To Download a printable copy of the paper in  pdf format, click on the

Button

Below

(The PDF file is 2MB)

"It Is Written"

Matthew 4:4

http://fp1.centurytel.net/itiswritten

In the above visual, the LCMS stream begins at the top with a Reformation-understanding of the Word of God, as outlined in the Lutheran Confessions. This visual shows how LCMS theology and practice has become increasingly polluted with foreign and false teaching, primarily U.S. Protestantism and Fundamentalism.

IDENTIFYING THAT WHICH IS UNDERMINING US!

Since “Fundamentalism” plays not just a “key,” but a pivotal role in this essay; and since Fundamentalism will surely play a huge role in the LCMS future, Fundamentalism needs to be clearly and simply explained. In 1966, CPH published the book Fundamentalism and the LCMS by Dr. Milton Rudnick. The book is helpful, but nowhere does it show the deadly force of Fundamentalist teaching as it quietly undermines Bible-based, Christ-centered Lutheran theology. Many in the U.S. consider themselves to be Fundamentalist Christians. They are proud of this. In fact, some Lutherans even claim to be “Fundamentalists.”[10] Thus, any claims that Christian Fundamentalists attack or undermine Christ and His teachings, these are fighting words!

Here is a simple explanation of Fundamentalism. Let us say the National Association of Doctors and Nutritionists got together to set forth what they agree are the ten most fundamental dietary components needed for a healthy body. Having no political or ideological orientation, this group, on the basis of their best scientific studies, would make a list of minimum requirements, or “Fundamentals” of a healthy diet, including such things as protein, vitamins, minerals, etc.

Now, let’s say another health “movement” in the United States got together and decided that, for a healthy body, a person would need a somewhat different diet. They leave off their list protein, iron, and calcium! You can imagine the reaction by the one thousand doctors and nutritionists, or the reaction of any concerned doctor or nutritionist. When they would see protein, iron, and calcium missing from this list of fundamentals, they would go ballistic!

Now let’s look at Fundamentalist religion as it is commonly understood in the United States religious community. Beginning in the early 20^th century, Fundamentalism was a movement based on widely circulated writings which isolated and promoted a list of basic doctrines of the Christian faith, including the virgin birth, creation, the atonement, etc. The founders of Fundamentalism said these doctrines are the basic and necessary components for a healthy “faith diet.” When looking at this list, however, Lutherans, go ballistic! Why? Because Fundamentalists omitted some of the most needed and nourishing of Christ’s blessings and teachings, elements Christ Himself insists are part of the “fundamentals,” especially the Sacraments.

How does this happen? To begin with, Fundamentalists have a different guideline for understanding what is important for nourishment. They have an understanding of the nature and character of the Word that is different from that which is in the Scriptures, and what Christ Himself teaches. God teaches His Word is living, efficacious, and active. This “Word power” gives divine power to the sacraments. Because of their blindness based on human reason, Fundamentalists first deny the living Word and thereby see the Sacraments—Baptism and the Holy Supper—as little more than ordinances that have no regenerative, life-giving power. In other words, they believe a church can remove the living and life-giving Word in preaching and the Sacraments from the Christian’s diet, in spite of the fact that Christ Himself demands they be part of the diet!

Long before Fundamentalism’s limited spiritual diet was formulated, Luther vigorously objected to this approach and wrote repeatedly in a very strong way against those who tried to teach that neither Baptism nor the Lord’s Supper had any divine power. The Anabaptists and Sacramentarians were the Fundamentalists of Luther’s day. Luther wrote: “Thus, in our day we, too, must labor with the Word of God, against the fanatical opinions of Anabaptists and Sacramentarians, to set free those who have been taken captive by them [2 Tim 2:26], to recall them to the pure doctrine of faith and to keep them in it” (Luther’s Works, vol. 26, p. 194).

Pointing out the false teaching of Fundamentalism is not something Lutherans invented. These false teachings are rooted in Fundamentalism’s refusal to receive Jesus’ teaching on His living Word. Jesus says in John 6:63: “The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” Throughout both the Old and New Testaments there are clear verses of Scripture which tell us that God’s Word is alive, active, cleansing, healing, forgiving, and new-life giving. When Jesus says in John 5:17: “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working,” He means that through His Word and Sacraments, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are constantly nourishing the Christian Church. God’s living Word also gives divine power to the Sacraments, a teaching of Jesus that Fundamentalists reject.

Does this mean that Fundamentalists are not Christians? No! But it does mean this: Fundamentalists are promoting a spiritual diet that causes Christians to be vulnerable to all kinds of satanic infections and other spiritual weaknesses. Just as our Federal Government would respond vigorously to any kind of health movement that would eliminate protein and calcium from the diet, so also we as followers of Christ vigorously oppose any movement that eliminates the Sacraments and the living Word as part of the necessary diet for everyday living. Fundamentalism is further clarified and illustrated in Appendix 2 titled: “Jesus’ Balanced Diet vs. Fundamentalist’s Distorted and Dangerous Diet.”

THIS IS WHAT ABLAZE DOES

By intent, or by default, Ablaze!^® theology/missiology not only permits but actually promotes Fundamentalist theology and methodology, a foreign theology now taking deep root in our church. This will be discussed as the essay moves ahead.

With a definition of Fundamentalism in hand, let’s discuss some of the forces (many tied to pernicious Fundamentalist teaching) that have been flowing, unabated, into the LCMS “Missouri.” Let’s be candid, even if it is uncomfortable. I also have blood on my hands, as I was, in my younger days, a fellow traveler (at least to a degree) with some Protestant evangelism missiology.

THE FIRST FOREIGN TRIBUTARY FLOWING INTO, AND CHANGING, LCMS THEOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY: Religious TV

A powerful foreign tributary that has been flowing into “Missouri” for years is seductive religious television programming, starring televangelists.

Secular studies have reputedly shown that, to be successful on TV, one simply has to have an “entertainment” flair. Television is big business. It works with the “bottom line!”

Furthermore, ideologists clearly recognize the power of television to seduce and brainwash. While sugar-coating their primary intent in a drama or even comedy format, ideologists and moral change agents are busy altering people’s thinking and values. In other words, people are having their brain or “DOS” (Disc Operating System) remapped unawares, while actually enjoying it! Yes, they actually laugh while outside forces are seductively changing their thinking!

Now, here is the “kicker” for this essay! This mental “remapping” is happening “big time” in religion. Even staunch Lutherans have been enjoying having their theological mind remapped, all the while not knowing what is happening.

THE SECOND “TRIBUTARY” FLOWING INTO “MISSOURI”: INTERFAITH MARRIAGE

The second “tributary” flowing into “Missouri” has been interfaith marriage. This powerful influence could well be called the “dirty little non-discussed” LCMS secret.

Since the founding of the LCMS, intermarriage has always occurred. However, in the past 30–40 years intermarriage has dramatically accelerated. LCMS young people have increasingly married non-Lutheran young people including Catholic, Reformed, Methodist, and what might be called “American Protestant.” Marriage to a non-Lutheran is not wrong in itself. However, if arrangements are not made, either before or after the wedding, for the non-Lutheran spouse to take instructions and embrace the Lutheran Christian faith (and say with Ruth: “Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God” Ruth 1:6), this failure will allow the devil to be vigorously at work dividing the family and the local congregation.

The LCMS is now populated by thousands of families with mixed faiths. To maintain harmony, these mixed religion families (who often do not insist that their spouse be thoroughly catechized in the Lutheran faith), often make a silent agreement never to bring up the subject, at least not in the immediate family. In an attempt to maintain family harmony, the issue is painted over like a rust spot on a car. Although many know otherwise, they simply say, “All religions teach the same thing.” Thus, they create a time bomb waiting to explode each time communion is served in an LCMS congregation. Thus, each time Johnny and Mary come home for Thanksgiving and Christmas and want to take communion and each time the pastor makes any remark whatsoever comparing, in a non-condemning way, Bible-based Lutheran teaching with the teaching of non-Lutheran religions, conflict and congregational division is inevitable! Even though the pastor did not cause the problem, he gets blamed. This problem is so wide-spread and festering that no LCMS pastor needs it explained to him. Most LCMS pastors have already had this bomb go off in his face. Seasoned LCMS pastors also know that many who become members of LCMS churches (without being thoroughly catechized) are the ones who chafe most about restrictions on who may receive the Sacrament, insisting that the LCMS give up its theological position. When it comes to divisiveness, the devil knows how to get people on his side. Satan is, as Luther says, “The master of a thousand arts.” This trick of the devil is bolstered by the false idea that thorough catechization hampers the growth of the church. This contention is a lie. The March 2005 Religion Watch reports that in spite of its rigorous catechization requirements, “Southern Catholics saw a growth of almost 30% in the 1990s, compared to the less than 10% for the dominant Baptists.” Amazing statistics, when some in the LCMS say we need to become less liturgical and more Baptist in our evangelism approach.

Am I the only one writing about this? Of course not. Already, in 1955, the University of Chicago Press published Protestant, Catholic, Jew, authored by Wil Herberg, a Jewish professor at Drew University. Dr. Herberg has embraced the Catholic faith, providing him with a good vantage point. Dr. Herberg’s book, which has seen many reprints, contends that even churches and religious groups with a clear confession or theological position on paper remain highly susceptible to the Protestant-Fundamentalist religious culture in America. Herberg demonstrates, compellingly, that even non-Lutheran denominations realize that, unless they continue to clearly instruct their members, American cultural religion will eventually swallow them.

THE THIRD TRIBUTARY FLOWING INTO MISSOURI: PROTESTANT EVANGELISM METHODOLOGIES

The third foreign tributary began to pour into the LCMS “Missouri,” in the mid and late 1960s. This tributary was/is Protestant evangelism “methodology.” Now, here is the shocker! This foreign methodology/theology did not flow in by itself. It was aggressively solicited by LCMS evangelism leaders.[11] LCMS leaders charged in the mid 1960s with finding plans and methodologies to increase LCMS membership, hoped “mating” Fundamentalism methodology/theology with LCMS Bible-based theology would produce the “new man,” as the Soviets used to say. This new “LCMS evangelism man” would be aggressive evangelistically, and thereby stop LCMS membership hemorrhaging. This new LCMS evangelistic man would also bring in new members. Although young and immature at the time, in the late 60s and early 70s, I was not only close, but actually involved in this movement to bring foreign Protestant missiology into the LCMS, something I am not proud of.

Briefly, this is what happened. The devil seduced LCMS leaders to believe that Lutheranism was strong theologically, but inherently non-evangelistic. Of course, this was a lie cooked up in the deepest caverns of hell. In actuality, those involved simply did not even begin to understand how evangelistic and aggressive Lutheran theology was from its inception. For more on the natural and compelling connection between Lutheran theology and its natural end result, evangelism, please see this endnote.[12]

These same, well-intentioned but misguided LCMS evangelism leaders unknowingly brought foreign methodologies into the LCMS as a huge Trojan horse. And, at least to a degree, I participated. Not only was the Trojan horse brought into the LCMS, it was given a special stall in the headquarters to reproduce. A new Department of Evangelism was created to breed and reproduce Protestant and Fundamentalist methodology and, by default, its theology. People in these positions of top LCMS missiological influence began visiting and drinking deeply of the man-centered evangelistic techniques of Protestant and Fundamentalist churches and parachurches, thereby integrating them into their personal thinking and also into the Synod at large. I myself made some “trips to the trough.” Included were the Presbyterian-Reformed teachings of D. James Kennedy’s “Evangelism Explosion,” methodologies from Campus Crusade for Christ, and many others. Bringing Protestant methodologies into the LCMS has clearly been one of the biggest Trojan horses the devil ever slipped inside the gates of the LCMS. Like the serpent who said to Eve: “Take a bite, only good will happen to you,” the devil came also to LCMS leaders and said “Take a big bite out of the apple of Protestant missiology, it will not affect your theology!” And they ate! Ever since, the LCMS has experienced increasing missiological hell! Again, as Thomas Hobbes said, “Hell is seeing the truth too late!”

To try to run a Lutheran church on Fundamentalist theology is like trying to run a gasoline car with diesel fuel. Or, if you are from the farm, it works this way. Farmers know that mating a horse with a donkey, commonly known as a jackass, produces a mule, which cannot reproduce itself. Likewise, when you mate a Lutheran theological horse with a Fundamentalist theological jackass, this will produce a mule, which any theologian knows cannot reproduce. This in itself should tell you what will happen as the LCMS tries to increase its “Lutheran” membership. If any reproduction does occur, it will only be, at best, more stubborn Fundamentalist jackasses.

THE FOURTH KEY TRIBUTARY FORCE: BOOKS, TAPES, CDs, SEMINARS, AND INTERDENOMINATIONAL BIBLE STUDIES

In many, probably even most, LCMS homes, one will see prominently displayed on coffee tables, shelves, and in the “throne” room, a wide variety of Fundamentalist, anti-sacramental, anti-Baptism literature from Billy Graham, James Dobson, Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, etc. These popular teachers steadfastly refuse to receive Jesus’ key teachings on Baptism and Communion.[13] Yet these are the leading religious teachers now misleading our people. As already alluded to, religious television has permitted these winsome personalities to slowly but effectively re-map the religious mind of thousands of Lutherans to the extent that, if you make even a slight negative comment about any of the religious personalities above, you will have your hands full! You can say anything you want about your pastor, bad-mouth your district president, or even demean your Synodical president. However, you better not even hint that you might disagree with the teachings of popular Fundamentalists, who, as previously explained, so maliciously undermine the clear teachings of Jesus. Many of our LCMS members will defend their Fundamentalist mentors. How has this happened?

Have our LCMS leaders ever clearly explained the poison of Fundamentalism? Also, seriously consider the impact of another part of the foreign tributary of non-Biblical books pouring into Missouri. For years, when LCMS pastors have retired, many donated all or part of their personal libraries to the Concordia Historical Institute. The majority of these pastors’ libraries contained Bible-based Lutheran commentaries, Luther’s Works, prayer books, reference books, etc. Let it also be said that most LCMS pastors have always had a few non-Lutheran theology books in their library, but never the majority. That has changed. We were told already some years ago that when libraries of retired LCMS pastors arrive at CHI, the majority of the books are by Protestant and Fundamentalist authors. If the shepherds are feeding on these types of books, what would you guess the sheep are eating?

When LCMS pastors and people nourish themselves on Fundamentalist literature, tapes, DVDs, etc., there are consequences. As a man “thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7). Thus, even though many LCMS churches have the sign “Lutheran” posted outside; many think differently inside. As a result of religious TV pouring into the “Missouri” stream, the sheep inside have been grazing, both at home and at the church library, and have drunk deeply of a different and opposing teaching. Jesus warns: “Take care what you listen to” (Mark 4:24). Is this being too critical? Are we not being too picky? Can’t you just use a little supplement to help Lutheran theology come “alive”? “A little leaven leavens the whole loaf” (Galatians 5:9).

THE FIFTH TRIBUTARY OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE

TO THE LCMS: PROTESTANT AND PENTECOSTAL MUSIC

So interesting have some American church struggles become (not only in the LCMS but also in many other denominations) that secular institutions could not but make some observations in recent months. Since the religious right has clearly affected U.S. politics, ecclesiastical strife has become a great interest, even apart from doctrine.

For instance, Rick Warren claims to have taught 400,000 pastors to think and act like he does. Yet, ABC News claims his “Purpose Driven Life” is actually “Purpose Driven Strife.” Why? ABC explains that wherever Warren’s ideas are employed, the outcome is usually church division and animosity, with one group being forced to leave.

ABC reporters are now asking if it is God’s words or Warren’s dreams that are dividing churches. In one situation cited, a recent President Bush Supreme Court nominee got caught in the Purpose Driven meat grinder and lost out. Events like this make news. ABC news reporters further point out this interesting fact: churches that want success and increased membership, and want to consider the Warren paradigm, should know that one change is not negotiable: music and worship style. Change is part of the Warren package. In other words, even secularists understand Warren’s package is designed to change not only externals, but also the internal theology.

This struggle in American Protestant churches gets even more interesting. The bulk of Protestant hymnody has historically been doctrinal, one of God’s most effective tools to teach His doctrine to the next generation. Only recently has American Protestantism begun to use what can be called “singspiration” music, musical lyrics that can be interpreted by each singer, but whose primary purpose is to lift one’s spirit, rather than to assist in teaching what Christ has taught. All of this in spite of Christ’s command in the Great Commission: “teach all things I have commanded” (Matthew 28:20).

Amazing also that it has not been the Lutherans who have “blown the whistle” on this new influence, rather it has been people such as the president of Maranatha music (a company that was one of the original pioneers in promoting singspirational music) and even the first vice president of Focus on the Family, both of whom you would assume to be 100% behind the singspirational movement now flooding the LCMS. They have opined that, since hardly any of this music is doctrinally driven, it will not assist in perpetuating the true Christian faith to the next generation. This lack of doctrine becomes a very, very serious concern. In other words, if singspiration music now overtaking the LCMS does to us what it had done to others—heads up! This new music could very well help the Lutheran church joyfully sing itself into its own demise.[14]

Let’s not forget that one of history’s greatest heretics, Arius, did his dirty work long ago (about 260–336 A.D.) by packaging his false teaching in enjoyable and “catchy” music. He was extremely successful. Who has not heard a new modern music tune one day and disliked it, only to catch oneself humming the tune the next day. Even the Greeks wrote about the seductive power of music. The serpent in the Garden could not have done better. He was “more crafty than any beast of the field” (Genesis 3:1). Televangelists are often the most sorry people on television. They stoop to “whatever works!”

THE SIXTH TRIBUTARY FORCE: INERRANCY—THE FORCE NO ONE, ESPECIALY THE SO-CALLED “CONSERVATIVES”—WANT TO TALK ABOUT!

In the Seminex crisis, a major argument ensued over the expression, “inerrancy” of the Bible, meaning the Bible contains no errors. Actually, inerrancy has been a key word/doctrine among Fundamentalists, used as their “weapon of choice” against liberals. The Seminex teachers claimed inerrancy is found neither in the Bible nor in the Lutheran Confessions, and was foreign to genuine Lutheran theology. In two articles which appeared in the Concordia Historical Quarterly, LCMS pastor Dale Huelsmann, traces the use of inerrancy in American Lutheranism. {More information on this is available at this footnote.[15]}

Although the concept of “inerrancy” was the second thesis of the LCMS dissenting 44 in 1945, it came into greater prominence in the Seminex crisis when the investigating committee used “inerrancy” as a gauge to call into question, and to ultimately condemn, “critical” studies of the Bible used by certain Seminex faculty members. Much has already been written on this controversy and is available for those who want to pursue it.

But, why bring up inerrancy here? As the embattled LCMS emerged from the Seminex crisis, “inerrancy” increasingly became the centerpiece of LCMS theology. Not only did inerrancy become the lynchpin of LCMS post-Seminex theology, it began to drive LCMS ecumenical theology, which in turn greatly impacted LCMS evangelism and missiology.

Here is how it worked. LCMS conservative leaders, embattled with Seminex, sought fellow soldiers to fight a common enemy: liberals. They found these brothers in Protestant and Fundamentalist individuals such as Francis Schaeffer, Harold Lindsell, and others. Once the inerrancy vs. Seminex liberal battle was over, many, if not most, LCMS leaders, saw no problem continuing to be fellow-travelers with Protestants and Fundamentalists in other matters also. As Milton Rudnick points out in his book Fundamentalism and the Missouri Synod LCMS leaders, including Lutheran Hour Speaker, Walter A. Maier, were fully aware of the difference between Fundamentalist and Lutheran theology; however, they/he did not see the difference to be of any great concern. This faulty judgment has had, and will continue to have, long range negative implications for LCMS missiology. Fleeing one enemy, they run headlong into another. “As when a man flees from a lion, and a bear meets him, or goes home, leans his hand against the wall, and a snake bites him” (Amos 5:19). The LCMS and Protestant-Fundamentalist theology can live side-by-side in the larger U.S. religious cultural context; however, one cannot have Fundamentalist and Protestant Reformed theology working inside the LCMS anymore than you can have Lutheran theology operating inside Fundamentalist churches without causing changes. This practice is like white blood cells and cancer cells in the same body. These two forces do not live in harmony with each other inside the same organization; one will ultimately triumph and kill off the other. Those who try to supplement or blend Bible-based Lutheran teaching with Fundamentalist teaching or music need to remember, “Do you not know that a little lump leavens the whole lump of dough?” (1 Corinthians 9:6).

If the coming of post-Seminex Fundamentalist theology into the LCMS was a concern, it was obviously seen as a harmless concern. This great deception of Satan has become the sword driven into the heart of Christ-centered Bible-based Lutheran theology. Fundamentalists operate with a basic and opposing understanding of the Word of God, which requires them to deny Jesus’ clear teaching on the life-saving power of Baptism and the miraculous power of Communion. Luther writes, “Christ instituted Baptism to be a washing of regeneration (Titus 3:5). But haven’t the sects stirred up a great offense on account of it? Has not the entire doctrine concerning Baptism been wretchedly corrupted? And yet, what is more necessary to us than the institution of this very rite?” (Luther’s Works, vol. 1, p. 94).

If the post-Seminex LCMS leadership had made their litmus test for the LCMS’s future the “efficacy” of the Word (as Luther discusses it in his commentaries on John, Genesis, etc.) instead of the inerrancy of the Word, this reprioritization would have prevented much current confusion and division. It would have caused the entire Synod to have the proper and most important “WORD” orientation, therefore also helping the LCMS to remain on the historic “middle road,” a road between Catholicism and the rest of Protestantism, a lonely way, but a God-pleasing way. Historic Lutheranism has never joined forces with those of other doctrinal persuasions, such as Fundamentalism, even to fight the common enemy of liberalism! Although the historic LCMS did not teach that there are errors in the Bible, “inerrancy” is not the doctrine of Christ that drives Lutheran teaching. It is rather Jesus’ teaching in John 6:63, “The words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and are life.”

For further discussion on the issue of inerrancy in the LCMS and recent world Lutheranism, see the book translated by “801” faculty members Ronald Feuerhahn and Jeffery Kloha: Scripture and the Church—Selected Essays of Herman Sasse. The plot of the book picks up at page 333 and following.

THE SEVENTH TRIBUTARY ENTERING THE LCMS STREAM: ABLAZE!^®

Ablaze!^® is definitely a new “influence” in the LCMS. There is no doubt that those promoting Ablaze!^® sincerely intend Ablaze!^® theology to be not only a major influence, but also the official missiology in the LCMS for many years, at least through 2017! The question then becomes even more urgent: Is Ablaze!^® a foreign influence, a foreign tributary flowing into Missouri that will help move Missouri into the mainstream of Protestant and Fundamentalist theology and practice? Or, has God kept elements of Ablaze!^® theology, such as the “critical event,” or “igniting congregations,” deeply embedded in Biblical Lutheran theology so that He can now surface these elements “for such a time as this?” There are those who argue that either we in the LCMS get on board with the mega-church and “Igniting Congregations” movement, or else the LCMS has no future. For interesting details on the practical implementation of mega-churches in the LCMS, see this endnote.[16]

Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” are not easy to understand. The materials seem to have become available over time, as the writer of Hebrews says, “In many portions, and in many ways.” The most helpful early source is the Concordia, Seward Issues in Christian Education journal which had on its Fall 2005 front cover a number of pictures, plus the following bold headline: Ablaze!^®: Origins, Theology, Structure, and Impact. Here we need to commend the promoters of Ablaze!^® They have been very forthright in saying Ablaze!^® has a definite theology. The lead article by Dr. Scudieri also helps the reader understand how the new missiology (which the entire Synod is now being told is the official theology of missions (missiology), at least through 2017) was conceived and born.

The one item I thank God for in this Issues magazine, more than any other, is in the lead article by Dr. Scudieri, in his statement on page 12: “In my opinion Ablaze!^® provides us with the OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS topics that have been in disagreement, at least in ‘confusion,’ in the LCMS.” [emphasis added] I have written this paper precisely for this reason: to discuss this topic. Since we are told that Ablaze!^® is now our official LCMS missiology for worldwide evangelism and outreach; and, since I have been called to serve in the LCMS as an evangelist, this new missiology strikes at the heart of what I do and what I am expected to believe and practice. I am sure others, especially pastors, have similar feelings, especially since God says to each pastor: “Do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry” (2 Timothy 4:5). Since Dr. Scudieri’s invitation was public, I assume a public response is acceptable.

THE GENESIS OF ABLAZE!^®

On page 9 of the Seward Issues article one reads: “Laity on the Board of Missions understood . . . that a movement in the LCMS to bring missions to a new height would have to be spurred on by the laity.” Where are the pastors? Don’t they count? Immediately after this point is made, we read: “The firm Systone Ryan was engaged,” followed by a “second consultant,” followed by a third “outside consultant was engaged . . . .” Why are we reading about secular consultants but see no reference to our pastors and our seminaries, at least one of which offers a PhD in missiology, precisely regarding the issues now presented to us? In all of this confusion, one begins to wonder whether those at the helm of the LCMS know that when the LCMS began, it was the congregations that formed the Synod and not the other way around. How is it that we now find, in Ablaze!^® the tail wagging the dog, especially in the all important area of missiology? When Ablaze!^® is all over, and if Ablaze!^® does not significantly improve LCMS communicant membership, who will be held accountable? I will tell you. The pastors will be blamed, even though most LCMS pastors had no input whatsoever in creating Ablaze!^®

Again, the entire LCMS owes Dr. Scudieri a great expression of thanks for saying that Ablaze!^® gives us all a chance to discuss these issues, albeit, after the horse is out of the barn! Thus, I am stepping up to the plate, not for political reasons, but as a called evangelist in the Synod. I am now face-to-face with a new missiology—about which I have some very serious questions. If I am going to support and implement this effort, at least, I have to see the Biblical basis for what we are trying to do; and, I would be much more comfortable if I could see that this has at least some roots in our historic LCMS missiology.

On page 16 of the Seward Issues magazine, Dr. Daniel L. Mattson, currently on staff at LCMS World Mission, writes in his article, The Ablaze!^® Initiative in the LCMS Theologically Considered: “The central thesis of this paper is that the Ablaze!^® initiative is a 21^st century outreach effort consistent with Lutheran theology and practice and an example of the mission emphasis that has characterized The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod from the beginning.” With respect to Ablaze!^®, as an evangelist, I respectfully disagree with this statement. In fact, for discussion starters, I would rewrite Dr. Matson’s statement to say that the Ablaze!^® initiative is a 21^st century outreach effort NOT consistent with Lutheran theology and practice and NOT an example of the mission emphasis that has characterized The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod from the beginning.

With this serious disagreement stated, I now proceed to accept Dr. Scudieri’s sincere invitation to enter into some non-personal and issue-oriented dialog. As I set forth concerns, I would be surprised to learn that I am the only LCMS clergy with concerns regarding the theology of Ablaze!^©

My first concern is Dr. Mattson’s statement in the 2004 Seward Issues magazine: “Especially significant here is President Kieschnick’s involvement in the Ablaze!^® movement. . . . He has been a tireless unwavering proponent of the Ablaze!^® initiative, speaking with compassion to district conventions and countless other settings of the need for Lutheran Christians to be intentionally involved in what he calls the ‘Critical Event:’ the sharing of the Good News of Jesus Christ with an unreached or uncommitted person to the extent that it provokes a response from the person addressed.” If you go online to the official LCMS website, you will see that this definition of the Critical Event has not changed. Currently online there is also posted the LCMS President’s restatement of the Critical Event: “When one Lutheran Christian gives witness about Jesus of the hope that is within him or her to another person so that person may encounter Christ.” This is obviously meant to emphasize the centrality of the “critical event” as the heart of Ablaze!^® missiology. The primary problem with this definition is that it is false teaching. Why? Because the engine of Ablaze!,^® the Critical Event, makes no provision whatsoever for the evangelization of the newborn. Evangelization of newborns is a basic teaching of Jesus, practiced by historic Lutheranism, as clearly stated in the Baptismal formulas used throughout the LCMS. So great is Jesus’ concern regarding the baptism of children that, unless this neglect of children is changed, one wonders around whose neck the millstone may hang?

It is also therefore both curious and troubling that other official definitions of the “Critical Event” are now floating around in the LCMS. For what purpose? A “Lutheranized” definition of the Critical Event has been published, first in the little-known journal Missio Apostolica, where it is defined by the LCMS president as: “When one Lutheran Christian gives witness about Jesus of the hope that is within him or her to another person so that person may encounter Christ that results in, or can be measured by, Baptism and/or Confirmation and a life of faith and good works in that person.” The confusing wording may say more about the confusing goals than it intends to. The Ablaze!^® website insists that we “are not specifically counting baptisms or conversions.” Are we or aren’t we? Such confusion!

As previously noted, on the President’s page one still reads the official Ablaze!^® missiological version that makes no provisions for the evangelization of the newborn. To make things even more complicated, confusing, and troubling, the current instructions for counting “hits” for Ablaze!^® continues to use the old “non-Lutheranized” version of the Critical Event. Let’s try to put the best construction on all of this. With all the controversy surrounding the original definition, and the way the “count” is done, it is difficult to believe that something “forthright” is going on here. At minimum, we are faced with God’s admonition: “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?” (1 Corinthians 14:8)

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE OR HISTORIC LUTHERANISM SPEAK ABOUT GOD’S SALVATION PROCESS WITH THE TERMS “COMMITTED AND UNCOMMITTED?”

A second and potentially even greater problem with Ablaze!^® is the phraseology now being constantly repeated in connection with Ablaze!^® (and “Igniting Congregations”). This phrase is “unreached and uncommitted.”

For example, on the front page of the November 2003 Missionary To Missionary newsletter, the author says: “‘Uncommitted’ is a term we use for people who have been exposed to the Word, who have had an opportunity to hear the Good News of Jesus, but who have not accepted Jesus. This phrase, “not accepted Jesus as their personal Savior” has never been used in 500 years of Lutheran history to describe how God saves people. This expression unabashedly puts man in the driver’s seat of salvation. In evangelicalism, this phrase always runs in tandem with the false teaching of man’s free will in spiritual matters, a teaching condemned in John 1:13, Romans 9:16, etc.

Now, back to the frequently used Ablaze!^® expression, “uncommitted.” “Uncommitted,” the Ablaze!^® author says, “are people who may even have been baptized or raised in a Christian home, yet somewhere in their lives fell away from the Church. Uncommitted people live mainly in areas like Europe, Australia, North America, and South America.” The author begins the above definition by claiming, “‘Uncommitted’ is a term we use . . .” Who is the “we?” This has certainly not been the way the LCMS has historically spoken of those outside of Christ; this is certainly not how Luther spoke about the unsaved; I don’t know where you would find such a definition in the writings of Saint Paul; and I cannot imagine Jesus even thinking of such an expression, especially after His pointed discussion with Nicodemus (John 3). So, is the “we” the promoters of Ablaze!^®; or, is this the type of nomenclature the Ablaze!^® promoters hope will catch on in the LCMS, if it is repeated often enough, especially in official publications?

When Jesus speaks about God’s salvation work He does not use the phrase “committed or uncommitted,” nor does He ever promote the ideas currently associated with these words. Neither does this type of terminology reflect historic Lutheran missiology. Even the secular world understands that by changing terminology and nomenclature, one can totally change how a subject is discussed. In this case, changing the terminology changes the theology. “As a man thinks within himself, so he is” (Proverbs 23:7).

In his book, Fallacies and Pitfalls of Language, S. Morris Engel states: “The reality we live in is largely created by the language with which we describe it.” This is to say, when we describe our evangelistic and mission outreach approach by using terms such as “uncommitted” (which automatically assumes the opposite as being the “committed”), we are clearly moving away from language and theology used not only in historic Lutheranism but by Christ himself. When Jesus confronted Nicodemus (John 3:1ff.) about the necessity of being born again of water and the Spirit (of being baptized), Jesus was not speaking about something Nicodemus could accomplish by “committing” himself to something. God’s own meaning is made crystal clear when we understand that Jesus said to Nicodemus that he had to be born again “from above,” not from below! Jesus was not asking Nicodemus for commitment, as is Ablaze!^® missiology!

Therefore, to begin using “committed/uncommitted” terminology in describing the most basic and key parts of outreach and evangelism, as in Ablaze!^® moves Bible-based Lutheran theology into the Protestant-Fundamentalist arena, clearly an environment where such terminology unabashedly describes a man-centered theology. This assertion is by no means a slur on Fundamentalists, Baptists, etc. Not long ago, I received material published in First Things in which Timothy George writes that Baptists are increasingly concerned that their members are picking up too much theology reflecting God’s initiative and role in salvation. This trend, they say, plays down man’s role and therefore lessens the desire for people to be evangelistic. There you have it! In their own words! In other words, the devil has gotten us in the LCMS to believe that in order to increase our evangelistic fervor and outreach, we must, like the Baptists and Fundamentalists, put man in the driver’s seat of salvation. We have to start using the expression “uncommitted” rather than “unbaptized.” Such was not the case when Lutheran outreach burst forth in the Reformation, and it does not have to be the case now.

Thus, while I have no problem using the term “unreached,” I would make a very powerful argument that the term “uncommitted” DEFINITELY reflects how Protestantism, and especially Fundamentalism, expresses its missiology. Historically, Lutherans express missions and outreach as being directed to the baptized or the unbaptized, terminology based on how Jesus taught and practiced missiology. We as Lutherans do not accept the Roman teaching of ex opere operato, which would imply that because you are baptized you are automatically saved. However, we also do not use the word “uncommitted” because it clearly places man in the driver’s seat of the salvation process.

Finally, we in the Bible-based Lutheran faith talk about the “miracle” of salvation as tied to the miracle of Baptism. Protestants see the salvation “miracle” as being tied closely to man and the “commitment” he makes. The difference between Lutheran and Protestant-Fundamentalist missiology can be vividly seen in the following advertisement from World magazine where man’s decision produces the miracle!

BUT, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

The scribes and Pharisees enjoyed endless arguments in fine points of theology. We in the LCMS are tempted daily to do the same—to criticize and whine endlessly, all the while having our finger pointed, with no vision to set forth. Thus, unless we can show in a compelling way how our concerns about doctrine and practice significantly impact the daily life of the average LCMS member, God will not only hear, but will condemn our worthless whining. “Do not complain, brothers, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (James 5:9).

To be sure, those promoting Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” definitely have a sincere goal to make a difference in the LCMS. I wholeheartedly agree: Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” theology and practice will definitely affect the LCMS; but, with Ablaze!^® seed sown in the mulch of Fundamentalism, the potential for making a negative difference is much greater than the chance of making a positive difference.

Here is one of the great impacts Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” will make on the future of the LCMS. In their effort to get people into the churches, sincere and well-trained LCMS pastors attempt to put together a church service using standard, historical liturgical terminology while simultaneously integrating a Protestant worship format, including popular singspiration hymns. This is to say, well-intended LCMS pastors who use “blended” services may well end up producing fruit they neither expected nor intended!

For instance, consider the long-range fallout for LCMS children who are, and will be, products of the “blended theology” services. Each Sunday morning, these youth enter this arena of blended theology and worship without the years of grounding and training in Scripture possessed by the pastors promoting this approach. These young people will then be misled to believe that this “blend” of singspiration lyrics (usually with a cannibalized historic liturgy) is characteristic of Lutheran or historic Christianity! But then the plot thickens. What happens when these unsuspecting, “blended” young people go off to college, or find a job in a far-off city? Hoping to remain Lutheran, they may first go to one of the many historically liturgical LCMS congregations around the country. However, even in LCMS churches that do historic liturgy well, many of these young people will surely find themselves either unfulfilled or out of place. They will deeply yearn for the more “alive” Protestant or Pentecostal service, the “blended service” emphasizing “experience,” something they grew up with and something they were told was Lutheran.

Once comfortably inside and “at home” in non-Lutheran churches, these unaware Lutheran students will hear sermons based on the Calvinist “obedience of faith” (the Gospel turned into Law—something that appeals to our flesh); they will sing hymns designed to lift their spirits through feeling, rather than through doctrinal teaching and the efficacy of the Word; they will go occasionally to Holy Communion without the Real Presence; and most damning of all, they will no longer hear the Absolution, the pure Gospel based on Jesus’ promise of forgiveness, of His keys, something clearly pointed out by both Herman Sasse and C.F.W. Walther. The greatest tragedy may be this: at this point in their life, when they are so prone to stumble and make mistakes, youth dearly need the power of pure forgiveness in the Absolution. The efficacious Word in Absolution staves off the devil’s attempts to move them to despair over their mistakes. What they most desperately need, they will no longer have. Thus, to move Lutheran churches from doctrinally-based hymns to modern shallow singspiration, just to increase numbers for each service, will cause the future of the LCMS membership to be a wasteland of spiritual confusion, reverberating into eternity.

In all of this, will these young people “feel” good? Of course! Will they believe they are involved in genuine Christianity? Certainly! Will they do all they can to raise their children in the “alive” Fundamentalist church, and invite others to these spiritually “alive” and often big-name churches? Sure! But what does Jesus say about “alive” churches? Where does Jesus warn about churches that appear to be alive but are not? Answer: in Revelation 3:1, Jesus says, “I know your deeds, that you have a name, that you are alive, but you are dead!” What is Jesus talking about? To some, Jesus is involved in double-speak. How can Jesus say that there will be big-name and popular churches that appear to be alive, and yet they are dead? How is this decided? It is all decided upon how these churches understand the “Word.” The difference in how Lutherans understand the nature and character of the Word, as compared to how Protestant-Fundamentalists understand the Word, is as far as the east is from the west! There is probably no greater misunderstanding or Biblical misconception in the LCMS today, a misconception that will lead, and is already leading, thousands out of the historic Biblical, Christ-centered Reformation faith.

By encouraging so-called “blended theology” (so-called “alive” churches within the LCMS as the example of what all pastors should strive for, according to “Igniting Congregations” and what the laity now increasingly demand) all the while not explaining the fundamental day and night difference in how Lutherans and Fundamentalists differ in their understanding of an “alive” church (as Jesus explains in Revelation 3), will only produce an endless stream of those migrating from so-called outwardly “dead” LCMS churches to “alive” fundamentalist churches. In this sense, the Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” initiative will be seen as extremely impressive in the short run, yet will be deadly for LCMS communicant membership in the long run. Again, as Thomas Hobbes has observed: “Hell is seeing the truth too late!”

Are the arguments above solid? I can only say that, in a very short time, I could produce a significant number of young people who were born and baptized in the LCMS but have since moved on, leaving the “dead” LCMS for churches and denominations that are “alive!” And you know what? As Luther notes in his commentary on Galatians, the chances of getting these bewitched youth back into the historic Christian faith and the Lutheran church are next to nil!

Improper diagnosis and a wrong prescription often lead to the crippling, or even death, of a person. So also, as well-intended as Ablaze!^® may be, by coming together with the foreign theology already in the LCMS, this fatal combination will inevitably lead to the crippling ,or even death, of the LCMS, beginning with our youth.

IS JESUS’ PRIMARY MISSIOLOGICAL COMMAND TO “WITNESS” OR IS HIS COMMAND TO PREACH, BAPTIZE, AND TEACH?

A second decisive difference in Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” stems from using “witnessing” as the driving force, or the engine, of a churches missiology. President Kieschnick is to be highly commended for encouraging all LCMS members to be a witness to Christ whenever and wherever possible. However, simply being a “witness,” as important as that may be (“You shall be my witnesses” Acts 1:8; Matthew 5:16; 1 Peter 2:12, etc.) is not the engine of Christ’s Great Commission. Historical LCMS missiology and historic Christian missiology has always been built upon the solid foundation of Christ’s command to preach, baptize, and teach. As noted in Matthew 28:19–20, there is a crucial difference between these activities, a difference glaringly seen when Ablaze!^® theology and methodology are compared to historic Christian and Lutheran missiology.

The great difference will be shown in the ultimate fruits of the programs. When launching the Ablaze!^® initiative, the LCMS president noted the significantly alarming statistics of LCMS membership. There is nothing wrong with doing this. In fact, we all need a wake up call. However, here an intentional, or unintentional, sleight of hand occurs. The entire Ablaze!^® initiative has been sold to the LCMS, by saying, if not directly, then at least by implying, that Ablaze!^® will not only stop the hemorrhaging of communicant membership numbers, but Ablaze!^® will significantly increase communicant membership. But note this very, very carefully. The promoters of Ablaze!^® have never claimed that Ablaze!^® will significantly increase LCMS communicant membership, something critics and promoters have to keep in mind. It is not so much what is being said, or what is not being said, BUT WHAT IS BEING ASSUMED! If there is a “gotcha” in all this, here it is!

Wagering is not pleasing to God. And simply condemning large churches is foolish, even sinful. God is not pleased when we condemn either large or small congregations. He can use them all. However, for the sake of discussion, I would “bet the farm” that Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” not only will fail to stop the membership hemorrhage, but in the long term will make it worse. Why? Because Ablaze!^® theology is close enough to Protestant-Pentecostal-Fundamentalist theology and practice that Ablaze!^® will make it possible for LCMS members from congregations with “blended” services to migrate comfortably from perceived “dead” LCMS congregations to perceived “alive” Fundamentalist congregations. With Ablaze!^® theology, they will already be half-way there. Most will not even perceive that they have made a change! They will claim “we all believe the same thing.” Again, the only difference, as they see it, is that Protestant-Fundamentalist-Pentecostal churches are more “alive”! So why get so upset?

AN ALTERNATE TO Ablaze!^®

In his 1844 short story, “The Purloined Letter,” Edgar Allen Poe tells how people searched in vain for a missing letter. How dumb they were! All the while they searched, the letter was under their noses, in plain view, on the mantel in the front room!

Regarding LCMS missiology, the devil has played the same trick. In recent decades, as LCMS leaders have searched high and low for an evangelistic “methodology,” the devil has blinded them from seeing what Jesus has always placed in front of our noses: preaching, baptizing, and teaching, teaching, teaching, all He has commanded!

Earlier in the essay, I expressed disagreement with a mission staff member who claims Ablaze!^® is characteristic of traditional LCMS missiology. LCMS history shows otherwise. LCMS forefathers were focused not primarily on witnessing, as important as that is, but rather on Christ’s more central and demanding element of the Great Commission: Teaching!

“Within days” after the LCMS forefathers arrived in St. Louis, they built a school.[17] Even before the LCMS existed, Walther wrote to Dr. Sihler, the man soon to be the first LCMS vice-president, saying: “The number of school children averages 130–140, of whom one-third are such whose parents have not yet joined our congregation, but only attend our public services.” For Walther to say, “not yet joined” is critical. He fully realized the outreach power (the missiology) of the day school. Walther understood that the mission outreach of schools is very, very possible. Why? Because in His Great Commission, Jesus commands: teach, teach, teach!

From its beginning, the LCMS has had the best non-Catholic religious education system in the United States, bar none, as even non-LCMS Lutherans have pointed out.[18]

In more recent decades the superb outreach tool of teaching and education has, for any number of reasons, fallen into great disrepair. Day schools have closed, for whatever reason. In all of this change we seem to have lost the desire to rise to the command of Jesus to “teach,” thereby strengthening the saved and bringing in the lost. Sunday schools in many churches have simply dwindled to nothing, or have even collapsed. In all of this we whine and complain, try to convince God: “We have no money.” Baloney! In some of the poorest sections of Cairo, Egypt, 300,000 Coptic Sunday school teachers are at work—with almost no resources! It is time for all of us to “get off our lazy duff,” as Walther said, and get to work. A couple years ago, when a local church was short of VBS teachers, I volunteered and taught the 3^rd graders. None of us is above teaching those Jesus loves so dearly. Genuine Jesus-commended evangelism is hard work. Why? Because you are contending with the devil, one soul at a time.

A POWERFUL ROLE MODEL!

What our LCMS so desperately needs at the moment, both pastors and people, is a decisive dose of humility as shown by the pioneer black woman, Rosa Young. A century ago, in Alabama, Rosa Young sought help from a variety of church and secular groups to establish schools. After being repeatedly turned down, Rosa finally wrote to Booker T. Washington. Washington told Rosa to contact the Lutherans. She wrote to the LCMS mission board. They in turn sent a pastor who instructed Rosa Young in the historic, Bible-based, Christ-centered Lutheran faith.

Thereafter follows the most incredible story ever told in domestic LCMS missions. Rosa’s story can be found, in her own words, in the 200-page paperback, Light in the Dark Belt, published first in 1930 and reprinted by CPH in 1950. God led Rosa Young to follow Jesus’ Great Commission command to teach, and she built school after school. Through this first step via education, God used Rosa to establish church after church, all across Alabama, and even into other areas of the South. Her work was very, very hard, much harder than mission work is today. In addition to the physical hardships, she was bitterly opposed by other denominational leaders. She was always out of money. Yet, she soldiered on.

The devil might tempt us to believe that Rosa Young had greater and easier opportunity than we do today. This is not the case. Since historic LCMS’s middle name is “education,” anyone aware of the current desire many U.S. parents—black, white, Asian, and Hispanic—have for good schools knows our church’s great potential. We don’t have to look for a new missiology. Like Poe’s purloined letter, it sits under our nose! Our history reveals effective missiology! We in the LCMS have a long tradition of responding to Jesus’ words to go and “teach” as a way of reaching people with His Gospel.

But let’s not be mistaken. This teaching approach that Christ has commanded as a fundamental part of His Great Commission, involves very, very hard work, and much sacrifice. It will not be done by simply driving your comfortable Buick up to your local Lutheran church, which is using Protestant singspiration to comfortably attract people into man-pleasing experiential religion via the “worship experience.” What Jesus did in His teaching was hard; what Paul did in his instructing was demanding; what Luther did in his theological teaching, and also in helping to straighten out the schools across Germany, was difficult. What Rosa Young, and others, have done in our Synod to bring thousands into the faith has sometimes been more than the flesh could bear. “We shall through much trouble enter into the Kingdom,” even as we bring others with us through teaching. As Walther said of the lazy Lutherans in Germany, they need to “get off their duff” and get to work.[19]

Why has the LCMS gotten so far off-track from the Great Commission to teach? Why has the LCMS in recent decades, like a “wild donkey in heat” (Jeremiah 2:23), gone whoring after all kinds of Protestant, man-centered methodologies for outreach, especially after the Lord has given the LCMS its magnificent historic harvesting machine (John 4:35) in its vast educational system.

A now famous Wall Street Journal article gives a clue as to why some of us have been tricked into whoring after other Protestant methodologies. In explaining the sudden rise of Rick Warren (who now claims to have trained 400,000 pastors around the world) and his Purpose Driven Life, or, as ABC now reports, his “Purpose Driven Strife,” the Wall Street Journal[20] reveals that, ahead of others, Warren understood how to get in front of the pack. He was savvy enough to obtain large mailing lists of pastors. He then dangled in front of them the most effective bait possible: success stories.

People want success; LCMS pastors yearn for success; LCMS mission execs demand success or, as they say in the Reporter, your LCMS church has no reason to exist. (This is further expanded upon in Appendix 9, titled: “Late Bulletin! Many, If Not Most, LCMS Churches Have No Need To Exist?”) Thus, if we are going to get back on track—if we expect to be blessed by God—we need to retool LCMS evangelism and missiology, away from that which has been borrowed from endless Protestant “success stories,” and return to Jesus’ Great Commission command: “Teach.” We need to study the story of poor Rosa Young. What God did through Rosa, He can do through all of us. Effective evangelism in God’s eyes is possible, as Jesus said to the rich young ruler: “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible!” (Matthew 19:26).

REAL EVANGELISM, NOT MINIMUM TILLAGE!

I hesitate to use the next illustration because it is not apropos to all areas of U.S. agriculture. But it does help us understand that a bountiful harvest demands serious tilling and planting. There was a mid-western farmer I stayed with not long ago who wanted to harvest more grain with less effort and less input, so he turned to the latest trend called “minimum tillage.” In some cases, minimum tillage works! However, for this farmer the results were disappointing at harvest time. As a result, the next year the farmer got his old machinery out of the shed, plowed deeply and planted precisely. This old way to plant seeds took much more work and greater investment than minimum tillage. However, the harvest was far beyond anything he ever dreamed!

We in the LCMS need to set aside the minimum tillage of Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations,” as inviting and as alive these may seem, and return to our Christ’s Great Commission missiology. We need to get the old “teaching machinery” out of the shed (no one in U.S. Protestantism has anything like what we in the LCMS have) and set our hand to the plow, as Jesus has commanded. We can then be sure that the harvest for eternity will be great. “And the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (Revelation 5:11).

SUMMARY

As the reader, you may feel like saying at this point: “This paper is too difficult to understand. It begins talking about LCMS governance, then focuses upon Fundamentalism, then speaks about Ablaze!^©, etc. This all ends up seeming very confusing!”

The reader is correct. And there is a reason for the “seeming confusion.” The seeming confusion of this essay reflects the actual confusion in the LCMS. You have a current governance which no longer follows the “Word alone” governance of our forefathers. Into this legalistic climate we now have Protestant and Fundamentalist theology and practice pouring in upon us. Furthermore, we are now told this can be all corrected by using Acts 1:8 (witness) instead of the historic mission mandate of Jesus’ Great Commission in Matthew 28:19–20 (making disciples by baptizing and teaching). Thus, any honest attempt to describe the LCMS situation today will automatically appear to be confusing. 

AT THE SAME TIME, SORTING THIS OUT IS NOT SPACE SCIENCE! Getting back to a Word-based, instead of human-ordinance-based governance, is the first step. The second step is to return LCMS missiology to the command of Jesus in Matthew 28:19–20, emphasizing preaching, baptizing, and teaching, as Walther and our forefathers did. This is the Christ-mandated approach the LCMS has used effectively in the past, both domestically and internationally.

Will we see the immediate great numbers that some Protestant and Fundamentalist groups claim, and the quick numbers some among us now demand? Probably not. But we serve God and not man. Even in our evangelism and mission outreach, as tempting as numbers may be, we obey the Word of Christ and “walk by faith and not sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7).

So, for decades the LCMS has been “reeling to and fro like a drunkard” (Isaiah 24:20) trying to find his way home. All the while, to overcome the staggering of the LCMS, some have been searching for the CEO or the politician who will bring all the parties together. This maneuvering has been tried and tried again, only to fail repeatedly. God is not interested in bringing parties together. He is interested only in one who will disregard all party spirit and lead only by His Word. Thus, we need to repeat one last time what has been said before, especially since our missiology has now become increasingly and inextricably intertwined with our governance, that, unless and until the LCMS finds a theologian like Walther who can sort out the issues and provide the appropriate Word from God’s all-powerful healing Scripture in a simple and easy to understand way (as Walther did), helping the man in the pew sort out the issues, there will be no peace. There can be no peace! This leader will have no choice but to deal, as Walther repeatedly did, with Protestant and Fundamentalist teachings now undermining the LCMS, especially in missiology. Why? By their very nature, Protestantism and Fundamentalism are not only opposed, but are also deadly destructive to Bible-based, Christ-centered Lutheran theology, to such an extent that Fundamentalist teaching dare not be used even as a supplement to the efficacy of the Word-driven Lutheran theology and practice. “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough?” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

The first thing a newly elected LCMS president should do is to say: “To hell with all political parties, especially those who operate secretly.” Second, the newly elected president needs to grasp with one hand the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17). With his other hand, he needs to grab the shepherd’s crook of God’s Law and Gospel and walk before the sheep—leading them, not coming behind them with the stick of man-made rules, convention resolutions, and commission rulings, thereby dividing the sheep by beating them.

If the struggle in the LCMS is essentially spiritual, and it is; and if the so-called conservatives are going to try to challenge the current LCMS president using political and logistical tactics, they might as well fold up their tents, put their six guns back into the holsters, and ride back to Dodge City. By his unprecedented use of the CCM and CTCR, the current president has these well-intended conservatives outmanned and outgunned 1,000 times over.

Is anyone listening? Here is what God says about the struggle in the LCMS: “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood.” This is to say, our battle is not with each other in the LCMS, but with the devil (Ephesians 6:12). Why does God make this distinction? Because the devil gets into all of us and uses each of us, including myself. Therefore, all involved in contending for the truth (Jude 1:3) must say, “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are of the flesh but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations in every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:3–5). Therefore let no one, absolutely no one, plan to arrive at the bar of Justice on Judgment Day, chest thrust forward, to try to impress Christ with how he/she saved His church with political maneuvering!

In recent years we have had several LCMS presidents try to get the old “ship” of missions back on track. The most recent attempt to give new direction and heal the LCMS is now Ablaze!^®, a “movement” the current leadership claims will stop the hemorrhaging of members and increase communicant membership. Here is the problem we now face. But let’s also be honest, because Ablaze!^® has so much in common with the various Fundamentalist forces flowing into the LCMS over recent decades, there is a high degree of probability that Ablaze!^® will backfire, pulling the LCMS into mainstream Fundamentalism, thereby causing the LCMS to cease to exist as a significant tool for the Lord in proclaiming His pure grace.

Why is this such a great concern? In 1929, on the occasion of the 400^th anniversary of the Small Catechism in Copenhagen, Dr. Michael Reu, in his address titled, “What Is Lutheranism?” stated: “The distinctive characteristic of the Lutheran church is that it is the church of assurance, assurance of salvation. This fact not only gives it a right to separate existence, but also binds upon it the sacred obligation to maintaining this separate existence among the churches of our country.”

Making the distinction called for by Dr. Reu will not be easy. In fact it will be humanly impossible! Why? Consider this: The sword now poised, ready to pierce the very heart of the LCMS and its historic Christ-centered teaching, is the sword of Fundamentalism. Ironically, yes, very ironically, it is not the so called “liberal” wing of the LCMS, but rather the so-called “conservative” wing of the LCMS that most eagerly welcomes the fatal sword of Fundamentalist theology, terminology, music, and worship forms. Indeed, in the current LCMS struggle “Truth is stranger than fiction!”

For LCMS pastors to provide their members the comfort found only in the Words of Christ and His Sacraments (as urged in this essay), and not be sucked into mainstream Protestant Fundamentalism, is an increasing life-and-death struggle. Certainly, outside influences will always flow in upon us. However, when we first take the term “inerrancy” (a term that describes the heart of Fundamentalist theology), and adopt it as our litmus test for Lutheranism; second, when we absorb Fundamentalist terms which carry their distinctive theological meaning, such as “uncommitted” instead of “unbaptized,” thereby adopting, consciously or unconsciously, Fundamentalist views of man, God, His Word, and their missiology; third, when we base our outreach missiology on Acts 1:8 (which omits the Sacraments) instead of on Christ’s Great Commission in Matthew 28:19–20 (which includes the Sacrament); fourth, when we introduce Protestant hymnody and get our people to sing Fundamentalist theology, thereby making fundamentalist lyrics our theology by default, then, along with Ablaze!^® theology, as a consummating force, these Fundamentalist ingredients will combine to produce a result from which the LCMS will never recover. In other words, when we adopt Protestant Fundamentalist ways of thinking, speaking, and singing about faith and outreach, “as a man thinks, so he is” Proverbs 23:7), we will become part of the larger flow of Protestantism, forever losing our Gospel-centered, Christ-centered identity. For an example of how music helped move one denomination into non-existence, see endnote 9.

Again, the first step to getting back on track for a renewed and vigorous LCMS is to have leadership who will possess the theological knowledge, the integrity, the honesty to forthrightly diagnose the issues, and not claim—as did some Old Testament religious leaders—that there are no problems; or if there are, they are not of any serious concern. As we search our souls, pastors and people in the LCMS need to turn to the Lord! No matter how bleak things may seem, our gracious God can cleanse and heal His people in the LCMS with His living Word: “Come, let us return to the Lord. For He has torn us, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bandage us” (Hosea 6:1).

I am not questioning the sincerity of those who are promoting the new Ablaze!^® and “Igniting Congregations” missiology/theology in the LCMS. My first “hands on” foreign mission experience in Guatemala in 1962 started me on 45 years of constant involvement in domestic and foreign missions and evangelism efforts, primarily as an evangelist. I am not proud of all I have been involved in. I have made my share of mistakes in evangelistic work, mistakes for which I am sincerely sorry, and mistakes I am willing to confess publicly. I am also of the deep conviction that, no matter who you are or what station you may have in the LCMS, each of us needs to examine our thoughts and ideas regarding our missiology, how we do evangelism, missions, and worship. None of us is beyond reproach and rebuke. Luther speaks about changing his mind in what he preached and taught after he learned the correct way. He said “I know of no one who had all things perfect from the beginning . . .” (Luther’s Works, vol. 47, p. 112). If the missiological/theological crisis now facing the LCMS is going to be resolved, we are going to have to talk to each other without making everything personal. “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

We need to plumb our missiology, and all that we do, with a clear understanding of God’s Word, as noted by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 and taught by Jesus in John 5:17 and 6:63, and in many other places in Scripture. “Never try to argue on your own word, always refer to Christ and the Scriptures” (Luther’s Works, vol. 29, p.20). As a Synod, we must come to grips with the sobering fact that the Bible-based understanding of the “nature and character” of God’s Word is not only different but in many cases, in opposition to the very popular, seductive, and widely-used Protestant and Fundamentalist understanding of God’s Word. “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other” (Luke 16:13).

Along with others, I am now actively involved in domestic and international outreach, based not merely on Acts 1:8, but primarily on Christ’s commission in Matthew 28:19–20 to “Go . . . teaching.” Every day we are in contact with people in some 100 countries, encouraging them and providing them with teaching tools. If we were to adopt Ablaze!^® as our engine, or heart, of our missiology, we would quickly come to a halt, since Ablaze!^® does not emphasize preaching, teaching, or baptizing as its primary work. For us this is a serious matter, since—in one country alone—the Lutheran Bishop notes that over 30% of its new churches have resulted from the teaching tool we provide. While not every aspect of Ablaze!^® is inadequate, we simply could not do what we are now doing if Ablaze!^® was our engine or our missiology. And, what we are doing is nothing to brag about. What we are doing is nothing more than assisting what Rosa Young did, decades ago, in the south: Teach, teach, teach—and Christ’s church will arise!

Very few, I believe, in