This summer marks the fortieth anniversary of the
adoption of a controversial and divisive document at the 1973 Convention of the
Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS). "A Statement of Scriptural and
Confessional Principles" appeared in 1972 and was adopted by a slim majority of
LCMS convention delegates a year later.
When "A Statement..." was published, many synod
members found it deeply flawed. A few wrote public articles that criticized it. When it was adopted by convention resolution,
people throughout the synod
lamented. Hundreds of LCMS clergy and congregations registered their formal dissent to it.
Many thousands more simply dismissed it or ignored it. Of course those
in agreement with the synod president at the time, Dr. J. A. O. Preus, welcomed
the document and its implementation throughout the synod. Their chief target was
the so-called "faculty majority" at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, forty of
forty-five faculty members, many of which had been teaching at the seminary for
decades (e.g., Richard Caemmerer, Arthur Carl Piepkorn). Those forty were deemed
"false teachers not to be tolerated in the church of God." That was the verdict
rendered by the same slim majority of delegates at that '73 convention that had
earlier adopted "A Statement..." As a result of the "Preusian" implementation of
those specific convention resolutions, the forty faculty members and many dozens
of other synodical workers eventually lost their official synodical positions.
The forty--and the seminarians who remained loyal to them--continued to be
Concordia Seminary, but they did so "in exile." Later, they were forced to
change their name to "Christ Seminary--Seminex."
While "A Statement..." has been "on the law books,"
so to speak, since '73, people have not drawn much critical attention to it
after the Seminex "trouble-makers" and their supporters--some 200,000
people--had left the synod in the mid-1970s and formed a new church body. A lot
of people avoided the document because it simply brought back painful memories
of the events that led ultimately to schism in the synod. Other people who
remained in the synod after the 1970s refrained from voicing their theological
concerns about the contents of the document, perhaps out of fear that if their
reservations became known they too might lose their positions. Surely some
thought to themselves, "I best keep my head down and just focus on the specific
ministry that is before me. I won't rock the boat." Then, too, why publicly
discuss a controversial document if it appears that a majority within the synod
take its teachings for granted and do not give them a further thought? Why stir
up trouble by criticizing an accepted piece of synodical legislation? (And
"legislation" is the right word.) Certainly many 1000s saw no need to discuss
the document after '73, since they fully agreed with its contents and the
implementation of the convention legislation.
I do not
remember discussing "A Statement..." in any of my classes when I was a student at
the institution that was formed in the wake of Seminex on the grounds of the old Concordia
Seminary, St. Louis (1984-88). I read the document, but I also read articles by
synod members who had criticized it. The document and its contents did not
surface in the two oral theological examinations I undertook with seminary
faculty in advance of my authorization for ordination (1988, 1989). I suspect
that many LCMS laity today are unfamiliar with the document. I wonder how many
LCMS pastors have actually studied it carefully.
Despite the lack of attention given to it by most
synod members today, "A Statement..." still shows up in some synodical settings.
It is available on the synod's webpage as "an official doctrinal statement" of
the synod. As such, it is simply taken for granted. Some have continued to use
it coercively against other synod members. For example, reference to it
has been made in the course of official proceedings against me for allegedly
teaching false doctrine, but no discussion of the document's contents has
occurred. Instead, those who have used the document in this way treat "A
Statement..." as if its adoption by that slim majority in '73 has settled the
pertinent doctrinal issues for all time.
In preparation for my meeting with several members
of the synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations (CTCR) last year
(2012),
to discuss my formal dissent against the synod's insistence on "six-day creationism" and its
insistence that women cannot be ordained to serve as pastors, I was invited to re-read "A Statement..." and to identify
a number of "talking points" that could be discussed with those CTCR members.
What follows here is a summary of those talking points. What better way to
observe this fortieth anniversary of "A Statement..." than to take it seriously and
to engage it critically?
In effect, "A Statement" amended Article II even though the constitution includes another article which specifically prohibits the amendment of Article II. At the time, I thought it a bit strange that the motion to adopt "A Statement" was not ruled out of order.
ReplyDeleteHi Matt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing your gifts of articulation and clarity on these matters. Your voice is heard by many both within ELCA and LCMS and it is a much needed voice for today's issues. We support you.
George Rahn