LCMS Leaders Insist Pastor/Editor is:
“ON THE ROAD TO HELL”
Christian News, October 3, 2011
Herman Otten, the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri, since 1958 and editor of Christian News since 1958 is “an impenitent sinner on the road to hell whom I would never commune” says Dr. Ray Mirly, President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s Missouri District, where Trinity, New Haven is a member.
Mirly has not withdrawn what he said about the editor being “on the road to hell.” Mirly came to the CN office on October 22, 2009, together with now LCMS First Vice-president Herbert Mueller, chairman of the panel of the Council of Presidents, which found the editor of CN an impenitent sinner and Jesus First leader Dr. Charles Mueller, Sr., always an orthodox Lutheran. While Christian News has exposed the long liberal, pro-Seminex, majority on the LCMS’ Council of Presidents, LCMS President Matthew Harrison has expressed confidence in the COP. COP member, Ray Mirly said in a letter he delivered to the CN editor on October 22, 2009:
Rev. Herman Otten
Lutheran News, Inc.
684 Luther Lane
New Haven, MO 63068
Dear Herman:
Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
In response to your letter dated September 2, 2009 in which you asked five questions, here are my answers:
Question 1 – “Is Trinity, New Haven, still under the threat of being expelled since I still insist I told the truth?”
Luther’s Small Catechism, Copyright 1943, states, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander nor defame our neighbor, but defend him, speak well of him, and put the best construction on everything.” Question 68: “What does God forbid in the Eighth Commandment?” Answer A: “God forbids us to slander or defame our neighbor; that is, to speak evil of him and thus injure or destroy his good name.” Question 69: “What does God require of us in the Eighth Commandment?”
Answer: A. “We should defend our neighbor; that is, we should take his part and shield him against false accusations.” B. “We should speak well of our neighbor; that is, we should praise his good qualities and deeds so far as it can be done in keeping with the truth.” and C. “We should put the best construction on everything; that is, we should cover up his faults and explain in his favor whatever can be so explained.”
Since you are not a pastor of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, I must exercise my Ecclesiastical Supervision of the ministry of the pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church through the ministry that the congregation permits its pastor to conduct. Following the guidance of Matthew 18, 15-18, your congregation was afforded every opportunity to defend your accusations against Dr. Charles Mueller, Sr. in a lengthy and well documented hearing. The purpose of that hearing was to determine whether Dr. James Kalthoff, then President of the Missouri District, properly ruled that you had broken the 8th Commandment and that you had not confessed your sin (which, from your letter of September 2, 2009 it is quite evident that you have not), repented of it and asked Dr. Mueller for his forgiveness.
The three District Presidents that conducted the final hearing of the case against Trinity determined that you did in fact break the 8th Commandment. You have failed to accept their judgment. Thus, yes, Trinity, New Haven, is still under the threat of being expelled as long as you remain the pastor of the congregation and you remain impenitent of a public sin.
Question 2 – “Am I eligible to preach in congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod?” The answer is no. Only rostered pastors of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) or pastors of congregations with whom we are in official altar and pulpit fellowship are eligible to preach or administer the sacraments in Missouri Synod congregations. As you know, even though Trinity is a congregation of the LCMS, you are not rostered. Therefore, you are not eligible to preach in an LCMS congregation.
Question 3: “Am I eligible to attend Holy Communion at Trinity, New Haven and at pastoral conferences?” Answer: Admission to the Lord’s Table is the responsibility of the local pastor and congregation. To attend the Lord’s Supper, one is to be truly penitent of all of their sins.
Based upon my answer to question 1, if I was pastor of the congregation where you desired to commune, because of your public statements of impenitence, I would not commune you.
Question 4: “May I participate in services of ordination?” Answer: The answer is no! Only clergy of the LCMS are eligible to participate in an ordination or installation of a pastor in an LCMS congregation.
Question 5: “Have you taken any action to get Pastor Gundermann to confess that it is contrary for women to serve as pastors?” I have properly exercised my Ecclesiastical responsibilities in regard to Pastor Gundermann, as I am fulfilling my responsibilities with Trinity Lutheran Church.
Herman, I am concerned about you and your continued refusal to recognize the sin that is at the center of your letter. You have a blind spot when it comes to this sin. Your understanding and application of the 8th Commandment is not the common LCMS understanding and public teaching of this doctrine. It is not in accord with the 8th Commandment to publicly print and distribute accusations about anyone without clear evidence that your information is correct.
Secondly, even then, as a Christian, it is your responsibility to attempt to personally engage in private spiritual counsel with that individual.
I urge you to engage in a careful, prayerful study of the 8th Commandment with the pastors of the Washington Circuit. At the least, I beg you to study this Commandment with the members of Trinity to seek to gain a proper understanding of the teaching of God’s Word. Members of your congregation, through my review of the teaching the 8th Commandment from Luther’s Small and Large Catechisms, agreed with what is taught therein.
In the Service of Jesus Christ,
Rev. Dr. Ray G. Mirly
President Mirly visited Trinity, New Haven, three times to show the congregation their pastor broke the Eighth Commandment. He called members to St. Louis to meet with him without their pastor. He gave the congregation this summery of the 13 page ruling of the COP ruling.
Trinity Lutheran Church
New Haven, Missouri
Hearing Panel Decision
May 1, 2006
Main Issue (Page 3)
Should the suspension of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri by Missouri District President James Kalthoff be upheld, or should the suspension not be upheld and Trinity’s full membership in the Synod be restored?
Sub-issues (Page 3)
1. Did the ecclesiastical supervisor follow proper procedure in suspending the member?
2. Were the requirements for expulsion according to Article XIII 1 of the Constitution of the Synod met?
3. Was sufficient evidence provided to support the accusations that led to suspension?
Summary of the Decision
(Page 3)
1. The panel determined that the ecclesiastical supervisor did follow proper procedure in suspending the member. (Trinity, New Haven)
2. The panel determined that the requirements for expulsion under Article XIII of the Constitution were met in the technical sense, but that since the case involves the removal of a congregation from the Synod and that the congregation was not given adequate counsel by its ecclesiastical supervisor as required by the Constitution of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Article III. 9 the suspension should not be upheld at this time.
3. The panel determined that sufficient evidence was provided to support a suspension of membership in the Synod.
Specific Direction Given to the Missouri District President (Page 9)
Trinity, New Haven should also have had clear counsel from its ecclesiastical supervisor concerning the issues in this case and especially concerning the options available to the congregation there are four options.
1. The first is for Trinity, New Haven to have its pastor – not its elders, but its pastor – provide direct and specific proof for the allegations he made against Pastor Charles Mueller, Sr. on June 30, 2003.
2. If he is not able to do that, the second option is for Trinity, New Haven to persuade its pastor to repent and apologize to Trinity, Roselle in a manner acceptable to them for his violation of the 8th Commandment, which is a serious sin.
3. If Pastor Otten fails to provide the direct proof of his allegations or make an appropriate apology, the third option is for the congregation to remove him from his office in the congregation.
4. The fourth option is for the congregation simply to resign its membership in the Synod or to accept the suspension of such membership.
The panel is not satisfied that such counsel was given to Trinity, New Haven by its ecclesiastical supervisor or his representatives in a setting where these matters could be discussed in a calm and straightforward fashion.
(Page 10 through top of page 11 – Top of page, indented paragraph, second sentence)
“. . . the meeting notes (from the August 28th meeting between Trinity and President Kalthoff) also indicate that the presence and the remarks of the congregation’s pastor and its advisor would have made such a calm and careful discussion of the congregation’s task, its role in these proceedings, and the options available to it almost impossible.”
Since this was not done the panel determined that the suspension of Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri should not be upheld until such a meeting or meetings with the congregation can be held and a reasonable amount of time, perhaps 45 days, be granted for the congregation to consider its options. If, after that time, it continues to support its pastor and the matter remains unresolved, the suspension should be reimposed and upheld.
The panel determined that sufficient evidence was provided to support the case brought by Trinity Lutheran Church, Roselle, Illinois for the following reasons:
The charge in this case was very specific and very narrow. An accusation was made against a member of the Synod in a publication titled Christian News, which, if true would place the accused, Pastor Charles Mueller, Sr., in jeopardy of church discipline and possible expulsion from the Synod. Trinity, Roselle, the congregation of which Pastor Mueller, Sr. is a member, properly demanded that the editor of Christian News either provide direct proof for his allegations or print a clear and public retraction of them. This was not done.
The congregation then took the matter to its sister congregation, Trinity, New Haven, which has responsibility for the life and ministry of its pastor. It requested the congregation to obtain from Pastor Otten direct proof of his allegations against Pastor Charles Mueller, Sr. or a retraction and apology. This was not done.
The panel notes that throughout the process a great deal of information was given, none of its containing clear or direct proof of the allegations made against Pastor Mueller. In fact, throughout the process additional allegations were made against him.
Therefore, the panel has determined that there are ample grounds for a decision to suspend Trinity Lutheran Church, New Haven, Missouri and that such suspension should be upheld, but in view of the lack of adequate counsel of Trinity, New Haven, on the part of its ecclesiastical supervisor, the panel has determined that the suspension should not be upheld until such time as the counsel described above can be given to Trinity, New Haven, and it has the opportunity to respond.
Ed. CN’s response to Mirly and the COP was published in the November 18, 2009 CN. Future issues of CN will have Otten’s response to the Council of Presidents and to “The Road to Hell”.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity - Reviewed by Rev. Rolf D. Preus
Power, Politics, and the Missouri Synod: A Conflict That Changed American Christianity, by James C. Burkee, Fortress Press, 2011. Reviewed by Rev. Rolf D. Preus
Christian News, September 26, 2011
Burkee’s book contains a wealth of information, but if the reader is looking for an objective recounting of the events surrounding the “Battle for the Bible” in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod during the fifties through the seventies, he will be disappointed. Despite Martin Marty’s suggestion in the forward that Burkee offers something different and more “fair-minded” than previous partisan efforts, Burkee’s book presents two dimensional caricatures of such main actors as Jack Preus and Herman Otten and fails to demonstrate an understanding of how issues, personalities, and events interacted with each other during this most significant time in our recent history.
Burkee’s thesis is that a relatively small clique of ideologically driven clergymen, with the help of a few wealthy rightwing laymen, pushed the Missouri Synod to the right as part of a larger cultural/political movement in the same direction. Burkee links and likens Herman Otten to Joseph McCarthy and Jack Preus to Richard Nixon. “Richard Nixon had his plumbers and so did Jack Preus.” (p 117) This fanciful thesis is clumsily imposed throughout his book, making it an extended cheap shot directed at the men who during the nineteen sixties and seventies were most articulate in defending the historic teaching of the LCMS on the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Seeking a politico-cultural explanation of Missouri’s civil war, Burkee largely ignores the theological sources of the debate.
The central weakness of his book, evident throughout, is Burkee’s apparent ignorance of the theological issues underlying the synodical controversy. He will not acknowledge the grassroots uprising of the conservative laity of the Missouri Synod against the liberal theology emanating from the St. Louis seminary. The debate about the Bible was certainly not limited to the faculty of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. It was taking place throughout the synod. When young graduates of the St. Louis seminary went out into the parish calling into question such things as the historicity of Adam and Eve, they provoked a reaction. Herman Otten didn’t create this reaction. He didn’t even lead it. He was a part of it. He was an important part of it. But he was not, as Burkee claims, “the single most influential conservative in the synod before 1969.” (page 7)
Imposing a thesis on the facts is not so hard to do, but it tends to distort the facts. Burkee begins by magnifying Otten’s role in the controversy. Then he attributes to Missouri Synod conservatives at large the various political and cultural concerns Otten expressed in his newspaper, Lutheran News, later Christian News. Otten’s eclectic interests thus become part and parcel of the conservative movement in the Missouri Synod. Burkee writes of conservatives who were “frightened” by such things as the civil rights movement, riots, black radicalism, and the welfare state. This is the context within which he suggests we understand the Missouri Synod controversy.
Burkee refuses to confront honestly the grassroots lay reaction against the theological liberalism ascendant at the St. Louis seminary in the sixties and early seventies. He points to the fundraising difficulties of the conservative magazine Affirm as evidence of a lack of widespread support for Affirm’s goals (page 180). If anything, those difficulties illustrate the lack of political sophistication on the part of those men to whom Burkee attributes just that!
Burkee accuses the conservatives of a “literalistic view of the Bible” (page 14). That is a false charge. But it has long been a favored trash-talking technique designed to discredit without serious argument. And Burkee engages in no serious theological argument. He can hardly deny that the vast majority of the LCMS was staunchly supportive of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This is why the “moderates” did not usually reject biblical inerrancy outright but consistently changed the subject whenever the subject came up and argued that it’s the wrong question to ask. Piepkorn’s “What Does Inerrancy Mean?” (CTM, Vol. XXXVI, Sept. 1965) is a good example of this. After quibbling over the pedigree of the term “inerrancy” and amassing dozens of alleged errors in the Bible, Piepkorn concludes by arguing that seminary professors should neither confirm nor deny biblical inerrancy but rather explain to those who ask where they stand on it that the term is “inadequate” as a theological term. Burkee includes Piepkorn’s essay in his bibliography and refers to it, saying: “Arthur Carl Piepkorn challenged the synod’s growing infatuation with ‘inerrancy’” (page 25). But there was no “growing infatuation with ‘inerrancy’” within the LCMS. The LCMS had always been committed to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
No one in the LCMS during the Battle for the Bible made more of a scholarly contribution to the issue of biblical inspiration and inerrancy than Robert Preus. Burkee gives no indication that he read anything Robert Preus ever wrote on the subject. Robert Preus is not listed in his bibliography (though a couple of collections of essays to which he contributed are included). Burkee says relatively little about Robert Preus, limiting himself mostly to the repetition of malicious judgments against him. He quotes Ralph Bohlmann as remembering that Robert Preus was the chief politician in the synod. This is an amazing judgment and contrary to the consensus among mutual friends of both men that Robert Preus was first and last a theologian and motivated by theological concerns.
Errors of fact abound in this book. Since Robert Preus was my father I will address a few errors concerning him. Some errors are minor. Burkee identifies Robert Preus as a professor in the ELS (page 23) when he was called to teach at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. He wasn’t. He served in that synod as a pastor of congregations in North Dakota, Massachusetts (where I was born) and Minnesota, but never as a professor.
Burkee repeatedly asserts that Robert was Jack’s older brother. One wonders where he got such an idea. Jack was over four years older than Robert.
Burkee reports as fact that Jack, who was one of four electors who voted to elect Robert Preus president of Concordia Theological Seminary, was frustrated by Robert’s decision to accept the position. (page 162) Checking out his footnote one learns that his source for such a bizarre assertion is none other than Waldo Werning! This is the same Waldo Werning that Burkee claims “remained [Jack] Preus’s close advisor” (page 106) after his election as president of the LCMS.
Such bald assertions reveal a naïveté that is simply breathtaking. No one who knew both Jack Preus and Waldo Werning would believe that Waldo was a “close advisor” to Jack after Jack became president of the LCMS. I’m quite sure that Waldo wanted to be Jack’s advisor. I’m just as sure that Jack did not want to be advised by him. But neither did he want to antagonize him.
Burkee’s reliance on Waldo Werning leads him into error. He reports correctly that Jack Preus was opposed to Affirm issuing a list of preferred candidates for synodical office in 1977. He incorrectly assumes that Robert was in charge of whether or not there would be a list of preferred candidates published by Affirm in 1977. Noting that Jack Preus was elected, he concludes: “The Affirm list went out, conservatives again dominated, and Jack was again elected. Jack was now in the uncomfortable position of being beholden to his brother.” (page 164)
Had Burkee bothered to do his homework, he would have learned that Affirm did not endorse Jack Preus as president in 1977. It listed both Jack Preus and Walter A. Maier as candidates and did not recommend one over the other. Robert Preus personally favored his brother over Walter A. Maier. He thought he was better qualified. But his preference was not adopted by those who prepared the preferred candidates list.
Burkee accuses Robert Preus of “duplicity” (page 178) in connection with a confusion of two letters he wrote, one to Ralph Bohlmann and the other to Herman Otten. The letters were put into the wrong envelopes and Bohlmann received the letter intended for Otten. Burkee never does explain what is duplicitous about an honest mistake. He writes as if providing information to a newspaper editor is wrong. Is it also wrong to provide information to a man writing a book about power politics in the LCMS? Having read Burkee’s book and knowing my father, I am confident that the information Robert Preus provided to Herman Otten was more reliable than the information upon which Burkee bases much of his book.
Burkee’s theological gaffes are at times somewhat shocking, as when, in reference to the Missouri Synod, he speaks of “the church’s historic doctrinal emphasis on unconditional obedience to the government” (page 26). The LCMS has never taught unconditional obedience to the government. Such a teaching is not only in direct conflict with the Holy Scriptures, it is contradicted by officially adopted catechisms of the Synod. It is difficult to imagine any LCMS pastor teaching such a thing. Nevertheless, Burkee regards it as an “historic doctrinal emphasis.”
Burkee’s efforts to link the LCMS theological debate about the Bible to the social and political issues of the day frequently display his ignorance of basic theological issues that were under debate at the time. For example, conservatives did not criticize the social gospel because they did not believe that the love of Christ could be expressed by us in our actions. They criticized the claim that the gospel could be proclaimed by actions and not words. Burkee makes a mess of this. Addressing Herman Otten’s criticism of the “Social Gospel,” Burkee asserts: “To Otten and his followers, one could not demonstrate the love of Christ through actions; it had to be spoken (apparently, spoken only).” (page 59) That’s not so. Of course the love of Christ can be demonstrated through actions and Herman Otten has never suggested otherwise. The gospel of Christ, however, which reveals his love for us (the love that we demonstrate by our actions) is a teaching. It is communicated in words that contain a cognitive message. It is the message of God’s love for us in Christ who suffered and died and took away the sin of the world. This message cannot be proclaimed without words that speak of who Christ is and what he has done for us sinners. That was Otten’s theological concern with the social gospel, and not his only, but the concern of the vast majority of the Missouri Synod. Neither social nor political action nor our individual acts of Christian charity constitute proclaiming the gospel. Burkee gives no indication that he understands this theological concern.
Burkee repeatedly asserts highly partisan opinions as fact. The status and role of synodically adopted doctrinal statements was a part of the debate of those days with both sides claiming the Lutheran high ground in their argument. Burkee asserts as fact Fred Danker’s opinion that “. . . the 1959 San Francisco convention gave [The Brief Statement] ‘status next to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’” One needs to look up the footnote to see that he is quoting Fred Danker’s, No Room in the Brotherhood. Burkee is apparently unaware that he passing off a partisan accusation of serious theological import as an uncontroversial observation.
Probably the most disappointing feature of the book is Burkee’s utter disregard for the Eighth Commandment. In his introduction he says of Jack Preus: “That Preus was a master of duplicity is the one point on which nearly all those I interviewed (who were willing to talk) agreed.” (page 9) Does it not occur to Burkee that when his sources are united in condemning a man as duplicitous he might possibly wish to acquire more sources? Perhaps men who defended, spoke well of, and put the best construction on everything Jack Preus did? There is a fine line between duplicity and diplomacy.
Furthermore, Burkee’s decision to discard the norm of Christian charity and to embrace a shallow caricature of Jack Preus prevents him from understanding what he is writing about. He evidences not just theological ignorance, but political ignorance as well. Burkee imagines that the men who elected Jack Preus in 1969, by withdrawing their support in 1981, “dethroned” (page 10) him. Nonsense! Once the LCMS had reaffirmed her historic teaching on inerrancy and reclaimed her authority over the seminary in St. Louis, the church-political expression of the conservative movement in the LCMS became increasingly irrelevant. Jack Preus would have easily won reelection had he run for a fourth term. Burkee’s argument to the contrary, based on interviews with score-settlers, flies in the face of the facts. The facts are that theology drove the controversy and politics followed theology. Once the “Battle for the Bible” had been won, the political power of both Affirm and Christian News diminished. They were deemed no longer necessary. Burkee has matters precisely backwards.
This brings us back to the central weakness of this book. I am not suggesting that only a seminary trained theologian can write a book of history that chronicles a theological debate. But a degree of familiarity with the theological debate is necessary. Understanding the strength of theological arguments is vital. Knowing the major characters as theologians is indispensable.
When I was sophomore at Concordia Lutheran Junior College in Ann Arbor, Michigan (1972-73), I read a book that Jack Preus had just written in 1971 entitled, It Is Written. It’s a good book. It was well written and easy to understand. It clearly sets forth what the Lord Jesus says about the Bible. It was a book of theology, not politics, written by a Lutheran theologian who also happened to be the president of the LCMS at the time. I recommend the book. If it’s out of print, CPH should republish it. It’s not listed in Burkee’s bibliography. Apparently, Burkee hasn’t read it. He should.
Christian News, September 26, 2011
Burkee’s book contains a wealth of information, but if the reader is looking for an objective recounting of the events surrounding the “Battle for the Bible” in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod during the fifties through the seventies, he will be disappointed. Despite Martin Marty’s suggestion in the forward that Burkee offers something different and more “fair-minded” than previous partisan efforts, Burkee’s book presents two dimensional caricatures of such main actors as Jack Preus and Herman Otten and fails to demonstrate an understanding of how issues, personalities, and events interacted with each other during this most significant time in our recent history.
Burkee’s thesis is that a relatively small clique of ideologically driven clergymen, with the help of a few wealthy rightwing laymen, pushed the Missouri Synod to the right as part of a larger cultural/political movement in the same direction. Burkee links and likens Herman Otten to Joseph McCarthy and Jack Preus to Richard Nixon. “Richard Nixon had his plumbers and so did Jack Preus.” (p 117) This fanciful thesis is clumsily imposed throughout his book, making it an extended cheap shot directed at the men who during the nineteen sixties and seventies were most articulate in defending the historic teaching of the LCMS on the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. Seeking a politico-cultural explanation of Missouri’s civil war, Burkee largely ignores the theological sources of the debate.
The central weakness of his book, evident throughout, is Burkee’s apparent ignorance of the theological issues underlying the synodical controversy. He will not acknowledge the grassroots uprising of the conservative laity of the Missouri Synod against the liberal theology emanating from the St. Louis seminary. The debate about the Bible was certainly not limited to the faculty of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. It was taking place throughout the synod. When young graduates of the St. Louis seminary went out into the parish calling into question such things as the historicity of Adam and Eve, they provoked a reaction. Herman Otten didn’t create this reaction. He didn’t even lead it. He was a part of it. He was an important part of it. But he was not, as Burkee claims, “the single most influential conservative in the synod before 1969.” (page 7)
Imposing a thesis on the facts is not so hard to do, but it tends to distort the facts. Burkee begins by magnifying Otten’s role in the controversy. Then he attributes to Missouri Synod conservatives at large the various political and cultural concerns Otten expressed in his newspaper, Lutheran News, later Christian News. Otten’s eclectic interests thus become part and parcel of the conservative movement in the Missouri Synod. Burkee writes of conservatives who were “frightened” by such things as the civil rights movement, riots, black radicalism, and the welfare state. This is the context within which he suggests we understand the Missouri Synod controversy.
Burkee refuses to confront honestly the grassroots lay reaction against the theological liberalism ascendant at the St. Louis seminary in the sixties and early seventies. He points to the fundraising difficulties of the conservative magazine Affirm as evidence of a lack of widespread support for Affirm’s goals (page 180). If anything, those difficulties illustrate the lack of political sophistication on the part of those men to whom Burkee attributes just that!
Burkee accuses the conservatives of a “literalistic view of the Bible” (page 14). That is a false charge. But it has long been a favored trash-talking technique designed to discredit without serious argument. And Burkee engages in no serious theological argument. He can hardly deny that the vast majority of the LCMS was staunchly supportive of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. This is why the “moderates” did not usually reject biblical inerrancy outright but consistently changed the subject whenever the subject came up and argued that it’s the wrong question to ask. Piepkorn’s “What Does Inerrancy Mean?” (CTM, Vol. XXXVI, Sept. 1965) is a good example of this. After quibbling over the pedigree of the term “inerrancy” and amassing dozens of alleged errors in the Bible, Piepkorn concludes by arguing that seminary professors should neither confirm nor deny biblical inerrancy but rather explain to those who ask where they stand on it that the term is “inadequate” as a theological term. Burkee includes Piepkorn’s essay in his bibliography and refers to it, saying: “Arthur Carl Piepkorn challenged the synod’s growing infatuation with ‘inerrancy’” (page 25). But there was no “growing infatuation with ‘inerrancy’” within the LCMS. The LCMS had always been committed to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.
No one in the LCMS during the Battle for the Bible made more of a scholarly contribution to the issue of biblical inspiration and inerrancy than Robert Preus. Burkee gives no indication that he read anything Robert Preus ever wrote on the subject. Robert Preus is not listed in his bibliography (though a couple of collections of essays to which he contributed are included). Burkee says relatively little about Robert Preus, limiting himself mostly to the repetition of malicious judgments against him. He quotes Ralph Bohlmann as remembering that Robert Preus was the chief politician in the synod. This is an amazing judgment and contrary to the consensus among mutual friends of both men that Robert Preus was first and last a theologian and motivated by theological concerns.
Errors of fact abound in this book. Since Robert Preus was my father I will address a few errors concerning him. Some errors are minor. Burkee identifies Robert Preus as a professor in the ELS (page 23) when he was called to teach at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. He wasn’t. He served in that synod as a pastor of congregations in North Dakota, Massachusetts (where I was born) and Minnesota, but never as a professor.
Burkee repeatedly asserts that Robert was Jack’s older brother. One wonders where he got such an idea. Jack was over four years older than Robert.
Burkee reports as fact that Jack, who was one of four electors who voted to elect Robert Preus president of Concordia Theological Seminary, was frustrated by Robert’s decision to accept the position. (page 162) Checking out his footnote one learns that his source for such a bizarre assertion is none other than Waldo Werning! This is the same Waldo Werning that Burkee claims “remained [Jack] Preus’s close advisor” (page 106) after his election as president of the LCMS.
Such bald assertions reveal a naïveté that is simply breathtaking. No one who knew both Jack Preus and Waldo Werning would believe that Waldo was a “close advisor” to Jack after Jack became president of the LCMS. I’m quite sure that Waldo wanted to be Jack’s advisor. I’m just as sure that Jack did not want to be advised by him. But neither did he want to antagonize him.
Burkee’s reliance on Waldo Werning leads him into error. He reports correctly that Jack Preus was opposed to Affirm issuing a list of preferred candidates for synodical office in 1977. He incorrectly assumes that Robert was in charge of whether or not there would be a list of preferred candidates published by Affirm in 1977. Noting that Jack Preus was elected, he concludes: “The Affirm list went out, conservatives again dominated, and Jack was again elected. Jack was now in the uncomfortable position of being beholden to his brother.” (page 164)
Had Burkee bothered to do his homework, he would have learned that Affirm did not endorse Jack Preus as president in 1977. It listed both Jack Preus and Walter A. Maier as candidates and did not recommend one over the other. Robert Preus personally favored his brother over Walter A. Maier. He thought he was better qualified. But his preference was not adopted by those who prepared the preferred candidates list.
Burkee accuses Robert Preus of “duplicity” (page 178) in connection with a confusion of two letters he wrote, one to Ralph Bohlmann and the other to Herman Otten. The letters were put into the wrong envelopes and Bohlmann received the letter intended for Otten. Burkee never does explain what is duplicitous about an honest mistake. He writes as if providing information to a newspaper editor is wrong. Is it also wrong to provide information to a man writing a book about power politics in the LCMS? Having read Burkee’s book and knowing my father, I am confident that the information Robert Preus provided to Herman Otten was more reliable than the information upon which Burkee bases much of his book.
Burkee’s theological gaffes are at times somewhat shocking, as when, in reference to the Missouri Synod, he speaks of “the church’s historic doctrinal emphasis on unconditional obedience to the government” (page 26). The LCMS has never taught unconditional obedience to the government. Such a teaching is not only in direct conflict with the Holy Scriptures, it is contradicted by officially adopted catechisms of the Synod. It is difficult to imagine any LCMS pastor teaching such a thing. Nevertheless, Burkee regards it as an “historic doctrinal emphasis.”
Burkee’s efforts to link the LCMS theological debate about the Bible to the social and political issues of the day frequently display his ignorance of basic theological issues that were under debate at the time. For example, conservatives did not criticize the social gospel because they did not believe that the love of Christ could be expressed by us in our actions. They criticized the claim that the gospel could be proclaimed by actions and not words. Burkee makes a mess of this. Addressing Herman Otten’s criticism of the “Social Gospel,” Burkee asserts: “To Otten and his followers, one could not demonstrate the love of Christ through actions; it had to be spoken (apparently, spoken only).” (page 59) That’s not so. Of course the love of Christ can be demonstrated through actions and Herman Otten has never suggested otherwise. The gospel of Christ, however, which reveals his love for us (the love that we demonstrate by our actions) is a teaching. It is communicated in words that contain a cognitive message. It is the message of God’s love for us in Christ who suffered and died and took away the sin of the world. This message cannot be proclaimed without words that speak of who Christ is and what he has done for us sinners. That was Otten’s theological concern with the social gospel, and not his only, but the concern of the vast majority of the Missouri Synod. Neither social nor political action nor our individual acts of Christian charity constitute proclaiming the gospel. Burkee gives no indication that he understands this theological concern.
Burkee repeatedly asserts highly partisan opinions as fact. The status and role of synodically adopted doctrinal statements was a part of the debate of those days with both sides claiming the Lutheran high ground in their argument. Burkee asserts as fact Fred Danker’s opinion that “. . . the 1959 San Francisco convention gave [The Brief Statement] ‘status next to the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions.’” One needs to look up the footnote to see that he is quoting Fred Danker’s, No Room in the Brotherhood. Burkee is apparently unaware that he passing off a partisan accusation of serious theological import as an uncontroversial observation.
Probably the most disappointing feature of the book is Burkee’s utter disregard for the Eighth Commandment. In his introduction he says of Jack Preus: “That Preus was a master of duplicity is the one point on which nearly all those I interviewed (who were willing to talk) agreed.” (page 9) Does it not occur to Burkee that when his sources are united in condemning a man as duplicitous he might possibly wish to acquire more sources? Perhaps men who defended, spoke well of, and put the best construction on everything Jack Preus did? There is a fine line between duplicity and diplomacy.
Furthermore, Burkee’s decision to discard the norm of Christian charity and to embrace a shallow caricature of Jack Preus prevents him from understanding what he is writing about. He evidences not just theological ignorance, but political ignorance as well. Burkee imagines that the men who elected Jack Preus in 1969, by withdrawing their support in 1981, “dethroned” (page 10) him. Nonsense! Once the LCMS had reaffirmed her historic teaching on inerrancy and reclaimed her authority over the seminary in St. Louis, the church-political expression of the conservative movement in the LCMS became increasingly irrelevant. Jack Preus would have easily won reelection had he run for a fourth term. Burkee’s argument to the contrary, based on interviews with score-settlers, flies in the face of the facts. The facts are that theology drove the controversy and politics followed theology. Once the “Battle for the Bible” had been won, the political power of both Affirm and Christian News diminished. They were deemed no longer necessary. Burkee has matters precisely backwards.
This brings us back to the central weakness of this book. I am not suggesting that only a seminary trained theologian can write a book of history that chronicles a theological debate. But a degree of familiarity with the theological debate is necessary. Understanding the strength of theological arguments is vital. Knowing the major characters as theologians is indispensable.
When I was sophomore at Concordia Lutheran Junior College in Ann Arbor, Michigan (1972-73), I read a book that Jack Preus had just written in 1971 entitled, It Is Written. It’s a good book. It was well written and easy to understand. It clearly sets forth what the Lord Jesus says about the Bible. It was a book of theology, not politics, written by a Lutheran theologian who also happened to be the president of the LCMS at the time. I recommend the book. If it’s out of print, CPH should republish it. It’s not listed in Burkee’s bibliography. Apparently, Burkee hasn’t read it. He should.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
CHRIST AND HIS WORD THE ONLY HOPE IN TRAGEDY AND DEATH
CHRIST AND HIS WORD THE ONLY HOPE IN TRAGEDY AND DEATH
Christian News, September 19, 2011
“Beyond 9/11” is the title of the special commemorative issue of the September 19, 2011 issue of Time magazine. Time says “you may notice something different about the covers. For only the third time in our 88 – year history, we have changed our trademark red border. Ten years ago, we ran the border in black. For the momentous anniversary, we have changed it to silver.”
Millions of Americans on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11 watched a special television program which showed what happened on 9/11/01. The 343 fireman who died were shown. According to the report, more are now dying from cancer caused by the fumes of 9/11.
“Christ and His Word the Only Hope in Tragedy and Death” was the title of the sermon Pastor Otten preached at a special service at Trinity, New Haven, Missouri on 9/11/01 several hours after the great tragedy. The entire sermon, which includes news stories from the major networks, was published in the September 17, 2001 CN together with many photos and the headlines from major newspapers.
The editor first heard the reports of 9/11 just as he was concluding a bicycle ride at 8 a.m. When he heard about the first plane crash he thought it can’t be true. This must be something out of Orson Wells. Then came the news of another plane crash as he started to eat breakfast. It can’t be just an accident. He thought there is something sinister behind this.
He was born in Manhattan and lived there and in the Bronx for his first 24 years. His father worked on the doors of the Empire State Building which had been the world’s tallest building with its 102 floors. Later, he worked with his father on some painting jobs close to where the World Trade Center stood.
The news took him back to December 7, 1941 when his family sat in front of a radio listening to the news of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. His father told the family that this was the beginning of the most devastating war in all history and that there was much more behind the bombing than appeared on the surface. Some 2,350 were killed in that bombing.
The editor said in his sermon on 9/11/01: God is calling America to repentance. We are living in a sinful world. God is our refuge and strength a very present help in trouble. “He said: ‘He will never leave you or desert you.’ Also we have the courage to say: “the Lord is my Help. I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Hebrews 13:5,6). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8). “I am with you always even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28:290).
The Christian knows that this world is not his final home. He is content with Jesus Christ. When people at the time of St. Augustine heard the news of the Barbarians taking over northern Africa, they thought the world was coming to an end. Augustine reminded them that Jesus Christ still reigns supreme.
It has now been almost 50 years since the nation was shaken with the news of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Shortly after the event people in our community and students from the New Haven High School, which at that time was right across the street from the old Trinity Lutheran Church, now the town library, gathered for a worship service. The title of the sermon was “When Death Summons.”
Sin is the ultimate cause of all disasters and death. Jesus Christ through his death and glorious resurrection has destroyed sin, death and the power of the devil. No man lives forever. All must die in one way or another. All those who trust in Him for their eternal salvation will live with Him in heaven forever. Remember: “Christ and His Word is the only hope in tragedy and death.”
This issue of CN is substituting some of the articles originally prepared for publication with a few of the many articles CN published shortly after 9/11. They are: “Christ Is the Only Way to Heaven for All Not Just Christians”; Subject: Prayer Meeting – A Nation of Idolaters”; “Not Without Hope”; “Death at Twin Towers: Was It Wrath or Grace of God?”; “If God IS Loving, Why Do We Have Death and Suffering in The World?”; “Commentary – Terrorists and Death!”
Christian News, September 19, 2011
“Beyond 9/11” is the title of the special commemorative issue of the September 19, 2011 issue of Time magazine. Time says “you may notice something different about the covers. For only the third time in our 88 – year history, we have changed our trademark red border. Ten years ago, we ran the border in black. For the momentous anniversary, we have changed it to silver.”
Millions of Americans on the Tenth Anniversary of 9/11 watched a special television program which showed what happened on 9/11/01. The 343 fireman who died were shown. According to the report, more are now dying from cancer caused by the fumes of 9/11.
“Christ and His Word the Only Hope in Tragedy and Death” was the title of the sermon Pastor Otten preached at a special service at Trinity, New Haven, Missouri on 9/11/01 several hours after the great tragedy. The entire sermon, which includes news stories from the major networks, was published in the September 17, 2001 CN together with many photos and the headlines from major newspapers.
The editor first heard the reports of 9/11 just as he was concluding a bicycle ride at 8 a.m. When he heard about the first plane crash he thought it can’t be true. This must be something out of Orson Wells. Then came the news of another plane crash as he started to eat breakfast. It can’t be just an accident. He thought there is something sinister behind this.
He was born in Manhattan and lived there and in the Bronx for his first 24 years. His father worked on the doors of the Empire State Building which had been the world’s tallest building with its 102 floors. Later, he worked with his father on some painting jobs close to where the World Trade Center stood.
The news took him back to December 7, 1941 when his family sat in front of a radio listening to the news of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. His father told the family that this was the beginning of the most devastating war in all history and that there was much more behind the bombing than appeared on the surface. Some 2,350 were killed in that bombing.
The editor said in his sermon on 9/11/01: God is calling America to repentance. We are living in a sinful world. God is our refuge and strength a very present help in trouble. “He said: ‘He will never leave you or desert you.’ Also we have the courage to say: “the Lord is my Help. I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Hebrews 13:5,6). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8). “I am with you always even unto the end of the age” (Matthew 28:290).
The Christian knows that this world is not his final home. He is content with Jesus Christ. When people at the time of St. Augustine heard the news of the Barbarians taking over northern Africa, they thought the world was coming to an end. Augustine reminded them that Jesus Christ still reigns supreme.
It has now been almost 50 years since the nation was shaken with the news of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Shortly after the event people in our community and students from the New Haven High School, which at that time was right across the street from the old Trinity Lutheran Church, now the town library, gathered for a worship service. The title of the sermon was “When Death Summons.”
Sin is the ultimate cause of all disasters and death. Jesus Christ through his death and glorious resurrection has destroyed sin, death and the power of the devil. No man lives forever. All must die in one way or another. All those who trust in Him for their eternal salvation will live with Him in heaven forever. Remember: “Christ and His Word is the only hope in tragedy and death.”
This issue of CN is substituting some of the articles originally prepared for publication with a few of the many articles CN published shortly after 9/11. They are: “Christ Is the Only Way to Heaven for All Not Just Christians”; Subject: Prayer Meeting – A Nation of Idolaters”; “Not Without Hope”; “Death at Twin Towers: Was It Wrath or Grace of God?”; “If God IS Loving, Why Do We Have Death and Suffering in The World?”; “Commentary – Terrorists and Death!”
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Gard Rebukes Becker for Promoting Historical Criticism on ALPB Forum
Gard Rebukes Becker for Promoting Historical Criticism on ALPB Forum
By David Becker
Christian News, September 12, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 35
The New York-based American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (http://www.alpb.org) operates an Internet discussion forum, one of the most popular such forums among Lutherans on the Internet. There are hundreds of pages of messages on that forum. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Atlantic District President David H. Benke is among those who regularly post messages there. On Thursday, September 1, 2011, two theology professors clashed on the ALPB forum.
Valparaiso University Theology Professor Matthew Becker, Ph.D., wrote in the discussion topic, "Valparaiso University and The LCMS," (section 25) "The pastoral letters were not written by the apostle Paul. That settled conclusion has been a mainstream scholarly position for more than a century. (That there are some scholars, like Luke T. Johnson, who disagree with this consensus--and in his case, mainly just to be curmudgeonly with NT scholarly establishment--needs to be noted, but even Johnson's arguments have not met with any acceptance by historians of early Christianity.) "
The Biblical pastoral letters, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, claim to be written by the Apostle Paul.
Concordia Theological Seminary Professor Daniel Gard, Ph.D., responded to Becker, writing, "Matthew Becker, the Pastoral Epistles were written by Saint Paul the Apostle. They are not forgeries that only claim Pauline authorship. Your opinion or the opinion of other liberal 'scholars' cannot and does not change this fact. You stand in clear and absolute opposition to the teaching of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. I write this only to assure any readers that Matthew Becker's opinion does not reflect the consensus of the Church. You may trust the Holy Scriptures to be reliable and certain in everything that they assert in contrast to the opinion of human beings."
Becker responded later in the discussion, "Yes, there are some scholars who continue to think that Paul wrote the pastorals, as I mentioned, but they represent a minority position and are not persuasive to me and to most others. Perhaps there are some genuine fragments from Paul included (e.g., the biographical material), but the letters in their present form represent the work of a post-Paul author(s)."
Gard responded, "I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and can validate your claim that most would not accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. But then most would not accept the deity of Christ, His Virgin Birth or His Resurrection. So the fact that they do not accept Pauline authorship means nothing to me. I am also one of the few Lutherans admitted to membership in the Catholic Biblical Association. Few there accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Like you, Matthew Becker and the SBL, they are wrong. I am also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Only a handful there might question whether Paul wrote the Pastorals. But these folks probably do not qualify as 'scholars' for you."
Reacting to an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America clergyman sympathizing with Becker, Gard added, "Frankly...your position does not surprise me or concern me. There is little that you affirm about anything that you and I can agree on. Your theology is between you, God and the ELCA. Matthew Becker's essential agreement with you does concern me. He is a clergyman of the LCMS and, as such, he is at variance with the Synod in a serious manner."
Later on Becker commented on another matter, "The Synod has misunderstood the genre and theological meanings within the first chapters of the Bible when it has insisted that these chapters must be interpreted to mean that God created the universe over the course of six, twenty-four-hour days a short time ago....Dr. Pieper, and other LCMS theologians have misled the synod in this area."
Becker went on even more a bit later, "Dr. Luther, of course, did not know about the history of the natural world prior to the emergence of hominids. He and all others in his century did not know about the evolutionary development of life on the planet. But we do. Thus, there is the need to formulate our interpretation of Genesis 2-3 in the light of physical evidence in the natural history of the world that indicates the reality of death prior to the emergence of the first human beings."
Others on the ALPB forum also took issue with Becker. One commented to Becker, "So those books of the Bible contain lies, Dr. Becker, when they claim to have been written by Paul the apostle? Some view of the Bible you have!"
LCMS Professor Daniel Gard has been Professor of Exegetical Theology at the Fort Wayne, Indiana-based Concordia Theological Seminary since 1989. He is also Dean of Military Chaplaincy Programs and serves as a Chaplain in the U.S. Naval Reserves. His biography may be found at http://www.ctsfw.edu/Page.aspx?pid=325. Dr. Matthew Becker's biography may be found at http://www.val po.edu/theology/faculty/matthewbecker.php.
David Becker (not related to Dr. Matthew Becker)
Bismarck, North Dakota
By David Becker
Christian News, September 12, 2011, Vol. 49, No. 35
The New York-based American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (http://www.alpb.org) operates an Internet discussion forum, one of the most popular such forums among Lutherans on the Internet. There are hundreds of pages of messages on that forum. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Atlantic District President David H. Benke is among those who regularly post messages there. On Thursday, September 1, 2011, two theology professors clashed on the ALPB forum.
Valparaiso University Theology Professor Matthew Becker, Ph.D., wrote in the discussion topic, "Valparaiso University and The LCMS," (section 25) "The pastoral letters were not written by the apostle Paul. That settled conclusion has been a mainstream scholarly position for more than a century. (That there are some scholars, like Luke T. Johnson, who disagree with this consensus--and in his case, mainly just to be curmudgeonly with NT scholarly establishment--needs to be noted, but even Johnson's arguments have not met with any acceptance by historians of early Christianity.) "
The Biblical pastoral letters, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus, claim to be written by the Apostle Paul.
Concordia Theological Seminary Professor Daniel Gard, Ph.D., responded to Becker, writing, "Matthew Becker, the Pastoral Epistles were written by Saint Paul the Apostle. They are not forgeries that only claim Pauline authorship. Your opinion or the opinion of other liberal 'scholars' cannot and does not change this fact. You stand in clear and absolute opposition to the teaching of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. I write this only to assure any readers that Matthew Becker's opinion does not reflect the consensus of the Church. You may trust the Holy Scriptures to be reliable and certain in everything that they assert in contrast to the opinion of human beings."
Becker responded later in the discussion, "Yes, there are some scholars who continue to think that Paul wrote the pastorals, as I mentioned, but they represent a minority position and are not persuasive to me and to most others. Perhaps there are some genuine fragments from Paul included (e.g., the biographical material), but the letters in their present form represent the work of a post-Paul author(s)."
Gard responded, "I am a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and can validate your claim that most would not accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. But then most would not accept the deity of Christ, His Virgin Birth or His Resurrection. So the fact that they do not accept Pauline authorship means nothing to me. I am also one of the few Lutherans admitted to membership in the Catholic Biblical Association. Few there accept the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. Like you, Matthew Becker and the SBL, they are wrong. I am also a member of the Evangelical Theological Society. Only a handful there might question whether Paul wrote the Pastorals. But these folks probably do not qualify as 'scholars' for you."
Reacting to an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America clergyman sympathizing with Becker, Gard added, "Frankly...your position does not surprise me or concern me. There is little that you affirm about anything that you and I can agree on. Your theology is between you, God and the ELCA. Matthew Becker's essential agreement with you does concern me. He is a clergyman of the LCMS and, as such, he is at variance with the Synod in a serious manner."
Later on Becker commented on another matter, "The Synod has misunderstood the genre and theological meanings within the first chapters of the Bible when it has insisted that these chapters must be interpreted to mean that God created the universe over the course of six, twenty-four-hour days a short time ago....Dr. Pieper, and other LCMS theologians have misled the synod in this area."
Becker went on even more a bit later, "Dr. Luther, of course, did not know about the history of the natural world prior to the emergence of hominids. He and all others in his century did not know about the evolutionary development of life on the planet. But we do. Thus, there is the need to formulate our interpretation of Genesis 2-3 in the light of physical evidence in the natural history of the world that indicates the reality of death prior to the emergence of the first human beings."
Others on the ALPB forum also took issue with Becker. One commented to Becker, "So those books of the Bible contain lies, Dr. Becker, when they claim to have been written by Paul the apostle? Some view of the Bible you have!"
LCMS Professor Daniel Gard has been Professor of Exegetical Theology at the Fort Wayne, Indiana-based Concordia Theological Seminary since 1989. He is also Dean of Military Chaplaincy Programs and serves as a Chaplain in the U.S. Naval Reserves. His biography may be found at http://www.ctsfw.edu/Page.aspx?pid=325. Dr. Matthew Becker's biography may be found at http://www.val po.edu/theology/faculty/matthewbecker.php.
David Becker (not related to Dr. Matthew Becker)
Bismarck, North Dakota
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)