This interview also makes it clear why rigorous seminary education and formation are non-negotiable.

As one of your students, thank you, Dr. Just, not only for your decades of faithful (and still ongoing!) service to our Lord and His church (even through tumultuous and trying times), but also for this encouraging and inspiring interview. We hope to hear more!

Dr. Just’s new book is called Ever to Emmaus: A Theological Memoir. His other books can be found here.

Having just concluded the Synod convention, now is a good time to remind ourselves what synod is. We often hear “Synod isn’t church” and “Synod is only advisory.” Both of these statements are true. That said, these statements don’t imply what a lot of people infer.

Synod isn’t church.

Per the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” Per the Augsburg Confession, the church is “the congregation of saints in which the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered.” It is “the congregation of saints and true believers.” So the church is both bigger, and smaller, than the synod. The church is the church catholic of all times and places. And the church is found where active altars and pulpits are found.

The synod is a voluntary organization or league of local autonomous congregations who have chosen to recognize one another, and to work together, sharing certain benefits and responsibilities. A congregation outside of our synod may or may not be orthodox. There are certainly orthodox Lutheran churches who are not bound to us in synod, nor have declared fellowship with us. A local orthodox congregation might opt out of being part of our synod, whether by choosing not to join our synod in the first place, or by even leaving our synod for reasons that don’t touch upon orthodox doctrine or practice.

For example, a local congregation may decide that they don’t like the LCMS’s particular insurance or retirement package. Maybe in order to secure the benefits that they want for church workers, they may have to leave our synod and join another orthodox synod - or perhaps be organizationally and legally independent. Or maybe, a congregation doesn’t want to pay for convention expenses, or doesn’t approve of how the synod runs its seminaries, or maybe it doesn’t want to operate under synod’s 501(c)(3) number. Maybe a congregation disagrees with a specific ruling by a Dispute Resolution panel. Maybe the congregation wants something in its bylaws that the district won’t approve. A congregation can always leave the synod. Again, synod does not own congregations, and parish pastors are not employed by synod.

Synod is only advisory.

In our polity, each congregation is autonomous. It owns its own property. Therefore, synod cannot defrock a pastor. Synod cannot shut down a congregation. Synod cannot forcibly combine congregations. Synod cannot compel a congregation to have a certain pastor (or prevent a congregation from having a certain pastor), use a certain hymnal, follow a certain liturgy, or even follow the rules of the synod. Synod is indeed only advisory.

But this doesn’t mean that a congregation can do whatever it wants while remaining in synod. Obviously, if a congregation were to denounce the Trinity and become Unitarian, offer worship to a goddess, or repudiate the Bible and the Book of Concord, that congregation would (hopefully!) soon be officially removed from the roster of synod.

But in addition to being Trinitarian, worshiping the one true God, and subscribing to Scripture and the Lutheran confessions, there are expectations that synod has as conditional of congregational and rostered membership for the sake of unity and good order. And contrary to the claims of some, those requirements do not have to be scriptural. For example, member congregations of synod may not call a pastor who is not rostered by synod while remaining in synod. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that mandates any such thing. This is an extrabiblical condition that members of synod accept voluntarily. Congregations are expected to fill out certain paperwork, use synod’s 501(c)(3) status, belong to one of our districts, submit proposed bylaw changes to district for approval, and pay district and synod assessments. None of this is biblically required. A congregation may decide not to comply with such things, and either leave the synod, or be removed from the synod’s roster. And such separation based on non-compliance with such synod rules is not indicative of a lack of orthodoxy. Pastors are also required to follow certain procedures, such as filling out PIF and SET forms and submitting to the chain of command of their particular district presidents. Rostered lay workers also have similar bureaucratic responsibilities. None of this is laid out in scripture.

For the sake of good order, synod can, and does, set both biblical and nonbiblical (though not antibiblical) requirements for membership. And for the sake of order, members of synod (congregations, pastors, and lay church workers) can, and do, submit to both biblical and nonbiblical requirements for membership. In a sense, synod membership is like a marriage. It is a give-and-take. Binding congregations and pastors together into a synodical body should be to the benefit of all. If the cost of keeping a particular congregation or pastor is too great or disruptive to our unity and order, synod may remove that congregation or pastor from rostered status (though not from ministry). Conversely, if the cost of membership in synod is too great, a member may leave synod’s roster - while still continuing to operate as a church, a pastor, or other servant of the church.

Synod is voluntary all around.

Toleration of heterodoxy

There are some who argue that if there is even one heterodox member, out of the 17,000 members of synod, then remaining in synod is an act of unionism - making every member congregation and pastor heterodox. However, even marriages don’t work this way. Marital infidelity is grounds for divorce, but it is not necessary to divorce. Broken marriages can be healed through repentance and forgiveness. And this cannot be done overnight. A couple may temporarily separate to work through a process of reconciliation. Or they may even remain together during such a process. There is no one-size-fits-all. There is no computer-generated single solution to dealing with such conflict. An erring sister congregation or pastor may, or may not, be able to be brought back to the fold. And so synod must walk a tightrope between being too quick to remove a member, and too patient in letting an errant member remain. But to suggest that individual acts of infidelity in a group of 6,000 congregations and 11,000 pastors and rostered laymen automatically destroys the entire fellowship has no precedent in church (or human) history. The perfect man and the perfect church will only be found in eternity.

That said, there is another side of the coin. When synod allows members to take advantage of the forbearance of the other members of synod - or perhaps the institutional paralysis of district and synod leadership - this too is a problem. Heterodoxy that is allowed to exist and fester with impunity, being ignored and tolerated year after year, is damaging to the synod. It harms our fellowship. It is destructive of our unity and good order. It defeats the very purpose of having a synod. This probably explains the recent convention’s desire to take another look at our so-called Dispute Resolution Process.

Doctrine only, or doctrine and practice?

Doctrine is, of course, inflexible. We cannot allow members of synod to stray beyond the doctrinal boundaries of the Bible and the Book of Concord. Practice is more nuanced. There is a gray area between unity and diversity - and opinions as to where to draw the line will vary, even among synod leaders and members. In the history of the church - including the early history of the Reformation - the church has established standard worship forms that provide unity in certain ecclesiastical or state regions - including legally-binding liturgies, even as written by authors of the Formula of Concord (including the authors of Article 10 on Adiaphora). Our confessions do bind both “doctrine and ceremonies” together as a bulwark against “ungodly doctrine creep[ing] into our churches.” The idea that practice - especially ceremony - is completely free and independent of doctrine violates our confessions. Even the grammar of the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession binds the two together.

Synod and Christian liberty

Contrary to the protestations of those who have chosen to abolish the Mass while pleading “context,” it would not be out of bounds for synod to prescribe the use of certain liturgical forms, or even an approved hymnal, as a condition of synod membership. Nor would it violate scripture for synod to at least set a minimum standard liturgical ordo and require congregational members of synod to follow it. It would not be acting beyond synod’s authority to require a standard statement of closed communion to be published and practiced as a condition of synod membership. Of course, there is a balance to be struck for the sake of wisdom. But there is nothing that requires synod to adopt an “anything goes” approach to worship forms and sacramental inclusion or exclusion, especially under the rubric: “Synod isn’t church. Synod is only advisory.”

Because synod isn’t church, and because synod is advisory, and because membership in synod is voluntary, synod is free to insist upon conditions of membership, and members of synod are free to remain as members, or to quit their membership.

Thus there is Christian liberty for both synod, and for members of synod.

In the one-year lectionary, we are approaching Trinity 8. There is a scarlet thread binding together all three readings: Beware of false shepherds who harm the sheep.

My wife has become long-distance friends with a confessional Lutheran lady who belongs to an LCMS congregation. They had a text chat today that I found sad, but illustrative. My wife’s friend gave my wife permission to share this with me, and gave me permission to share this with you.

She is upset that her adult daughter has left Lutheranism and become a Roman Catholic. The daughter had finally had enough of the shenanigans of the LCMS, and has sought greener pastures elsewhere. After about four years of seeing one LCMS you-know-what-show after another, “she got tired of the lack of unity with the Lutheran churches.”

My wife’s friend describes the Lutheranism that her daughter grew up in as “a Lutheran wasteland.” One of their pastors gave out “The Message” Bibles for Confirmation. The pastor also communed Mormons. When confronted about it, the pastor replied, “They could use a little wine.” They moved to another city where the pastor invited unbelieving Jews to the communion rail.

A few years ago, moving to another city, a local LCMS church sent them a QR code to see the church’s bulletin, only to find “crazy contemporary worship.” Fortunately, her grown son was blessed by a serious pastor and a liturgical congregation, and invites his college classmates to attend his faithful, liturgical LCMS church. Thanks be to God for that!

Though their practitioners are in denial, these two practices kill evangelism - especially among young people who are looking for authenticity: 1) Entertainment Worship, and 2) Open Communion.

Both of these practices cry out: “We are unserious.” The former is clearly manipulation and marketing, being willing to throw away that which is ancient, that which anchors us through the bonds of time to the church of Jesus and the apostles in favor of playing church and for the entertainment of the good old American variety show. It swaps out the sacramental for the sappy. Instead of delving the depths of that which is transcendent and eternal, it ignores the big questions and dulls the senses with yet another shallow dopamine hit, another karaoke-worthy stage performance. The latter says with its deeds, contrary to its words: “Communion is a snack.” Because if it really were the true body and blood of Christ, it would not only be treated with profound reverence, it would not be handed out like candy to anyone and everyone.

This calls to mind the cynical priests that shocked Martin Luther in his 1509 journey to Rome, who mocked the Mass with this little chant: “Panis es, panis manebis; vinum es, vinum manebis" ("Bread you are and bread you shall remain; wine you are and wine you shall remain)."

It is interesting that though open communion runs rampant, including in liturgical congregations, churches that have abolished the Mass in favor of “Contemporary Worship” are even more likely to practice open communion.

My wife’s friend’s daughter left the LCMS for a church that: 1) practices liturgical worship, and 2) practices closed communion. All that said, it must be acknowledged that the Roman Church is not without its own liturgical goofiness - especially in novus ordo (Vatican II) Masses. But even at their goofiest, there will always be an altar, a sacred space that is not a stage, a vested celebrant, a consistent liturgical order, and practice that clearly confesses the Real Presence. There will always be the sign of the cross, genuflecting, and elevating. And they always make it clear - even at funerals and other services where guests are expected - that they shamelessly practice closed communion. All things considered, and even with its serious doctrinal errors and the hidden cracks in the beautiful marble façade, Rome portrays itself as serious. And they are attracting converts. And the same is true with Eastern Orthodoxy (where there is also no “CoWo” option for Sunday services).

Contrary to the assertions and assumptions of our “Modern Worship” enthusiasts, liturgy and closed communion - as well as a rigorous preparation for joining the church - have not harmed evangelism in the Roman Catholic Church. There are no Roman voices saying, “If we get rid of the altar and build a stage, if we put up a drum kit and invite a rock band to play, if the celebrant ditches the vestments, we’ll reach more people.” Nobody in Rome says: “America is too diverse for everyone to worship using a common liturgy.” In fact, the Roman Catholic churches that are growing numerically worldwide are the more rigorously traditional churches: if not making use of the Tridentine Mass in Latin, at least conducting the liturgy with solemn dignity. They don’t have five different Divine Services, not to mention anything-goes services that have thrown out the liturgy entirely. We don’t see historic communions of Christendom panicking and throwing out their traditions. In fact, that is where you find growth among young men and women - especially those who are having children. There is no impetus to casual the worship up, or to lower the bar regarding stewardship of the Eucharist as an evangelism strategy for a certain “context.” Rome’s identity is “catholic,” as a worldwide context that has a shared liturgy for everyone. Sadly, our Lutheran worldview also shared that liturgical catholicity until very recently. We unwisely threw it away - at least some of us did.

The more unserious we are, the more young people see through it and leave. And it is truly sad, because liturgical worship is part of our shared historical Lutheran context and identity, all over the world - even if you narrowly (and artificially) define Lutheran identity as only the exact words of the Bible and the Book of Concord. And closed communion is also our ancient and universal historic practice, which grows out of our belief in the Real Presence and the danger of not stewarding the mysteries responsibly - which comes directly from the Bible.

My wife’s friend also lamented: “I cannot refer a friend to just any Lutheran church (LCMS). I have to call and vet every single one.” That is also my lament. There are people hungering and thirsting for what we offer on the menu, but what is actually brought to the table is something completely different. It is soul-crushing that I have to tell people that there is no church I can send them to, even when there is an LCMS congregation up the road.

Of course, in spite of their claim that they want “conversations,” our CoWo podcasters have no intentions of restoring the liturgy and giving up their “Eucharistic hospitality” (or more accurately, “promiscuity”). So I’m not addressing them here. I also know that even among our liturgical congregations, there are pastors “of a certain age” who will continue to practice open communion no matter what. I’m not talking to them either. Instead, I’m appealing to younger men in the ministry: please remain faithful. Celebrate our traditional liturgy with reverence and joy. Don’t give in to the temptation that if you ditch the liturgy, you too can have a “successful” church. And don’t be afraid to faithfully steward the mysteries. Don’t practice closed communion simply because that is what the synod says, practice it because it is the right thing to do, because we really believe what we say we believe. Souls depend upon your faithfulness.

We have the Gospel in its purity and clarity. We have the Word and the Sacraments in their fullness. We have the transcendent beauty and the gravitas of the liturgy. So let us have integrity, and let us hold fast to our Lutheran identity for the sake of the Gospel, for the sake of those who need Jesus, for the sake of the faithful who should not be driven away by unfaithful shepherds and confusing practices. As St. Paul bids us: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

In this video podcast:

… the Rev. Dr. Tim Ahlman said (at about 18:30):

“It seems like the divide between confessional, mission, whatever, always goes back to worship. And I think we should stop it and give more care. I think high church celebration, smells, and bells, I think it's awesome. If you can do it well, great. Here's one of the here's one of the struggles because a lot of times the contemporary guys will say, well, the the assaults - that's too strong. The hard words against contemporary worship is it's a performance right there are people up on a stage. Well I watch the Issues Etc. closing worship for their gathering Making the Case and I see three pastors up front all in robes [sic] cassocks, you've got a kantor, who has a delightful voice, by the way, off to the side leading the congregation in the liturgy, so I don't know how that is exactly different. And, now you get me going here, and to think that a average middle Midwest very conservative traditional oriented church could pull off what I saw at Concordia Chicago at the issue. There's no way, right? So there there is the performative element that goes into both traditional and and contemporary modern worship music. And if you're going to do whatever your style is, hopefully with a Lutheran ordo in place, do it well. If you can't do it well, don't do it. whatever the style happens to be this this day and age. And if it's if it's liturgy with a pastor and a pianist, praise God. Do the Divine Service.”

Here is the Divine Service as it was celebrated at Issues, Etc.

There is a lot to unpack in Dr. Ahlman’s statement. And I think his words are illustrative, having explanatory power to illustrate why we are divided.

The first thing that I’m going to push back on is his advocacy of “a Lutheran ordo” and his imploring of everyone to “do the Divine Service.” Until recently, you could see what his church considers to be the ordo - especially in the “modern worship” service, but also in their “traditional service” at their public YT channel. The same is true with his friends at King of Kings regarding what they do as far as “a Lutheran ordo” and “Do the Divine Service” go. Their YT channel is here. Note: both of these congregations have stopped posting - and even removed - their complete worship services from public view (they now post only the sermons - or “messages” as the kids say). Here are descriptions of Christ, Greenfield and King of Kings services from when they were posted. There are a plethora of other “modern worship” LCMS member congregations that anyone on the planet with the Internet can watch. How much Lutheran ordo are we seeing?

Here’s a random example of a recent LCMS CoWo Mass (the consecration begins at about 8:45):

Secondly, the idea that highly liturgical worship with vested ministers and chanting cannot be done in the Midwest, or for that matter, the Northwest, the South, New England, Canada, Europe, or Asia is bizarre. Especially odd is the assertion that the Midwest is at some kind of handicap here. Beautiful and reverent liturgical worship is found everywhere, including in LCMS churches, large and small; rural, urban, and suburban; with multiple pastors, or only one. We have such liturgical congregations that Dr. Ahlman would consider “high church” or “smells and bells” in my district: in Louisiana, in Mississippi, in Alabama, and in western Florida. And what’s with saying that you can’t have reverent, beautiful, liturgical worship at “traditional” or “conservative” churches? This is just factually untrue. And here is a sample from the Divine Service at Zion Lutheran Church in Bensenville, Illinois:

But the real issue that I want to discuss is the fact that Dr. Ahlman equates churches with stages and rock music with traditional liturgy, calling them both “performances.” Maybe he considers what he does as a performance, but to suggest that others are “performing” while leading holy worship is just gross. Would he refer to the high priest entering the Holy of Holies as a “performance”? Were the priests who offered sacrifices “performers” like dancing girls at a king’s banquet? Was Isaiah engaging in performative stagecraft when he prostrated himself in his vision of the throne-room of God (from where we get the part of the liturgy known as the Sanctus)? Was Jesus performing a show when He cured lepers, forgave sins, and preached the Gospel to the multitudes? How about that feeding of the five thousand extravaganza? The crowds who stalked Him to make Him their bread king thought it was the greatest show on earth. Plus ça change. Was the Last Supper (the first Divine Service) also a “performance”? Herod was certainly disappointed that Jesus didn’t put on a show and perform for him.

What I do on Sunday morning and Wednesday night is not performing - neither on my part as the celebrant, nor on the part of Jesus who is present. Neither is what I do during daily Matins a performance, but is rather prayer. It is not a show. It is not done on a stage with props. The chalice that we use in the Mass is not fake. It is real, and it has real wine in it. And after it is really consecrated, it contains the real blood of Christ. We don’t put on a show on a stage with a couch and spike tape on the floor so the actors and performers know where to stand. We don’t have a loaf of bread that will never be consecrated as a prop (which kind of smacks of the pre-Reformation Corpus Christi shows). Nor will a lay musician sing the Words of Institution. We are not putting on a show.

When I conduct the liturgy, it is not a performance, preference, or passion. It is, rather, a reverent response to the real, miraculous, divine Presence.

We are not the same.

But my behavior around the altar is the same, whether it is Sunday morning surrounded by people, or during the week, when I am the only person walking in the sanctuary. I reverence the altar, not as a performance, not as a show, but rather because it is holy. It is sanctified by Christ’s body and blood that are consecrated there. It is the Holy of Holies. There is nothing more real in all the universe that the miracle that happens in that sacred space.

The way I conduct myself at the altar doesn’t change whether I am celebrating in my little church in the deep south, or whether I’m a guest celebrant elsewhere. I am vested. I chant the verba. I genuflect before the altar. I elevate the consecrated elements. I never monkey with the words to make them more “meaningful” than the way the Holy Spirit gave them to us. My congregation has a liturgical handbell that is rung - either by my deacon (on Sundays) or by me (on Wednesdays) during the consecration.

It’s not a performance, it is a confession of Christ’s presence. It is an altar, not a stage. The communion vessels call to mind our Lord’s instructions that furnishings used in divine services in His Presence should be elegant, well-crafted, and beautiful - not cheap and not tawdry. I will not serve in the Holy of Holies clad in a sports jersey or casual clothing. I will not crack jokes there. I will not show such disrespect to our Lord by doing so. Other pastors are, of course, free to do whatever they want in this regard. Nothing will happen to them. Whether it should or should not is not my call. I have my opinions, but I have no authority over any other pastor. But I do lament at what goes on in LCMS congregations. It makes evangelism harder for us. It drives people away, and reflects poorly on the rest of us as unserious - or at least, as unsacramental - people. We are unfairly tainted.

In 1914, when my congregation built its second building, those German immigrants and children of immigrants, physical laborers, raised up $750 to buy a new baptismal font. That would be about $25,000 today. This was not a large church. These were not wealthy people. Nevertheless, they sacrificed to import our hand-carved font, made of six different kinds of marble, from Italy. They did so because the Holy Sacrament is deserving of such dignity. They did not use a horse trough or an inflatable kiddie pool on a stage to baptize (or re-baptize) people. We are still joyfully baptizing the faithful with dignity in that same marble font today.

The difference between a stage performance and a sacred rite is that the former is fake, and the latter is real. This is why it gives an at-best ambiguous confession when hard-core CoWo congregations get rid of altars, fonts, and pulpits, replacing them with stages and bandstands. LCMS CoWo congregations are actively imitating worship that is found in churches that don’t confess the Real Presence. In other words, churches (such as non-denominational congregations) that natively practice entertainment-based casual worship don’t believe the elements are real. To them, a consecrated piece of bread remains only bread. A cup of wine (or a convenience pack of grape juice) also remains what it is. To them, there is no real body or blood. It’s a representation, all for show.

And casual worship makes sense in their context. Can you imagine a non-denominational pastor wearing a chasuble, chanting the verba, ringing bells, and reverently genuflecting before the altar and elevating the consecrated elements? It would make no sense in that context, whereas in a Lutheran context, such ceremony and reverence make perfect sense.

We who lead Lutheran worship are catechizing, confessing, and conveying information, with our deeds and actions congruent with our words. If our words don’t match our deeds, this is called, per Jesus, “hypocrisy” - and it is fitting that the word “hypocrite” means a stage actor: a performer. Jesus is the Word, the Logos, and the words we choose are important. God chooses to reveal Himself to us in His Word. But the Word is not divorced from matter. Far from it! For “the Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us.” The Christian faith is incarnational, as the Word takes on material vesture in space and time. Practice confesses and reinforces the words we say, and the words we say are bolstered by our practices. Hence the advice to a celebrant to “say the black, do the red.” The black and the red present both a unified confession and a unified catechesis. When the black and the red become asynchronous, at best, we confuse our flocks, and at worst, we lead them astray.

Our Divine Service has been handed down to us because it is a true timeless “best practice,” and liturgical worship is (or at least was until recently in church history) universal among Christians. Within our Lutheran tradition, there is a remarkable unity in liturgical practice all over the world. And certainly, members of LCMS congregations from sea to shining sea, from the tropics to the tundra, can meet at a conference, convention, university chapel, at a sister congregation while vacationing - or train together for the ministry at both of our seminaries - and find unity and familiarity in these shared ceremonial forms, in our ordo. Of course, members of “modern worship” congregations will be lost at such events. They have been deracinated. They have had their heritage stolen from them. They don’t have the joy of joining with other Lutherans and knowing how to worship together, nor do they know the treasury of our hymns. Our ancient collects will sound foreign. Our bowing and crossing ourselves will seem “un-Lutheran” (assuming they themselves even know that they are, in fact, considered to be Lutheran, since many such congregations have purged away the “Lutheran” name).

No amount of “conversation” will change their minds. They want to change our minds. They want us to accept stage-based entertainment/performative worship to be the equivalent to our Divine Service at an altar. They also want us to see what we do as performative. They want to force us to give them our blessing. They want to compel us to share their view that altar and stage confess and teach the same thing. They want us to adopt a postmodern view of worship that says one need not say the black or do the red at all, that the leeway built into the authentic liturgy is not enough, and that whatever they do, no matter how ridiculous, we must embrace and confess it before the world - whether our consciences will permit it or not. They practice open communion in defiance against convention after convention, but then claim to be the real Lutherans because of their genealogies.

We may not be able to make the preening and performing emperor put on some clothing, but we can point out his nakedness, refuse to be bullied by him, and strengthen the bonds of those who want to walk authentically together, saying the black and doing the red - all in submission - not to worldly popularity, but to Him who is truly present on our altars.

Liturgy is not a performance. It is life lived and practiced according to the Word of God and our joyful, reverent confession that He miraculously dwells (tabernacles) with us!

Following Fr. Bussman’s lead in calling out congregations that are an oasis, I have to share my own experience in finding a delightfully liturgical and confessional congregation where one might least expect it.

Last month, we were in Ottawa, Canada (where my wife was born and raised) for the first time in a decade, visiting family. Since we were there over a Sunday, we wanted to find a church. And as Canada is a very secular culture, and since Lutheranism is not exactly a dominant faith group in Canada, and since my family lives in a suburb of Ottawa, quite a ways out of town - the odds were not in our favor. But God was gracious and merciful, and we found an oasis in the suburb called Kanata.

Christ Risen Lutheran Church is a member of the Lutheran Church - Canada, and is in fellowship with the LCMS. That Sunday, we were delighted to find this liturgical congregation that sang the hymns right out of the hymnal. We found a faithful pastor (the Rev. Milton Lam) who conducted a proper, reverent liturgy and preached the Gospel! We stayed for a bit afterward and talked with Pastor Lam and members of the parish. They were friendly, and it is apparent that they love their pastor. There were several converts to confessional Lutheranism in the parish. It is also apparent that Pastor Lam (a graduate of our sister seminary in St. Catharines), is a faithful confessor and teacher. His story is interesting, having been born in Hong Kong, raised in Quebec, and now serving in Ontario. He is trilingual. I only wish we had more time to visit!

But what a joy to find an oasis, to be able to be comfortable in the liturgy and with the hymns of the church, to be absolved, to hear a faithful Lutheran sermon, to be able to receive the Holy Supper celebrated with reverence! There has been a quiet but steady move toward a more reverent practice in our churches, not only in the US, but also in our sister churches in the Great White North (even in the summer when there is no snow).

Thank you, Pastor Lam, and thank you saints at Christ Risen, Kanata! And we hope you all had a wonderful Canada Day!

This was published August 3, 2019. I just met Pastor Rippy this week at the ongoing CCLE Conference (which is outstanding, BTW, more to come! — Ed.

Here is a Gottesworthy article by Pastor Sean Rippy, “In Defense of Historical Worship - From a Former Advocate of Contemporary Worship.”

Well worth the read!

The following letter was submitted by the Rev. Stanley Lacey of St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church (UAC), Magnolia, Texas to Floor Committee 5 (Theology and Church Relations) of the 2026 LCMS Convention. Rev. Lacey was born and raised in central Alabama, and grew up in the Roman Catholic Church. While studying music at the University of Alabama, he became a Lutheran after meeting his future wife, Payton, and reading the Augsburg Confession. He received his M.Div. from Concordia Theological Seminary in 2021, and served St. John’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Clarksburg, WV for three years before accepting the call to serve at St. Thomas in Magnolia, a new church plant of the English District.

July 11, 2026

Dr. Brian S. Saunders, President
Iowa East District
1100 Blairs Ferry Road
Marion, IA 52302-3093

Dear Chairman Saunders and Members of Floor Committee #5:

I am writing to you with my own suggestions on Proposed Resolution 5-05, "To Address Open Communion and Pastoral Exceptions in Extraordinary Circumstances." I authored the Overture 5-17, submitted by St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church (UAC), Magnolia, Texas, titled "To Reaffirm, Enforce, and Restore Faithful Eucharistic Practice and Synodical Discipline concerning Unionism and Open Communion."

I wrote Overture 5-17 with the desired result that our Synod President and Council of Presidents would be urged in Convention to begin expelling individual members of Synod and congregations that violate membership requirements as they relate to LCMS Constitution Article VI.2, the renunciation of unionism and syncretism in all its forms. In its current form in Today's Business, I believe that Proposed Resolution 5-05 fails to accomplish this goal.

Proposed Resolution 5-05 reaffirms the practice of closed Communion, cites the oft-abused Synodical language of "except in situations of emergency or in special cases of pastoral care," and resolves that the Synod President and Council of Presidents, "continue to be faithful in upholding the existing constitutional and bylaw provisions concerning unionism and sacramental practice and the Synod's position on closed Communion as articulated in numerous doctrinal resolutions," giving the impression that the Synod President and Council of Presidents have actually followed our Synod's existing consitutional and bylaw provisions.

Given that prominent members of Synod and some of our most visible and largest congregations openly advocate for and practice various communion practices that cannot be described as closed Communion according to Scripture and have not been publicly rebuked, given a public apology and repudiation of their heterodox teaching and practice, or been expelled from the Synod, the phrase "continue to be faithful in upholding" is false. The best, and most accurate, construction is that the Synod President and Council of Presidents are not expelling heterodox pastors and congregations for practicing open Communion in all its forms, and they should be. That being the case, I implore this floor committee to urge them to fulfill their duty to preserve the unity of the true faith and to defend against schism, sectarianism, and heresy.

One final note here: I have included the names of various figures whose false teaching is either publicly available or has been presented publicly. I am willing to share names in other situations cited in this letter so that they may respond to the claims I have made. However, since they were either private conversations or words spoken in settings where discretion is expected, such as a circuit meeting of pastors, I have left them unnamed.

Biblical Requirements for the Lord's Supper Remain Absolute Even in Emergency or Exceptional Pastoral Care Situations (Today's Business, Proposed Resolution 5-05, p. 101, Lines 8–48)

I ask that the floor committee consider language asserting the fact that even in situations of emergency or in special cases of pastoral care, a pastor still must only admit to the Lord's Supper:

1. Those who have been baptized.

2. Those who can examine themselves (1 Corinthians 11:28)

3. Those who believe that according to the Words of Institution in Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and 1 Corinthians 11, "that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians" (SA III VI 1).

4. Those who must not first remove a public offense that has been given through open, manifest sin (1 Corinthians 5:11). Christians under the care of a false-teaching pastor or who are joined to a heterodox congregation must remove the public offense by severring their connection with the heterodox pastor and congregation and declaring their acceptance of the true doctrine before being admitted to the Lord's Supper (Romans 16:17). 

Our Lutheran fathers speak with one voice to this issue of who ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper according to Scripture. Two prominent examples include C.F.W. Walther and Francis Pieper (C.F.W. Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 222–232; Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics vol. 3, pp. 381–391).

Even in cases of urgent need, the pastor must never commune a person who plans on continuing in sin and remaining attached to a heterodox pastor and congregation, regardless of their baptized status, ability to examine themselves, or their belief in the true and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the Holy Supper. To commune such a one who has not confessed their sins and resolved to avoid them in the future is to disobey God's call to the minister to serve as a watchman (Ezekiel 3:17–18).

The only "situations of emergency" or "special cases of pastoral care" where someone isn't formally a communicant member of a congregation in fellowship with the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod—that a pastor might, in good conscience, administer the Sacrament still require that all the requirements above be met. There is no emergency case concerning the Lord's Supper that would allow dispensing with these Biblical requirements.

Special situations regarding who is admitted to the Lord's Supper are addressed in Walther's Pastoral Theology:

"Anyone who cannot confess faith that the true body of Jesus Christ is actually and truly present in the Holy Supper and is therefore consumed by all communicants—both the worthy and unworthy—is incapable of discerning the body of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:29). For this reason, he should not be admitted to the Holy Supper under any circumstances. Cf. Gerhard, [De S. Coena], § 222. But even someone who confesses this cannot be admitted in accord with good order (fn. 6 -  Except in the case of mortal danger, which we will address later. CFWW [See below, p. 229. DWL]) if he is not a member of our orthodox Church but instead is either a separatist, Roman Catholic, Reformed, so-called Protestant or United Protestant, Methodist, Baptist—in short, is a member of a heterodox fellowship and wishes to remain so" (Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 225).

"The excommunicated, above all, are included among those who should be turned away from the Lord's Supper until they are reconciled with the Church again, unless they suddenly come into mortal need. Concerning this case the church order of Lower Saxony says:

'If the excommunicated person should perhaps also be afflicted by a serious, burdensome, deadly illness before reform can be seen in him, friends should join the pastor in admonishing, calling to mind, and pointing out to him with all possible diligence the divine wrath about such sins, so that he takes his sins to heart and confesses them and desires, along with reconciliation to the church which he offended, forgiveness of his sins by God through Christ. In such a case and instance, the pastor should administer Absolution to him along with the Holy Supper in the presence of a number of witnesses, with the condition that, if God helps him back out of his situation, he will not neglect public repentance and Absolution before the congregation of God. (Dedekenn, Thesaur., vol. 1, pt. 2, fol. 687)'" (Walther, Pastoral Theology, p. 229).

From these quotations above, it is clear that whether someone is exommunicated or they are a Roman Catholic on their deathbed who is also out-of-communion with the orthodox Lutheran Church, the faithful pastor must admonish them to repent, hear their confession of sins and absolve them, and, in the case of one who meets requirements #1–3 above but up to that point had been joined to a heterodox pastor and congregation must, even on the deathbed, sever their connection with these, declare their acceptance of the true doctrine, and resolve, if God preserves their life, to be joined to an orthodox Lutheran church and pastor. The Scriptures do not allow us to commune individuals on their deathbed or in any other urgent situation who might meet requirements #1–3 above but who express no resolve to remove the public offense of membership in a heterodox congregation or other great shame and vice.

There have been Lutheran dogmaticians who teach at our seminaries and have cited special cases that give the impression that requirement #4 no longer applies in such situations. For example:

On the issue of pastoral discretion, Rev. Dr. Joel Biermann states here: "I have had the conversations with people out in the narthex. You know, 'We're visiting, we'd like to take Communion.' 'What was your situation?' 'Well, we're members of such-and-such a church, and it's not LCMS.' I'd say, 'We need to talk more, and I know you would like to commune, and I'd like you to have it, and ultimately I hope we'd like to do that, but we need to talk a little more before this happens.' And I'll put them off, or I'll just tell somebody, 'No, you really don't belong at this Altar,' and see people say, 'Well, I'm just there in name only.' Well, then why are you there? I mean, you know, you've just got to deal with these kinds of things. So there are places for pastoral discretion, but like I said, these are rather rare, and just because they happen to be visiting, I don't think it rises to the level of pastoral discretion—that's just a cop-out to be lazy. Pastoral discretion is where you've got somebody who—one, the one time I did it in my ministry was where I had a guy—my congregation was dying in leukemia, her dad was a member of my congregation, her mother was Roman Catholic because she was, I don't know, Panamanian-born or something, so Roman Catholic—and I was in their home, and the daughter was on her final days, and I was giving the sacrament to the daughter and the father, and the mom was standing right there, no one else is around, and I said, 'Would you like to receive the sacrament too, with your family?' And she said, 'I would love to.' So I communed her, and I thought it was the appropriate thing to do at that time. Someone else, you can disagree with me and say, 'Ah, I shouldn't have done it.' Well, that's okay, but see, that was my pastoral discretion, and I thought that situation warranted it—the one time I did it"
(https://youtu.be/aUYMqISkfB0?si=7oUSu4LO1hAj3Soa&t=790, 13:10–14:32).

Dr. Biermann rightly points out that having a communion policy that would allow for people who belong to heterodox pastors and congregations that might also believe in the "real presence" doesn't rise to the level of an emergency or a special situation of pastoral care that might require an individual pastor to exercise responsible pastoral discretion. However, the example he provides to his students here and to viewers on YouTube suggests that in a case of mortal need, it was appropriate for him to commune a Roman Catholic, only asking if they'd like to receive the Lord's Supper with their Lutheran family. Unless details of his story were left out, there was no admonition to the Roman Catholic mother of the dying Lutheran daughter to cast aside the false doctrine of the Roman Church, no confession of sins regarding violation of Romans 16:17 by being joined to a false-teaching pastor and congregation, and no resolution and intention to sever connection with the Roman Church and join Dr. Biermann's orthodox Lutheran congregation and come under his pastoral care. Also, his example is a case in which the heterodox Christian to whom he administered the Lord's Supper wasn't in mortal need as the example from Walther above describes. He could have asked the Roman Catholic mother privately if she would like to join the Lutheran Church so that she could depart from the false teaching of the Roman Church, be joined to the orthodox Lutheran Church, and commune with her husband and dying daughter.

Regarding the way in which "pastoral discretion" is cited in our Synod, it is often the case that pastors justify the practice of open or functionally open Communion because of the size of their congregation, or to avoid coming across as inhospitable to visitors and to avoid turning away those visitors who might not understand what it means to be LCMS. Are these and Rev. Dr. Biermann's examples of exceptions truly "situations of emergency" or "special cases of pastoral care"?

True Charity and Best Construction Demand the Direct Confrontation and Correction of Manifest False Doctrine (Today's Business, Proposed Resolution 5-05, p. 102, Lines 18–25)

I ask that the floor committee consider removing this language, not because Christians aren't called to act charitably or put the best construction on things, but because the Biblical requirements for who is to be admitted to the Lord's Supper as outlined in my commentary above do not depend on a particular congregation's context and when a pastor or congregation is preaching, teaching, advocating for, or practicing open or functionally open Communion in any form, the best contruction is that they are guilty of false doctrine. This doesn't mean we assign motive to an individual's actions, but the best construction, regarding doctrine and practice, is to evaluate and judge it according to the Scriptures. If the given doctrine or practice is contrary to Scripture, then it is false, and the individual or congregation in question is guilty of intentional or unintentional sin that needs to be addressed. They either need to be corrected for acting in ignorance or rebuked for intentionally rebelling against God's Word in this matter. In both cases, a nice article on closed Communion or a convention resolution reaffirming the practice doesn't suffice.

The Synod President and Council of Presidents, as ecclesiastical supervisors, should be speaking directly with pastors and congregations that are not practicing closed Communion, and these congregations should change their practice. Yes, according to our Synod's governing documents, it is the District President's duty to do this. However, since more than one district has historically been run by pastors who either reject closed Communion outright or resort to sophistry such as "close Communion" or "caring Communion" to either tolerate, look the other way, or defend the practice of open Communion, the Synod President and the entire Council of Presidents should sit down and work this out together. Frankly, it is an outrage that district presidents can remain in office while tolerating open Communion. In our Synod, there are even candidates for the office of Vice President who openly advocate in print and online for, and practice in their congregations, open Communion in some form or another.

Any pastor who is publicly teaching and practicing open Communion in his congregation, or publicly advocating for it online or at a conference, should be dealt with publicly. Otherwise, you'll have the situation we currently find ourselves in, where most practitioners of a form of open Communion in our Synod appear to believe that this is a mere ceremony that can, and often should, be dispensed with for the sake of the Gospel in a particular context. In reality, teaching and practicing any form of open Communion is no different than teaching and practicing women's ordination. They are both rebellions against the Word of God, in an effort to be inclusive, welcoming, and hospitable by worldly standards rather than by God's standard for true hospitality.

Synodical Leadership Must Actively Enforce the Constitution by Expelling Unrepentant Practitioners of Open Communion Rather Than Merely Reaffirming Resolutions (Today's Business, Proposed Resolution 5-05, p. 102, Lines 18–20)

Our Synod's Constitution states that the Synod, "under Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, shall—1. Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3–6; 1 Cor. 1:10), work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy" (LCMS Handbook 2023, p. 11). Article VI.2 concerning requirements for synodical membership requires, "Renunciation of unionism and syncretism of every description, such as:

a. Serving congregations of mixed confession, as such, by ministers of the church; b. Taking part in the services and sacramental rites of heterodox congregations or of congregations of mixed confession; c. Participating in heterodox tract and missionary activities" (LCMS Handbook 2023, p. 13). Article XIII.1–2 concerning expulsion from Synod, the Constitution states, "Members who act contrary to the confession laid down in Article II and to the conditions of membership laid down in Article VI or persist in an offensive conduct, shall, after previous futile admonition, be expelled from the Synod. 2. Expulsion shall be executed only after following such procedure as shall be set forth in the Bylaws of the Synod" (LCMS Handbook 2023, p. 18). And finally, LCMS Bylaws 2.14–2.16 outline a procedure for removing individual members, congregations, District Presidents, Synod Officers, and Synod Presidents from Synod for violating Articles II and VI of the Constitution (LCMS Handbook 2023, pp. 67–92).

Rather than taking these responsibilities and membership requirements seriously, we seem content to pass resolutions reaffirming closed Communion at each Synod Convention and to publish articles and books extolling the faithful and loving practice of closed Communion. Still, there are so many pastors and congregations that knowingly and intentionally reject the Biblical practice of closed Communion who remain members in good standing of the LCMS.

I have personally heard pastors tell me while I attended college that Biermann's description of pastoral discretion in special situations permitted them, for instance, to commune college students who belonged to ELCA congregations and had no intention of severing that membership, since there was "nowhere else they could go to receive the forgiveness of sins."

My field work pastor in seminary, as well as the pastor emeritus of my field work congregation, actively promoted open Communion to the laity in Bible class. While I served as field worker there, they openly taught the attendees of our Sunday Bible class that closed Communion was an unloving practice. While searching for their next pastor, my field work congregation's call committee made several announcements before church service to update members, where they said that they visited pastors in their congregations who were on the call list and that they'd need a new list because all of the pastors that the Indiana District President at the time sent them practiced closed Communion. When I asked my field work pastor about the disagreement with official Synod policy, he replied that things used to be "more closed" when he was younger but are "becoming more open." He also stated that if our Synod had a U.S. House of Representatives model for voting at convention, based on congregations' membership numbers, the LCMS wouldn't be in favor of closed Communion any longer. He believed the majority of LCMS pastors and laity are against the practice of closed Communion. I alerted Rev. Dr. John Pless, the field work coordinator for Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne at the time, of this situation. He quickly addressed the matter by noting that this congregation should not receive a field worker in the future while the issue remained unresolved. 

As a pastor of the English District, which serves a congregation in Texas, I've had the opportunity to attend various circuit meetings and gatherings of groups such as Texas Confessional Lutherans. In certain circuit meetings, I have raised the disagreement among various groups in our Synod over Communion practice and stated, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 10–11 and Hebrews 13:17, that a pastor must practice closed Communion. I received responses from multiple pastors indicating that their congregations are too large to practice closed Communion. At one meeting of Texas Confessional Lutherans in 2025, as we studied a CTCR document on closed Communion, a retired pastor informed the group, with disappointment and regret in his voice, that "no one in the Presidium of the Texas District practices closed Communion." In a discussion at this meeting of both pastors and laity, they stated that they believed more than half of Texas District congregations do not practice closed Communion. This is not given here as evidence of guilt, but to give voice to what pastors and laypeople on the ground in my area think and feel concerning how closed Communion is or isn't practiced by the congregations in their district and even by the pastors who exercise ecclesiastical supervision in their district.

Our former Synod President, Gerald Kieschnick, who is still a rostered member of the LCMS, as far as I know, taught in favor of open Communion at the Best Practices Conference a few years ago. In this presentation, he apparently argues that the LCMS is in decline because of the practice of closed Communion. He summarizes his position in favor of open Communion, which he refers to as "sacramental hospitality," in the following video interview with Rev. Tim Ahlman of Unite Leadership Collective: 

"Well, let me just say this about Sacramental Hospitality. Luther was strong on this, and so was Holy Scripture. Let a man examine himself—period. Rather than giving the pastor the authority to say, 'I'm sorry, you can't go to Communion today.' There are only rare circumstances where a person is living in open and manifest sin that the pastor should exercise that pastoral authority. Other than that, let a man examine himself. A pastor needs to explain to people what's going on in the Sacrament during the time that the Sacrament is fixin' to be celebrated. But the bottom line is it's up to the person to make that decision." To which Rev. Tim Ahlman responds, "I agree" (https://youtu.be/PjsZlf4nW68?si=Wzk5ngGxqmc0qVKy&t=3188, 53:11–54:00).

When I reached out to Unite Leadership Collective, I asked them to reconsider their position against closed Communion, citing pertinent Scripture and passages from the Lutheran Confessions. Their Director of Leadership Development, Tania Hilton, graciously responded to my message and shared the following reply from Rev. Michael Heiden: 

"To the brother who shared the email and article...I am grateful he reached out directly and can appreciate his concern and heart. I also want to let him know that our primary desire is to be faithful as well (even more than being mindful of guests is our desire to faithfully administer this means of grace).. Our decision on how we conduct communion is more about following Paul's words on the Lord Supper… "Let a person examine himself" and that For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself" (See PDF of this email thread in the attached supporting documents).

Any honest accounting of the state of our Synod will admit that we are tolerating false doctrine regarding closed Communion in our church body. Whose responsibility is it to deal with such issues? I've heard District Presidents respond with, "If it is happening in my district, I want to know about it and will fix it." But what if it isn't in my ecclesiastical supervisor's district? Is it really my responsibility, under Bylaw 2.14, to engage as an official "accuser" against a false teacher in our Synod whom I have never met, because one of my parishioners or I has been exposed to their public false doctrine? There are obvious and well-known false teachers and heterodox congregations who hold membership in the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. What does that mean when one of the Synod's stated purposes is to defend against heterodoxy?

I ask that the floor committee be more explicit about the responsibilities of the President of Synod and the Council of Presidents, as ecclesiastical supervisors, under our Synod's Constitution and Bylaws. If our Constitution and Bylaws don't allow the President of Synod and the Council of Presidents to address these issues publicly and to expel heterodox pastors and congregations from our Synod when they fail to renounce unionism in all its forms in both word and deed, then these documents need to be amended.

However, in my reading of the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws, it seems apparent that the Synod President and the Council of Presidents not only have the authority but also the responsibility to expel unrepentant unionistic pastors and congregations from our Synod. Because this is not taking place, even in situations that are well-known across several districts of our Synod, I would ask the floor committee to change the language of this resolved from "continue" to something more accurate to describe the fact that up to this time, our Synod leadership has tolerated open, manifest false-teachers and heterodox congregations that mistreat pastors who seek to change their practice from open to closed Communion or who have call committees that explicitly search for pastors to call who they think won't change their open Communion practice if they accepted the call to serve as their pastor. The Synod President and Council of Presidents, as ecclesiastical supervisors, are duty-bound to promote the unity of the true faith and to provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy. Pastors and congregations are being allowed to reject the Scriptural teaching of closed Communion in their doctrine and practice, to speak against it, and to promote forms of unionism instead.

The Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions demand that those who are sinning publicly in this way be rebuked in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear (1 Timothy 5:20). Instead, what is happening is that there is no direct rebuke of these prominent figures, no public repentance, no expulsion. As a result, pastors and congregations who reject closed Communion are only further confirmed in their error.

Unionism, which includes open and functionally open Communion, is a lump-leavening and soul-destroying doctrine. Pastors who knowingly reject closed Communion in their teaching and practice are no different than those false prophets of Jeremiah's time of whom God says, "They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord. They continually say to those who despise Me, 'The Lord has said, "You shall have peace"'; and to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say, 'No evil shall come upon you'" (Jeremiah 23:16–17). Those who join themselves to heterodox pastors and congregations are in spiritual danger. If they are unaware of the danger, it is the faithful pastor's duty to warn them. If they are aware and desire to remain joined to the heterodox pastor and congregation, they are guilty of unrepentant sin according to 1 Corinthians 5:11 and Romans 16:17. Administering the Lord's body and blood to a person when a pastor knows they are in one of these two situations is to be an unfaithful shepherd of Christ's flock. That pastor will have to give an account according to Hebrews 13:17 and Ezekiel 3:17–18.

The Protection of the Church Requires the Immediate Expulsion of Unrepentant False Teachers Rather Than Endless Dialogue, Alongside Support for Faithful Pastors (Today's Business, Proposed Resolution 5-05, p. 102, Lines 21–27)

Given Dr. Biermann's example of pastoral exception above, I do believe that it would be helpful for pastors and teachers in our Synod to have the CTCR address the question of extraordinary circumstances and pastoral exceptions. Pastors and congregations seeking to practice closed Communion would greatly benefit from such a resource. There are also cases in which a pastor, I've experienced this myself, where a person has been Communed who in retrospect after further investigation should not have or there's been a Sunday where I had less time to speak with a visitor than I'd like and discover that they are technically LCMS but haven't attended a church in several years and don't intend on repenting or I'm communing someone who I discover might not have received instruction when they joined their previous LCMS congregation, might still assent to the false doctrine of a sect, and I haven't had opportunity to sit down with them and talk about it yet.

These aren't issues of extraordinary circumstances and pastoral exception that absolve me or any other pastor of the duty to exercise Biblical church discipline regarding admission to the Lord's table. They are matters that need further investigation and possible correction. And every time a pastor communes someone, that ought to be open to scrutiny. Jesus has already perfectly obeyed the will of God in our place; we don't have to be afraid if we discover, or if another pastor or layperson points out to us, that we've been communing with someone we shouldn't be communing with. We repent. We confess our sins and ask for grace to avoid those sins in the future. We receive Absolution, complete forgiveness of all our sins and the perfect obedience of Christ to cover all our sins, failures, and weaknesses.

Unfortunately, the real issue behind our Synod's numerous publications and resolutions defending closed Communion is the same as at any time when false teachers and the falsely taught have sought to change the church's Biblical doctrine to something that better resonates with the current culture and spirit of the age. Those who rebel against the Word of God and want others to join them, or at least not bother them, call for "dialogue," "ongoing conversation," "further study," or ask us to "trust them to be faithful in their context." If they are just afforded time to continue these conversations without receiving church discipline, then their false-teaching might be able to leaven enough of the lump for the rest of us to see their side of things and come along with them. 

The Scriptures demand that shepherds prevent the promotion and defense of false doctrine among Christ's sheep. "For there are many who are rebellious, whose words are empty, and who deceive, especially those of the circumcision party. The mouths of these people must be stopped, because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they should not teach, for the sake of dishonest gain" (Titus 1:10–11). CTCR documents and Synod resolutions do not stop the mouths of false teachers leading Christ's people astray. False teachers in our midst should be corrected sharply and directly in the presence of all. If they do not repent, they should be expelled and avoided.

There are pastors and congregations in our Synod who have practiced some form of open Communion for decades. There are districts in our Synod that are planting churches that, from the outset, practice some form of open Communion. Pastors openly admit in print, online, at conferences, and circuit meetings that they practice a form of open Communion that allows any baptized Christian who believes in the real presence, regardless of who their pastor or congregation was or currently is (1 Corinthians 5:11; Romans 16:17), with no compunction or shame. It is admitted as if the choice between closed Communion and unionism were no different than one church using an organ for worship and one using a classical guitar and flute. I submit to you all that this is how the matter is viewed because our Synod is failing to expel pastors and congregations who ought to be expelled. I do not mean giving them a chance to disaffiliate or resign quietly with nothing more than a single-sentence notification in the Reporter. According to our Synod's Constitution and Bylaws, individual members and congregations of Synod are to be expelled if they fail to renounce unionism in all its forms in their doctrine and life.

At this time, it is an incontrovertible fact that more than one pastor and more than one congregation advocate for, promote, teach, and practice some form of open Communion. It is a fact that more than one pastor and more than one congregation have done this for decades, no matter how many Synod resolutions have been passed or how many books and articles have been written. Since there are more than one pastor and one congregation for which this is the case in our Synod, making it a public offense, scandalizing all our orthodox pastors and laity, the Synod President and Council of Presidents, if they are faithful to Scripture, the Confessions, and the LCMS Constitution and Bylaws, are duty bound to expel at least one congregation and pastor from Synod membership every triennium for refusing to renounce unionism in all its forms. "Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear" (1 Timothy 5:20). "For there are many who are rebellious, whose words are empty, and who deceive, especially those of the circumcision party. The mouths of these people must be stopped, because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they should not teach, for the sake of dishonest gain. One of their own prophets said, "Cretans are always liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons." This testimony is true. For this reason, correct them sharply so that they may be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:10–13).

In February of 2023, President Matthew Harrison addressed what he called "disturbing ideologies" centered around certain views on race, women, homosexuality, among others. In the Lutheran Reporter online, he said, 

"LCMS congregations agree to uphold our biblical standards. We are not a top-down institution. That said, I will work together with our pastors and district presidents to address this matter wherever it arises among us and reject it. We issue the cry of Jesus: 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matt. 3:2). We are confident that the same Law and Gospel that broke the hard heart of St. Paul, himself a murderer and blasphemer, can and will do the same today. We are all called to repentance daily. 'The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin' (1 John 1:7). Where that call to repentance is not heeded, there must be excommunication." 

I agree with President Harrison that where there is no repentance in open and manifest sin, there must be excommunication. I ask that this floor committee communicate to our Synod President and the Council of Presidents that they ought to expel pastors and congregations from our Synod who fail to repent of teaching, defending, and practicing unionism through various forms of open Communion. It is the duty of the Synod President and Council of Presidents to see that this is done and that all our pastors and congregations know that our Synod is serious about preserving the unity of the true faith and providing a united defense against schism, sectarianism, and heresy. When our pastors and congregations advocate for and actually invite all self-identifying Christians to the table regardless of whether they are joined to an orthodox pastor and congregation or not, they are committing a public sin against all of us. This requires public discipline, public repentance, and, in the words of President Harrison, "where that call to repentance is not heeded, there must be excommunication."

We must all take to heart these words of warning and exhortation from our sainted President C.F.W. Walther regarding unionism. In his Theses on Communion Fellowship With Those Who Believe Differently, the final and thirteenth thesis states, "The more unionism and syncretism is the sin and corruption of our time, the more the loyalty of the orthodox Church now demands that the Lord's Supper not be misused as a means of external union without internal unity of faith." In his closing paragraph commenting on this thesis, Walther says, 

"The Antichrist first succeeded in seating himself in the midst of God's temple through security and carelessness in the Church. Later on, through the security and carelessness of the Church, false unionism also crept in. Now it is up to us to light against this enemy and to disentangle ourselves from the webs and the bindings of the syncretistic spirit of the time. May the faithful and merciful God aid us and fill our hearts with a hatred for the lying spirit and an inner true love for the Word of God and the truth" (C.F.W. Walther, "Theses on Communion Fellowship With Those Who Believe Differently," in Closed Communion? [CPH, 2017], pp. 72–73).

Please present to our Synod in convention, not a pat on the back, but a solemn charge to act. It cannot be that we allow openly unrepentant pastors, teachers, and congregations to retain membership in the LCMS. We cannot tolerate ongoing dialogue when the issue at hand is clear from the Word of God. Demand that our Synod, in accordance with its own Constitution and Bylaws, stop the mouths of the false teachers by purging them from our midst. Urge them to walk alongside those who have been falsely taught, so that they might repent and be healed of the harm these false teachers have inflicted on them.

To all the members of Floor Committee #5, thank you for your service to me, my congregation, and all the pastors and laypeople who love our Lord Jesus, the Scriptures, and our Synod. The Lord Jesus bless you and yours!

Sincerely,

Stanley Lacey
Pastor, St. Thomas Evangelical Lutheran Church (UAC) of Magnolia, Texas

Valders, Wisconsin

The Protes’tant Conference 2025

Te Laudamus: Thee We Praise

Michael J. Albrecht’s two-page Prologue to this Lutheran hymnal supplement is addressed to God, fittingly phrased as a Te Deum: “You come first. You are the Creator of the universe,” etc. Not unlike Martin Luther’s prefaces to various hymnals and subsequent hymnal introductions through the centuries, this Prologue is fitting both for the title of this hymnal (“Thee We Praise”) and indicative of what the reader will find in Te Laudamus. 

Following the usual front matter, this hymnal includes all 150 Psalms pointed to the traditional Gregorian tones. Instructions for chanting the Psalms are included since many pastors, choirs, and laymen--probably raised on metrical Psalms--will need some guidance and some practice, but the rich legacy and sublimity of Gregorian chant is worth the effort. In chant the music carries the text in the beauty of simplicity, so that the text predominates as the faithful take up the prayerbook of Christ Himself. Since many Lutheran hymns are based on plainchant and the word “chorale” means chant, the rewards for learning even a few Psalm tones will bear musical fruit in congregational singing as the faithful explore our astonishingly rich musical heritage.

The hymn section follows, arranged by the church year, followed by theological topics and hymns for specific occasions. In my estimation this gathering of historic Reformation hymns, well known and long forgotten, makes Te Laudamus unique as a hymnal. In contrast to “official” hymnals of various Lutheran church bodies there is no evidence of compromise in the selection of the hymns. (How else can one account for the curious presence of praise songs by Twila Paris alongside hymns by Paul Gerhardt in many recent hymnals?)  This collection reflects decades of painstaking work in selecting, translating, and typesetting over a dozen hymns by Martin Franzmann, twelve tunes by Johann Crüger, nineteen translations by Matthew Carver, nearly a dozen harmonizations by J. S. Bach, and much more. The editors made every effort to include all stanzas of a hymn whenever possible.

The role of the hymnal as a prayerbook is also facilitated by numerous collects, including several by Veit Dietrich, and beautiful works of art, with special focus on the art of the Renaissance, also Martin Luther’s Christian Questions & Answers. The result is a compendium of transcendent values viewed through a Christological lens: the truth of the Gospel, the beauty of art and music, and the goodness of the Lord who dwells among us in word and sacrament.

The Liturgy section in the back of the hymnal includes the Common Service with music by Healey Willan, a Canadian composer who was gifted with a remarkable ability to write music that is both substantive and singable. This is a tremendous gift to the church. The text of the “Page 15” Service is still familiar to many, especially devotees of The Lutheran Hymnal. As for the music, the Willan estate is notoriously uncooperative on copyright issues, leaving his liturgical music largely unknown among Lutherans. The Willan settings contained here are a long-awaited opportunity to move beyond the sentimental attachments to the music of the 1941 hymnal and breathe new musical life into The Common Service, but without the compositional trends of the 1960s that were evident in the music of Willan’s contemporaries. The liturgy section also includes Luther’s setting of the Te Deum and Willan’s challenging yet beautiful setting of the same. Matins and Vespers are also included, set to traditional chants from the Reformation. The Litany with music rounds out the Liturgy section.

How might one use this hymnal in the confessional Lutheran parish? It has been a few decades since the last round of Lutheran hymnals was published, so raising the funds for a new hymnal, adopting it as a congregation, and above all learning to use the hymnal are factors when considering the use of Te Laudamus. Pastors must take the lead by first placing it on their desk, upon their lips, and in their hearts as a prayerbook. Include the church musician in this effort, who will hopefully see this hymnal as nothing short of a treasure trove of Lutheran liturgy and hymns. The choirs (including the children) are next in the pedagogical hierarchy, keeping in mind that the best teacher of human voice is of course the human voice. A carefully ordered teaching plan from the kantor, through the choir, to the congregation will lead to a more profound “Alleluia.”

A common nugget of wisdom among pastors and church musicians is to use one hymnal per parish. Supplements have come and gone (for better and for worse) through the years, from the 1969 Worship Supplement (for worse!) to Hymnal Supplement 98 (for better, but hardly necessary after the publication of Lutheran Service Book). Te Laudamus “is designed as a companion—a hymnal intended not to replace or duplicate, but to complement . . . a congregation’s primary hymnal, providing . . . treasures not found in recently published hymnals” (p. xiii). This is fair enough, but the size and scope of this hymnal suggest that it might be used as the primary hymnal, or as the “hymnal of the day” on selected Sundays, to avoid the cumbersome task of switching between two hymnals. No companion volumes (traditional or electronic) are planned, so an electronic “blending” with another hymnal is nearly impossible. Introducing Te Laudamus beckons the pastor, the choir, and the congregation to their catechetical role in teaching psalms, hymns, and liturgy, confident that the prayer of the church teaches the church.

In his hymnal prefaces, Luther often mentions his desire for poets and musicians to write hymns and set liturgy in the common language of the people, along with the deductive conclusion that this longing was unfulfilled in his lifetime. Five centuries later, it is difficult to imagine a greater gift to Lutheran worship or a richer fulfillment of Luther’s desires than the treasures contained in Te Laudamus.

Brian Hamer

Oceanside, CA

For more information or to order, see www.telaudamus.org -ed.

Faith Lutheran Church in Dunedin, Florida is hosting a young adult conference entitled: “In the World, But Not of the World,” January 15-17, 2027. The target age range is 18-35. This conference is for both singles and married couples.

Bulletin Announcement:
In the World, but Not of the World - January 15-17, 2027 YA Conference: Join us for a weekend of worship, fellowship, and theology. Designed for young adults (18-35), the conference will explore practical guidance for living out your faith in the home, the church, and the world. Register by November 1st for an early bird discount! Faith Lutheran Church, 1620 Pinehurst Rd, Dunedin, FL https://faithdunedin.org/young-adults/

Schedule
The conference begins on Friday, January 15th at 6pm. It concludes with the Divine Service on Sunday, January 17th. Dinner will be provided on Friday, and meals will also be provided on Saturday. The full schedule will be released closer to the conference.

Speakers
Rev. Andy Sorenson (Host)
Faith Lutheran Church, Dunedin, FL

Rev. Andrew Apple
First Lutheran Church, Clearwater, FL

Rev. Roberto Rojas
Zion Lutheran Church, Winter Garden, FL

Rev. Luke Onken
Mayer Lutheran High School, Mayer, MN

Who is this conference for? This conference is for Christian young adults, single or married, ages 18 to 35. The conference is not designed for parents to bring children, but lap babies are welcome! There is an unstaffed nursery adjacent to the conference hall.

Do I need to be Lutheran to attend? No, but if you're not, we highly recommend you consider it!

Check out the website for more information!

This was published July 19, 2011. — Ed.

The chief expositor of the "Evangelical Style, Lutheran Substance" paradigm among our readers, the redoubtable Fr. Louderback, hatched quite the canard in the comments below.

Continue reading…

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.”