Tag: Doctrine

This could as easily be under the Synod topic, but I’d like to consider it more as a look at Christian doctrine in general, as seen in the history of our synod.

I had promised to post some material from ELS history on the subject of synodical decisions and power. Here’s an interesting paragraph from Bjug Harstad just after the formation of the ELS. He’s giving an example of encroachment upon the rights that a congregation has by virtue of possessing the Keys.

Similar abuse and encroachment have evolved in more recent times even in our Lutheran free church here in this country. They have come from another direction, namely, from the Reformed church which has always wanted to have a finger in the governing of public affairs. When prosperity increased among us, it happened, unnoticed by many, that the presidents were not to have any pastoral call but were only to be presidents. In that way people got a kind of ecclesiastical prelates who were over pastors and congregations. What their right and authority are, really now consists most nearly in whatever is pleasing to that individual. In practice, some have espoused the belief that if a pastor does not want to belong to the large church body to which his congregation belongs, then the congregation is thereby either without a pastor and can only proceed to the election of another, or the pastor is to be dismissed even if there is no other complaint against him than that he cannot swear loyalty to their church body.

President Moldstad quoted from the same address in his own address to the 2006 synod convention. It was a really good quote, calling us to analyze whether we are doing well to provide for the Christian education of children. Just before the quotation that President Moldstad used is this, somewhat more pertinent to our present topic:

If one of the equal brethren is elected to be president, then everyone must know that he has only received a human appointment to the office of servant, which everyone also otherwise actually has according to the Master’s example to wash the disciples’ feet and to dry them with the insight, knowledge and experience with which he can be equipped. At all times, however, he is only an advisor, and as other Christians, is in duty bound to point to what is written.

He himself is to guard himself against the conceit that he is now a head higher than the others and also always remember that he has no other duty or authority than diligently to serve the others in the things with which they have charged him, either in the constitution or in other mutually agreed upon arrangements. Such an office, I believe, ought to be discharged by everyone in turns, if possible.

Bjug Harstad and his contemporaries in the Norwegian Synod of the American Evangelical Lutheran Church (called the “little” Norwegian Synod) were sensitive to some things concerning synodical organization. It’s good to review these writings whenever we can.

The very first article in the Augsburg Confession begins “Our churches teach with common consent…” This is the translation of these descriptive and normative words: “Ecclesiae magno consensu apud nos docent.” It appears to my untrained eye that “magno consensu” has been translated “with common consent.” This appears to be closely related to our concept of consensus, in English.

There are some interesting points in the Wikipedia article on consensus. For example:

The role of a facilitator in a consensus decision-making process can be much more difficult than that of a simple-majority-party leader if group members distrust each other or unconsciously use manipulative techniques. For a proponent of any given alternative, reducing objections to their plan by eliciting information or preferences from proponents of other alternatives is difficult if people distrust each other. Manipulative opponents can find it advantageous to misrepresent their concerns or refuse to negotiate – an analogous problem to that of strategic voting. For these reasons, consensus processes usually require trust among participants and skilled, patient facilitators able to synthesise the state of a proposal.

An argument against consensus decision is that few motivated facilitators are willing to assign themselves a role guiding processes rather than pursuing and promoting specific measures empowering themselves. Dee Hock said of his role at Visa International – an organisation focused on making profit – that it was something that anyone could do, but almost no one learned to do well, and which was largely thankless. Similar sentiments have been echoed by many “leaders” of organizations committed to peace, ecology, and social justice, which tend to have diffuse benefits, and concentrated costs (an instance of the tragedy of the commons issue in political economy, and of the public good problem).

I think that this paragraph describes the current state of the Evangelical Lutheran Synod:

Some organizations have abandoned consensus decision-making for simple majority, judging that the difficulty of building a process to formally weigh all of these factors is not worth it, and that these factors can be handled better informally (i.e. in offline discussions before and after debate) than through the process of consensus itself, at the risk of creating a de facto clique that makes the real decisions.

In many organizations, with most decisions, this is not a problem. However, in a body of churches seeking to confess doctrine, a policy of simple majority rule can easily, even unintentionally, deny the normative authority of holy scripture. Historically, Lutherans have emphatically condemned majority rule as a determination of doctrine.

The danger is especially real when the body allows a few both to interpret doctrine for them and to make executive decisions on their behalf. In effect, what results is a papistic rule over the body, essentially trumping holy scripture. This may become apparent by a misapplication of the fourth commandment to eliminate the individual’s right to judge doctrine. In other words, “Obey your Papa in all things, because he knows better than you do.” This easily-repeatable situation was recognized by Martin Luther, with a little help from Eck.

The forefathers of the ELS were sensitive to these issues, having experienced certain abuses first-hand. I will try to post links to or portions of our ELS fathers’ writings about pitfalls they recognized.

The churches are not asking the bishops to restore concord at the expense of their honor, even though it would be proper for good pastors to do this. They ask only that the bishops release unjust burdens that are new and have been received contrary to the custom of the universal Church.

AC XXVIII, 71-72

We refuse to be guided by those who are offended by our church customs. We adhere to them all the more firmly when someone wants to cause us to have a guilty conscience on account of them. It is truly distressing that many of our fellow Christians find the difference between Lutheranism and Roman Catholicism in outward things. It is a pity and dreadful cowardice when a person sacrifices the good ancient church customs to please the deluded American denominations just so they won’t accuse of being Roman Catholic! Indeed!

Read the rest, and discover the source, at Cyberbrethren. Go ahead, click the link and read the rest. It’s worth your time.

Norman Teigen calls attention to a sad case where a congregation (ELCA) decided to get rid of its pastor because he is too old. Thankfully, the synod has informed the congregation that this is not an acceptable reason to dismiss its pastor.

I wonder what the ELCA does consider to be an acceptable reason? I would be surprised if it were the exact same reasons listed by our pastoral theology books, such as The Shepherd Under Christ by Habeck and Schuetze, Pastoral Theology by Fritz, and Walther’s Pastorale. I could look up those reasons and list them here (again), but it would be more interesting to leave that exercise to the reader.

Some time in the 1970s or so, my synod published a very nice color pamphlet entitled The Evangelical Lutheran Synod: Character, Doctrine, History, Mission. Inside there are 17 doctrinal points or theses on various subjects. This pamphlet was replaced later by one called We Believe, Teach, and Confess, which is also available online at the ELS web site.

In the ministry controversy, someone has pointed out that the newer statement is a little weaker in its statement on the ministry. I don’t want to get sucked into the ministry debate right now, so we’ll leave that for another time.

However, I would like to point out a place where the newer statement improves upon the older one. The subject is Church Fellowship. Here’s the older statement:

We believe that the Scriptures require that church fellowship shall be acknowledged and exercised only on the basis of confession of and commitment to the pure Marks of the Church, the Word and Sacraments. John 8, 31.32; 1 Cor. 1, 10; Eph. 2, 19.20; 4, 3-6. Deviation from the teaching of the Word of God is not to be tolerated in the Church. Matt. 7, 15.20; Rom. 16, 17; Gal. 1, 6-9; 2 John vv. 9-11. We reject unionism because it tolerates error in doctrine in the Church.

The only authority in the Church is Christ who teaches His Church through the Word. Matt. 23, 8; John 8, 31.32; 1 Pet. 4, 11.

Everything this statement says is spot-on true. It still applies fully to the ELS. Of particular interest at the moment are these two parts:

• “Deviation from the teaching of the Word of God is not to be tolerated in the Church.” This derives partly from an earlier thesis which says, “We believe that the Bible not only contains the Word of God, but that it is the Word of God.” From this, we learn that any person in the synod must not tolerate any teaching in the synod that deviates from the Bible. One can only suppose that this means we should even be wary of official doctrinal summaries that the synod may have adopted.

• “The only authority in the Church is Christ who teaches His Church through the Word.” This confirms that the authority of God’s Word stands above all offices in both congregation and synod.

The newer statement is not dramatically different, but in one particular way, it adds something very important. It says:

We confess that Scripture requires that church fellowship be recognized and practiced where there is a mutual confession of and commitment to the pure Marks of the Church, the Word and Sacraments. Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church, and He governs and teaches it by His Word, but deviation from the teaching of God’s Word is not to be tolerated in the church. We therefore reject unionism, that is, church fellowship with adherents of false doctrine, and ecumenical endeavors which compromise the pure doctrine of God’s Word. We also reject participation or membership in religious organizations which have features that are in conflict with the Christian faith, such as the Masonic Lodge and similar organizations. At the same time we also condemn separatism, i.e., the refusal to acknowledge and practice fellowship when there is agreement in doctrine. See John 8:31-32, 1 Cor. 1:10, Eph. 2:19-20, Matt. 7:15-20, Rom. 16:17, Gal. 1:6-9, 2 John 9-11, Matt. 23:8, 1 Pet. 4:11, 2 Cor. 6:14-18.

Notice that this is stated much more positively: “We confess that Scripture requires that church fellowship be recognized and practiced where there is a mutual confession of and commitment to the pure Marks of the Church, the Word and Sacraments.” The importance of this positive aspect of Church Fellowship is reinforced at the end: “We also condemn separatism, i.e., the refusal to acknowledge and practice fellowship when there is agreement in doctrine.”

So it is clear that there are two ways that we may sin in this area:

• Through unionism, which is “church fellowship with adherents of false doctrine, and ecumenical endeavors which compromise the pure doctrine of God’s Word.”

• Through separatism, which is “the refusal to acknowledge and practice fellowship when there is agreement in doctrine.”

I might add another pitfall: that someone may join or separate in a way that fails to show Christian love toward others, for we may have all the doctrine and practice letter-perfect, but if we have not love, then we are nothing.

How can we tell when it’s time to recognize Church Fellowship? When it is apparent that we have a mutual confession of and commitment to the pure Marks of the Church. This repeats part of Augsburg Confession, article VII: “It is enough for the true unity of the church to agree concerning the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. It is not necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by human beings be alike everywhere. As Paul says [Eph. 4:5, 6]: ‘One faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all . . .'”

In our synod’s ministry controversy, I wonder if we have not fully distinguished between those parts of our doctrinal position that pertain to “the teaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments” and those parts that do not pertain. If our disagreements center on those parts that do not pertain, then they should not be divisive of church fellowship.

The letter of confessional protest I included in the previous article included this statement:

… it is sinful to sever Christian fellowship without just cause (1 Corinthians 10:16-17; Ephesians 4:3) …

Is that true? You be the judge.

1 Cor 10:16-17

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.

Eph 4:3

… endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Maybe you can think of other pertinent passages.

This is from p. 423 of volume 3 of Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics:

With regard to the orthodox character of a church body note well: (1) A church body is orthodox only if the true doctrine, as we have it in the Augsburg Confession and the other Lutheran Symbols, is actually taught in its pulpits and its publications and not merely “officially” professed as its faith. Not the “official” doctrine, but the actual teaching determines the character of a church body, because Christ enjoins that all things whatsoever He has commanded His disciples should actually be taught and not merely acknowledged in an “official document” as the correct doctrine. It is patent that faith in Christ will be created and preserved through the pure Gospel only when that Gospel is really proclaimed. (2) A church body does not forfeit its orthodox character by reason of the casual intrusion of false doctrine. The thing which the Apostle Paul told the elders of Ephesus: “Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:30), came true not only in the Apostolic Church, but also in the Church of the Reformation and will occur in the Church to the Last Day. A church body loses its orthodoxy only when it no longer applies Romans 16:17, hence does not combat and eventually remove the false doctrine, but tolerates it without reproof and thus actually grants it equal right with the truth.

I admit that we have seen great zeal in the ELS to apply Romans 16:17, even bypassing the proper steps given in both Scripture and the synod guidelines. Does such zeal confirm the ELS as an orthodox church body? (Or is it that we have retained fellowship with our sister synod in Wisconsin? Sorry, couldn’t resist. Yet an answer may still be helpful.)

Note the basis that Pieper gives for application of Romans 16:17: “the true doctrine, as we have it in the Augsburg Confession and the other Lutheran Symbols.” This leads to the question: what is a Lutheran Symbol? At Bethany Seminary, our Symbolics class covered the Book of Concord. We did not examine the local doctrinal statements of the ELS or any other synod, except to compare their teaching with that of the Book of Concord, to see how they measure up.

This is worth contemplating, from The Fireside.

When we hear about controversies in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), many times those controversies seem to be about things that are not related to spiritual or theogical questions, but about business and legal matters. This then begs the questions, “Is the Synod ‘Church’”? …

Fellowship is a highly-valued thing among conservative Lutherans. It is a recognition that various individuals, churches, pastors, &c. ought to freely join together in worship as circumstances may allow. Recently, I read a sentence from a theologically-trained pastor claiming a person can be placed outside of a particular fellowship by a suspension of that person from a group belonging to said fellowship. If you don’t understand that sentence, read it again. By the way, this pastor happens to be “in my fellowship,” as we say.

I’d like to point out that this statement reveals a misunderstanding of fellowship. Fellowship is not of human origin. Our declarations, suspensions, or favor do not place someone “in” or “out” of fellowship. Rather, God-pleasing fellowship comes into existence when more than one person believes, teaches, and confesses the biblical doctrine, ordering their practice accordingly. Fellowship is a doctrinal matter, not a political matter. If you wish to say that someone has left the fellowship defined by the Bible’s doctrine, it is incumbent upon you to show how that person has persistently and knowingly disavowed the Bible’s doctrine. Lacking that, it is inappropriate (dare I say “disorderly” or even “offensive?”) to claim that someone has been “put out” of the fellowship.

It is possible for fellowships to gather around other doctrines too, such as the various philosophies and opinions of men. Such fellowships amount to clubs with voluntary memberships. But orthodox, evangelical and catholic fellowship is created by the Word of God. We can recognize it where it exists, but not even kings or princes have the power to change its membership.