Remember This - The LCMS Clergy Worship the Synod - Not the Savior. They Cannot Even Get the Chief Article Straight

 Rev. Richard Anton Bolland

Farewell Missouri 

Rev. Richard Anton Bolland 

The first thing I'd like to address to the Missouri Synod before I leave her is my sincere gratitude. What I mean by that is my deep gratitude for the last 60 years of my life having been grounded in the theology of The Book of Concord of 1580 as the correct exposition of the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. 

The Ft. Wayne graduates are not only completely muddled by Objective Justification and professorial grandstanding; they are also inflated by adopting the gigantic but unearned egos of the professors.

While many in the Missouri Synod have minimized this treasure of the Church, and others have abandoned our theological heritage almost totally, there remain many more who have continued to embrace the true Lutheran/Christian faith without apology and will keep their ordination vows to the death if it should be required of them. For exposing me to this treasure, for teaching me, and providing me a seminary education at our Fort Wayne seminary that was a world class preparation for the Office of the Holy Ministry, I will remain eternally grateful. I am also profoundly grateful for the thousands of faithful laymen and women who have shown me how the Christian faith lives in the lives of God's saints. In many ways I learned more from you than I did at the seminary. 

As I part ways with the LCMS, I would offer a few words of advice to this, my beloved Synod. First, (and this is addressed primarily to the leaders of our Synod, but it applies to all who are servants of the Church,) remember that an earthly institution of the Church must have, as its primary objective, the maintenance of pure doctrine. Without the singular focus on this most significant aspect of our faith and our lives together, the Synod simply cannot remain a Synod in any meaningful sense of the term. Without a catholic agreement among us regarding what we believe, teach, and confess, there can be no true fellowship, no true agreement, and no true ability to be a manifestation of the true, visible Church on earth. 

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod cannot be merely an association of congregations, pastors and other church workers that is held together by the benefits of the Concordia Plans. For that, any insurance company would do. Our Synodical “Walking Together” is fundamentally grounded on our common, catholic doctrines of the Christian faith. If it is the Synod's primary focus to simply maintain the stability of the institution (as it often seems to be), then we have lost our way. 

What I have observed over the more than 60 years as a member of the LCMS is a slow deterioration of our commitment to the maintenance of our catholic faith. It seems that when false teachers arise among us, we are reticent to actually deal with them unless the unblinking light of publicity forces those in authority to finally take action against the false teacher. We have rostered workers who openly advocate for the ordination of woman into the Office of the Holy Ministry. We have rostered workers who publicly give testimony that they have and intend to continue to participate in unionist and sometimes in syncretistic worship services with those with whom are not in doctrinal agreement. We have rostered workers who openly and publicly espouse the current “New Measures” of the Church Growth Movement who have abandoned our historic liturgies and who no longer rightly administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. These examples are merely illustrative, not exhaustive. 

And why has the LCMS continued to permit such blatant false teachers to continue to poison their congregations and the Synod with their aberrant teachings? The only reasonable explanation is that those ecclesiastical supervisors whose sacred duty is to safe guard the unity of our pure doctrine either agree with the error themselves or they value the maintaining of institutional stability more highly than they do the maintenance of pure doctrine. If the maintenance of a false “peace” in Missouri is built upon the foundation of the toleration of false teaching, then the Synod simply cannot survive as anything other than a loose confederation of congregations without a common faith. Indeed, such a church body has become what Walther describes as a heterodoxy church body. 

The second piece of advice I would offer is specifically to the Council of Presidents. I know some of you personally and some of you are good, faithful servants of the Word. Others I have come to know as men of political ambition who have actively sought the office you hold. Some DP's consider themselves to be officers of the institution first and conduct themselves accordingly while others understand they are servants of the Word of God first and institutional officers in a secondary sense. I would hope that those who have sought out the high offices [!] of the Synod and its Districts would repent of their prideful sin and resign their post. I would hope that those of you who see yourselves as a sort of “Prince” of the Church would do the same. Missouri needs leaders who hold the Scriptures and The Lutheran Confessions above the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod. Wherever the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod prohibit taking biblical actions they need to be changed. We are a Synod in which we believe in Faith Alone, Grace Alone, and Scripture Alone; and the Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod cannot be permitted to inform the doctrines and practices of the Church. It must be the other way around. 

My third piece of advice is for the recent crops of Confessional Lutheran men graduating from our two seminaries. I love your zeal for all things Lutheran and traditional, but you need to check your egos at the church door. What I have observed is a dismissive arrogance from some of you, not all, that is an embarrassment to the office you hold. Some have conducted themselves as though there have never been “real” Lutherans in our Synod prior to your arrival. Those who came before you are often treated like men who have nothing to offer you when we could have served as a valuable resource for you. I have seen some of you disrespect the voters of your congregations changing fundamental practices of the congregation without ever doing the hard work of patiently teaching your people why such changes are good, right, and salutary and without even giving a thought about seeking the permission of your congregation's voters for your proposals thereby making these changes as a congregation rather than as just the pastor desiring it. I have observed a disregard for a congregation's Constitution and Bylaws that are the agreement the congregation has made about how it will conduct the ministry God has called them to do. If you believe that the congregation's Constitution and Bylaws require revising, then there is a process to go through to achieve that end. Don't just ignore them and do whatever you want. At times, other people's opinion have just as much value as yours. 

So, I must bid my time with The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod farewell. I am not leaving for another Synod. I'll admit I have considered that option a number of times as I saw things happening in the LCMS that seemed to be ignored when it should have garnered action by our appointed ecclesiastical supervisors. I am leaving for the Church Triumphant. My doctors have told me that my cancer is not curable and that, after a time of travail, I will draw my last earthly breath. My 75 years of this earthly life will come to an end. Soon I shall rest in the arms of my Lord and stand before His throne of grace. 

Thank you Missouri for all you have given me in my decades of service to God's people as a Lutheran teacher, a school principal, a Director of Christian Education, and as a pastor. A more wonderful life I could never have wished for. Be faithful Missouri. It's not about the institution, but the maintenance of the treasure of the Church, her pure doctrine. As former Synodical President Al Berry [GJ - Ha!] rightly said, “Keep the message straight, Missouri.” 

Rev. Bolland is a member of Our Savior Lutheran Church (LCMS), Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

 "Mommy, why does Holy Mother Missouri teach the same as Holy Mother ELCA?"

 Mother Missouri began to go downhill sharply when the Objective Justification forces canonized Walther, Pieper, and the 1932 Brief Statement.

People Are Noticing the Enormous Swindle Called UOJ/OJ/General Justification

John Brenner, Mequon aka Mordor
His father was a great guy - John Slick Brenner.
His grandfather was John W. O. Brenner.

 John Slick Brenner was energetic and lived to be 94. He asked me, "Why do you understand the issues and our own guys don't?"

Crucial Section from Jars of Clay, 
His History of Mequon

August Pieper Reflections, 1922
"Make no mistake," Pieper insisted, "The secret of Walther's power lay in his clear, popular, joyful, and convincing presentation of objective justification. That was also Luther's power , Paul's power, and the power of the Gospel itself, the power of God which creates faith unto salvation." 


He goes on to explain -
In contrast to the justification scheme of later dogmaticians, Walther taught, not a justifying act of God in view of faith, but rather a faith in view of God's justification. God's act of justification [GJ - OJ] forgiveness of sin] precedes faith. It is not that the sinner must first believe [and only then that God forgives sin]. In this connection Walther repeatedly cited Luther's example of a royal castle that was actually bestowed on a beggar, whether he accepted it or not.

Jars of Clay, pp. 64-5

August Pieper became president of the seminary
after Kohler was removed.

"God's act of justification" is August Pieper's filter than places a gauzy layer of distortion over the Four Gospels. As Pieper admitted, Walther did not draw his dogmatic lectures from the Bible, not did he lead students into the Scriptures. He simply declared his statements, quite the opposite of Luther.

Luther did not preach a man-made institution, as the Synodical Con-men did. Each one was better than the other, yet they all agree against the Chief Article of Christianity - Justification by Faith. 

Their use of the "Justification" is a smokescreen for Absolution of the World - Without Faith. That might seem to protect them from the charge of Universalism, but OJ is Universalism with a different set of words for the same content.

The treasure of the Gospel, as the Book of Concord says - using the words of Luther - is the Atonement, Christ dying for our sins. To confuse that with Justification by Faith is a crime of stupidity or one of gross deception.

Wauwatosa - Ambiguous Language about UOJ. UOJ and Jon Buchholz Explained

August Pieper wrote Isaiah II,  got rid of Kohler.

He wrote Biblical Christology, a good summary.

Kohler was an architect and church historian,
a real brain, so WELS got rid of him.
He is the saint/martyr of the Protest'ants.

A Michigan reader asked:

Weren't Kohler, Schaller & A. Pieper responsible for the Wauwatosa Theology books?  I'm forgetting the early WELS details. 

Here is the last sentence from the first paragraph of your post:

  

If we find that the idea of reconciliation bears a close resemblance to those of propitiation and satisfaction, so that we slip from the one into the other almost without noticing it, we need not be disturbed; for we are not called upon to establish a regular logical sequence of these terms, but to accept each one at its full value without cavil.

The "without cavil" ending is good, but the flow of that sentence, one long 'if', suggests to me a reasoned extension allows the inclusion of justification though that might be outside of the broader context. 

Likewise, the last sentence in the second paragraph, when it includes the knowledge of justification with reconciliation in the giving of the Word, could be read as a hedge that would allow inclusion of justification in reconciliation, which would have happened at the crucifixion.

Thus the giving or establishing of this Word (of reconciliation) is a consequence of the reconciliation and therefore at the same time includes the knowledge of the justification of the sinner, which indeed is involved in the reconciliation, but is not identical with it. –

Maybe it is just his manner of presentation that I find suspicious.  Taking just his words, you are right; he is not selling UOJ.  But I can see that how he says it can be extended to become objective justification. 

Even Hoeneke can be read two ways.  Maybe it is just WELS writers have never been totally sure of what they wanted to say, or never careful enough to allow no misinterpretation.

Interesting quotations though.  Thanks. 

***

GJ - 

From - Essentially Lutheran, an Augie Pieper quote:

“ … we submit to no man, be his name Luther or Walther, Chemnitz or Hoenecke, Gerhard or Stoeckhardt, so long as we have clear Scripture on our side. . . . We esteem the fathers highly, far higher than ourselves as far more learned and more devout than we are. Therefore, we want to use them, particularly Luther, as guides to Scripture, and to test their doctrines a hundred times before we reject them. But authorities equal to Scripture or opposed to Scripture they may never become for us, or we shall be practicing idolatry. . "

More from the same blog:

They saw that the conservative synods of the Lutheran church were falling victim to the same error that Luther denounced - putting the authority of the church fathers above that of Scripture. Pieper called this authority-theology.

"We renounce this authority-theology anew. It causes so much damage to the church. It is unfaithfulness to the Lord; slavery to men; it brings errors with it. But it also makes the mind narrow and the heart small. . . . Dogmatic training perhaps makes one orthodox, but it also easily makes one orthodoxist, intolerant, quarrelsome, hateful, and easily causes division in the church.

. .

Scripture is at once narrow and broad. The study of it makes the heart narrow to actual false doctrine and heresies, but broad toward various human expressions and presentations. It does not accuse of false doctrine unnecessarily; it teaches us to bear and suffer in love the mistakes of the weak. It keeps the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. Therefore we want to entirely do away with this dogmatic authority-theology, and to sink ourselves ever deeper into Scripture and to promote it above all else. We know that in doing so we will best serve the church.”

- August Pieper (1913), Quoted by Mark Braun in The Wauwatosa Gospel (2002). p 25.

---

This blog died five years ago, but it is fun to read the self-glorification of WELS, which leaves me gasping for breath - it is so funny:

http://wauwatosagospel.blogspot.com/2007/08/attempting-definition.html

***

GJ - No single word describes the dogma and attitude of WELS better than Wauwatosa. 

Their attitude, as revealed above, was typically anti-Confessional. In renouncing authority-theology, Augie made himself the authority, who could judge the two norms of Scripture (ruling norm) and the Confessions (the norm ruled by the Scriptures).

One Pieper to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them. Trying to explain the split is so complicated that few understand all the events that led to the president of the seminary being ousted over a paper. Could that happen today in WELS? It just did.

From Augie to John Jeske (same family - Kevin Hastings a has a great joke, which I cannot repeat) to Mark Jeske - identical arrogance, foolishness, and ego. People like that do not care how many bodies they trample on, how many congregations they divide and destroy.

Jon Buchholz announced that UOJ was "settled doctrine for 150 years" in WELS, even though the opposite is true. Besides that, Jon made it clear that HE was the authority.

Ambiguity and philosophical dancing-around are two characteristics of anti-confessional writing. 

Why are the Wauwatosans difficult to read, the Concordists easy to read? The Wauwatosans are wrapped up in all their modern philosophical training, German literature angst, and self-admiration.

WELS has always wanted to define itself as distinctly different from Missouri, and the green eyes of jealousy are never missing from that comparison.

Walther was very much their type of theologian - only a bachelor's degree but full of himself, a poor exegete, an Antinomian Pietist. The trouble is, he got a big operation going by controlling it all himself, and WELS kept tearing itself up with conflicts and ugly behavior.

Ambiguity about UOJ versus justification by faith is easy to find in:

• Hoenecke.
• Lenski.
• Schaller.

Two forces were at work:

1. The influence of Pietism and Halle made UOJ acceptable, so we find Marquart and Webber still citing the Halle Pietist Rambach to "prove" Easter absolution.
2. All American Lutherans were struggling with the Confessions to rectify the errors of the past. Thus they were either publishing Luther in English and German, printing the Book of Concord, and writing anew about the Reformation.

We do not have to defend any given theologian or writer, because there really are two authoritative sources - the Word and the Confessions.

The Intrepid Lutherans were good at stating that classic Lutheran concept, but the unspoken ruling authority there  is Holy Mother WELS, incarnate in Mark Schroeder. Thus real discussion is impossible, lest Holy Mother be offended. Holy Mother is easily and often offended - not by murder, file-swapping, clergy adultery, or false doctrine - but by Luther's doctrine.

Too bad Tim Glende kilcreased his blog, or I could promise another screaming post from him, echoes of Wauwatosa Pietism.

The following graphics explain the situation well.

The Church Shrinkers advocate open communion and no communion.

This describes Wauwatosa and WELS today.

Schmauk on Church Growth, Emergent Church, multi-culturalism.

 

This zipped all over Facebook after being posted.
Finally, one of my FB friends told me about its viral spread and said,
"Is that your graphic?"