is principally about the task of keeping the Gospel pure, together. The unfortunate thing about the entire tragedy of the “Synod Sunday” Church Growth program this morning is that only a minor aspect of one word in the phrase “Walking Together” was emphasized – the result of having the pure Word, of working to keep the Word pure despite the onslaught of heterodoxy that surrounds us, of being under the teaching of the pure Word, of benefiting from the Holy Spirit’s work through the pure word, such that individuals are motivated, not by anxiety, fear and guilt, but by Joy and Gratitude for what is their’s in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to share the Gospel. What was emphasized today was only the final result of "walking" in “togetherness”: sharing the Gospel. Being a horribly incomplete picture of “Walking Together,” it was grossly out of balance with what “Walking Together” really encompasses. Moreover, it was a calculated imbalance to coerce action in support of the Synod as an organization.

I repeat: regarding our supposed “Togetherness,” there was no mention of our Confessions, of our confessional Unity, of having pure doctrine nor of keeping it pure; there was no distinction given to our “togetherness” with respect to the “otherness” of the heterodox: and regarding our “walking” within this “togetherness,” again, there was no mention of keeping the word pure, no attention given to the preaching of this Word among our own, little to no mention of the role and work of the Holy Spirit through such use of the Means of Grace, no mention given to the consequent working of the Holy Spirit in the individual Christian, and no mention given to the internal motivation that the Gospel promises supply, according to the gifts one has been given. Only the result of all this was dwelt upon: sharing the Gospel. Not only was the entire “Synod Sunday” Church Growth program imbalanced and inadequate in its explanation of “Walking Together,” it was misleading and false, it twisted Gospel Joy into an obligation of Law, and laid the burden of this Law, without Gospel remedy, on the shoulders of the poor Christian in the pew.

Church Workers, and Uncertainty in One’s Vocation
In his commentary on the Book of Genesis, Luther states regarding the distinction of Vocations:

Because they persecute the Word, they are the enemies of faith. Shun them, and follow in the footsteps of the saintly men, who did not shrink from being associated with ordinary people and had no regard for their own ease but submitted to the common hardships of this life and had wives and families whom they supported by their diligence and labor, just as all sensible heads of households are commonly wont to do, even among the heathen.

“But are these ordinary works?” you will ask. Nevertheless, they are commended by Holy Scripture, which bears witness that man was created for the duties of the household and of the state. Hence these ordinary works are God’s order. What more glorious commendation are you asking for, or what clearer testimony? Hence when a maid milks the cows or a hired man hoes the field – provided that they are believers, namely, that they conclude that this kind of life is pleasing to God and was instituted by God – they serve God more than all the monks and nuns, who cannot be sure about their kind of life. Therefore set these accounts against the traditions and canons of men; for here there is the testimony of the Holy Spirit, who says of His saints that they lived in the faith, the Word, and the confession but were like the rest of men in all other respects. Thus Paul says to the heathen (cf. Acts 14:15): “We are men just like you”; that is, we are similarly affected. We grieve when there is trouble, and we rejoice if our affairs prosper in accordance with our way of thinking.

I impress these facts frequently and gladly, and I know that this is not done without fruit. Evidently this false notion is so deeply fixed in the hearts of all men that we admire only what is rare, strange, and unnatural. Let us rather remain pupils of the Holy Spirit and of Scripture, and let us imitate the lives and the deeds of those whom Scripture praises and presents as examples. Let us not bother about the fact that in accordance with a special call Abraham was a warrior and killed four kings. He did this by a special command. When God wants you to do something of that sort, he will give you a command to that effect, not indeed from heaven through angels but through the constituted authority. If this does not happen, refrain from extraordinary deeds, and keep in mind Abraham in his calling as head of the household. Even if, as the papists maintain, you do works of the laity, these are nevertheless truly spiritual, because of faith and the Word. (LW Vol. 3, pg. 321)

As we are all Priests in the Order of the Universal Priesthood of all Believers, the Vocation of the missionary is no more spiritual or necessary than that of the “layman.” In point of fact, Luther is said to have abolished the laity. All Christians are Priests, some serving in one capacity, others in another capacity, many in more than one capacity. Those with Divine Call are those chosen by God, through the congregation, to a particular Vocation on behalf of the Church.

Everything in this earth is transitory. Vocation is never secure. Those of us in the real world deal with this fact every day. Even union workers are getting a good taste of it these days. That we look for success “in accordance with our way of thinking” is natural, but it is a weakness of our limitations. It is further weakness to refuse to admit “failure” as it occurs “in accordance with our way of thinking.” Yet, in temporal matters, it is considered wise to recognize the end of a Vocation as it draws near – an orderly withdrawal from such tasks often eliminates unnecessary cost and disruption, and serves to position one for alternate work most efficiently. When the door is shut to us in our Vocation, it is time to move on. And it is shut for many causes. Sometimes it is financial. Sometimes it is a physical or geographical limitation. Sometimes we succumb to efforts of a competitor. Sometimes it is the result of a former friend’s betrayal. Sometimes we see it coming, other times we do not. That’s life.

In spiritual matters, however, this is not the case. The Holy Spirit never stops working – Providentially, to create situations where the Gospel message will be communicated, and Supernaturally through the Gospel message when it is communicated – and He will not leave His work undone. All those who are to come to faith, and remain in faith, will do so. No one will be left out. Though our work in a given Vocation may come to an end, the Holy Spirit’s work will continue. It is the Christian's privilege to be a part of His ongoing work, which he gladly enjoins apart from any command to do so, solely for the sake of Christ and His Gospel.

For the Christian motivated by what Christ has done for him, however, not by fear of eternal doom (whether his own or someone else’s) or anxiety wrought from unfavorable statistics, there will always be something to do, always be an opportunity to share the Gospel of Christ with others – not of necessity, but of love. We serve others for the sake of the Gospel out of love for Christ, and for no other reason. The missionaries in New York featured in todays “Synod Sunday” video may well find themselves without their current Vocation in the near future. That’s too bad, as I’m sure they love what they do there, but that ministry is not necessary in the sense that someone will be lost without their effort. The Holy Spirit will seek and find those who are lost, and He will do so through Christians who are enabled, motivated and Called to do so. No guilt should be laid on an entire body of Christians because some missionaries are no longer able to do what they like to do, as if apart from that effort we are all guilty of someone else’s eternal damnation. Those who will suffer for eternity in such a way are under sin, they are themselves guilty of their own sin, and they will have only themselves to blame when they stand before the Righteous Judge on the Last Day. Our job is not to fret about this, but to hold tenaciously to the precious gift of faith which has been given to us. Having it, we can’t help but share it.

 

 

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)

 

Thoughts and Highlights from the 2009 WELS Convention

The 60th Biennial Convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), convened Monday, July 27, adjourned today, Friday, July 31. It was held at Michigan Lutheran Seminary (MLS) in Saginaw, MI. I figured that I would offer some thoughts regarding what I think are highlights of the week:

• Full Funding of Ministerial Education and Missions
  It was reported on Wednesday that the Floor Committee on Finance had developed a Budget Option C, retaining full funding of both Missions and all four Ministerial Schools, and would be presenting that to the Convention, Thursday. I quote from an observer:
  
  I am more than happy that the floor committee on finance kept the full funding of the four ministerial education schools and the full funding of world and home missions, both with some minor exceptions in both. The delegate of the finance committee with whom I was in contact agreed well in advance of the convention that the complete ministerial education and mission budget had to be retained to the exclusion of all else. Now I just hope it passes on Thursday.
  
  Indeed, on Thursday morning, after hours of debate, the resolution to accept Option C, which sought, instead of Options A and B, to target cuts in administration, travel, and in areas that could be most easily replaced once funding became available, passed. One commenter in the budget debate stated it well (and I paraphrase): "If we lose MLS, have no illusions, we will never get it back again. The cost is too great." A prep-school is not easily replaced. The message sent by the Convention was clear: Let's have no more talk of closing schools.
  

• Synod-wide Theological Study
  Given evidence of declining theological acumen among the laity, and an apparent growth in disunity in doctrine and practice as a result, the Ad Hoc Commission recommended a Synod-wide study of Theology, to address both Doctrine and Practice. The Ad Hoc floor committee presented a resolution to accept this recommendation, and it was passed by the Convention. This study will come directly from the Seminary to the congregations. Suggested studies over the next four years includes:
  
  
  1. Efficacy of the Means of Grace (not methods)
  2. Vocation, Church, and Ministry (i.e., everyone is not a minister in the context of the congregation, but are ministers in the context of Vocation)
  3. Care of Souls (Church Discipline, dealing with error in the congregation)
  4. The Sacramental Life (not just the Gospel in the Word, but the Gospel in the Sacraments)
  
  As background, this resolution seems to follow from the January meeting of the CoP, to charge the Ad Hoc commission to study these issues, as follows:
  
  
  5.D.03 Establishment of "non-traditional" ("new style") congregations. We feel that the underpinnings of this "non-traditional" type of worship cannot be ignored. We also feel that the issue is extremely complex and will take great care to be careful to walk the "narrow Lutheran road" between legalism and ignoring and failing to admonish where practices are contrary to or a danger to the principles of gospel proclamation and the efficacy of the means of grace. We move that an ad hoc committee be convened that can study and address this issue and produce a study document that can be shared with circuits and also congregations for study and careful evaluation of practices in worship, sacraments, outreach, organization, music selection, etc. Motion carried.

• Board for Parish Services "restructuring"
  Also on Thursday, the Board for Parish Services was reduced from Board status to Council status, now reporting to the Council of Presidents (CoP). It is no longer an official area of ministry in WELS.
  
  This is a good thing. The BPS had been a real and growing concern among Confessionals in WELS, as it had been staffed over the years principally by known Church Growth advocates, had designated itself as the Board having "primary responsibility for carrying out the goals of the Synod's Mission-Objectives-Vision Statement" (according to Manthey's Fifteen Years under the MOV), and in the execution of this responsibility, had, since the early 1990's, been associated with the dissemination of CGM materials directly to WELS congregations and had directly advised WELS congregations according to CGM principles. In addition, there is currently a strong connection between the former BPS Administrators and the controversial group "Church & Change".
  
  Constitutionally and organizationally speaking, this resolution brought the functions of the former BPS under the jurisdiction of the District Presidents, who are responsible for Doctrine and Practice in their own districts, making the new Council of Parish Services accountable to the District Presidents for the materials and advice they disseminate to the congregations. In addition (as I understand it), this resolution strips authority from the CPS to issue Divine Calls to Administrators (consultants) who serve it, placing that responsibility where it belongs, with the CoP.
  
  As one elated commenter on Ichabod put it:
  
  
  Perish Services has been totally decimated. Rather than a Board with an Administrator and a Chairman and decision making power, with many sub-boards and sub-administrators, Perish Services now consists of only 3 sub-administrators who report to the Conference of Presidents and are called by the CoP.
  
  President Schroeder slapped them down for trying to go around his authority and destroyed them and their support of the CG movement. Now there's not much left of Perish Services, and what is left can't do a thing without the CoP knowing about it.
  
  Indeed, the BPS advocates complained bitterly during deliberation, especially regarding the loss of power they would suffer by being made a Council, and changes were made to accommodate their reasonable and pragmatic appeals. But in the end, the intent of the Ad Hoc committee, which recommended elimination of BPS, was honored by the Convention.
  

• President Schroeder Wallops the Church Growth Movement
  On Monday morning, setting the tone of the Convention, Synod President Mark Schroeder issued his report. The first 42 minutes, or so, were directed specifically at the Church Growth Movement (CGM) in our midst, along with Contemporary Worship (without naming these things or naming individuals), emphasizing Scripture and the Confessions, and of maintaining a unified Lutheran Identity under them. He delivers a blister-boiling spanking to advocates of CGM. IMHO, his report (at least the first 42 minutes) is well worth a congregational study. Rick, another WELS layman who maintains a blog called Light from Light, offers an excellent summary of SP Schroeder's address. So rather than duplicate his work, I'll send you to his blog (above), while providing the embedded video, below:
  
  

  The text of President Schroeder's report can be downloaded, here.

• Professor Brenner Continues the Walloping...
  If you enjoyed SP Schroeder's Report on Monday, you'll certainly enjoy Professor Brenner's Convention Essay, Christ's Love: The efficacy and power of the Means of Grace, that was given Tuesday morning (click this link to view his presentation). It was the first of two Convention Essays covering the Synod theme, Christ's Love, Our Calling. The undercurrent of this entire Convention, from the standpoint of its execution, very strongly seems to address the errors of CGM, which have been creeping in over the past three decades. Following Schroeder's rather direct walloping of CGM positions on Monday, Brenner continues this walloping in his Essay. Here are some brief summary notes:
  
  

  The text of Professor Brenner's essay can be downloaded, here.

  
  
  • The Holy Spirit does not work immediately, but mediately, that is, through Means.
  • No one will be saved apart from the use of the external Word -- the Word spoken or read.
  • The preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments are the only Means through which one can come to faith and remain in faith.
  • The Means are always and exclusively efficacious, even though the Holy Spirit may be resisted, whether we see evidence of their working or not. This is how God works, mediately. When God works immediately (i.e., Creation of the World), He cannot be resisted.
  • Sometimes the proclamation of God's Word leads to visible decline in numbers. Examples: Elijah's flight (he thought he was the only one left) and Jesus' abandonment by all but the Twelve as a result of his hard teaching. Sometimes the proclamation of the Word brings about dramatic increase. Example: Pentecost, and the Baptism of 3000 in one day. Faithfulness to the Word of God, and maintaining the centrality of the Means of Grace, not an increase in number, is the measure of success for Lutherans.
  
  This gets us about halfway through the Essay. Thesis 8 of Brenner's Essay begins at about 44 min:
  
  
  • The Means of Grace cannot be made to be more effective by anything that we do (including outreach programs, contemporary worship, blah blah, etc.)
  • In a culture of American pragmatism, where Advertising, Marketing, and Business Models are seen to be the means to success, Christians are tempted to think that the Gospel is a product to sell, rather than a powerful message to be proclaimed. Sectarians confuse these methods with means.
  • "Does it work?" is not the question a Lutheran asks regarding methods.
  • The Means of Grace work supernaturally, but not magically. The Word must be correctly handled, the Sacraments rightly administered. This requires training.
  
  Finally, after the Essay, from the Q&A section, at about 88min, listen particularly to the final two questions:
  
  
  • What do you say about selling a specific culture of the congregation in order get visitors, in order that they may hear the Word and benefit from the Means of Grace? Answer: Advertising to inform the community where you're located is one thing, other than that, we are not selling anything!
  • Likewise, the last question/statement by Rev. John Bucholz: When faithful Word and Sacrament congregations struggle to grow in the face of sectarian neighbors whose numbers seem to skyrocket, we are tempted to ask, "What are they doing?" Don't. The Means, and only the Means, are central.

• Rev. Jonathan Schroeder raises even more Blisters...
  Finally, on Wednesday morning, Rev. Jonathan Schroeder, a known and vocal advocate of Confessional Worship in the WELS, presented his Essay: Our Calling: Christian Vocation and the Ministry of the Gospel. This was a fabulous essay, and I supply my copius notes, from the video presentation, below:
  
  

  The text of Rev. Jonathan Schroeder's essay can be downloaded, here (for part one) and here (for part two).

  
  
  Our Calling before God (to be His Child):
  
  • Calling is not about what we do, but about what God gives us.
  • Our Calling comes through Means
  • Lutherans rely on the Means of Grace in our Outreach and "Inreach" because the Word and Sacraments are the only tools that the Holy Spirit has given His Church to open the heart of man.
  • No program or method or personality can work faith in sinful man's heart. Only the Holy Spirit through the Gospel can do this.
  • The Call is Universal and Efficacious
  • Only the Call, which is issued only through His Means, induces a response [not methods].
  
  Our Calling before the World (to be His Mask) -- the "Doctrine of Vocation":
  
  (Summary)
  The false teaching of works-righteousness in the Roman Church taught that those who devote their lives to Good Works in the name of the Church are by definition closer to God. And those who do Good Works beyond those expected of every Christian must be even better. Sacred life was better life, in God's eyes, that Secular life. At the time of the Reformation, only Monks, Nuns, and Priests had "Vocation" or "Calling." The Roman Church taught falsely that their lives were more Godly and therefore more valuable.
  
  [Note: We see this teaching at work today in the false ideas used to coerce "programs," or to compare individuals and congregations by "Outreach" or relative involvement: i.e., certainly, folks who give themselves to such service are more Godly...]
  
  But this is not Lutheran. In returning the biblical Doctrine of Justification to the Church, the question of how man becomes righteous before God also changed the meaning of Vocation. Only the righteousness of Christ makes us righteous before God. Thus, being saved by Grace Alone, man's Vocation is a Calling to a life of Sanctification within his Divinely assigned sphere of life. There is no need to be dedicated to a life of Sacred Service before God in the Church (i.e., in modern Evangelical terms, no need to quit your job and start a Ministry in order to serve God better). As St. Paul says, "stay in the Calling in which you were called." All Vocations are equal in God's eyes. All are Priests. All have a Calling. All have been Called. All are Called to Good Works before the World in the context of Vocation, not to get to heaven, but because that is where they are going.
  
  
  • Questions regarding purpose and dignity (i.e., referring to "Purpose Driven" drivel) exist because of a lack of Calling (i.e., Vocation is not being taught, so the false teachings of "purpose-driven-ism" take its place). Life without God has no purpose (meaning that the man without God must go find purpose, and that those who are compelled to go find it, are not fully resting in His objective promises...). But with God, all of Life has purpose -- the same purpose.
  
  Our Calling for the World (to be His Church):
  
  • The Church is a Chosen People, a body of Priests and Kings. The calling or purpose of the Church is to declare the praises of Him Who called them out of darkness into His wonderful light; that is, to Herald or to "publish abroad" the excellence of His achievements. God's intent is that through the Church His manifold wisdom should be made known unto the world.
  • The Church is the mouth of God (in distinction to individual Christians, who are the mask of God in their Vocation).
  • Through the Church and the Office of the Holy Ministry, God deigned to let humanity participate in His plan of Salvation.
  • Our Calling (or "purpose") as a Synod is no different than that of the Church:
    
    To Keep the Word (pure) for the World
    To Share the Word with the World
    -or-
    
    to extend and conserve the True doctrine of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
  • We cannot do one at the expense of the other; we cannot do one and leave the other undone. We keep the Word that we might share it, we share the Word that others may join us in preserving it. They feed each other.
  
  This gets us to about minute 56, where direct application to WELS really begins with the Muelhauser story:
  
  
  • Muelhauser had serious outreach credibility, having preached his way across Europe, suffered persecution, was imprisoned, and yet continued preaching, and was eventually sent to the New World in the name of the Gospel.
  • Such is, indeed, our heritage and part of our culture in WELS.
  • But this is not our priority: a motto of Outreach over everything misses the dual directives in the Church's Calling.
  • While Muelhauser certainly thought of himself as a Lutheran, he did not think of his Confession as binding on him or his Church (Lutheran CGM advocates seem to think the same thing). His fault is not that he prioritized that sharing of the Word, but that he did so at the expense of Doctrine. [Muelhauser was a Pietist, and a willing Unionist, who "saw the Confessions as nothing but paper fences"]. Bading and Hoenecke corrected this, subsequently leading the WELS into Confessionalism.
  • Early on, because of Muelhauser's unionism and heterodoxy, Bading approached the Missouri Synod regarding membership with them instead, but was encourage by them to stay in the WELS, to raise the standard of Doctrine and Practice in our Synod. This is exactly what happened, as our dedication to Confessionalism, under the eventual leadership of Bading and Hoenecke, rose to that of Missions. Under Bading, Koehler, and Rheim, the Northwestern Conference of our Synod was responsible for the establishment and growth of Confessionalism in our Synod [hence, the names "Northwestern College" and "Northwestern Lutheran." How interesting it is that these names were abandoned under the recent leadership of CGM advocates, in favor of names reflecting a "Muelhauserian Outreachiness"...].
  • Most significantly, this turn to Confessional Lutheranism meant that the Synod would cease unionistic practrices with the Reformed [while "Muelhauserian Outreachiness" would have us worship with Andy Stanley and join groups like the Willow Creek Association (Search page for Lutheran) or the PurposeDrivenChurch (choose WELS as Denomination)].
  • The reason we are a Confessional Lutheran Church Body is because our Calling as the Church of God is "to go and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing and teaching them to obey everything he has commanded us." Mission zeal for going does not give license to fail to teach.
  • The early Synod sought to establish Schools because they realized that as Confessional Lutherans they needed more than just workers for the harvest field, they needed Confessional Lutheran workers. A new commitment to being a Confessional Lutheran church led them to eventually abandon the German Mission Societies that provided workers, Gratis, for a system that would cost the Synod a great deal of money, but would provide the right kind for workers for the mission field.
  • The outside attacks calling attention to the motley character of the Synod's clergy in their practice gave emphasis to the project of establishing a ministerial education program. The Synod's growing commitment to the Confessions engendered a commitment to Ministerial Education. Confessional commitment means commitment to training Confessional Lutheran workers because our calling to both share the Word and keep the Word. They needed to be approved to rightly handle the Word of Truth.
  • The experience of "Going and Growing" (a recent CGM slogan in the WELS) taught our fathers the importance of a Ministerial Education system, that it was the best way to train those workers to fulfill both directives of the Church's Calling.
  • The Church that goes to the entire World but does not teach everything God has commanded us, fails Jesus' litmus test for discipleship, "If you hold to my teachings you are really my disciples." Mission zeal without sound doctrine is mission work that is slowly loosing hold of the one tool that opens hearts. No methods, no programs, no people skills can convert sinful man, only the Word of God. Mission zeal without doctrine is destined to falter.
  
  Listen to comments from Rev. John Bucholz from Tempe, Arizona @~80:30: "I really appreciated your thought ...how does God deal with us by His Holy Spirit through the Gospel? He slays us ...One way or the other He's either going to kill me eternally in Hell, or He is going to kill me in Baptism and raise me a new creature... [addressing a misunderstanding or misapplication of Vocation, Bucholz continues] When I say to somebody in my congregation, 'I'd like you to serve the Lord by serving on Church Council,' or 'I would like you to serve the Lord by mowing the lawn at Church,' or 'getting involved in the ministry of setting up chairs,' what I have really expressed is a flawed understanding of Christian Vocation. And I think that we need to be very careful that we don't fall into the trap of thinking that doing something 'churchy' or doing something at the congregation is serving the Lord, or that doing evangelism is serving the Lord, when in fact the mother changing a child's diaper or putting food on the table, or a man who goes to work, and works nine-to-five [Ja! If only!] to bring home the bacon for his family -- all of those things are an expression of the Vocation that we have been given. I think that we need to strengthen and reinforce that."
  
  
  

 

2009 Convention of the Wisconsin Ev. Lutheran Synod (WELS)

The 60th Biennial Convention of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) convened today (Monday, July 27), and is scheduled to adjourn Friday, July 31. It is being held at Michigan Lutheran Seminary in Saginaw, MI. As all eyes among us are fixed on Saginaw this week, I will not be posting much this week, if at all.

Of major concern is the future of our Synod's ministerial education system. In addition to over 300 Lutheran Elementary Schools (LESes) and around 25 Area Lutheran High Schools (ALHSes) run by congregations throughout our Synod, the Synod proper runs two prep-schools (Michigan Lutheran Seminary (MLS) and Luther Preparatory School (LPS)), one ministerial college (Martin Luther College (MLC)), and one theological seminary (Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary (WLS)), solely for the purpose of training future called workers.

The WELS is the last Lutheran church body in America to support a prep-school and ministerial college system, and it is precisely this system which is in jeopardy. Current economic conditions, reportedly in combination with two decades of diverting funds away from ministerial education into missions (much of which seems to have been traced to optimistic spending according to principles of the Church Growth Movement), has left our current ministerial education system financially unsustainable. The immediate future of MLS will be decided at this years' convention.

But not unrelated to the immediate future of MLS is the near and long-term future of MLC, a significant proportion of whose student body comes from MLS, and thus of our Synod's future doctrinal integrity, stability, and unity, resulting from the loss of our prep-school(s) and possibly our ministerial college.

Some propose that our ALHSes can take up the slack, but this is ignorant in my opinion. Our ALHSes are mostly progressive/constructivist schools that prepare students for secular college and careers, which (by my limited observation and discussions) essentially rest on the pedagogical foundations of Dewey (Naturalism/Progressivism) and, in the case of modern epistemological learning theories, an ideological foundation rooted in Post-modernism (Constructivism). This follows the trend observed in schools of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), which prior to WW II provided an exclusively Classical education to all students -- and this despite Dewey's "Educational Revolution" of the early 20th Century. Following WWII, however (and for as yet unexplored reasons, I gather), LCMS schools, and apparently following them, those of the WELS, slowly abandoned the Classical models that served Western Civilization and the Church for so long, until, by the mid-70's, Synod teachers were being prepared according to almost exclusively Progressivist models.

Today especially, the mission of the prep-schools is incongruent with the mission of the ALHSes, as is the sort of education required of a future pastor with respect to what is offered by the ALHSes. Confessional Lutheran Pastors require a Classical, not a Progressivist, education. While technically not classical schools, our prep-schools, with their emphasis on language and the Humanities, approach this ideal, which prepares future pastors from the foundation of Western Civilization, having itself found much of its life and longevity from the Church -- from two-and-a-half millenia of devotional creativity and intellectual excellence, compounded. Indeed, as intimated by C.P. Krauth (in Ch. IV of his Conservative Reformation), when he describes the church catholic as the outflowing of 2000 years of Christian faith and practice into the present, and as that which projects it into the future, the utter necessity of well-educated Pastors, fully trained in the Great Western Tradition (read, Classical Education), is fundamental and paramount; those without such rigorous training are not fit to be Pastors, because they are incapable of effective catholicity.

It is simply ridiculous, in my opinion, to presume that a Classical preparation can be provided in Progressivist schools, in the context of a "Pastor's Track;" more so is the notion that a prep-school education provided in two schools can be reproduced over 25 times in the ALHSes at a cost savings, while at the same time maintaining consistency and integrity. The substantial difference in Classical pedagogics, from those of modern Progressivism and Constructivism, makes the "shared areas of content" between schools separated by these educational paradigms impossible to reconcile -- both in terms of their curricular requirements as well as the the preparation and experience required of their teachers. The loss of the prep-schools, in my opinion, would, in this day and age of plummeting educational standards, be catastrophic.

The pragmatic financial concern related to our ministerial education system is accompanied by other financial concerns, such as the reduction of Synod staff, the recall of missionaries, and the defunding of mission congregations. The undercurrent to all of this, if I read it correctly, is realizing the damage wrought by ~30 years of influence from the Church Growth Movement in our Synod, and resulting concerns regarding the integrity of our Synod's unity in doctrine and practice.

In addition to the Convention Website, the convention can be viewed live, here. Also, an excellent overview of the issues can be found on Light from Light, a blog maintained by another WELS layman. In addition, Ichabod has been (and will continue to be?) hosting daily threads on the Convention, which I intend to follow, as time permits. If the Ichabod threads do not continue, at least read the documents he has collected under the "WELS 2009 Convention Packet" heading on the left column, especially those documents beginning with the "Koeplin Paper" through item six "About the Corky Koeplin Essay" for a broader and historical view of some of the issues being faced today.