The LCMS seems to be heading in several differing directions right now:
1) Some would like it to go 'evangelical' and adopt the worship & theology of other non-denominational (i.e. Reformed), conversion-orientated churches. Some of this group would also welcome a more ecumenical practice of fellowship and some would be open to women's ordination (some would not) and other changes in doctrine.
2) Some want to go back to a more confessional direction like that had in the days of the old Synodical Conference with more emphasis given to traditional forms of worship, theology from the Book of Concord and the great theologians of Lutheranism and doing everything with a more distinctly Lutheran polity.
3) Then there is a portion of the LCMS leadership and bureaucracy which wants 'peace at any price' between those 2 major factions.
This is painting with a broad brush, there are self-described feminists, evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, conservatives, confessionalists and a some east-coast liberals who are ELCA-wannabees in the English District.
These problems go back 70 years to the theological battles of the 1940s. Doctrinal standards were on a slow, barely perceptible decline in the LCMS under President Behnken. In the 1940s and '50s there were debates over the practice of the doctrine of fellowship within the Synodical Conference - then made up of the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) and the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).
In 1955, the little ELS severed ties with the LCMS. Some WELS congregations felt the same way and broke from the WELS and formed the CLC (Church of the Lutheran Confession) and several years later the WELS followed suit. This was because the LCMS was having exploratory talks with the ALC (American Lutheran Church) which had different doctrines regarding lodges and predestination from the LCMS. For the LCMS to consider fellowship with the ALC meant to the ELS and WELS that the LCMS had a different doctrine of fellowship than that practiced by the ELS and WELS. By 1963 the Synodical Conference had disbanded. This helped give rise to the LCMS' Presidency of Oliver Harms. Little changed and the slide continued.
Cooperation existed between the ALC and LCMS until 1970 when the ALC started ordaining women. Several years later under President J.A.O. Preus II, the LCMS had the battle for the Bible. Preus (who had family in the ELS) tried to reverse many of the liberal trends taking place in the LCMS. One of them culminated in the 'Seminex' (Concordia Seminary In Exile) fiasco where John Tietjen had been the President of the seminary at St. Louis was fired for not teaching the Bible as the inerrent Word of God. He had introduced radical forms of higher-critical scholarship into the student body. In 1973 Tietjen was brought up on charges of heresy and teaching false doctrine. The charges were verified by the members of the systematic theology department. Some students and faculty walked out and formed Seminex which became the locus for a new liberal synod, the AELC. That synod would later merge with the moderate ALC and liberal LCA to form the now ELCA in 1987.
Going back a bit, after the controversial years of Preus' leadership, the LCMS sought a peacemaker and they found one in the person of Ralph Bohlman from 1981 to 1992. The LCMS was ready for less drama and Bohlman talked like a conservative and governed like a moderate. The liberal factions that did not leave and join the AELC for whatever reason remained and quietly grew under his leadership of the Synod.
Skip ahead to late 2001 after 9/11. Kieschnick was the newly minted President of the LCMS and his Atlantic District President David Benke participated in a ecumenical, unionistic memorial ceremony remembering the 9/11 victims. This was a 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation. While the LCMS had stumbled in decades past over the fellowship issue, it had finally seemed to have hit it's stride in the Bohlman years. It sold itself as a theologically center-right church body. Not part of the liberal mainline denominations but still aloof from church bodies it called legalistic (ELS, WELS, etc). It was conservative enough to be called 'conservative' but with still enough wiggle room to not be embarrassed by it in front of it's non-Lutheran neighbors.
The nation was facing a national tragedy and that seemed more compelling than what the Bible says about Christianity being the narrow way to eternal life and Benke took part in the ceremony because he was more worried about appearances in front of the world than answering to Christ. Being a public figure, he was spotted and called out on it by Lutherans all across the country who thought it was a pagan or at least unionistic memorial ceremony. This became particularly tough on Kieschnick who was from Texas and was an acquaintance of President George W. Bush. It became a question of what seemed to be patriotism -vs- narrow sectarian doctrinal legalism in the eyes of the world.
Members of the ELS and WELS who would not say the pledge at ball games nor have military chaplains suddenly felt vindicated after all these years. They had remained faithful in what seemed to be a small thing. They had been ridiculed by the world for it and now they felt vindicated but more importanly their confessional kindred in the LCMS had spoken out in agreement. Without going into the minutiae of events since, I feel it is safe to say that Bohlmann's centrist 'peace at any price' patch is now shown to be worn threadbare.
This has been further exacerbated by the removal of the program Issues, Etc. from KFUO radion and the current legal actions President Kieschnick is using to try to silence (or censor if you prefer) Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz who have been critical of his Presidency. Even some conservative and moderate clergy feel President Kieschnick has been heavy handed and some are wont for a change.
The current perceived agent of change is Rev. Matthew Harrison. He has translated some important confessional writings, wrote some thoughtful articles and has practicle experience in world missions, particularly with releif efforts. He has released a paper called "It's Time:LCMS UNITY AND MISSION -The Real Problem We Face and How to Solve It" which many see as a call to unity and truth.
Time will tell, 1st Missourians will have to get him elected and 2ndly, we need to remember that we must above all put our faith in God, not men. He seems better than Kieschnick by word and deed but he could be a kinder, gentler J.A.O. Preus or he could be a more right of center version of Bohlmann. We just don't know.
Peace Be With You,
Jim
1) Some would like it to go 'evangelical' and adopt the worship & theology of other non-denominational (i.e. Reformed), conversion-orientated churches. Some of this group would also welcome a more ecumenical practice of fellowship and some would be open to women's ordination (some would not) and other changes in doctrine.
2) Some want to go back to a more confessional direction like that had in the days of the old Synodical Conference with more emphasis given to traditional forms of worship, theology from the Book of Concord and the great theologians of Lutheranism and doing everything with a more distinctly Lutheran polity.
3) Then there is a portion of the LCMS leadership and bureaucracy which wants 'peace at any price' between those 2 major factions.
This is painting with a broad brush, there are self-described feminists, evangelicals, pentecostals, fundamentalists, conservatives, confessionalists and a some east-coast liberals who are ELCA-wannabees in the English District.
These problems go back 70 years to the theological battles of the 1940s. Doctrinal standards were on a slow, barely perceptible decline in the LCMS under President Behnken. In the 1940s and '50s there were debates over the practice of the doctrine of fellowship within the Synodical Conference - then made up of the ELS (Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) and the WELS (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).
In 1955, the little ELS severed ties with the LCMS. Some WELS congregations felt the same way and broke from the WELS and formed the CLC (Church of the Lutheran Confession) and several years later the WELS followed suit. This was because the LCMS was having exploratory talks with the ALC (American Lutheran Church) which had different doctrines regarding lodges and predestination from the LCMS. For the LCMS to consider fellowship with the ALC meant to the ELS and WELS that the LCMS had a different doctrine of fellowship than that practiced by the ELS and WELS. By 1963 the Synodical Conference had disbanded. This helped give rise to the LCMS' Presidency of Oliver Harms. Little changed and the slide continued.
Cooperation existed between the ALC and LCMS until 1970 when the ALC started ordaining women. Several years later under President J.A.O. Preus II, the LCMS had the battle for the Bible. Preus (who had family in the ELS) tried to reverse many of the liberal trends taking place in the LCMS. One of them culminated in the 'Seminex' (Concordia Seminary In Exile) fiasco where John Tietjen had been the President of the seminary at St. Louis was fired for not teaching the Bible as the inerrent Word of God. He had introduced radical forms of higher-critical scholarship into the student body. In 1973 Tietjen was brought up on charges of heresy and teaching false doctrine. The charges were verified by the members of the systematic theology department. Some students and faculty walked out and formed Seminex which became the locus for a new liberal synod, the AELC. That synod would later merge with the moderate ALC and liberal LCA to form the now ELCA in 1987.
Going back a bit, after the controversial years of Preus' leadership, the LCMS sought a peacemaker and they found one in the person of Ralph Bohlman from 1981 to 1992. The LCMS was ready for less drama and Bohlman talked like a conservative and governed like a moderate. The liberal factions that did not leave and join the AELC for whatever reason remained and quietly grew under his leadership of the Synod.
Skip ahead to late 2001 after 9/11. Kieschnick was the newly minted President of the LCMS and his Atlantic District President David Benke participated in a ecumenical, unionistic memorial ceremony remembering the 9/11 victims. This was a 'damned if you do damned if you don't' situation. While the LCMS had stumbled in decades past over the fellowship issue, it had finally seemed to have hit it's stride in the Bohlman years. It sold itself as a theologically center-right church body. Not part of the liberal mainline denominations but still aloof from church bodies it called legalistic (ELS, WELS, etc). It was conservative enough to be called 'conservative' but with still enough wiggle room to not be embarrassed by it in front of it's non-Lutheran neighbors.
The nation was facing a national tragedy and that seemed more compelling than what the Bible says about Christianity being the narrow way to eternal life and Benke took part in the ceremony because he was more worried about appearances in front of the world than answering to Christ. Being a public figure, he was spotted and called out on it by Lutherans all across the country who thought it was a pagan or at least unionistic memorial ceremony. This became particularly tough on Kieschnick who was from Texas and was an acquaintance of President George W. Bush. It became a question of what seemed to be patriotism -vs- narrow sectarian doctrinal legalism in the eyes of the world.
Members of the ELS and WELS who would not say the pledge at ball games nor have military chaplains suddenly felt vindicated after all these years. They had remained faithful in what seemed to be a small thing. They had been ridiculed by the world for it and now they felt vindicated but more importanly their confessional kindred in the LCMS had spoken out in agreement. Without going into the minutiae of events since, I feel it is safe to say that Bohlmann's centrist 'peace at any price' patch is now shown to be worn threadbare.
This has been further exacerbated by the removal of the program Issues, Etc. from KFUO radion and the current legal actions President Kieschnick is using to try to silence (or censor if you prefer) Todd Wilken and Jeff Schwarz who have been critical of his Presidency. Even some conservative and moderate clergy feel President Kieschnick has been heavy handed and some are wont for a change.
The current perceived agent of change is Rev. Matthew Harrison. He has translated some important confessional writings, wrote some thoughtful articles and has practicle experience in world missions, particularly with releif efforts. He has released a paper called "It's Time:LCMS UNITY AND MISSION -The Real Problem We Face and How to Solve It" which many see as a call to unity and truth.
Time will tell, 1st Missourians will have to get him elected and 2ndly, we need to remember that we must above all put our faith in God, not men. He seems better than Kieschnick by word and deed but he could be a kinder, gentler J.A.O. Preus or he could be a more right of center version of Bohlmann. We just don't know.
Peace Be With You,
Jim
5 comments:
Members of the ELS and WELS who would not say the pledge at ball games
This is not true.
Greetings,
I went to WLC for a year and went there with my classmates who were all WES or ELS for the most part. I did not know about the pledge thing (I had been raised ALC) and stood up. They all remained seated and somebody shot out a few remarks at them for not being patriotic.
This had nothing to do with patriotism, it had to do with Confessional principle. In their own schools they would say it but they would not say, "under God" in mixed fellowship.
You can disagree with me but you cannot deny my experience, esp one that took place at a Synodical school.
Jim
I'm with RevvinRev. This is news to me. Perhaps Jim's situation is an isolated one. My wife was WELS and she has never heard of that either.
You should check out what your synod teaches then:
We do warn against civil religion which treats all religions as one or interchangeable. If the Pledge is used to give that implication, we could not join in it. I do not know what percentage of WELS schools use the pledge. None of the ones I attended used it. Many people, religious or non-religious, have objections to the wording of the Pledge.
The reason we say more about scouting is that the topic involves voluntarily joining an organization with false religious principles. You hit the nail on the head with your statement "Scouts promotes religion to God as the most important thing. No matter what religion it is." That is exactly why we can't participate.
Quoted from welsnet Q&A
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuItem_itemID=22092&cuTopic_topicID=17
It is true that our nation is "under God" in the sense that every nation is under the providence and rule of God. It is not true that we worship one God nor that our nation submits to the rule of the true God. Nor do our nation's laws conform to the laws of God across the board. We should at all times give a clear testimony against the notion that religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam worship the same God.
If the pledge is understood as an endorsement of the idea that we all worship one God, we cannot participate in it.
Quoted from welsnet Q&A
http://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=63&cuItem_itemID=3270
I have attended both Wisconsin Lutheran College (WELS) and Bethany Lutheran College (ELS) where I was a pre-theology student and understand this to be the correct confessional principle.
If you say that the use of the words, "one nation under God" are meaningless or unimportant or try to diminish their meaning in any way, then all objections the WELS and ELS have against Scouting and Freemasonry are meaningless as well. In my youth I grew up in the ALC and was in DeMolay - a Masonic boys organization. DeMolay has many of positive aspects like Scouting does, character building, etc., and I know based upon years of firsthand experience that those oaths are fairly meaningless to the average member but there is a quiet consensus among members of the Masonic Lodge that Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same 'god'.
That is unionism and universalism and therefore it is heresy.
TTFN,
Jim
Like your blog.
Post a Comment