Explicit Content Warning:
The following article contains one use of the “s-word.”
[Jesus said:] When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
— The Gospel According to St. Matthew 12:43-45
We’ve observed before on the Old Lutherans X account that the Missouri Synod’s annual self-congratulation for earning a passing grade once in 1974 is, well . . . very cringe.
However, this should not be misconstrued. Quite a few sobering and instructive lessons lie latent in the history of Seminex (used here as shorthand for the whole melange of events, q.v. Wikipedia or, better, Anatomy of an Explosion). It’s just that Missouri prefers not to study these lessons, lest they make like the mirror of the Law and reveal much which even half a century later is yet un-repented of, perhaps even re-entrenched sevenfold.
Therefore, instead of looking into the historical mirror when the anniversary of the walkout rolls around (or at any other time, for that matter), the LCMS body religious instead looks into its collective navel, and then lurches out of this comfortably slumped posture, if only for a moment, to forcefully regurgitate yet again the old triumphalist GSCG clichés. We did it, Patrick! We won the battle for the Bible! Behold our chasubles. Can you still doubt?
It’s like Burns Night, but with more heartburn. A new Omphalos Hypothesis, perhaps? Truly a rich tableau of options for the naming of this most auspicious LCMS tradition. But one thing is certain: the ceremony is never complete without the necessary pinch of incense (Ooooo! Incense!) to Respectable Opinion: shitting on Herman Otten.
But enough about what you already know. What lessons should we be learning? There are a few, but one in particular stands out as most needful at the present time:
“Even the most solemn reaffirmation of the Confessions may be a denial of them, if the errors of the day are passed over in silence.”
Our comments will follow in separate posts here and on X. In the meantime, dear Lutheran (or fellow-traveling ecumenical observer), join us for a trip into the past.
Get yourself some browline glasses, a wide tie, and some even wider lapels, and let your mind unwind to a mashup of “Simple Man” and “Thy Strong Word.”
The year is 1973. It’s July, and we’re in New Orleans. The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod is holding its fiftieth regular convention.
Resolution 2-12 has just come to the floor. What you do?
To Understand Article II
of the Synod’s Constitution
as Requiring the Formulation and Adoption
of Synodical Doctrinal Statements
RESOLUTION 2-12
(Joint Resolution of Committees 2 and 3)
Overtures 2-12—2-34, 2-104, 2-105, 3-24A—3-29B, 3-99A, 3-190, 3-193A—3-195B, 5-47 (CW, pp. 51—58, 77—78, 121—123, 144, 162—163, 225)
Preamble
In his book, Theology of the Lutheran Confessions (Muhlenberg Press, Philadelphia, 1961), Edmund Schlink reminds Lutherans who are seriously committed to the Confessions of our church of an obligation which dare not be neglected. “Even the most solemn reaffirmation of the Confessions may be a denial of them, if the errors of the day are passed over in silence. … At the very least the church, confronted with new heresies, will have to furnish up-to-date and binding interpretations of her official Confessions.” (p. 31, emphasis added.)
At Augsburg in the year 1530 A.D. the first generation of Lutherans promised, “If anyone should consider that [our Confession] is lacking in some respect, we are ready to present further information on the basis of the divine Holy Scripture.” (Tappert, Book of Concord, p. 96: 7)
The first generation of Lutherans kept this promise and fulfilled the obligation to explain the AC [Augsburg Confession] when there was need to do so. “An extensive Apology was prepared and published in 1531 to set forth clearly the true and genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession with a view . . . to forestalling the possibility that under the name of the Augsburg Confession someone might surreptitiously undertake to insinuate into the church errors that had already been rejected” (504: 6). For a meeting of theologians in Smalcald in 1537 Luther drafted some articles in which “the doctrine of the cited Augsburg Confession is repeated, [and] several articles are further explained on the basis of God’s Word” (505: 7) in order that in this way, for one thing, those who disagreed with the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Lord’s Supper might be prevented from employing the loopholes in the Wittenberg Concordat of 1536 to interpret this document “to their own advantage.” (572: 17-18)
The second generation of Lutherans had to explain the true and genuine meaning of the Augsburg Confession to meet a need that arose after Luther’s death. Some theologians departed from the Augsburg Confession “in several important and significant articles, either because they failed to grasp their true meaning or because they did not abide by them. Some, while boasting of and benefiting from their adherence to the Augsburg Confession, even dared to give a false interpretation of these articles. This caused serious and dangerous schisms in the true evangelical churches” (502: 6–7). Because of this situation the authors of the Formula of Concord said, “Since within the past twenty-five years a number of divisions have occurred among some of the theologians of the Augsburg Confession . . . we wanted to set forth and explain our faith and confession” in order to “enable the pious reader, as far as is necessary, to compare our present position with the aforementioned doctrinal writings” for “such a comparison will show him clearly that there is no contradiction between what we taught and confessed originally and afterward expounded as occasion demanded and what we now report in this document.” (507–508: 19–20)
Sixteenth century Lutherans did not permit “fabricated slanders” to the effect that they were departing from the Augsburg Confession (pp. 5–6) and the charge that they veer[ed] from one doctrine to another” (508: 20) to deter them from preparing, accepting, approving, and subscribing the Formula of Concord “as the correct Christian interpretation of the Augsburg Confession” (p. 8). Anticipating the possibility that future circumstances might necessitate even other “doctrinal statements,” the authors of the Formula of Concord insisted “we do not intend, either in this or in subsequent doctrinal statements, to depart from the aforementioned [Augsburg] Confession or set up a different and new confession” (502: 5). The authors of the Formula of Concord acknowledged the Scriptures and earlier symbolical writings to be an adequate confessional base since “the Christian reader who really delights in the truth of God’s Word will find in [them] what he should accept as correct and true . . . and what he should reject, flee, and avoid as false and wrong.” They did not intend by their “doctrinal statement,” therefore, to broaden the confessional base of Lutheranism, but intended only “to insure that the truth may be established the most distinctly and clearly . . . and likewise to ensure that familiar terminology may not hide and conceal something” (507: 16). They were aware that some theologians who disagreed with the Augsburg Confession “sought forcibly to adduce and pervert the Augsburg Confession so as to make it appear to be in full agreement” with their false teaching (568: 1) and that they even endeavored “to employ terminology which is as close as possible to the formulas and speech-patterns of the Augsburg Confession” to conceal their error (569: 2). Far from wanting to set up a new confession by their document, the authors of the Formula of Concord wanted only to establish the old confession of Lutherans by explaining it correctly and applying it properly to current antitheses so that “anybody with Christian intelligence can see which opinion in the controverted issues agrees with the Word of God and the Christian Augsburg Confession.” (503: 10)
Nineteenth century Missouri Synod Lutherans followed the precedent established by their 16th-century forebears.
Toward the middle of the 19th century Walther prepared 19 theses on “Church and Ministry.” This treatise was prepared “to repel the attacks of Pastor Grabau of Buffalo, New York.” At Milwaukee in 1851 these theses were read to the fifth convention of the Missouri Synod and discussed in eight sessions. The Synod approved Walther’s theses and ordered their publication. When this work came from the printer (Andreas Deichert, Erlangen) it appropriately bore the title, The Voice of Our Church on the Question Concerning the Church and the Ministry, for in its pages historic Lutheranism was permitted to speak through copious quotations from the Symbols and the fathers. Since the book spoke also for the Synod that ordered its publication, it was introduced to its readers as “a testimony of the faith of the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio and Other States.” Walther regarded the work as “an official manifesto of the Missouri Synod . . . . In Walther’s Kirche und Amt spoke — and still speaks! — the entire God-blest Missouri Synod” (W. H. T. Dau, Walther and the Church, CPH, 1938, pp. 50–51). In this book the Synod found a voice to state its position on a controverted issue on the basis of the Scriptures and the Symbols, and the Synod gladly availed itself of this voice to express its acceptance of and adherence to the Scriptural and confessional doctrine.
Thirty years later when a controversy arose concerning the doctrine of election (predestination), a controversy that involved antagonists not only from without the Synod, but also from within, the Synod once again found a voice through which to declare its Scriptural and confessional position. Between January 15 and May 1, 1880, Walther published a series of articles in Der Lutheraner on the doctrine in dispute. At the synodical convention in Fort Wayne, May 11–21, 1881, these articles by Walther, called “Thirteen Theses,” were read, discussed, and adopted by the Synod (Proceedings, 1881, pp. 35–41) as the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions. To the question as to what steps would need to be taken against those who regarded the position of the Synod as false doctrine, the convention replied that in case they failed to heed admonition they would eventually be expelled from the synodical fellowship (Proceedings, 1881, pp. 42–43). The Synod had a voice that spoke with Scriptural and confessional authority, and the Synod required as a condition of membership that this voice be recognized as Scriptural and confessional.
In adopting such doctrinal statements which expressed the Scriptural and confessional position of the Synod, the Synod acted in a way that is not only permitted but even encouraged by the confessional writings of the Lutheran church. When the authors of the Formula of Concord listed the earlier Symbols to which they committed themselves, they immediately added: “This, of course, does not mean that other good, useful, and pure books, such as interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, refutations of errors, and expositions of doctrinal articles, should be rejected. If they are in accord with the aforementioned pattern of doctrine they are to be accepted and used as helpful expositions and explanations.” (506: 10)
Since it is not unconfessional to accept and use writings which conform to the confessional pattern of doctrine, it is therefore not unconstitutional. Article II of the Synod’s Constitution commits the Synod and every member of the Synod to the pattern of doctrine in our Symbols. If in accordance with a right that the Symbols themselves grant, the Synod accepts and uses writings which agree with and uphold the confessional pattern of doctrine in order to show that the Synod in fact and not merely formally adheres to the confessional pattern of doctrine, then this, far from being unconstitutional, is the very thing that our commitment to the Symbols in Article II of the Constitution calls upon us to do!
“If they are in accord with the aforementioned patterns of doctrine” — this is the single condition for acceptance and use by the Synod of doctrinal statements. Nowhere do our Symbols even hint that a doctrinal statement depends for its validity upon unanimous acceptance, i.e, acceptance by everyone. If this were the condition for accepting and using doctrinal statements there would be no creed, no confession in all of Christendom! Not even Luther’s articles were accepted by everyone at Smalcald — they were accepted “unanimously” only by those present who agreed with them! The very purpose of a vote in connection with doctrinal statements is precisely to determine how many “unanimously” (with one mind) agree with them and how many do not — it is never the purpose of a vote to validate a doctrinal statement. Nor do doctrinal statements come into being and finally get adopted by negotiating a position acceptable to everyone. When it comes to accepting doctrinal statements the only factor that Lutherans, who take seriously their commitment to the Scriptures and the Symbols, dare take into consideration is whether or not such statements “are in accord with the aforementioned pattern of doctrine.”
If they “are in accord with the aforementioned pattern of doctrine” the church must accept and use doctrinal statements especially in times of controversy for the purpose of restraining contentious men who spread dissensions, in order to afford guidance to troubled and confused Christians, and for the sake of posterity.
The authors of the Formula of Concord prepared their doctrinal statement because they thought that “the most acute and urgent necessity demands that in the presence of so many intrusive errors, aggravated scandals, dissensions, and long-standing schisms a Christian explanation and reconciliation of all of the disputes which have arisen come into being . . . so that the way may not be left free and open to restless, contentious individuals, who do not want to be bound to any certain formula of pure doctrine, to start scandalous controversies at will” (emphasis added; Pref. to Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 13). Because controversies always “involve serious offense” for the weak in faith, some of whom “will doubt if the pure doctrine can coexist among us with such divisions, while others will not know which of the contending parties they should support . . . necessity requires that such controverted articles be explained on the basis of God’s Word and of approved writings (502–503: 710) in order that “a correct explanation and direction might be provided for simple and pious hearts, so that they might know what attitude to take toward these differences” (Pref. Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 6). The Formula of Concord was written to give a public testimony not only to those then living, but also to posterity concerning that which is and must remain the position of our churches with reference to the controverted issues (FC, SD Antitheses, 16 – German) because the fathers did not want it to happen that “nothing beyond uncertain opinions and dubious, disputable imaginations and views will be transmitted to future generations” (Pref. Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 13). On the contrary, they earnestly desired “that a pure declaration of the truth might be transmitted to . . . posterity” and therefore they exercised great care that “the Christian doctrine set forth in [their] explanation . . . might be fortified with the Word of God against all sorts of perilous misunderstanding, so that no adulterated doctrine might in the future be hidden thereunder.” (Pref. Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 7)
Melanchthon asked the church of his day a question which the LCMS should ponder well in these trying times: “How many do you think there are . . . who have begun to doubt because of the controversies that have arisen on the most important questions? How much silent indignation is there because you refuse to examine these questions and adjudge them rightly, because you do not strengthen wavering consciences . . . ?” (201: 127)
Through the centuries the following words of admonition and warning ought to strike our ears and hearts in all the earnestness with which they were originally addressed by Melanchthon to a decadent church in the 16th century: “In these very serious and difficult controversies the people desperately want instruction in order to have a sure way to go. . . . You will some day have to give account of your stewardship.” (281–282: 4–5)
Resolution
Whereas, The Lutheran church ever since Augsburg (1530) has reserved to itself the right to interpret and explain its confessional position over against aberrations of every sort; and
Whereas, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod from the beginning of its history did in times of controversy adopt doctrinal statements declaring the Synod’s position on the basis of Scripture and the Confessions relative to controverted issues; and
Whereas, Such right and obligation is intrinsic to commitment to a confessional position and is inherent in the Synod’s commitment to the confessional base stipulated in Article II of the Synod’s Constitution; and
Whereas, The very concept of a Synod (“walking together”) precludes individualism which allows every man to interpret Synod’s confessional position according to his own subjective preference; and
Whereas, The Synod as recently as 1971, at its Milwaukee convention, has reaffirmed “the desirability of the formulation of doctrinal statements which clearly set forth the teachings of the Holy Scriptures and apply them to issues of our day” (Milwaukee Proceedings, Res. 5-24); and
Whereas, The Synod at the same convention has asked the church to “honor and uphold” such doctrinal statements and has interpreted “honor and uphold” as meaning “not merely to examine and study them but to support, act, and teach in accordance with them unless they have been shown to be contrary to God’s Word” (Milwaukee Proceedings, Res. 2-21); therefore be it
Resolved, That the Synod recognize it as fully in accord with precedent established by our fathers both in the period immediately following the Reformation and in the early years of our Synod’s history to produce and adopt statements of doctrine which apply the teachings of Scripture and the Confessions to controverted issues; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod understand Article II of its Constitution as permitting, and at times even requiring, the formulation and adoption of doctrinal statements as definitive of the Synod’s position relative to controverted issues; and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod recognize Article II of its constitution as requiring the Synod to take seriously its confessional commitment to the pattern of sound doctrine contained in the Symbols and to “regulate all religious controversies and their explanation according to it” (Preface to the Book of Concord, Tappert, p. 14; cf. FC, SD, Rule and Norm, 10); and be it further
Resolved, That the Synod recognize that the only basis for the acceptance of such statements is that they are in accord with Scripture and the pattern of doctrine set forth in the Symbols; and be it finally
Resolved, That the Synod reaffirm its position (Milwaukee Proceedings, Res. 2-21 and 5-24) that such statements, insofar as they are in accord with the Scriptures and the pattern of doctrine set forth in the Lutheran Symbols, are, pursuant to Article II of the Synod’s constitution, binding upon all its members. (Cf. also Article VII)
Action: Adopted (6).
(See Minutes of Sessions 4 and 6 under Seminary Issues for detailed account of the debate.)