A common theme in the LCMS podcaster world is “We are divided.” There is wailing and gnashing of teeth about it, and calls for the division to end. “Now is not the time to be divided,” they say. And I agree with that! But how do they propose to heal the rift? “You Gottesdienst guys, you liturgical types, you have to suck it up and just accept whatever we’re doing. You do your liturgy thing with hymns, we’ll do non-liturgical worship with pop songs, and we’ll pretend like it’s all the same, brother!”

That’s why they want “conversation.” They have no intention of restoring the liturgy. They have every intention of wearing us down and making us accept their rejection of the liturgy. They have no intention of making their services look like Article 24, they have every intention of convincing us that Article 24 doesn’t matter. That’s what they mean by “conversation” and “unity.”

So they complain about our division, but where did the division come from? Maybe we need to take a stroll down memory lane.

After The Lutheran Hymnal (TLH) came out in 1941, we had very nearly 100% of our congregations using it. And I only say nearly 100% because I’m sure even then there were outliers. That said, I don’t actually know of any specific exceptions. In 1941, no LCMS church had yet abolished altar, font, and pulpit and replaced it with a stage and a bandstand. None of our congregations featured pastors strolling around in street clothes and greeting the congregation with “Good morning, church!” or taking a cleaver to the liturgy.

And yet, even with the unity of a common ordo and a common corpus of hymnody - there was great diversity. For it is true that for the true unity of the church there doesn’t have to be lockstep conformity in practice.

For example, one congregation may have met in a simple sanctuary, led by a pastor clad in cassock and surplice, using humble vessels for Holy Communion, with minimal use of ceremony, perhaps even speaking the service. They may not have had an organ, but may have used a piano. Maybe they didn’t even have a piano. They could have sung the service a cappella, or maybe someone played an acoustic guitar to lead the singing. The most accessible and modern hymns in the hymnal may have been used. No elevating. No genuflecting. No processions. Just a simple, “low church” liturgical service.

At the same time, a congregation across town may have had a large, elaborate gothic structure that called to mind the churches of Europe, with a magnificently crafted chalice, celebrating High Mass with celebrant, deacon, and subdeacon, with lots of ceremony - with even the readings being chanted. In addition to a pipe organ, they may have had orchestral instrumentation. The Common Service may have been sung as it appeared musically in the hymnal, or perhaps a Gregorian setting was used - while retaining the common ordo. They may have had a choir, and were able to sing the most challenging of hymns in the hymnal. And the celebrant may have made full use of ceremonies: elevation, genuflection, bells, incense, processions. An elaborate “high church” liturgical service.

Both services shared a common order of service (ordo) and a common hymnody - a common language from a common Bible translation and a common Catechism and a common hymnal. The preaching in both of these churches may have varied based on the gifts of the preacher, but they would have been very similar. And both would have practiced closed communion.

And this unity was a great boon. People could cross over and know exactly where they were in the service. They could participate fully with each other even with a large degree of diversity of practice. Why? Because there was a unified ordo and repertoire of hymns. Most churches were somewhere in the middle, as the bell curve always seems to get its way.

This unity persisted for decades.

The youth culture of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the Roman Catholic reforms of Vatican II led to the beginnings of the end of this unity. The LCMS Commission on Worship began to experiment with the Worship Supplement, then working to “update” the language and change the services (even the wording of the Lord’s Prayer - which, Deo gratias, didn’t take). The end result was Lutheran Book of Worship (LBW), and then Lutheran Worship (LW) in the 1980s. The common service was “modernized,” and a new service - with two different settings - was added. Some churches stuck with TLH, others went to LW, a few clung to LBW - and the churches’ use of services were fractured across the board.

Another trend was the “folk services” - such as the wretched Chicago Folk Service - which at least retained a liturgical order, even with the musical slop. Then we began to see deviations even from that. In the 1980s and 1990s, churches ditched the liturgy entirely, aping the worship practices of church bodies that don’t confess the real presence, in some cases, looking fully non-denominational.

Fast forward to today, where we have non-liturgical churches everywhere, and even megachurches that have a stage and a band instead of church furnishings, with screens instead of hymnals, with non-Lutheran music, and an orderless ordo. They don’t wear vestments. They do immersion baptisms (and even re-baptisms) in inflatable kiddie pools. They do “Holy Communion” using fake props on fake sets - sometimes with at-best questionable consecrations of the elements - and try to convince people that the Lord is truly present amid all the fakery. And they put their services online for all to see. And I don’t know any of these churches that practice closed communion - thus introducing yet more disunity in spite of the synod’s consensus that we not practice open communion in our congregations. They don’t care. They just do whatever they want. But we’re the divisive ones.

People are scandalized by this. Lay people are heartbroken. They want to go to a faithful LCMS church, but sometimes all that is anywhere near them are churches like these that have left the unity of our ordo and hymns. Some people drive an hour - or even more - passing by multiple LCMS churches just to find a service that is liturgical, where the pastor is dignified in his preaching.

Pastors, ready to receive refugees from non-denominational churches, get asked why they see online LCMS churches worshiping the same way as the churches they are leaving - and they start looking elsewhere. I’ve had people ask about coming to the LCMS, and I have no congregations that I can send them to.

Thanks a lot, “brothers.”

This broken unity creates division when districts try to have worship services at conventions and conferences. Having the local clergy participate in ordinations and installations can be difficult because of the lack of unity. I once met a young man who was visiting CTSFW as he was considering attending seminary and going into the ministry. He had never before ever even seen a liturgical service. It is like trying to keep a society intact when there is no common language.

But we are the ones who are accused of being divisive.

Their advice? Suck it up, buttercup. Just don’t be scandalized.

At this point in time, those who have jettisoned the liturgy are not in power in our synod. But they do have enough power to avoid any kind of oversight or discipline. At best, their district presidents will privately wag a finger at them, while their unity-destroying practices simply continue. Conventions can pass resolutions calling for closed communion until our Lord comes back, but it will make no difference at all. Everyone does what is right in his own eyes. But it’s not a lack of unity when they do it. Remember, we are the divisive ones. But they do want to take control of the synod. They admit it. They want to change the structure of our polity. They want to apportion votes not in a way that every congregation is equal (as is the case now, and has been since the beginning of synod). Rather, they want to change our polity so that the bigger, richer, and more likely to be non-liturgical churches and pastors get a proportionally larger vote. They also want to create alternative routes to the ministry that bypass our rigorous (and liturgy-centric) residential seminary training.

And let’s say that one of our non-liturgical podcaster-elites, or their allies, takes the presidency. And lets say that some of their compatriots and fellow travelers become district presidents. What then? I would expect a crackdown on being “divisive” - not them, mind you, not the ones who created and continue to foster division, but rather us. I can see them using heavy-handed techniques to shut down dissent, to compel the scandalized to shut up, toe the line, and march to their cadence - or else.

If we let that happen, we deserve the consequences that we will get. We’ll get “brotherly unity,” and we’ll get it good and hard. Mark my words.

Where we go from now is anyone’s guess. But younger lay people and pastors are more liturgical and traditional. Even the guys who blame us as the divisive ones admit it. So that’s a good thing. And with all of its issues, LSB was an improvement over multiple hymnals of the past. Five settings of the ordo is not a good thing, but it was simply the cost of getting us moved to a common hymnal. Both of our seminaries are under confessional leadership and practice a unified liturgical authenticity. Ongoing international contacts reveal a worldwide unity of liturgical worship, and expose entertainment worship to be a provincially first-world North American aberration. There has been a renaissance of interest in translating more of our heritage hymns into English for use in our churches.

So I think we’re moving in the right direction. In that sense, we are becoming more unified. And that unity need not be lockstep conformity in practice, in level of ceremony, in the specific hymns that a congregation favors. We will continue to have diversity within the ordo. We’ll find unity with the congregations and pastors, our brothers, that truly want unity. We’re not going to be gaslighted by the champions of disunity, and scolded for being divisive by the ones who chose to be divisive. We’re not going to shut up about it either.

I’m all for conversations - but not with those who are causing disunity and who are gaslighting the silent majority of us who actually do want to walk together in unity. Let those who want to walk their own way, go walk their own way. Delta’s ready when you are. But for those of us who want true unity, let’s be unified, in the words of the hymn: “with hearts and hands and voices,” and in the words of our confessions: “in doctrine and in ceremonies.”

Both in private conversations and on social media, I’m running into younger people - both pastors and laity - who are discouraged by things in the LCMS.

Some of them are converts (like me). Some of them have come from non-denominational churches with no connection to historic, creedal, liturgical Christianity. Somehow, they ran across a Lutheran pastor, a Lutheran podcast, a Lutheran church, or the Lutheran Confessions - and became excited about what they have learned about our confession and faith.

But at some point, they encounter an LCMS congregation, whether live or online - and they can’t believe what they are seeing. They’re scandalized, and are wondering if they made a mistake joining the LCMS. Often, it is the lack of liturgical worship that they observe, and/or TED-talk preaching: smirking, casual pastors with the polished Big Eva stage presence, and weird sacramental practices - along with throwing away the treasury of our hymns. Or it may be encountering certain podcasters and influencers who are pushing a kind of Lutheranism other than “Book of Concord” Lutheranism.

Sometimes the reaction is anger. Sometimes it is hurt. Sometimes is is distress. And nobody who is sowing these seeds of division seems to care at all that people are scandalized by this obvious deviation from what we can all read with our eyes in Augustana and Apology 24. And it often seems that it is the big churches, the rich churches, the churches with the loudest voices and biggest megaphones, that are pushing the kind of Lutheranism that often hides even the name “Lutheran” under a bushel. Some converts have come from former Pentecostal and NAR churches, escaping that kind of weirdness only to find that there are LCMS churches that have gotten rid of the altar, font, and pulpit - exchanging them for a stage and a bandstand, playing those very same vapid “praise songs” that they heard in their former churches, with people waving their arms about.

There are other distressing things in LCMS churches besides the liturgical monkeyshines, but I’ll just leave it at that for now.

I, too, am frustrated and scandalized by all of this. It is heartbreaking and distressing. I am especially saddened for laypeople who live in areas surrounded by LCMS congregations, but are in the midst of liturgical deserts. I recently ran across a Facebook friend’s post from a few years back in which he describes that he commutes 75 minutes each way every Sunday, driving past several LCMS congregations, just to find a liturgical congregation. My reply to him - especially knowing his pastor - was that it is so worth it.

As gloomy as things so often seem, we have reason to be encouraged.

On this very day 250 years ago, John Adams wrote to his wife a letter about his optimism for America, even with its struggles in striving for independence. He wrote:

"Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means.”

Yes, even with all of the nonsense and discouragement in the church, I am optimistic. Don’t be discouraged!

I’m approaching my 22nd anniversary of ordination later this month. And when I was a layman, a seminarian, and then when I graduated and took my first call (and a year later, a call to my current parish) things were much worse than they are now.

• As a layman, I found out that my pastor was a member of the now-defunct Renewal in Missouri (RIM) - a full-blown group of “tongues”-speaking charismatics.

• My district was in an open state of rebellion regarding closed communion.

• Liturgical churches and pastors were mocked. We were called “black-shirts” and our congregations were marginalized. Let’s just say there was a lot of ugly politics, and I’ll leave it at that.

• There were obnoxious and bitter liberal pastors who had openly sided with the Walkout still hanging around

• Vicars were compelled to “consecrate.”

• “Shine, Jesus, Shine” was all the rage.

• There were pastors openly proposing women’s “ordination” - even publishing convention memorials to that effect

• Several DPs banned the use of the word “confessional.” A group of confessional pastors had an annual conference that had the word “confessional” in it. They had to change their name (even on their bank account). In a humorous response, they rechristened their conference “Sine Nomine” (no name).

• The Book of Concord was held in contempt. Certainly not by all (there were faithful older pastors indeed!). But it was not uncommon to hear established pastors making disparaging remarks, and even open mockery, leveled at the Lutheran Confessions. Pastors joked about using it as a door stop, about never opening it after seminary. They wore this as a badge of honor.

• The synod president at the time had created a stifling atmosphere for the confessionally-and liturgically-minded. In fact, to this day, he continues to make bizarre statements that indict chanting, genuflecting, and crucifixes as “Romanizing.” And, of course, a lot of his loyalist district presidents under his administration aped that kind of nonsense.

• In those days, even wearing a chasuble was seen as radical. Incense was unheard of. Copes were exceedingly rare. Many congregations were still fighting over every Sunday communion.

• There was a very ugly fight that saw a faithful liturgical and confessional seminary president fired, a replacement whose mission it was to shut down the seminary, a lawsuit, and a restoration of the fired president to the faculty.

• One of our seminaries had praise-band worship.

• One year, a slew of confessional graduates from one of our seminaries was systematically denied calls.

• The synod convention authorized laymen to consecrate the elements of Holy Communion in what Prof. Marquart referred to as the repeal of Article 14.

I’m sure there is much more to be said.

But now, things are exponentially better, and we have momentum. Looking at the mess that is the ELCA, more and more of our LCMS pastors and laity are assertive in not wanting the world to invade church. Pastors in collars and wearing vestments and serving at altars are now ordinary visuals in our synod’s publications. Both of our seminaries are now on a solid liturgical and confessional footing, and under faithful leadership. Even at Divine Services at conventions and conferences, there has been a shift toward liturgy and reverence. The Council of Presidents and the Praesidium have had enormous turnover, with a lot of faithful men serving in those positions.

I have noticed subtle changes within the “CoWo” (contemporary worship) camp that I think are important developments. It used to be that they didn’t care about the Book of Concord, and didn’t even bother paying lip service to it. But now, it is common to hear even the most radical podcasters try to use the Confessions to argue for non-liturgical and entertainment-based worship. They do cherry-pick and sidestep a lot, as the Book of Concord has much to say about authentic Lutheran worship - but they recognize that they can no longer simply ignore it. The McCain Edition has been a boon to educating our laity, making them increasingly bamboozle-proof. There has also been another telling shift. There was a time when they attacked the liturgy, liturgical pastors, and liturgical congregations, alleging that liturgy drives people away. Today, they sing a different tune. Today, you’ll hear them paying lip-service to the liturgy. Today their argument is: “I love the liturgy,” “All that high-church stuff is beautiful,” “If that works in your context, go for it,” etc. Their current talking point is that in spite of their abiding love for liturgy and ceremony, darn it, it just won’t work in their context. Some of them, in addition to the full-blown contemporary service (or “modern worship” as they prefer to call it today), actually have a sort-of mixed semi-liturgical service that they describe as “traditional.” Of course, you can watch these services on YouTube. They frequently monkey with the ordo. For example, they’ll change up the words. They’ll sometimes omit the Creed. They’ll skip the Preface. They’ll shift the order around. They’ll still use “praise songs.” But they’ll wear an alb when they do it. As one of them actually said in a podcast: “I wear robes!” Sigh. As cringe as all of this is, it shows that the ground has shifted. This is indicative of the great progress that has been made through the hard and patient work of catechesis.

Younger people are moving in a more traditional direction. People are leaving Big Eva in search of something more authentic. Younger pastors are likewise more confessionally-minded and liturgical. Again, both of our seminaries are on solid ground. The CoWo faction is not the only one with podcasts. People are coming to confessional Lutheranism because of online content that articulates a joyfully traditional, authentic, confessional, and liturgical Lutheranism, in harmony with our Book of Concord and our Evangelical Catholic heritage. There is once again an emphasis on beauty - as well as truth and goodness (the transcendentals) - especially among our booming Classical Education movement. Along with this renaissance is a real revival of traditional music, especially among the young: chant, chorales, and hymnody; organ, choirs, and other traditional instrumentation and musical arrangement.

I’m finding a seriousness and zeal among our young (and our older) men headed off to seminary. They sense that this is a unique time in our history, and now is not the time for turning our worship into a show. They sense that people are hungry and thirsty for the Gospel, for reverence, for authenticity, and for that which is enduring.

And let’s put things into proper historical perspective. Think about how daunting the task was for the Eleven being told to convert the world. Think about those early days of martyrdom. Think about when it seemed that the Arians would win the day, when faithful bishops were being exiled. Think about the fall of Rome and the advance of the Barbarians. Think about the many eruptions of scandal and controversy in the church of the middle ages. Think about the perils that faced the reformers. Think about those nine brave pastors at Magdeburg, who refused to surrender the faith even in the face of starvation, and how against all odds, their siege ended, and the reformation was saved. Think about the pastors and laity who served and lived during the plague, and during the Thirty Year’s War - and the uplifting hymns they left us even from the crucible of suffering and death - let us learn and sing those hymns. All of this is our heritage. It is our ongoing story.

Indeed, it is easy look around and fall into despair. But think about how many times the Lord has come to our aid even in times of grave desperation. We are called to stay the course and to remain faithful. We are called to be happy warriors of the Church Militant, knowing how the war ends! So let us ride joyfully to battle, following the cross, chanting our liturgies and singing our hymns with zeal, with love for our neighbor and for our Lord!

So once again, don’t be discouraged! If you have to drive two hours to go to church, yes, it’s expensive and it is a burden on families - but think about how worth it it is to find a faithful congregation! Show your family what a priority it is. Put it into eternal perspective. Give thanks to the Holy Spirit that He has enlightened you with His gifts, and has drawn you into a faithful parish. Pray fervently for not only more pastors, but more faithful pastors and more faithful parishes, so that we never go back to the dark ages where jokes were made about our Confessions.

And when the men who are just starting their ministries now look back after two decades of service, I am confident that they too will rejoice optimistically in how the Lord has blessed the church, our synod, and their own ministries. And no matter what unforeseen challenges the church will be facing then, they too will write posts at Gottesblog assuring the young people of that future time that our merciful Lord, has blessed, and will continue to bless, His bride, the church - even unto eternity!

Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matthew 16:16–19)

The Roman Problem

I wrote recently on some of the liturgical material pertaining to the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul, and how it demonstrates quite a different understanding of Matthew 16 than that commonly held by those within the Roman Church today. This was subsequently made all the more clear by the Epistle appointed for ferial days within the octave of the aforementioned feast, which is clearly meant to interpret the mass of the feast itself. While the Gospel for the feast included the confession of St. Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," and the declaration of Our Lord: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," the Epistle for the ferial days within the Octave is from St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians: "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." The Epistle for the days following the feast is, unmistakably, identifying "this rock" as Christ Himself, leaving no room for the observant faithful to draw any other conclusion.

After writing the previous article, I began reading a very interesting (and lengthy) speech from the 19th century by Peter Richard Kenrick, the first Roman Catholic archbishop of St. Louis. He writes in light of the discussions of the First Vatican Council regarding the nature of the papacy, which would culminate in Pastor aeternus and the fourfold definition of Petrine primacy, the continuation of that primacy in the bishops of Rome, the further definition of that primacy as supremacy, and, most infamously, the definition of the dogma of papal infallibility.

Kenrick relates in some detail how the patristic witness overall vastly prefers the interpretation of “this rock” in Matthew 16 as Christ Himself, or the correct confession of Christ, and I will take the liberty of quoting him at length. All emphases in bold are my own.

"The primacy of the Roman pontiff, both in honor and in jurisdiction, in the universal church, I acknowledge. Primacy, I say, not lordship. But that the primacy is vested in him as the successor of Peter, all the tradition of the church testifies, from the beginning. And on the sole strength of this testimony I accept it as an absolutely certain principle and dogma of faith. But that it can be proved from the words of Holy Scripture, by any one who would be faithful to the rule of interpretation prescribed to us in that profession of faith which we have uttered at the opening of this Council, and so often on other occasions, I deny. It is true that, following the principles of exegesis, I held the opposite view…. But on a closer study of the subject, I judge that this interpretation must be abandoned. My reason for this change of opinion is the following:

The rule of Biblical interpretation imposed upon us is this: that the Scriptures are not to be interpreted contrary to the unanimous consent of the fathers. It is doubtful whether any instance of that unanimous consent is to be found. But in this failing, the rule seems to lay down for us the law of following, in their interpretation of Scripture, the major number of the fathers, that might seem to approach unanimity. Accepting this rule, we are compelled to abandon the usual modern exposition of the words, "On this rock will I build my church." (pp. 106–107)

Kenrick then goes on to relate a summary of the patristic witness stemming from a pamphlet distributed to the council fathers regarding the five different interpretations of the word “rock” in the passage “upon this rock I will build my church”, and I will somewhat condense his summary in the bullet points below

• “the church was built on Peter” — 17 fathers, including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, and Augustine

• "the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primacy" — 8 fathers, including Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, and Theodoret

• "the words 'On this rock, etc.’ are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed — that this faith, this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the living God, is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church." — 44 fathers and doctors, including Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo, and Augustine

• “the words, ‘On this rock,’ etc., are to be understood of that rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ—that the church was built upon Christ.” — 16 fathers and doctors

• the rock is “the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built” [no names or numbers specified]

Kenrick summarizes:

“Unless it is certain that by the rock is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infallibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.”

He then goes on to deal with the particular arguments circulating in his own time, which I will leave you to read at your leisure. I quote all of this at length to remind the reader that not only papal infallibility, but even the primacy of the Roman see, were very much matters under debate within the Roman church only a century and a half ago, and that the clear witness of Holy Scripture and the consensus of the church fathers against the machinations of Rome was fully recognized by many at the time. But with the definitions of Vatican I, all of this was washed away and the conversation was closed. Because no matter the lip service that the Roman Church may pay to Holy Scripture, the church fathers, or the tradition of the church, it is, finally, built upon the claim of Petrine supremacy. The rock on which that church is built is explicitly not Christ, but the line of bishops extending down from St. Peter. And when Scripture and tradition stand in the way — as they so often do — they can be swept away by the magisterial authority, purportedly drawn from St. Peter, and no one can stand in the way of the Roman pontiff without facing dire consequences.

Take, for example, the events of the last week. The last few days have seen episcopal consecrations performed apart from papal permission by the traditionalists of the SSPX, which has incurred an automatic and instant (latae sententiae) excommunication for the bishops, clergy, and any laity who participate in their masses — some 600,000 in all — for one reason and one reason alone: they dared to ordain bishops without approval from Rome. Meanwhile, headlines last week prominently featured Roman priests in New York City who yet again unabashedly celebrated a rainbow flag-bedecked "Pride Mass" in front of the Stonewall Inn with no apparent consequence. A denial of the clear doctrinal and moral teaching of Holy Scripture and all of the history of orthodox Christianity in full public view in the most prominent city in the world received no meaningful response, while the utterly doctrinally serious and staunchly conservative SSPX saw over half a million excommunicated. These abuses are so numerous and so routine that "if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." Anything — anything at all — can be overlooked in the Roman church, so long as you acknowledge Petrine primacy.

Because papal supremacy is the only doctrine of the Roman Church that truly matters, and everything — yes, even Christ Himself — can be swept aside when the papacy so pleases. See, for example, the functional universalism of Nostra aetate (1965), which claimed that adherents of Islam "adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth." Rather than building a Church upon the One who said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” the “conservative” Pope John Paul II infamously bowed to and kissed the Qur'an, and his even more “conservative” successor Pope Benedict XVI prayed alongside a mufti in a Turkish mosque.

This is the logical result of a church that, by its own definition, is built upon the frail human successors of Peter and not on the Rock, namely Christ Himself. While our Lutheran forebears identified this problem quite clearly in the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, I think that even they would be shocked at the way in which those seeds have come into hideous flower. Because all of this poisonous fruit is from one seed — making St. Peter the rock upon which the church is built, rather than Christ Himself, an assertion which flies in the face of Holy Scripture, the broad patristic witness, and the liturgical tradition of the church.

The Lutheran Problem

Looking outside, of course, is easy. But a form of the same sickness has been growing in some parts of our own communion, as various bishops in our partner churches, leaning heavily on their claims to apostolic succession, have declared full communion with the increasingly troubled Anglican Church in North America, established a rival Lutheran church in South America, and served as bishop to a liberal Anglican sect in Thailand. Even if it is only the first cell, it is the same cancer that has terminally infected the Roman Church — that the church receives its authority and identity from a line of human succession, and not its identity from the person of Christ Himself, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, and its authority from the Holy Scriptures.

In contrast, the true office of bishop, Dr. Luther says, is one quite different from that espoused by the Roman faction, and one that is truly to be desired:

Both the Old and the New Testaments give sufficient evidence of what a divinely wholesome thing it would be if pastors and Christian congregations might be visited by understanding and competent persons. For we read in Acts 9[:32] that St. Peter travelled about in the land of the Jews. And in Acts 15[:2] we are told that St. Paul together with Barnabas revisited all those places where they had preached. All his epistles reveal his concern for all the congregations and pastors. He writes letters, he sends his disciples, he goes himself. So the apostles, according to Acts 8[:14], when they heard how the Word had been received in Samaria, sent Peter and John there. Also we read in the Old Testament how Samuel travelled around, now to Ramah [1 Sam. 7:17], now to Nob [1 Sam. 21:1], now to Gilgal [1 Sam. 10:8; 11:14; 13:8; 15:12] and other places, not out of delight for taking a walk but out of love and a sense of duty in his ministry and because of the want and need of the people. Elijah [1 Kings 17–21] and Elisha [2 Kings 2–13] did the same, as we read in the books of Kings. More than any, Christ has done this kind of work on behalf of all, and on this account possessed no place on earth where he could lay his head or which he could call his own. This began even while he was in the womb, for he went with his mother over the hills to visit St. John [Luke 1:39].

Formerly, in the days of the ancient Fathers, the holy bishops diligently followed these examples and even yet much of this is found in the papal laws. For it was in this kind of activity that the bishops and archbishops had their origin—each one was obligated to a greater or lesser extent to visit and examine. For, actually, bishop means supervisor or visitor, and archbishop a supervisor or visitor of bishops, to see to it that each parish pastor visits and watches over and supervises his people in regard to teaching and life. And the archbishop was to visit, watch over, and supervise the bishops as to their teaching. (Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral Saxony, 1528)

In contrast to the modern Roman episcopacy and other aberrant episcopal patterns of behavior, this episcopacy is one rooted in the faith of the church and the love of the neighbor, one firmly founded on Christ, not on the lineage of one’s ordination or consecration, and one called to the care of souls, not to the imperious wielding of power. The natural instinct in such times and circumstances as these is to shrink back, to cast it all aside and lament what once was. But it is in just such times as these that we ought to define once again a true episcopacy, one rooted and grounded in Holy Scripture, a supervision in both faith and love.

The words of Dr. Luther in the 1528 Saxon Visitation Articles above about the work of bishops describe exactly the responsibilities outlined in the constitution of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod for the offices of synod president and district presidents. The President of the Synod is charged with the duty of “supervision regarding the doctrine and administration” of all officers, employees, districts, and district presidents of the Synod (Const. Art. X B 1) and district presidents are to “especially exercise supervision over the doctrine, life, and administration of office” of the pastors and teachers under their care, as well as to “acquaint themselves with the religious conditions of the congregations of their district” by means of visitation (Const. Art. XII 7). They are also tasked with the ordination (either in person or by proxy) of candidates for the pastoral office. All of these duties have been the primary responsibility of the Synod President (and later district presidents) since the very first constitution of the Synod in 1846/1847.

This shouldn’t be all that surprising, as the Lutheran dogmaticians are utterly clear in their assertion that the office of Superintendent (on which the Synod President is clearly based) is nothing other than a bishop. (cf. Hollaz, David. Examen Part IV Ch. II [On the Ecclesiastical Ministry] Q. X Obj. III) And when it comes to matters of succession, our Lutheran tradition is crystal clear, as in Gerhard:

After all, whom did Christ succeed? Whom did the apostles succeed? The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore He succeeded Melchizedek. Therefore the true succession can be interrupted, provided that it has the succession of doctrine connected with it. Paul says in 2 Tim. 1:3 that he serves God "from his forefathers," that is, from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Therefore he is proving his faith by an interrupted succession through his forefathers, who had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees.

When Stephen was accused of false doctrine (Acts 7), he appealed to Abraham, and beginning from him, he went down to the time of the Babylonian captivity, and then to the very times in which he had lived, covering about four hundred years.

The apostles were the true successors of the prophets because they both received and spread the prophets' pure doctrine. They were the true successors of Aaron because they followed his faith. Yet they succeeded neither the prophets nor Aaron immediately with regard to place. In the same way, those people who sincerely embrace the faith and doctrine of the apostles, as comprehended in their writings, must be considered the true successors of the apostles, even though they do not have that external, local succession.

With reference to the apostles, heretical priests, gravely erring in faith, most recently preceded them. Yet this does not at all oppose the doctrinal succession by which the apostles succeeded the prophets, Aaron, and other devout priests with regard to the ecclesiastical ministry. In the same way, the doctrinal succession was interrupted by a corrupt ministry. Yet this does not at all oppose that doctrinal succession by which the devout and orthodox ministers of the church succeed those who sincerely embrace the apostolic faith.

The apostles appealed to the internal, doctrinal succession over a local, external succession, of which Caiaphas could boast, when they bore public witness that they were teaching "nothing but what the prophets and Moses predicted would come to pass" (Acts 26:22). They also did not ask Caiaphas for ordination. In the same way today, in the Evangelical churches we correctly appeal to the doctrinal succession over a local and personal succession. We ask for neither ordination nor confirmation from the Roman pontiffs, who boast of a succession from the apostles but are actually imitating Caiaphas.

- Johann Gerhard, Theological Commonplaces, “On the Church”, Section V, paragraph 190

The succession of bishops and clergy in the Evangelical Lutheran Church is not the same as that in Rome, because their foundation is not the same. The foundation of the Roman Church, a personal succession descending from St. Peter, has led to a great deal of mischief thus far, and will no doubt continue to produce still more. Down this road lies only ruin, and any Lutherans looking hopefully down the path of personal succession for a sense of ecclesial certainty will only sow the seeds of their own destruction. Because the Church of the Augsburg Confession, together with the ancient witnesses of the church, is instead defined by a succession of doctrine, by the confession of the faith that St. Peter uttered: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” ever laying her foundation firmly on the Rock, which is Christ.

The Rev. Dr. D. Richard Stuckwisch, President of the Indiana District, has written this helpful commentary on President Harrison’s call that we should practice “Book of Concord Lutheranism.” This was recently published in his Indiana District column called Earthen Vessels. — Ed.

Book of Concord Lutherans

Over the past couple of years, President Harrison has made an appeal that we should aim to be “Book of Concord Lutherans,” and I have resonated with that approach and emphasis. Others, too, have positively embraced this description, although I’ve noticed – with some regret – that, at least in some cases, it appears to be interpreted and understood in a rather minimalistic fashion, as though our Lutheran Confessions were setting a low bar standard of theology and practice. I can’t help but view that reading of the Book of Concord as really missing the mark.

It is no surprise that differences of opinion regarding what it means to be a “Book of Concord Lutheran” center on worship practices. As I mentioned recently, I’ve been even more aware of such divisions over the past few months, beginning with my study of Augsburg Confession XV for the April meeting of the Council of Presidents, and then persisting with some of the overtures assigned to my floor committee, with my role as an advisory member of the CUS Board, and now also with my teaching on the Lutheran Liturgy in Taiwan these past couple of weeks.

The approach I’ve seen taken by numerous individuals is the citing of Augsburg Confession VII, affirming that the true unity of the Church does not require nor depend upon a uniformity of rites and ceremonies instituted by men, but rests solely upon the pure preaching of the Gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments in accordance with the Gospel. Formula of Concord X is often referenced, as well, indicating that the churches of God have the right to change human ceremonies (adiaphora) in ways that may be most useful and edifying to those churches, since such ceremonies are not in and of themselves any part of divine worship. What is more, churches should not condemn one another, nor break fellowship with one another, over differences in such human ceremonies, so long as they otherwise agree in doctrine and in the use of the Sacraments.

If that were all that our Lutheran Confessions had to say on these matters, I suppose one might conclude that a “Book of Concord Lutheran” has free rein with respect to worship practices, so long as the Gospel is being preached accurately and the Sacraments administered according to the Lord’s institution. I believe that St. Paul, church history, and pastoral wisdom would offer some attenuating arguments to such a conclusion, even apart from anything else in the Book of Concord itself. But the fact is that the Augsburg Confession, its Apology, and the Formula all have more to contribute to the conversation. It is also necessary to consider and interpret what the Book of Concord says within its proper historical, ecclesiastical, and literary contexts.

To start with, Formula of Concord X tempers its own comments regarding the freedom of the churches to change human ceremonies with a couple of significant caveats. First of all, it states that all frivolity and offense should be avoided, and that special care should be taken to exercise patience toward the weak in faith. It then asserts the main point of the article, that, under certain circumstances, practices which would otherwise be adiaphora may become points of confession in opposition to the false teaching and practice of the heterodox. Significantly, the “churches of God” in this article are not individual congregations, but larger communities of parishes. And it is noteworthy that two of the primary authors of the Formula of Concord, Martin Chemnitz and Jacob Andraea, also authored the Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel Church Order, which spelled out the doctrine and practice of the pastors and congregations included within its jurisdiction.

The fact is that, while the Lutheran Reformers and Confessors rightly affirmed that righteousness and salvation before God (coram Deo) are not obtained by – nor dependent on – the retention or abandonment of human ceremonies, they also recognized and affirmed other salutary reasons for the regulation of such practices, as well as the benefit of having unity in such practices. It needed to be understood that it is not for the forgiveness of sins or justification that human ceremonies are kept, but for the sake of love, discipline, good order, catechesis, and confession of the faith.

It is particularly significant, for example, that beyond the points made concerning the true unity of the Church in Article VII, the Augsburg Confession – and its Apology – go on to assert more than once that we Lutherans actually retain and reverently practice most of the customary rites and ceremonies of the church catholic. It is made quite clear that these traditional practices are not kept legalistically, nor as though they were necessary, but in the freedom of faith and love. Indeed, these are the very principles that Dr. Luther advocated in his earlier liturgical writings.

Here, then, is how the Book of Concord describes the evangelical Lutheran practice with respect to the traditional celebration of the Liturgy – undertaken in love – in the freedom of the Gospel (all quotation from Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, ed. Paul McCain, CPH 2005):

“Our churches teach that ceremonies ought to be observed that may be observed without sin. Also, ceremonies and other practices that are profitable for tranquility and good order in the Church (in particular, holy days, festivals, and the like) ought to be observed” (AC XV.1).

“In large part, the ancient rites are diligently observed among us. It is a false and hate-filled charge that our churches have abolished all the ceremonies instituted in ancient times” (AC Summary Statement 4).

“It can easily be judged that if the churches observed ceremonies correctly, their dignity would be maintained and reverence and piety would increase among the people” (AC Review of the Various Abuses 6).

“Our churches are falsely accused of abolishing the Mass. The Mass is held among us and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, except that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns. These have been added to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed for this reason alone, that the uneducated be taught ‹what they need to know about Christ›” (AC XXIV.1-3).

“Since the Mass among us follows the example of the Church, taken from the Scripture and the Fathers, we are confident that it cannot be disapproved. This is especially so because we keep the public ceremonies, which are for the most part similar to those previously in use” (AC XXIV.40).

“We keep many traditions that are leading to good order [1 Corinthians 14:40] in the Church, such as the order of Scripture lessons in the Mass and the chief holy days” (AC XXVI.40).

“What, then, are we to think of the Sunday rites, and similar things, in God’s house? We answer that it is lawful for bishops, or pastors, to make ordinances so that things will be done orderly in the Church, but not to teach that we merit grace or make satisfaction for sins. Consciences are not bound to regard them as necessary services and to think that it is a sin to break them without offense to others. . . . It is proper that the churches keep such ordinances for the sake of love and tranquility, to avoid giving offense to another, so that all things be done in the churches in order, and without confusion (1 Corinthians 14:40; comp. Philippians 2:14)” (AC XXVIII.53, 55).

“The Fathers celebrated human rites for the body’s benefit. For example, by such rites the people would know what time they should gather so that, for the sake of example, all things might be done in order and properly in the churches [1 Corinthians 14:40] and that the common people might receive a sort of training. Distinctions of times and the variety of rites help in reminding the common people. The Fathers maintained the rites for these reasons. We also conclude it is proper for these reasons to keep traditions ‹good customs›” (Apology XV.21).

“We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace. We interpret them in a more moderate way and reject the opinion that holds they justify. Our enemies falsely accuse us of setting aside good ordinances and Church discipline. We can truly declare that the public form of the churches is more fitting with us than with the adversaries. If anyone will consider it in the right way, we conform to the canons more closely than the adversaries. . . . From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs” (Apology XV.38-39, 44).

“Nothing in customary rites should be changed without a reasonable cause. So to nurture unity, old customs that can be kept without sin or great inconvenience should be kept. . . . For love’s sake we do not refuse to keep adiaphora with others, even though they may be burdensome. We have judged that such public unity, which could indeed be produced without offending consciences, should be preferred” (Apology XV.51, 52).

“We do not abolish the Mass, but religiously keep and defend it. Masses are celebrated among us every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals. The Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other such things” (Apology XXIV.1).

“Ceremonies should be celebrated to teach people Scripture, that those admonished by the Word may conceive faith and godly fear, and may also pray. (This is the intent of ceremonies.) So, we keep the Latin language to aid those who are learning and understand Latin. We mix with it German hymns so that the people also may have something to learn, and by which faith and godly fear may be produced” (Apology XXIV.3).

By way of a final note, the keeping and defending of “the Mass,” and the observance of “the usual public ceremonies” (as for example in Apology XXIV above) is the way our Lutheran Confessions summarize what President Harrison has described as following the “Ordo.

This was published January 8, 2013. — Ed.

The question recently came up in my congregation about the lack of a U.S. flag in the sanctuary of the church.  I did not remove it; my predecessor actually did it years ago, before I was called to my current congregation. And I support his decision to do so.

Continue reading…

 Dear brothers and sisters in Christ:

We're just under two months away from our fifth annual Henkel Conference, which aims to provide a forum of the best Christian speakers on theology and culture for the encouragement of God's church on earth. And we're elated to announce the additions of Carol Swain, Korey Maas, and Nathaniel Pullmann to an already spectacular lineup, which now includes

• Mollie Hemingway, Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist, Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College, Fox News contributor, and best-selling author

• Scott Yenor, Chair of the American Citizenship Initiative at The Heritage Foundation and Professor of Political Science at Boise State University

• Carol Swain, Former Professor of Political Science and Law at Vanderbilt University and Co-chair of the 1776 Commission

• Alex Newman, President of Liberty Sentinel Media

• Noelle Mering, Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in the Life and Family Initiative and columnist for the Catholic Herald

• Korey Maas, Chairman and Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College

• Nathaniel Pullmann, Headmaster of Redeemer Classical School (Fort Wayne, IN)

With a slight change to prior years, we're excited to conclude the conference with a discussion on free speech with panelists Mollie Hemingway, Scott Yenor, and Carol Swain and moderator Alex Newman.

We wish not only to host great speakers for the church's edification, but also to offer a merry gathering; hence, we’ve once again booked the best pizza joint in Nashville for dinner after the opening day. A local Christian bookstore will be selling the works of the speakers and other items during the conference.

Scholarships remain for high school and college students (inquire for the promo code via the email link below), and feel free to forward this email to anyone who might be interested in attending.

May Christ our Savior be with you always.

Rev. Gregory Bauch

Ascension Lutheran Church, Madison TN

Register here.

By Vsevolod Lytkin

“With a priest or kulak foe —
Here’s the chat we’re keeping:
Drive a bayonet right into
The bloodsucker's fat belly!”
— Demyan Bedny

I have always wondered how a human could write such a "poem." But this is a classic of communist poetry. We were forced to read these verses when in school. And, you know, I think the biggest distress is that this isn't some distant past. I'm amazed that so many people in this world still love Communism. During the time of their leader, Vladimir Lenin, 360,000 priests, monks, and nuns were killed. Can you even imagine that? And God only knows how many laypeople were killed afterwards. Millions. Tens of millions. And countless beautiful church buildings were destroyed in our country.

“One of you, by brutal cross,
Was joined unto the Master’s side;
The other, through the sword’s red loss,
Was lifted to God’s Kingdom wide.”

These are the words from the hymn for the Feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. They were great men! They had much in common, and many differences. They died in different ways and at different times, but they gave their lives for their faith in Christ, the faith they preached to Jews and Gentiles. The faith they carried through poverty and hunger, beatings and mockery. Thousands of kilometers of travels, through a hostile pagan world.

The world has changed greatly since then; the world has become “Christianized.” The Church has reached the ends of the earth. The holy apostles became famous—cities and countless church buildings were named after them. They will not be forgotten, they will be remembered—how many people would dream of such posthumous glory!

But this is not what they dreamed of. They dreamed of the Gospel reaching the ends of the earth, that people in the east and west, north and south, would hear of Jesus Christ and believe and be saved. For this reason, the apostles went throughout the world, establishing local Churches and ordaining ministers for them—so that the salvific Gospel would be proclaimed. For this, the apostles gave their lives.

“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I say to you, you are Peter, and on this stone I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against her” (Mt 16:16-18).

So, blessed are you, Simon, who became Peter, for you did not follow men, leaving boats and nets, but followed God. God will be with you, and despite all your mistakes, He will lead you and those who hear your preaching to eternal bliss.

Blessed are you, Saul, who became Paul, for it was not men who revealed the truth about Jesus to you, but the Lord Himself appeared to you on the road to Damascus and revealed that Christ is the true Son of the Living God.

Christ builds His Church. And therefore, the gates of hell will not prevail against her. No matter how much the enemies fight, no matter how much blood the martyrs shed for the faith, hundreds rise up instead of dozens of the faithful, thousands instead of hundreds.

Peter and Paul became famous. Someone said that “we could study geography by their names.” And we honor them for their witness, for preaching the Gospel, for the fact that without them, we would not be in the Kingdom of God.

They did not care about glory, they did not boast of their victories, they were not "exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations" (2 Cor. 12:7), but they won the whole world for Christ. One of them was crucified, the other beheaded. They died for Christ, and therefore they live forever.

Because church buildings can be destroyed, even the largest and most sturdy. And the fragile temples of human lives can be easily destroyed too. This has often happened, and—who knows?—perhaps it will happen again. But the Church cannot be destroyed. Neither death, nor the devil, nor the terrifying gates of hell will prevail against her. Because the stones in this Church are Christ's faithful apostles, because the Church's one foundation is Christ, the Son of the living God.

I’ve seen several similar discussions recently among LCMS Lutherans on social media concerning Holy Baptism. The question is whether or not a Lutheran grandparent should baptize his or her own grandchild if the parents refuse to have the child baptized. The discussions pretty much follow a pattern. The pastors say “no.” But a good many of the laity “of a certain age” say “yes.” Some wholeheartedly advocate for the grandfather or grandmother to “baptize” the child secretly in the sink. Knowing the power of television “programming” and the hypnotic lure of the laugh-track, I wonder how many people “of a certain age” were influenced by this particular scene in the antichristian, subversive TV show called “All In The Family.” Of course, Archie’s own words do explain why his grandson was unbaptized and being raised by unbelievers.

While such opinions are motivated by a love of posterity and a desire for their salvation, as well as recognizing the salvific nature of Holy Baptism, they are misplaced and inappropriate. And in fact, the resort to “do it yourself” may well be a symptom of why the problem exists in the first place.

Keeping one’s grandchildren in the faith begins much sooner. It begins when the future grandparent is himself or herself young and as of yet unmarried. It begins by living the Christian life, not merely holding it intellectually or going through the motions. The Christian life is the liturgical life. For the liturgy is the Bible - the Word of God - in action. It is the liturgy not merely accepted intellectually, but lived out day by day “with hearts and hands and voices” (LSB 895), as the hymn teaches us. Of course, if this hymn from our tradition is not part of your life, it will have no such reflective catechetical value to you, and probably not to your children or grandchildren either.

So even as a single man or woman, live the liturgical life! Never miss a Sunday Divine Service. Attend Bible class. Be involved in the life of the church. “Pray, praise, and give thanks,” in the words of our Catechism. And if this phrase doesn’t resonate with you, once again, this is part of the problem - since the Catechism is foundational for a generational faith - as we recite in the Catechism from the Close of the Commandments (Ex 20:5-6). Your daily life is liturgical. Pray before meals (again, see the Catechism), as well as in the morning and evening (once again, the Catechism). Have a daily pattern of worship in the home, whether Matins, Vespers or Compline, or the simple orders of family prayer (LSB 294ff). Read the Scriptures daily! Don’t neglect private confession and absolution. Rejoice in the ebb and flow of the church year, of feasting and fasting (which should be more front and center than the sports seasons or other matters of entertainment and recreation). Let the liturgical life of the Word of Christ dwell richly in you (Col 3:16) - what you hear, pray, read, and sing. Let the Christian faith and life become a habitus, definitive of, and central to, who you are as a person.

And then look for a spouse that is on the same journey, or one who will join you on this path. This is crucial. A household divided will fall (Luke 11:17).

I realize that this is increasingly difficult today. Declining birthrates and generational unfaithfulness have conspired to make it harder for young people to find a godly spouse. This is a very real cross; all the more reason to pray that the Lord will provide. There are things you can do, such as looking for opportunities to meet other young people and other singles who share your faith. God works these things out in surprising ways. So cast a wide net. Don’t underestimate the power of “a friend of a friend.”

And when you do get married and have children, continue in this faith and life. Gladly hear and hold the Word sacred (again, Catechism), a commitment as holy and irrevocable as your marriage vows. Have your own children baptized publicly by your pastor at your church, and let the children never remember a time when the faith wasn’t paramount. Let them never call to mind when they didn’t see you pray, hear the preaching of the Word, or receive the Sacrament of the Altar. Commit to attending every Sunday, barring sickness or being away. Don’t fall into the world’s trap of making your children’s soccer or dance class a priority. The Divine Service is the focal point of the Christian life, for young and old. That is where we encounter the risen Lord in Word and Sacrament - including the Sacrament of Holy Baptism that your own children should cherish by witnessing others being baptized, by singing hymns lauding baptism, by making the sign of the cross, and by having their own baptismal certificate on the wall.

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” (Deut 6:4-9).

In doing all of these things, you are doing all that a person can do to make sure that his own future grandchildren will be baptized, raised in the faith, and saved. Without making the liturgical life, both at home and at church, a priority, you are sending a contrary message, knocking over the first domino in the Four Generation Fade: a very real phenomenon that pastors see and lament all the time.

The time to be serious about your grandchildren is when you raise your children.

Children raised in this way - especially when led by the father (Hausvater) as the “head of the family” (once again, the Catechism) - will be far more likely to pass the faith on to his own children.

All that said, a parent can do all of these things and his children may still go astray. And this is heartbreaking. Our antichristian culture along with the devil, the prince of this world, can lure away many a prodigal son or daughter. But the chances of such a lost sheep returning in repentance is far better when the children have been raised hearing the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and where Holy Baptism has been seen as a treasure “worth more than any” (LSB 594:1) from the time of his youth. And this is, yet again, a consequence of what is sung in the household. Is it only the world’s pop music? Is it Christian pop music that de-emphasizes the sacraments? And along these same lines, is the home a place where forgiveness is spoken, emphasized, and lived? Or is the Christian faith seen as legalism, moralism, and scolding?

So what is a grandparent to do if his own children wander and refuse to raise their children in the faith?

What he should not do is to take matters into his own hands, as did Abraham and Sarah, by seeking to force the kingdom into coming by their own action, by having Abraham sleep with Sarah’s servant Hagar. That usurpation, that lapse of faith, resulted in generational hardship for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all of the Israelites.

Unless it is a life-and-death emergency, it is not the vocation of the laity to baptize. Nor is the Holy Sacrament magic. It is supernatural, but it is not like a witch’s spell. Faith is involved. This is why even babies confess the Creed and take vows at their baptisms, speaking by faith through the parents and sponsors. For a child to be baptized apart from such parental faith is to put a target on the child’s back. Baptism saves, but not apart from faith. For example, you can’t evangelize and make Christians of hundreds of people by swimming in the ocean and screaming out the baptismal formula. You can’t hand out salvation at a waterpark by bringing along your super-soaker and uttering the “magic words.” That’s not how this works. Nor is Holy Baptism a secret thing. For even emergency baptisms are publicly acknowledged by the church.

So grandparents who would do this should repent and put their faith in God’s providence, and not their own presumptuous actions.

I know it is painful. I have lost members over this. I have also seen the Four Generation Fade up close and personal. I have even seen it with faithful grandparents whose adult children simply chose a different path. I have also seen it among grandparents who did not prioritize the faith, and whose children, like the Harry Chapin song “Cats in the Cradle,” have grown up to be just like them.

If you are a grandparent in this predicament, repent of your own failings as a parent, pray fervently and constantly for your own children and grandchildren (following the example of St. Monica, whose years and years of prayer were answered by the conversion of her son Augustine and her husband Patricius). Set the example of the Christian life for your family by praying before meals, attending church every Sunday, reading Scripture, singing the hymns of the church, and continuing to pepper your life with sayings from the Bible and the Confessions - especially the Small Catechism.

Offer (without being obnoxious) to take your grandchildren to the Divine Services of the Church. Invite, but don’t nag. Respect the parents’ wishes. If they take you up on the offer, let your grandchildren (and maybe your children!) see you reverently listening to the sermon and receiving the Holy Supper. Have children’s Bibles in your bookshelf at home. Don’t present the faith as scoldy and moralistic, and don’t be passive-aggressive or self-aggrandizing - but rather conduct your Christian life as joyful, humble, and grounded in the Gospel. Be patient. And be countercultural, let your children and grandchildren see the “more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31). And they may even consent at some point to having your grandchildren baptized, and allow you to bring them to church with you. Of course, better yet, would be for the parents themselves to return to the fold and lead their own families themselves. This is certainly worth praying for!

At any rate, take comfort that you are not in charge, but God is, that the Word is powerful, that the Holy Spirit “calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith” (Catechism). And as the holy apostle teaches us:

“I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life. And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him” (1 John 5:13-15).

“This is most certainly true.”

However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry. [Therefore he addresses him as a minister of this office in which this confession and doctrine is to be in operation and says: Upon this rock, i.e., this preaching and ministry.]

These words from the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (25) lay out one of the central exegetical arguments of the Lutheran confessors against the claims of the Roman pontiff — that the rock upon the church is built is not St. Peter himself, but his confession: that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is still one of the texts on which claims to papal supremacy rest, and the identification of St. Peter himself — rather than his confession — as the rock upon which the Church is built is often painted by Roman apologists as the unanimous (or nearly unanimous) consensus of the church in all times and places.

Which is patently absurd.

See, for example, this collect, appointed for today, the Vigil of Sts. Peter and Paul:

Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God: that Thou suffer us not to be shaken by any disturbance, whom Thou hast firmly established on the rock of the apostolic confession; through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.

Præsta, quæsumus, omnipotens Deus, ut nullis nos permitas perturbationibus concuti, quos in apostolicæ confessionis petra solidasti. Per Dominum. (Corpus Orationum 4506)

This prayer, in continuous use for well over a thousand years, even as recently as the 1962 Missale Romanum, clearly identifies the rock as the confession of St. Peter rather than his own person.

Further digging into the appointed texts for the vigil and feast of Sts. Peter and Paul also shows that the homily appointed for Matins in northern and Germanic medieval breviaries is taken from Bede’s Homilies on the Gospels (I.20) on the Gospels, and while the appointed text at Matins stops well before this passage, Bede is quite clear about his interpretation of Matthew 16:

There follows: ‘And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’.  Peter, who before this was referred to as ‘Simon,’ received from the lord the name Peter, because of the strength of his faith and the constancy of his confession., for he clung with a stable and tenacious mind to him concerning whom it was written, and the Rock was Christ. And upon this Rock the Church is built — that is, upon the Lord and Savior. To his faithful one who recognized him, and loved him, and confessed him, he granted a share in his own name, so that he was called Peter from [the word for] ‘rock’....Many are the gates of hell, but none of them prevails over the Church which has been founded upon the rock. One who has received the faith of Christ with the inmost love of his heart very easily scorns whatsoever tempting danger threatens him from outside.

This is just what the Treatise, more than 800 years later, would reiterate — the “rock” is the clear confession of Christ. And Bede will also continue on to confess precisely what the Treatise confesses concerning the giving of the keys. First, the Treatise:

In all these passages Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of apostles [and does not speak for himself alone, but for all the apostles], as appears from the text itself. For Christ asks not Peter alone, but says: Whom do ye say that I am? And what is here said [to Peter alone] in the singular number: I will give unto thee the keys; and whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc., is elsewhere expressed [to their entire number], in the plural Matt. 18:18: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc. And in John 20:23: Whosesoever sins ye remit, etc. These words testify that the keys are given alike to all the apostles and that all the apostles are alike sent forth [to preach].

In addition to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that the keys belong not to the person of one particular man, but to the Church, as many most clear and firm arguments testify. For Christ, speaking concerning the keys adds, Matt. 18:19: If two or three of you shall agree on earth, etc. Therefore he grants the keys principally and immediately to the Church, just as also for this reason the Church has principally the right of calling. [For just as the promise of the Gospel belongs certainly and immediately to the entire Church, so the keys belong immediately to the entire Church, because the keys are nothing else than the office whereby this promise is communicated to every one who desires it, just as it is actually manifest that the Church has the power to ordain ministers of the Church. And Christ speaks in these words: Whatsoever ye shall bind, etc., and indicates to whom He has given the keys, namely, to the Church: Where two or three are gathered together in My name. Likewise Christ gives supreme and final jurisdiction to the Church, when He says: Tell it unto the Church.]” (Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, 23–24)

Now Bede:

There follows ‘And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. The one who confessed the King of heaven with a devotion above that of others was himself rightly enriched by the conferral upon him beyond the others of the keys of the heavenly kingdom, so that it might be obvious to all that without this confession and faith no one could enter into the kingdom of heaven. He names ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ that knowledge and power of discernment with which [Peter] was to receive the worthy into the kingdom, and to exclude the unworthy from the kingdom.

Hence he adds clearly, ‘And whatsoever you bind upon earth will be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you loose upon earth will be loosed also in heaven’. Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was also given to the other apostles, as [Christ] himself testified when, after the triumph of his passion and resurrection, he appeared to them and breathed upon them and said to them all, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain, they are retained.’ Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests…”

The two witnesses speak with such a united voice that, were the attributions removed, you might well have some difficulty identifying which text came from which author. The continuity of faith and doctrine between Bede and our Lutheran forebears is manifestly evident. Now compare with these remarks of Pope Benedict XVI on June 7, 2006:

In themselves, the three metaphors that Jesus uses are crystal clear:  Peter will be the rocky foundation on which he will build the edifice of the Church; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to open or close it to people as he sees fit; lastly, he will be able to bind or to loose, in the sense of establishing or prohibiting whatever he deems necessary for the life of the Church. It is always Christ's Church, not Peter's.

Or with the encyclical Ecclesiam suam (1964) of Paul VI:

Though He founded this building on a man who was naturally weak and frail, Christ transformed him into solid rock, never to be without God's marvelous support: "Upon this rock I will build my Church."

In these latter interpretations, St. Peter himself is made into the rock (or, in Francis’s rendering, a rock, a stone, and a pebble). Others with access to more resources and more substantial libraries than my own could (and should) catalog a great many more ancient witnesses and their varying interpretations of this text, as it still serves as a flashpoint in apologetics discussions to this day. Bede is a part of that much broader story, and only a part. But I do think that we can see in these instances that when our confessions speak about the office of the papacy, they are not introducing some novel interpretation that was never before seen, but instead are reiterating an understanding that was already widely held and known for many centuries — one that is quite different from the self-understanding of the modern Roman church.

So in this last week of June that encompasses both the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul and the Presentation of the Augsburg Confession, we confess once again with the voices at Augsburg: “In doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.”

Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, or the principle that style and substance are related and feed into one another, doesn’t need to be proven. It is axiomatic. It is self-evident. There are incongruities that are not a matter of simple cultural diversity.

This is why there are universals in the human experience. And while there is certainly variation in what is considered appropriate and beautiful, there are values that humanity shares that transcend tribe and tongue. The idea that style and substance are anything other than intertwined - and that there are things that are objectively wrong or incongruous - is ridiculous.

And even in matters of secular music this is true.

It is also true that some performers and some songs can cross over and translate into different genres, such as a rock song sung in the country style, a classical song played by heavy metal instruments, an aria performed as an instrumental, etc. But it is equally true that there are also those instances in which the style and the substance are so divergent that the results are cringe or laugh-worthy - and in the sanctuary, become a kind of blemished sacrifice.

By way of examples from the secular world, consider these illustrations of stylistic-substantive incongruity. And if this kind of mismatch of style to substance is possible and demonstrable in pop music, how much more so is the sacred capable of being desecrated by such a mismatch?

Before we begin, I recommend a Lutheran beverage of your choice. And try not to spew your keyboard. You have been warned.

This was published June 28, 2022. — Ed.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s presiding bishop offered a take on the Dobbs decision in which the Bible is not quoted a single time, but rather their social statement on abortion is many times. Eaton is unable to call those with child, women, but rather “pregnant persons”.

Continue reading…

We have all watched in horror as our American education system has degenerated. It’s not just over the past few years, but it has been on a slide that goes back generations. And this hits home for us Lutherans, as education has been front and center for us since the Reformation itself.

In looking at our more recent American history, we see that the triumph of the Progressive model (over and against the Classical model) has been a disaster. But instead of just complaining about it, how do we fight back? How do we truly educate our own children, and perhaps chart a new course for even those outside of the church?

In 1999, a handful of Lutheran educators met and started a new organization, not knowing how the Lord would use them to restore the classical model of education within confessional Lutheranism. As of 2026, that organization has grown, blossomed, and has become a force to be reckoned with.. Those humble seeds that were sown a quarter century ago have since borne fruit and multiplied. This organization has become known as CCLE: The Consortium for Classical Lutheran Education.

Today, the CCLE is a wealth of knowledge and practice. It is an accrediting organization. They also certify teachers. There are even adult online classes for those of us who had no classical options growing up. New classical Lutheran schools are emerging all over the country, and existing Lutheran schools are becoming classical. CCLE provides practical help in this endeavor - to all kinds of schools: parochial, association, online, and homeschool. Classical education encourages students to read original texts - in the original languages where possible. Paradoxically, Progressive education’s elimination of Latin as a mainstream subject did not lead to a better mastery of English, but has proven the opposite. Our classical students who study Latin are far better able to express themselves in English - especially within the classical study of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric (known as the Trivium). Classical education teaches the student how to think and how to learn. This is why it has become so popular in recent years.

I’ve been privileged to teach at Wittenberg Academy (an online worldwide classical Lutheran junior high and high school) since 2014. I’ve been attending CCLE conferences since that time, and I have seen an explosion of classical education in our synod. Many of my own students have gone on to become classical teachers themselves, as well as young men making their way to seminary. I’ve also served as the chaplain at Wittenberg Academy since 2019. Classical education encourages a healthy appreciation for liturgical continuity and the appreciation for our rich hymnody - from the ancient church, through the middle ages, through the Reformation and Renaissance, and into the modern world. There is especially a renewed interest in chant, in chorales, in organ, in classical music, in choirs, and in the beauty of our ecclesiastical heritage. As far as I can tell, none of our classical schools have opted out of reverent liturgical worship, nor have any of them chosen to replace our traditional hymnody with the “praise and worship” genre, or “contemporary” or “modern” worship forms. Classical education fosters a deep love for the liturgy, and a sense of home and comfort in the timelessness of it.

Classical education is a reorientation to a healthy relationship to our past, learning that wisdom of old, and applying it to the present and to the future. And the same is true with the riches of our liturgy and hymns. The Classical Lutheran tradition emphasizes goodness, truth and beauty; the Bible and the Confessions, Word and Sacrament, and a sense of belonging that transcends age - whether the age in which one lives, or how old one is.

I am looking forward, as always, to this year’s conference, to be held at Concordia University - Chicago, July 14-17, 2026. The line-up is spectacular! Given that this is the 250th year of the independence of these United States, the theme is timely: “Foundations of Faith and Freedom.” And as much as I enjoy and benefit from the presentations, the fellowship and collegiality with colleagues - both pastors and teachers - the part that I love the most is seeing our young men and women: high school and college aged young people. They are doing the very things that we have been told for decades cannot be done. It is a joy to see parents and even very young children everywhere, with even the little ones rejoicing in being included in the learning and in the worship. The choirs at the services (mainly Matins and Vespers) are comprised of young children and more mature youth. In addition to the plenary and break-out sessions, the conference includes tracks for ages 3-5, 6-12, and 13-18.

I also really love the joyful collegiality among everyone: presenters, teachers, kids, homeschool parents, pastors, etc. If you’re looking for a conference for big egos, you will be disappointed!

It is glorious to see gaggles of young people crowded around the organ and taking turns playing. The impromptu “flashmobs” of young folks singing chorales - sometimes with new arrangements - are beautiful, and provide hope for a glorious future in our churches. It is wonderful thing to hear young people debating philosophy, talking theology, reciting poetry, engaging in wordplay, and supporting one another - and also just having fun with each other in a normal, wholesome way.

It is inspiring! Classical education is a subversion of the subversion, a rebellion against the rebellion. And it is joyful!

If you want to learn more about Classical Lutheran education, check out CCLE’s website. It debunks a lot of misconceptions about it, and also provides valuable contact information. I believe the Classical Lutheran education movement is laying the groundwork for the long-term future of our churches and schools.

Venite et videte! Come and see!

Here is Dr. Biermann’s sermon from today. — Ed.

By the Rev. Frederick W. Baue, Ph.D.

This is an expanded version of a Facebook post from June 17 that garnered a lot of attention and engagement. — Ed.

The altar had been removed from the chancel and put into a corner with a tarp over it. I saw this at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, Palm Springs, California, an LCMS congregation that had adopted Church Growth methods. Rev. Mike Coppersmith, a St. Louis Seminary classmate of mine, had a D. Min. from Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA. Church Growth was being embraced by the LCMS at the time. I heard a Springfield graduate say with some fervor, “The sainted Gerhard Aho said to us, ‘Worship is Adiaphora.’” We can combine Lutheran substance and Evangelical style. Or, as the current LCMS Constitution, Article III, No. 7, says, “develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices.”1 The altar is also missing at Hales Corners Lutheran Church, our largest congregation, and also King of Kings Lutheran Church, Omaha, which is 100% committed to Church Growth and is promoting Joel Biermann for LCMS president. Zach Zehnder, who interviews Biermann on social media, is the son of Mark Zehnder, another classmate who embraced Church Growth. When we were students, President Ralph Bohlmann hired Elmer Matthias, who, with his Fuller D. Min., was to teach us all about Church Growth. In the years after the Walkout and Seminex, it was all the “Battle for the Bible.” We at St. Louis did not have the strong emphasis on the Confessions that they did at Ft. Wayne under Robert Preus. It was a book we had to read to graduate, but it was not relevant to daily life and theology as pastors.

Yesterday, June 17, I read the current Lutheran Witness. It was all about unity in doctrine and diversity in practice. There were lots of quotes from the Lutheran Confessions. But one was conspicuously absent: Augsburg Confession Article XXIV, "Falsely are we accused of abolishing The Mass." What is the Mass? The Divine Service culminating in the Sacrament of the Altar. What is the Sacrament? It is a holy rite where Christ is really present to forgive sins. Why do Church Growth congregations remove the Altar? BECAUSE THE SACRAMENT IS AN IMPEDIMENT TO GROWTH. This is what the faction promoting Biermann represents. Synod is in decline, they say. We need to grow. To grow, we have to change. I am not breaking the 8th Commandment. I am speaking the truth. Why am I upset? BECAUSE TO REMOVE THE SACRAMENT IS TO REMOVE CHRIST. To be Lutheran is to embrace the Divine Service. It is to revere the Sacrament. It is to love Christ. When the Gospel is under attack, as it is in America today, we are in a Time of Confession. And in such times, as our Lutheran fathers have taught us, in such times when we have been excommunicated by the pope, when we are being attacked by the Holy Roman Empire, when we are forced into the Prussian Union, when Rationalism has dominated our theological schools, when a false bishop betrays the trust of his immigrant followers, when our country takes away our German language and culture, when our seminary professors reject the Word of God, when we are under the Cross—nothing is adiaphora.

When I taught Lutheran Confessions at the Mekane Iesus Seminary in Ethiopia, the byword was, “Recovering Lutheran Identity.” The implication was that Lutheran identity was something they once had but now had lost. One day over coffee (dark macchiato, pungent and sweet) on the patio, the faculty and I talked about this. I asked, “Well, if we’re going to recover it, what are the marks of Lutheran identity?" They knew, and spoke up:

• Gospel Preaching.

• Liturgical Worship.

• Holy Communion.

• Use of the Chalice.

• The Three Solas.

• Confessional Subscription—Quia!

• Lutheran Hymns… and so forth, right down the line.

“Good,” I said. “We know what Lutheran is. Now the next question is, ‘How Lutheran are we?’ Fifty per cent? Seventy per cent? What? And the question after that is, ‘How Lutheran do we want to be?’” The question hung in the air that afternoon in Ethiopia, as it hangs over us in the Missouri Synod today.

I say, let's be 100% Lutheran, one hundred and one proof, straight up, no chaser. Who stands with me?

Notes:

1 In the original 1847 LCMS Constitution, this Objective was “To strive for the greatest possible uniformity in ceremonies.” This was watered down during the 20th century to what we have now. Also, the 1847 Constitution, under Conditions of Membership, expressly prohibited the use of Finney’s revivalistic “New Measures.” These measures are manifested today in Church Growth methods, used by many LCMS pastors and congregations.

This was published June 18 in a pastoral letter to Pastor Ball’s congregation: St. Paul Lutheran Church & School in Hamel, Illinois. — Ed.

The second ballot for LCMS president took place last weekend, and you can see the results here. When I found out I received enough nominations to be on the slate, I agreed to let my name stand.  It is an honor to be considered and I thought it was my duty to agree to be on the ballot. If I were to be elected, I was agreeing to serve.  If I wasn't elected, that would be very good, as I am more than content staying right where I am with you.  So I said in my bio that I believed (and still do) that there is plenty of work to be done here at home.  Yet after two rounds of voting I'm still on the ballot, which is a great honor and speaks to what the Lord is working in our congregation.  Now I hope that those who have voted for me would vote for President Harrison this 3rd round and allow him to try and accomplish the goals he has for his last term.  We put these things in God's good and gracious hands, and pray that God would grant wisdom to all who are voting.  The next round of voting takes place Saturday-Tuesday.

This was published June 11, 2022. — Ed.

There is an interview with an LCMS pastor that is illustrative of how modern mainstream Wokism - with its assumption of “systemic racism” - is incompatible with Christianity. This is especially the case for Christians who confess the Book of Concord, specifically, Luther’s Small Catechism.

Continue reading…

Now that a second ballot for LCMS Synodical President has been cast, it looks as though we may have some earth quaking beneath us, ladies and gentlemen.

The race between incumbent President Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison and challenger Rev. Dr. Joel Biermann has become a nail-biter, much to virtually everyone’s surprise. When the nominations first came in back in February, there was barely a shrug becuase Harrison had 51.2% of the nominations and Biermann only 19%. Then the first ballot was cast and for the first time since his election in 2010, he did not receive a majority of votes. That turned some heads, though he maintained a lead of 43.8% of actual votes cast against Biermann’s 39%. Now that the second ballot’s votes have been tabulated, we have a surprisingly razor-thin race on our hands, as Harrison’s leads has shrunk to 46.3% to Biermann’s 46.0%, a difference of only 14 votes. The next ballot is set for June 20-23. A full and helpful analysis has been offered by Ad Crucem News.

We notice that of the four remaining candidates, Rev. Ben Ball received 212 votes while Rev. Brady Finnern, who now is dropped off the ballot, received 158.

We at Gottesdienst have been grateful to God for the leadership Matthew Harrison has given to our Synod over the past 16 years, especially in the promotion of liturgical, confessional Lutheran worship, and it is our earnest prayer and hope that this leadership continue, by the grace of God. Although Ben Ball is a personal friend and colleague, and support for him is gratifying to see, we also strongly feel that a continuation of the Harrison administration would be most beneficial to the Synod at this time. In any event, we shall pray and expect that the good and gracious will of God will be done, but we are constrained to say that Dr. Harrison has earned our full support, and we wholeheartedly offer it for his re-election, and the continuation of the liturgical and confessional renaissance our Synod has been witnessing of late, both at home and in our sister church bodies; it has been a beautiful sight to behold. May it continue, under the mighty hand of God.

You may have seen videos by Roman Catholic podcaster-apologists - like the popular Rev. Mike Schmitz - who assert that Luther (or “Protestants”) have “ReMoVEd boOOkS fROm tHe BiBLe!” and who have “DESTROYED LUTHER!” with a YouTube video.

First of all, on the topic of what Luther believed about the Mass, that it “doesn’t do anything” and is “only a memorial” - Father Mike is simply full of Schmitz. He has been corrected on this and other factual misrepresentations many times over. Yet he never issues a correction or clarification. The best construction is that he is a low-IQ dingdong, a plastic pretty-boy talking-head who knows not what he does, who has never actually read an attempted fair treatment of Luther or a more objective church history (of which there are examples within Roman Catholicism). He has clearly not read Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue IV: Ministry and Eucharist, in which the distinguished international panel of Roman Catholic theologians recommended that the Vatican: “recognize the validity of the Lutheran Ministry and, correspondingly, the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic celebrations of Lutheran Churches.” He is clearly confusing Lutherans with other people.

Moreover, the crazy assertion that Luther never quoted the Apocrypha after 1520 is easily refuted by simply pulling up the index to the American Edition of Luther’s Works that is on a shelf of just about every Lutheran pastor’s study, and is in every Roman Catholic scholarly library. This assertion is simply factually untrue.

But even if done out of pure ignorance and naivety, what he is saying and promulgating is a diabolical lie. For Satan is the ultimate father of lies. This is not a matter of opinion about these seven books, nor how the church should treat them hermeneutically, but is rather about the historical facts of their treatment by the church catholic: not only during the Reformation, but before and after.

I think a good faith argument can be made for the canonicity of the Apocrypha. Some Lutherans do consider it deuterocanonical. Lutherans have not “closed” the canon, and our main dogmatic text used in our seminaries to this day (Pieper’s Dogmatics) includes the doctrine that we Lutherans distinguish between categories of books of Scripture that have been disputed (antilegomena) vs. those that were always accepted (homologoumena) in terms of their doctrinal witness. And this is consistent with church history.

There was a 19th century case of an LCMS pastor who was brought up on charges that he did not consider Revelation to be canonical. He was acquitted, as this is a permissible confession (based on the distinction between the antilegomena and the homologoumena).

Luther did not invent the term “Apocrypha,” nor was he the first to describe the seven Greek books from the Old Testament era by this term. Luther inherited this from St. Jerome, the translator and editor of the only authoized Roman Catholic Bible of Luther’s time: the Vulgate.

All Vulgates published over the course of a thousand years, both before and after the Gutenberg Bible (that is, from 405-1455), included Jerome’s prologues - including the Prologus Galaetus - in which Jerome wrote:

This prologue to the Scriptures may be appropriate as a helmeted introduction [galeatum principium] to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so we may be able to know whatever is outside of these is set aside among the apocrypha. Therefore, Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon, and the book of Jesus son of Sirach, and Judith and Tobias, and The Shepherd are not in the canon. I have found the First Book of the Maccabees (is) Hebrew, the Second is Greek, which may also be proven by their styles.

Luther adopted the same policy as Jerome, copying the assertions of canonicity from the only authorized Roman Catholic Bible.  The Council of Trent reversed itself on Jerome’s conclusion regarding these seven books as Apocrypha, recategorizing them as deuterocanonical two months after Luther’s death.  But many Roman Catholic pop theologians continue to promulgate the lie that “Luther removed books.” 

Satan is the father of lies.

Both the King James Version and the English Standard Version have translations of the apocryphal books. CPH has a study version of the ESV Apocrypha. We Lutherans typically make use of the Apocrypha, not for unilaterally establishing an article of faith (without corroboration from the homolegoumena), but liturgically. For example, the antiphon for the Introit to Pentecost used in my congregation (from the old NKJV propers during the LSB field testing) comes from Wisdom 1:7 and Psalm 68:3:

The Spirit of the Lord fills the world. Alleluia. Let the righteous be glad; Let them rejoice before God; yes, let them rejoice exceeding. Alleluia.

There are other Lutheran examples of the Apocrypha being used for Introits or Graduals during the church year.

Our own Lutheran confessions cite the Apocrypha: Tobit (3:8, 4:5, 11, 19) and 2 Maccabees (11:6, 15:14, 23) - the latter of which is described as “Scripture” (Ap 21:9).

Once again, ham-fisted Roman Catholic podcasting pop-apologists - arguing with a fallacious slovenliness by means of rhetorical slop that would make Aquinas blush and run to dissociate himself from them - rely on ignorance and the sweeping generalization fallacy to try to discredit their so-called separated brethren. In the long run, their imprecision, selective memory, and lurid arguments will backfire. Rhetoric decoupled from a factual foundation is just an unhinged lie. And in this day and age, such lies are easily exposed and refuted.

While the Roman Catholic Church is receiving an influx of younger Evangelicals, they are also suffering a lot of losses as well. They are desperate to keep people from looking too much under the hood. It speaks volumes that Mike Schmitz and other pop-apologists get into discussions about canonicity while never mentioning Jerome or the Vulgate - let alone ever getting around to quoting the Prologus Galeatus.

That is because they are engaging in their all-too-common strategy of argumentation called Bubulum Stercus.

This was published in January 1984, CTQ 48:1 and was referenced in last Thursday’s Throwback article.— Ed.

by Daniel Reuning

Celebration of the five hundredth anniversary of Luther’s birth provides the church with splendid opportunity to review the vast number of his contributions, and hopefully to be refreshed with a renewed understanding of his great work. In the area of worship his legacy also was both profound and large. He edited and composed more than thirty hymn tunes and texts and seven liturgical pieces, a Latin and vernacular litany and a vernacular Gloria in Excelsis, Angus Dei, Communio (Ps. 111), Te Deum, and Magnificat. Luther provided the model (Formula Missae) for the preservation of the Latin Mass, Matins, Vespers and Compline. He also provided a vernacular alternative (Deutsche Messe) with hymn paraphrases of the ordinaries, such as his classic Credo (“We All Believe in One True God”), and his stirring Sanctus (“Isaiah Mighty Seer in Days of Old”), and with his vernacular “Explanation of the Lord’s Prayer” and “Exhortation to Communicants” (his substitutions for the medieval Eucharistic Prayer). He authored six occasional services – two orders of Baptism and orders of marriage, ordination, private confession, and self-examination. He translated the collects for the Sundays and feast days of the church year. He involved himself with editing and writing prefaces for all the major hymnals of his days, the three most important of which were Walther’s Geistliches Gesangbeuechlein of 1524, Joseph Klug’s “Wittenberg Hymnal”of 1529, and Valentin Babst’s hymnalof 1545. Luther was responsible for the production of Duke Henry’s 1540 Agenda, editions of which were published into the nineteenth century. He edited a major choral collection, George Rhau’s Symphoniae lucundae of 1538, which contained fifty- two motets and a repertory of Latin and German propers and ordinaries for the Sundays of the church year, the composers of which represented the finest available, such as Josquin Despres and Orlandus Lassus. In addition to making numerous comments in sermons and letters, Luther summarized his theology of music in a short poem entitled “A Preface for All Good Hymnals.” In 1538 Johann Walther, Luther’s friend and musical advisor, and Kantor of the Saxon court chapel, expanded the poem to 335 verses, as a way to organize all of Luther’s scattered comments. Luther’s productivity is truly staggering and demonstrated his intense concern over what happens in public worship, especially the choice of music. It is most helpful that he left us not only a written theology of worship, but also compositions that demonstrated what he meant. Volume 53 of the “American Edition” of his works includes most of this legacy. 1

One of the most frequent themes in Luther’s writings was that music, independent of any text or other influence, is a unique dynamic that either reinforces or undermines the meaning of the words. Since Luther’s time the composers of our Lutheran musical heritage have followed his direction by composing works that reinforce confessional theology, but it has been only recently that Luther’s position could be scientifically documented. Through precise methods and measurements, a new academic discipline called “sentics” proves that Luther was correct in his assessment of the effects of music and used the old words “Dionysian” and “Apollonian” to help us understand the phenomenon. 2 Sentics’ major premise is that music is a communicator of independent forces, namely, two kinds of emotions, that illicit from us two very different reactions, Dionysian and Apollonian.

Music that communicates emotions with a Dionysian force is that kind which excites us to enjoy our emotions by being thoroughly involved or engrossed in them with our entire person. Our enjoyment of the emotion then becomes ego-directed, driven by the desire for self-gratification. This direction often shows itself in keen physical involvement; people become emotionally involved through stomping of the feet, swaying of the body, clapping of the hands, and waving the arms. Music that solicits from us this kind of emotional response allows us to enjoy our emotions from the inside and very experientially. This kind of music is clearly anthropocentric in nature, because it turns man to himself, rather than away from himself, with the result that he becomes the appreciating center of his own emotions and experiences. Herein lies the goal of all entertainment and popular music, which must please or gratify the self if it is going to sell. Luther used the word “carnal” to describe this approach and produced his hymnbooks and choirbook, so as to wean people away from it.

His music and that of the Lutheran heritage communicates a message with an Apollonian force, which allows are emotions to be enjoyed, while at the same time retaining control and mental freedom. We are relieved of the urgent requirements of our inner drives. Under Apollonian influence our emotions are viewed empathically or contemplatively in a more detached fashion, so that they might always be subject to our discretion and judgment. Since the major point of the Reformation, as of Scripture itself, was to turn man away from everything within himself as the source of hope and assurance of salvation – to the grace of God alone, earned for us by Christ Himself – it was logical for Lutherans to use Apollonian music. Man-directed Dionysian music would only confuse or contradict the message through its anthropocentric emotional forces. Just as hymns and spiritual songs with words full of Dionysian content, doting upon human experience and feelings, are incongruent with the biblical proclamation of the Gospel, so also is music that revels in Dionysian emotionalism. Thus, because music has so much influence on one’s understanding of the Gospel, Apollonian reinforcement was the obvious choice. Furthermore, this choice is just as relevant to us today, since the emotional forces in music keep on conveying their unique messages, remaining unaffected by changes in time or environment – a truly universal expression!

Before the documentation of sentics, it was quite easy to disagree with Luther’s assessment of music on the grounds that his view was merely pious opinion – well-intended, of course, but incapable of being scientifically validated. It was also easy to quote as truth the old wives’ tale that Luther used bar-songs for his hymn tunes. This myth would have Luther adopting Dionysian music for use in the church, thus making him into some sort of existentialist, claiming that music is an indifferent, neutral vehicle of words that will carry whatever load of meaning one chooses to give by means of the words assigned to it. Now, however, we know that Luther used not bar-songs, but the Apollonian resources of Gregorian chant and ancient Latin hymnody. We also have the documentation from sentics that proves untenable the false assumption that we read meaning out of music simply because we first read meaning into it, that beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, that we are all just accidents of our environment, social class, up- bringing, education, and traditional bias – in short, that music has no independent effect whatsoever on the proper understanding of the Gospel. If Luther cannot convince people of this false assessment, perhaps they will listen to sentics, which proves that sociological and environmental factors do not determine the message and emotional forces in music, the power of which is totally independent of background and culture. In and of itself, music has its very own unique emotional message which is unaltered by words, the passing of time, and the changing of environments. Thus, Luther insisted that, just as the content of a hymn’s text matters, so too, if people are going to sing it, does the independent emotional force of the music; both influence the understanding of the Gospel.

Too often the church has judged music solely on the basis of personal taste, esthetic considerations, or crowd appeal without any concern for the emotional effects which influence meaning. So much contemporary music being introduced in some of our churches promotes Dionysian forces intimately related to the superficiality of television religion with its primary interest in an anthropocentric response rather than the mind-expanding emotionally controlled Apollonian response necessary for growth in the understanding and application of God’s Word. Too many still hold the false notion that, if the text is orthodox, Dionysian music is harmless. With so much use being made of music that conveys the emotional atmosphere of Pentecostalism, it is no wonder that the charismatic movement continues to infiltrate numerous parishes. The church must take Luther to heart and believe that music’s dynamic can either poison or support the church’s theology.

Many Lutherans today, of course, like and want Dionysian popular music even in the church. After all, it is what they hear constantly in the electronic church. This music, however, helps people become thoroughly engrossed in their own feelings and emotions. Many tell us that this music makes them feel more involved and helps them “feel so close to God,” that “He is really alive, here and now, right here in my heart.” This reaction of total subjectivity surely encourages a false sense of spiritual reality. In fact, it is totally experiential, an emotional high, not spiritual edification in the biblical and confessional sense. We must patiently lead such people in a more Lutheran direction, showing them that Luther’s music enables us (while enjoying our emotions) to be sufficiently detached to view our emotions in the context of our relationship with our Lord, who alone remains the center of our proclamation. We must explain that the merits of Jesus Christ much more easily dominate the message of the church when Dionysian competition is absent. Our confidence in the presence of God will be strengthened not by our feelings, but by the grace conveyed by His holy Word and blessed Sacraments, no matter how we feel! When people begin to realize that music is not simply a matter of esthetics, but a form of communication that shares with words the responsibility of preaching – by either reinforcing them or sabotaging them – then people will begin to understand Luther and will begin to view Apollonian music as a necessity for edification, evangelism, and mission.

In conclusion, it is important to the true proclamation of God’s Word that we convey God’s gift of grace, not do our own Dionysian thing. The Gospel, of course, grants us pardon for having done our own thing. Faithful proclamation of the Gospel, however, tells us of God’s feelings for us, rather than getting us engrossed in our own feelings. God’s Word calls for the surrender of the self with all its feelings at His feet, rather than encouraging us to seek refuge in them. The musical expression that assists these goals is the Apollonian. Thus, for the sake of the Gospel Luther used the Apollonian mode, and for the sake of the same Gospel we pray that his disciples will do so today.

Footnotes

1. Martin Luther, Liturgy and Hymns, ed. Ulrich S. Leupold (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965; Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann, 53).

2. Manfred Clynes, Sentics: Biocybernetics of Emotion Communication (New York: The Academy of Sciences, 1973); Sentics: The Touch of Emotions (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press, 1977); cf. M.J. Grieger, “Musical Communication of the Churches,” The Christian News, July 19, 1982, pp. 14ff.

This was published June 8, 2015. — Ed.

Here is a remarkable 30 minute, exquisitely beautiful video about restoring the sacred in Chicago's St. John Cantius Church.

In a decaying culture that celebrates death, embraces mediocrity, and revels in the perverse and ugly, this is a refreshing and inspiring respite.

Continue reading…