Tag: Synod

Some appropriate questions have been asked by a reader of Norman’s Demesne about the controversy in the ELS. I’ll try to address the first one here, as briefly as I can.

What is the doctrinal point at issue? The 2005 doctrinal statement says much that is good, but some of its assertions are supported by their “proof texts” in a way that we haven’t seen or used before, to my knowledge.

Consider Martin Luther’s famous speech at Worms. He stated (from Wikipedia), “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God.” For Luther, the only norm of doctrine was Scripture and “plain reason.”

Sometimes our doctrine is not explicitly written out in scripture, just the way we state it in our dogmatics textbooks or catechism classes. How do we know that these statements are true? By what Luther called “plain reason.” He was speaking of deductive logic. Simply put, it allows us to make conclusions about things that scripture does not say explicitly, based upon what it does say explicitly. For example, Deuteronomy 6:4 says that there is only one God. Other places, such as Matthew 28:19, attribute divine character to three persons, while maintaining unity between them. “Plain reason” leads us to deduce that God is “trinity:” three persons in one essence.

The ELS doctrinal statement, based upon texts like Ephesians 4:11, 1 Corinthians 12:5 & 28, Philippians 1:1, and 1 Timothy 3:8, asserts, according to the ELS President’s explanation, that God has instituted every office that the Church may use for teaching His Word or administering His sacraments. Some ELS pastors have disagreed with this conclusion, especially when it is made on the basis of these passages. The passages do not explicitly support the conclusion of the ELS doctrinal statement.

The question at issue is this: does the doctrinal statement’s support of this assertion (and others) qualify as “plain reason?” If the assertions are supported by scripture and “plain reason,” then we must accept them. If they are not, then we must not say that they are part of God’s doctrine.

The problem with the assertions in controversy is that they do not use deductive logic. Instead, they infer what they say from the cited scripture verses using inductive logic. If the logic is in fact deductive, then those who defend the assertions will have to state their premises, defend them if necessary, and show how they inevitably lead to the controversial assertions in the doctrinal statement. Lutherans do not use inductive logic as the primary support for their doctrinal assertions. (Perhaps that statement is at the center of the controversy.)

As I understand it, the logic of the doctrinal statement (according to the explanation of the synod president) runs as follows:

• Several titles are given in scripture for those who publicly teach God’s Word and/or administer the sacraments.
• None of the titles are called “divinely instituted” in preference to others.
• It appears that the various titles refer to different aspects of the work.
• It appears that a distinction is made between some who work with God’s Word and some who do not.
• It appears that a distinction is made between two groups of titles which work with God’s Word.

There may be other observations someone might make in defense of the conclusion. The conclusion is then:

This divinely instituted Public Ministry of the Word includes both a narrower and a wider sense.

… meaning that all of the offices the Church uses to administer the Word are divinely instituted, whether they fall under the narrower or wider sense, and

The extent to which one is authorized by the call of the church to exercise the keys publicly is the extent to which one is in the Public Ministry of the Word.

… meaning that some of these offices are not entirely “in” the Public Ministry of the Word. Some are further “in” than others.

The controversy is that some people accept this doctrine and others do not. Of those who do not accept it, quite a few read the ELS doctrinal statement differently, so that the context of these assertions determines that they do not mean what the the ELS President’s explanation says they mean.

In addition to this central doctrinal question, there has also arisen a more pressing situation. The ELS president has been called upon to admit that he erred in judgment when he suspended one pastor among many who strongly opposed these assertions in the doctrinal statement. Some pastors have demonstrated that they still recognize fellowship with the suspended pastor. Others, with their churches, have entered a “state of confession” which insists that the president should not be communed as long as he does not repent of this error, which they consider to be sin. It appears that the ELS could even split, but not over the doctrinal statement itself. Rather, the split could come because of the treatment that doctrinal concerns have received since the adoption of the doctrinal statement. Instead of addressing the concerns with “Scripture and plain reason”, the prospect (and use) of synodical discipline has altered the controversy and made a breach of fellowship not only possible, but likely for many and already a reality for some.

(Or: The view from 1,669 miles.)

There are three different perspectives on the ministry controversy in the ELS. Generally speaking, they are:

1. One group professes allegiance to the doctrinal statement that was adopted in 2005. They are characterized by one thing in particular: when asked to defend or explain the doctrine, the most they will do is repeat the formulations and citations in the adopted statement itself, claiming that they are sufficiently clear and obvious.

2. A second group considers the adopted statement to be acceptable on a practical level, though it must be read in the best possible light. For many of them, this is a conditional acceptance of the document, the condition being the particular understanding that they have. Some admit that the document allows itself to be understood in several conflicting ways, while others insist that it does not. Most wish to repair the document’s deficiencies.

3. A third group considers the adopted document to be teaching things not proven by holy scripture as articles of faith. This group considers the document to be fatally flawed in those areas, though adequate in other areas. They refuse to accept the document until their rooted objections are met.

The document was adopted by 62% of delegates and pastors, most likely coming from groups one and two. Yet a number of those in groups two and three agree that the document was adopted in an immature form, not allowing the public revision process to complete. Nobody knows how long it would have taken to complete the revision process, yet most of those in groups two and three believe that process would have been preferable to the mechanical implementation and enforcement of the document that has been manifest since its adoption.

In November, 2006, there was significant agreement on nearly all points of a shorter study document that had been submitted to the 2006 synod convention. A collection of people representative of all three groups was asked to review the shorter document, to help determine where there may be disagreements. Some in group one, in keeping with their typical behavior, refused to participate, wishing to maintain the official character of the adopted statement. Some in group three expressed concern about a doctrinal point attributing a “divine” character to offices that the church creates, that it could be misconstrued as saying that those offices are divinely instituted. Except for those somewhat negative responses, all responses to the shorter statement were positive or inquisitive.

This exercise demonstrated that there is much agreement between all three groups on nearly all of those particular points of doctrine.

It demonstrated that group one does not trust the others enough to engage an open evaluation of the merits of the adopted doctrinal statement. It will neither honor nor tolerate such a discussion.

It also demonstrated that group three is suspicious of language that might possibly be understood in more than one way. The group is exacting about the quality and integrity of a doctrinal statement, both internally and in relation to the accepted Lutheran confession.

Group two is hopeful that the adopted statement might be improved through the efforts of all to examine and fairly evaluate its merits. It is trying to find common ground between the three groups. Its efforts are hindered mostly by group one’s refusal to countenance any discussion that could finally alter the adopted statement, or their point of view.

Complicating the issue is the appropriation of power to remove pastors or churches from the synod when they are deemed to be significantly opposed to the adopted doctrinal statement. This has already taken place and is apparently also still in process. It fits the priorities of group one, but not groups two or three. By all appearances, it is an unintentionally sectarian policy designed to safeguard the official status of the adopted statement.

This use of power in favor of group one shows that it would rather break fellowship and split away from group three, than work to achieve a better consensus in the synod. This may be due to a conviction that changes to the present form of the adopted statement would be sinful. That conviction alone could justify the opinion that rooted dissent should be treated as false doctrine. Therefore, group one may consider the newly adopted statement to have the same status as the confessions in the 1580 Book of Concord. If that is the case, then group one’s agenda will require group two to either accept the adopted document fully or leave the synod. There would be no possibility to change the document. It is uncertain how quickly group two would have to make their decision. Some of this paragraph is speculative.

The word “oversight” is used thrice in the ELS document on the public ministry, in a consistent way. Yet no definition or explanation is offered of that or most of the other technical terms in the document. I’d like to know what, exactly, is meant by “oversight.” What does the duty entail? What privilege does it require? What are the consequences, and what is the purpose of “oversight?” I think I have some idea, but I’ve recently read that a college president exercises pastoral oversight, and that confuses me. Can anyone enlighten me? Anyone? Anyone?

Selective fellowship is what we in the ELS call a situation where three or more public groups of Christians have an inconsistent fellowship relationship between them. To understand this, you must first know what is meant by fellowship. That’s what we call a relationship between two groups of Christians who officially recognize that they both believe, teach, and confess according to the doctrine of the Bible. They express their shared fellowship through acts of public worship, such as public prayer and joint services.

Fellowship becomes more complicated when a third group of Christians is added to the mix. Now, each of the others must decide whether they share fellowship with the third group. If one does and the other does not, then the situation is called “triangular fellowship,” and either of the two original groups might accuse the other of “selective fellowship.”

I have just described one way that the situation of triangular fellowship might come to pass: when a third group is added to the fellowship relationship between two other groups of Christians. Practically speaking, this is unavoidable, because it takes some time for any group of Christians to come to a decision about fellowship, and when two groups are aiming to reach the same conclusion, they will probably not do so at the same time. Though it’s unavoidable, this situation should always be temporary, because it compromises the teaching or confession of the groups involved. Jesus told His disciples to hold to His Word. If we persistently compromise our teaching, then we are not holding to much of anything. Such compromise is sinful, and we have a name for it: unionism. See the Triple-U.

In recent weeks, the congregations and pastors of the ELS have been warned against forming a triangular or selective fellowship situation. I’ll describe that warning momentarily. First, allow me to point out that there is a second way that such a situation can develop. Let’s begin with a single grouping of Christians. If some within that group decide to break fellowship with some of the others, then those who remain are automatically faced with a decision. They can join the breakers of fellowship, or they can join the opposite party, or they can continue to recognize fellowship with both parties. In that case, a triangular fellowship situation has developed.

Whether selective fellowship develops from three separate groups coming together, or from a division within a single group, there are two serious and related questions that must be addressed. The answer to one will often provide an answer to the other. First, is the group wishing to maintain fellowship with both of the opposing groups guilty of unionism?
Second, is one or both of the opposing groups guilty of separatism? Unionism and separatism are equally wrong and sinful. Again, see the Triple-U.

In the ELS, a party has formed within the synod which has broken fellowship with several churches and at least one pastor. It is seeking to break fellowship with other like-minded churches and pastors. The method of breaking fellowship has loosely followed the synod guidelines for discipline. They were not followed literally. (In fact, if the discipline stands, then the ELS probably ought to amend the guidelines to include the new reason for suspension that was recently used.) The explanation given for this discipline is that those under discipline have refused to accept the normative authority of our synod’s newest doctrinal statement, officially adopted in 2005 by a simple majority of 62%.

Meanwhile, those under discipline have insisted that they do not regard their position as a break of fellowship, but rather as one step among many toward reaching a common expression and understanding of our doctrine. They have emphatically stated that they do not charge the synod or any individual with adhering to false doctrine.

Automatically, a third party has been created from those who are unconvinced that the discipline and break of fellowship is biblically or even procedurally correct. They are the ones who have been warned against practicing selective fellowship. If they continue to recognize fellowship with those who are (or will be) under discipline, then the first party will regard that as selective fellowship. Those in the third party have had a choice forced upon them. They can join with the first party, join with the party under discipline, or try to continue in fellowship with both parties. Their choice will have to be informed by the two questions that must be addressed.

Would it be unionism to remain in fellowship with both conflicting parties? Would it be separatism to join with the first party? The second question may be easier to answer fairly, because we can examine the theological reasons for the actions of the first party to see if they have already become separatistic. Since this is a theological issue, it is important to resolve it theologically. In other words, we must identify the biblical doctrine that pertains to our situation and follow it. To “fix” the problem with procedural or administrative reasoning would be to neglect or even compromise our doctrine. Yet in all of this, every individual conscience must reach its conclusion and act in keeping with God’s Word, so we must have great patience and charity toward one another.

So in the ELS at present, the choices before those in the third party would either (1) recognize the discipline as scripturally sound and legitimate, (2) recognize the discipline as wrong in some way, or (3) recognize that discipline is warranted, though not as a breach of fellowship. It seems 3 is unlikely, but you can make that call for yourself.

I have either uploaded or linked to two of the papers from here. There was one other ministry paper delivered, and if it becomes available, I will post it there as well.

That link page is part of a little project to document our ministry controversy. There hasn’t really been enough time for me to keep up on updates. So, if anyone happens to have something or notices that I don’t have a link to something important, please call or send a message about it.

I missed one of the main papers delivered at the GPC, and one that I was eagerly anticipating was removed from the agenda at the eleventh hour. The remaining three papers were very good, and all of them were significant contributions toward a common understanding and confession of the doctrine of the ministry.

Three of the papers originally on the agenda were meant to contribute to our common study of the ministry. One of them, as I mentioned, was removed. I wish I could explain why, but it will have to be enough to say that the presenter is not under discipline in the synod right now, but has made a public confession that he does not accept the theological basis for a break in fellowship between the synod and Rolf Preus.

In hindsight, it seems that our synod has managed to end our controversy on the ministry before genuine, corporate study began. In other words, we have already produced a doctrinal statement (and imparted to it a normative character in our midst). Only now have we begun the study that may result in a common understanding of what we mean. Since we seem to be following the normal path in reverse, we may soon discover the question that started our controversy! Seriously, we need to take a break from our recent “fellowship” actions so that we can return together to a more reasonable timeline and sequence of study and debate.

Earlier I posted about an announcement from the synod president concerning several pastors and churches who have entered a state of confession. In that post, I analyzed the logic which concluded that these individuals are in doctrinal disagreement with the synod. The logic was faulty, and you can read more about it in that post.

What I had not yet realized was that the announcement, and now subsequent official announcements of the same topic, have completely avoided the chief point of the confessional protest. The point of the protest, from the protest letter itself, was that certain official, public decisions within the synod have been made and enforced contrary to the Gospel. In other words, the protest letter was written to call public sinners to repentance. The letter contained the specific charges of public sin, which have neither been acknowledged nor repented. You can read the protest letter yourself in the previous Plucked Chicken article on this topic.

Though the point of the protest letter was to produce repentance for these public sins, the letter has instead been officially characterized as an admission that the senders do not accept the doctrine of the ELS. Consequently, the official word is that the senders are to be considered outside of our fellowship. ELS members are told not to participate in public worship with those pastors and churches.

Continue reading “Further Analysis of the Protest Announcement” →

I attended the communion service at the synod convention in June, but refrained from communing. I also may attend the communion service at the General Pastoral Conference, but I will refrain from communing. Lest anyone jump to conclusions or speculations, it is important that I give the reason for this.

Communing together with other Christians is an expression of unity in the faith as the body of Christ. Though I may think that some of my brothers in Christ are mistaken about various things, I do not believe any of them are truly opposed to the doctrine that has united our synod for 88 years, including Pastors Rolf Preus, Joseph Abrahamson, Steven Brockdorf, Rob Lawson, and Les Lanier. These pastors have not persisted in any false doctrine that I know of, and neither has the rest of the synod. (If you disagree, please bring a charge and prove it appropriately.) So my decision not to commune is not based upon a lack of Christian fellowship between me and any part of the ELS (including Pastor Preus and his parish).

So why not commune?

Because some of my brothers have been misled by our true enemy into a sectarian point of view, believing that a man who questions the scriptural authority of a synod doctrinal statement should be excluded from our fellowship, rather than that he should receive the answers he seeks, or that his point be well-taken. This is sad for those whom they are excluding, who are bearing the cross of unjust rejection even as their Savior and the first Christian martyr, Stephen, did. It is even sadder for those who have given their assent to this new sectarianism that has arisen in our midst under the guise of Christian fellowship. Yet even Saul, who held the robes of those who stoned Stephen, found complete forgiveness and received a godly vocation when our Lord finally corrected him.

Yet I do not regard my misguided brothers as false teachers. They are misled, and I pray that they will come to see things better through our mutual study of God’s Word. In the meantime, I do not wish to offend an erring or ill-informed conscience by exercising my right as a fellow member of the body of Christ. I can only speak for myself. Again, my decision is not to separate from anyone, but to protect those who have been misled into unjust sectarianism, and hopefully to help them see the influence of our true enemy, who seeks to divide the ELS.

Someone may wonder if I subscribe to our synod’s doctrinal statements, based upon the foregoing explanation. In a sense, yes. We can call it the wider sense of the word “subscribe.” You see, our synodical doctrinal statements are not the same as the symbols of our church. They are not, strictly speaking, confessions of the evangelical catholic faith. Rather, they are expressions and applications of doctrine addressing particular, contemporary, parochial issues. They are meant to apply in the context where our synod finds itself. The Norwegian Synod statements on slavery are one good example, and the doctrinal statement just adopted last year is another. Such statements are not written for all Christians, nor even for all Lutherans to adopt, though they aim to agree with the Bible and symbols (creeds and confessions), and as such, express universal principles of Christian doctrine. Moreover, they are completely subject to testing and examination, even after they have been adopted, with the understanding that if they are found to contradict the norm of our faith, they must be rejected. The Confessions, on the other hand, while likewise subject to testing, have already been proven to a degree that they may be assumed a priori to be in agreement with holy scripture. Just see which doctrinal statements are mentioned by name in our church constitutions! Accordingly, I reserve my full, unqualified, a priori, quia subscription for the Book of Concord of 1580, since it has long ago been proven true beyond a doubt. I’ll call that the narrow sense of the word “subscribe.” In the wider sense, I also subscribe to our synod’s doctrinal statements, with an a posteriori subscription. Like this post, some of them may later need to be changed to remain accurate confessions of faith. See my explanation of the PMW statement as a possible example.

Our synod office announced today that it received a letter from several pastors and two congregations. I’ll include a both the announcement and the letter itself below. Careful readers will notice that they do not agree about one important thing. The letter says that this state of confession makes it impossible for the signers to commune with those individuals who persistently act contrary to God’s Word. The letter does not apply to anyone else. The announcement has a different point of view: that the state of confession makes it impossible for the signers to enjoy altar and pulpit fellowship with the entire synod. Which is correct? Also, what does the synod administration hope to accomplish with its different point of view?

Perhaps the second question can be answered from the announcement, which informs the synod of a certain implication of the state of confession. The implication is that “they are in a protest doctrinally against the ELS since doctrine and practice go hand in hand.” Note the logic.

Major Premise

Certain pastors and churches have entered a state of confession against certain things persistently done contrary to God’s Word.

Minor Premise

Doctrine and practice go hand in hand.

(Intermediate) Conclusion

These pastors and churches are protesting the doctrine of the ELS.

First: is the argument valid? That is, if you grant that the premises are true, must the conclusion always be true as well? Second: Are the premises true? I believe the premises are both true and well established. However, the conclusion is not valid. Why not? Because it is eminently possible that the actions under protest have been done contrary to the doctrine of the ELS. It is also possible that the people of the ELS do not always put its doctrine into practice in a consistent manner.

The final conclusion in this announcement is what I mentioned at the beginning of this article: that these pastors and congregations are not at this time in altar/pulpit fellowship with pastors and congregations of the ELS. This is based upon the (invalid) intermediate conclusion above.

(Note the final conclusion does not say other pastors and congregations of the ELS, which leads one to suppose that the author may have a further, unstated conclusion in mind.)

Toward the end of the announcement, a consequence is described of any pastor’s suspension from the ELS. Namely, that the suspended pastor and the parish he serves are not in a “fellowshipping relationship” with the synod. This assumes that the congregation does not terminate his call on the basis of the suspension alone — one of the acts presently under protest. Presumably, if the parish should terminate its pastor’s call, even contrary to its own constitution, then it would retain the “fellowshipping relationship.”

But an important question or two must be asked here. Does the suspension of a pastor from the clergy roster of the ELS have the same effect as an excommunication; does it effectively place the suspended person outside of the synod’s fellowship? If so, what was the sin committed by Pastor Preus in the first place? What is the “cause” for removing him, or of what sin is he supposed to repent? I have not heard that anyone has accused him of teaching false doctrine. Was it that he insisted that there must be scriptural support for an assertion in our doctrinal statement on the ministry? Is it that without such support, the assertion in question does not have the authority of God’s Word? Was he not supposed to say things like that?

Hard questions, I know. Maybe we don’t have any theologians in the ELS capable of answering such questions, so we must resort to more creative solutions. It’s easy enough to claim something in writing (I should know), but it’s sometimes not so easy to back it up with clear scripture and good logic.

Continue reading “News: Pastors and Churches Enter a State of Confessional Protest” →

Pastor Preus (the ELS one) has publicized an appendix to his appeal and also the presentation he made to the appeals commission. They are archived at christfor.us, where you can also find the appeal itself and other documents leading up to the present tragic circumstances in the ELS. I will include both the appendix and presentation below, for your information.

While I was on vacation, on 9/11 to be exact, the announcement came out that the appeals commission decided to uphold the suspension. Since the ELS has no codified process after this, it may be the final official word on the suspension issue. This is unspeakably tragic, because the decision means more than an official confirmation of a particular judgment call on the part of the president. (To understand this, you should certainly inform yourself by reading the documents archived at christfor.us.) It also means:

1. That it is acceptable in the ELS for the president to “minister” (I prefer “interfere”) in the congregations of the ELS without the knowledge of their pastors.

2. That pastors may be suspended from the ELS for reasons not included in [the ELS Guidelines][] on synodical discipline. This leads immediately to the question: what can a pastor be suspended for? It currently has no definitive answer, so speculation is well justified. From the 2006 Convention, it would seem that if the president should deem a pastor or congregation “unteachable,” the result could be immediate and unilateral suspension.

3. That a suspension from the ELS (for whatever reason) places the suspended party outside of ELS fellowship.

4. That it is acceptable for a congregation to fire its pastor (rescind his call) for the reason that he has been suspended from the ELS clergy roster. This is not the same as showing that he has persistently taught false doctrine, lived an ungodly life, or been wilfully negligent in his duties, or even that he has become incompetent as a pastor. (Check your church’s constitution to see what reasons are allowed there.)

It is sinful to practice fellowship with someone who persistently teaches false doctrine. False doctrine is defined as that which contradicts the scripture (the norma normans of Christian doctrine) and the Lutheran Confessions (our norma normata of doctrine). It is equally sinful to deny fellowship to someone who does not teach false doctrine. Fellowship is a matter of doctrine. It is a purely theological question, to be decided on the basis of doctrine, not on the basis of politics or human favor. Romans 16:17 says that we are to mark and avoid false teachers. Part of “marking” or identifying a false teacher is to identify the false teaching in which he persists. That has not been done in any part of this whole suspension controversy. Instead, it has been skipped over. Pastor Preus has been impugned and maligned as a false teacher without any doctrinal reason for it. (The reason for his suspension was that he has accused the ELS of persisting in false doctrine, an accusation which he has not made and has specifically denied making. Even if it were true, such an accusation is not the same thing as teaching false doctrine himself, a fact which should be obvious to everyone but has now been contradicted by both the president and the commission on appeals.)

So now, ELS pastors and churches are told by the synod that we are to regard Pastor Preus as a false teacher outside our fellowship. Yet no doctrinal reason has been given to do so, neither an accusation nor proof of persistent false teaching. So it seems that we are being told that we must break fellowship with someone who still teaches and confesses the doctrine of the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions, and that if we do not, we are sinning. Yet it is certain that to break fellowship with such a brother in Christ is also sinful. Should we obey God, or men?

Or, should someone at some point show a little bit of Christian love, patience, and humility? Have we forgotten 1 Corinthians 13?

[the ELS Guidelines]: http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/President/guidelines.pdf/download Continue reading “It seems we are of the world, after all.” →