There is a great deal of talk in the church these days about the importance of vision. As confessional Lutherans, the members of Texas Balance share a common vision of the future that God has in store for our beloved church. It is, we believe, a vision shaped and determined by His Holy Word. We would like to take this opportunity to share a summary of that vision with you in the hope that it will assist you in understanding us and our activities in the future. We are committed to continue working toward the realization of this vision within the Texas District in a positive and constructive manner. Our motivation is not partisanship or a desire for power, but rather a sincere love for the saving truth of God s Word and desire to glorify Him in the proclamation of His Gospel and the extension of His kingdom.

At the heart of that vision is an evangelical concern for the pure doctrine of God s Word. Our sole motive for insisting that the divine Word be taught without exception or compromise must be a burning desire for the salvation of souls. Scripture s earnest admonition to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) is not optional advice. It is a divine command. Our Lord Himself combined the greatest mission mandate ever given with the responsibility of “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20) Doctrinal indifference and permissiveness does not enhance the mission of the church, it destroys it. Accordingly, we were profoundly concerned by President Kieschnick s comment in the February, 1993, Edition of the Lutheran Witness/Texas Messenger which dismissed “doctrinal concerns among us” as a Satanic diversion from the “main mission of the church - to make disciples of all nations.” Synod s first President, C.F.W. Walther, addressed the peril of pitting missions against doctrinal concerns more than 1 20 years ago. Walther wrote:

“It is true, brethren, as you well know, that in our day it is common for people to say, ‘Emphasizing doctrine so much only harms and hinders the kingdom of God, yes, even destroys it. Many say, ‘Instead of disputing over doctrine so much, we should much rather be concerned with souls and with leading them to Christ. But all who speak in this way do not really know what they are saying or what they are doing. As foolish as it would be to scold a farmer for being concerned about sowing good seed and to demand of him simply to be concerned about a good harvest, so foolish it is to scold those who are concerned first and foremost with the doctrine, and to demand of them that they should rather seek to rescue souls. For just as the farmer who wants a good crop must first of all be concerned about good seed, so the church must above all be concerned about right doctrine if it would save souls.” (C.F.W. Walther, Our Common Task-The Saving of Souls, 1872)

We dream of a Synod in which all of our congregations, pastors, and teachers genuinely “walk together” in unity of faith, confessing with one voice our common commitment to all of the teachings of God s Word (1 Corinthians 1:10). In this Biblical vision of the church, the true “unity of the Spirit” can only be maintained by consensus in doctrine and consistency in practice (Ephesians 4:13-14). Dr. Franz Pieper, Synod s fourth President, describes our church s highly prized doctrinal unity in this way:

“We stand in a fellowship which holds fast the entire Word of God, the entire revelation, a fellowship in which souls are properly cared for and in which God is given the honor which is due Him. What a blessing we share! We cannot sufficiently praise it!...lt is God who has given us understanding so that we do not swim with the unionistic stream of the day but rather hold the entire Word of God in high esteem and accept it by faith. It is God who has given us understanding so that we are not caused to vacillate by the unionistic talk about love and peace, but rather that we know that the first article of love to God and men is this that we firmly hold to and confess the total Word of God...What value would there be in an outward establishment of geographic boundaries and in all other external co-operation in church work if the boundaries of our faith were not correctly established according to God s Word and we did not remain in all articles of doctrine established for us in God s Word? If we, in a unionistic fashion, wanted to surrender this or that doctrine of the Word of God, if, under the pretext of allowing love to hold sway, we were to allow false doctrines to have citizenship rights among us, then all of our outward standing together and working together would be a caricature of the God-desired unity. The unity of faith is most seriously threatened when indifference to false doctrine moves in. The unity of faith is immediately destroyed when one part adopts and holds fast false doctrine.” (Franz Pieper, Unity of Faith, 1888)

“People who are not familiar with a synod usually think of it in terms of a legislative body. Under that arrangement pastors met and passed laws. Then they brought these laws home, and whoever refused to obey them would either be banned or at least placed under church discipline. That, however, is not the way our Synod operates...Here again, the number one priority must be the promotion of a better understanding of God s Word. And even if a synod proceeds in a free and easy manner, with no particular organized procedure, it is still a glorious synod so long as there is an intensive study of God s Word. Then the Lord is in the midst of His synodical members. For there we are gathered in His name, and there His Word is taught in childlike faith...Now I understand why the Missourians are so unified. The reason is that they always spend a great deal of time in the thorough study of doctrine. They don't merely discuss it thoroughly, but they always try to get down to the basic principles and prove everything on the basis of Scripture. That is the secret of the Missourians. With that kind of approach they cannot help being unified.” (C.F.W. Walther, The Basic Responsibilities of a Synod Which Would Rightfully call Itself Evangelical and Lutheran, 1879)

Growth in the church must always be linked to the Means of Grace, the Gospel in Word and Sacrament (Acts 20:24; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:23; Titus 3:5; Matthew 26:28). It is at precisely this point that the life and worship of the Lutheran Church has historically focused. Scripture s vision of the church as the people of God assembled around and empowered by Word and Sacrament, in the profound spiritual unity of the Body of Christ, is threatened today by another vision, one that is much more impressive from the world s point of view.

It glories in size, success, and power. In this alternative vision, the church is seen as just another organization whose growth can be guaranteed through the use of the proper techniques and measured statistically. Indications of the widespread encroachment of this view can be seen in our growing dependence upon a never ending stream of new programs, techniques, and gimmicks designed to motivate and excite the people. It can also be detected in our pre-occupation with structural tinkering, streamlining, and reorganizing, always in keeping with the very latest theory of management and administration, to improve efficiency on every level. Most significantly, this ominous trend can be observed in a shift away from the historic liturgies of the church toward worship as entertainment. Implicit in each of these trends is the insidious assumption that Word and Sacrament alone just aren t going to get the job done in the 90 s. Glib distinctions between “style” and “substance” are used to jettison everything that stands in the way of our rush toward worldly success aboard the latest programmatic bandwagon to go rolling by.

It s time to recognize that all this is not Biblical theology but secular ideology. It cannot help the church to grow: it can only distract, distort, and ultimately destroy it. The way we worship and order our life together as a community of God s people is an expression of what we believe. One cannot be tampered with without affecting the other. In our haste to imitate what works for “mega” and “meta” churches in other denominations we may well be throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. God does not call the pastors of His church to be people-pleasing entrepreneurs or Hollywood style entertainers; He calls them to be faithful servants of His Word. God does not call His people to be self-satisfying consumers, aping the antics of the worldly; He calls them to be self- sacrificing pilgrims whose lives display His love for mankind. All that is necessary for us is to trust the promises of God and faithfully use the means which He has established.

God has established the pastoral office within His church as the ministry of preaching and teaching the Gospel and administering the sacraments (Ephesians 4:11; Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 4:1; 2 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Peter 5:2; Hebrews 13:17). God determines the qualifications of those who are to serve in the office which He has created (I Timothy 3:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:11-14; 1 Corinthians 14:33- 34). God calls qualified men into that office through the call of His church (Romans 10:15; 2 Timothy 2:2; Titus 1:5; Ephesians 4:8,11). Scripture's vision of the pastoral office is being slowly obscured among us.

The causes for this deterioration are manifold. Secular thinking has impacted clergy and laity alike in this area. Scripture s high view of the pastoral office is echoed and applied in our confessional affirmation that “Our churches teach that no one should preach publicly in the church or administer the sacraments unless he is regularly called.” (AC,XIV) Nonetheless, over the objections of the faculties of both of our seminaries, Licensed Lay Ministry programs have been instituted by both the Texas District and the Synod to authorize precisely what our Confession forbids. One observer has ironically labeled Synod s decision on Lay Ministry “the Wichita Recension of the Augsburg Confession”.

A profound sense of mutual responsibility, for the sake of the Gospel, is inherent in the Biblical concept of the Call. That mutual responsibility is contradicted when either pastors or laymen allow their personal desires to take precedence over the cause of the Gospel. The doctrine of the Divine Call is not a license to pursue career goals or a refuge for mediocrity with a guarantee of permanent job security. On the other hand, the integrity of the Office of the Ministry demands that the Call be more than a secular “At Will Contract” which may be terminated without cause at any point according to the whim and fancy of the prevailing faction in a congregation. The debasement of the Holy Ministry is cloaked in sanctimonious phrases as diplomas of “Revocation for the “Divine Disposal/Dismissal of Ministers of the Word and Sacraments” are prepared. Reports of District “Investigative Committees coming into parishes, often without official invitation, to probe unspecified allegations of dissension between pastor and people from unidentified individuals, without reference to the Scriptural procedures of Matthew 18, are cause for grave concern.

A clear understanding and consistent application of the teaching of the Word of God on the Office of the Ministry and the Divine Call has been a source of great blessing to the pastors and congregations of the Missouri Synod. The self-sacrificing consecration of generations of faithful pastors and the high esteem and honor which our people have historically accorded the pastoral office have enabled us to accomplish great things together in God s kingdom. It is our earnest prayer that the Lord may restore to us that unity of purpose and harmony.

We envision a church which always holds high the banner of the Gospel in its dealings with Christians in other denominations. Recognizing, with the humble certainty of faith, that the doctrines of the Lutheran Church, as proclaimed in our confessional writings, are, in fact, the saving truth of Holy Scripture, we must be ever prepared to testify to the faith which has been entrusted to us. In a time of widespread doctrinal indifference and apathy, that witness becomes all the more important.

The Bible sternly warns against the dangers of false doctrine and firmly prohibits the toleration of doctrinal error and church fellowship with those caught up in doctrinal error (i.e. Matthew 7:15; Romans 16:17; Galatians 5:9-10; 2 Timothy 2:16). Given the severity of those warnings, we dare not allow ourselves the luxury of overlooking or minimizing the doctrinal differences which divide the churches of Christendom. When our pastors and congregations participate in joint services with the pastors and congregations of other denominations, despite the differences in doctrine which separate us from one another, they are guilty of bearing false witness to a unity that does not exist. Our failure to confront those who hold to false teaching or who follow false teachers jeopardizes their salvation, and only serves to confirm them in their error. Doctrinal indifference is the path of least resistance, comfortable and popular; but it is, nonetheless, a callous expression of lovelessness.

Our leaders in District and Synod bear a profound responsibility in this crucial area to articulate, advocate, and implement the Scriptural position. When pastors among us take part in weddings, funerals, baccalaureates, etc., with clergymen of other denominations, or any of our congregations sponsor joint services in their local area with churches of other denominations, admonition and, if necessary, evangelical discipline must be applied. It may well be necessary for Missouri to stand alone, enduring scorn and ridicule from all sides, because of its rejection of the easygoing permissiveness of the times and every form of unionism. But then, that s nothing new. We have stood alone before, and God has blessed our faithfulness to His Word. Synodical President John W. Behnken, a great man of God from our own Texas District, has said it well in his uniquely firm but humble way:

‘Let me speak very frankly. If such co-operation involves joint work in missions, in Christian education, in student welfare work, in joint services celebrating great events, then cooperation is just another name for pulpit, altar and prayer fellowship. Without doctrinal agreement this spells compromise. It means yielding in doctrinal positions. Such fellowship will not stand in the light of Scripture...The Lord wants preachers who are loyal in His cause, who will not deviate in the least from any part of His Word, who will defend every jot and tittle of it, who will insist that the church continue in sound doctrine...lndescribable harm has been done to the cause of Lutheran fellowship when men become guilty of unionistic services, whereby they create impressions that after all there is no difference or that the differences are of little moment...lrreparable damage has been done not only to individual souls but to the cause of Lutheranism whenever a lax and indifferent practice obtains...There must be genuine unity of Spirit in the bond of peace. Only if Lutherans build on this foundation will the structure of Lutheranism stand. It will crumble and fall if the foundation is faulty and defective. This is the position of the Missouri Synod today.” (J.W. Behnken, Fellowship Among Lutherans, 1946)

A special focus of concern in this area is a virtual epidemic of non-scriptural practice in the matter of admission to the Lord s Supper. “Open Communion”, that is admission to the Sacrament without agreement in doctrine, is becoming increasingly common. In its most blatant form “Open Communion” throws open the Lord s Table to any who wish to come, or to all baptized Christians regardless of their beliefs. Among our congregations, “Open Communion” is typically practiced in one of its more subtle varieties. Some welcome the participation of everyone who is willing to affirm the real presence (however that term may be understood by the individual) no matter what their other beliefs may be. Others invite all those who are confirmed Lutherans from any church body which bears that denominational label, despite the serious doctrinal differences between the various Lutheran synods. Still others request that their visitors from other denominations be willing to identify with the faith of the host congregation (typically undefined), and simply ignore the issue of their ongoing membership in a church of another different confession.

In whatever guise it appears, the practice of “Open Communion” contradicts our Lord s institution of the Sacrament as a profound expression of our oneness within the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-17), a Biblical understanding of the nature of the unity of the church in faith and confession (1 Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:3,13-16; Romans 16:17), and an evangelical concern for the spiritual welfare of those who do not hold to our Biblical confession of faith (1 Corinthians 11:27-30). All too often, attempts to raise substantive concerns in this area are lost in semantic quibbling.

With distressing frequency, disagreement with the Scriptural practice of historic Christendom is concealed behind the pretext of legitimate exceptions within the realm of pastoral practice. No one denies that exceptional circumstances can arise where pastoral discretion must be applied, but when the exception becomes routine procedure, simple integrity requires that dissent from the Scriptural practice itself be acknowledged. Our leaders must show the way, so that God- pleasing unity in doctrine and practice may be restored. But sadly, in many cases, this has not happened. Instead, communion practice among the congregations continues to diversify and our historic Biblical stance is challenged within the Council of Presidents itself without public admonition or correction. It is no wonder that the people are left in confusion. We nee to hear and heed Dr. Waither s earnest summons to confessional faithfulness and vigilance in our communion practices:

“The more unionism and syncretism is the sin and corruption of our time, the more the loyalty of the orthodox church now demands that the Lord s Supper not be misused as a means of external union without internal unity of faith...The Antichrist first succeeded in seating himself in the midst of God s temple through apathy and carelessness in the church. Later through the apathy and carelessness of the church false unionism also crept in. Now it is up to us to fight against this enemy and to disentangle ourselves from the webs and the bindings of the syncretistic spirit of the times. May the faithful and merciful God aid us and fill our hearts with a hatred for the lying spirit and a genuine inner love for the Word of God and the Truth.” (C.F.W. Walther, Theses on Communion Fellowship With Those Who Believe Differently, 1870)

Our culture s refusal to recognize the unique identities of men and women and the role/relationship which God has established between them is wreaking havoc throughout society. The consequences of our defiance of the Creator s intent can be seen in more divorce, more homosexuality, more sexual abuse, more promiscuity, more social awkwardness, and more emotional distress and suicide. We are tearing ourselves, our marriages, and our families apart because we will not listen to God. The church is called to demonstrate and proclaim God s will to the world for the good of humanity. But tragically, it would seem that on the subject of men and women, and so many other crucial issues, the modern church places a higher premium on popularity than it does upon faithfulness to God s Word. We in Missouri do not enjoy some sort of unique immunity from the world s relentless pressure to compromise and conform.

Over the last few decades our clear Scriptural stand on the role of women in the church has gradually changed. There is no reason to expect that the process of cultural accommodation which those changes represent has come to an end. Our position is now widely viewed as a mere matter of synodical policy based on convention resolutions, rather than an issue of confessional faithfulness based upon the clear teaching of the Word of God. That view encourages those within the Synod who disagree with our current policy to maintain continued pressure to test its limits and ongoing efforts to find loopholes and create “de facto” realities which contradict it, while they wait for the policy to change. All this is, of course, in sharp contrast to the unequivocal confessionalism which is our heritage as Missouri Synod Lutherans. Longtime St. Louis Seminary professor Dr. John H.C. Fritz articulated our Scriptural stand on this subject with crystal clarity a generation ago:

“Since, however, the relation of woman to man, also in the church, has been established by God Himself, that relation does not and cannot change in the course of time, and therefore, this divinely established relation which Paul gives us as the reason for prohibiting women to speak in public church assemblies and to govern, or rule, in the church, must be honored if we would remain true to Word of God and not yield to sectarian influence and the spirit of the times (‘Zeitgeist,),,. (The Lutheran Witness, 1932)

Insiders on the CTCR predict that the Commission will soon recommend that the Synod s exclusion of women from the offices of elder and congregational president, already widely ignored in many areas of the church, be removed. Then only the prohibition of the ordination of women to the pastoral office will remain. As we know all too well here in Texas, opposition to this final barrier to complete sexual egalitarianism in the church, has been carefully couched as a challenge to the clarity of the New Testament texts upon which the prohibition of women s ordination has historically rested. Given our present circumstances, the words of warning issued by the faculty of the St. Louis Seminary over seventy years ago seem remarkably prescient:

“Anyone who takes the stand which is taken in this tract will find that he is unpopular. The emancipation of women, sex equality and all that is connected with these fundamental ideas have gone so far throughout the world that it seems impossible that there will soon be a turning back...But it is not conceivable to the writer that any concatenation of circumstances can arise in the church which really nullifies the Scriptural principle that forbids woman s rule over man. Neither a certain kind of exegesis nor any amount of casuistic references will change that principle. Men may. of course, get rid of uncomfortable Scripture texts by a hundred different devices. They have done that as long as there has been a Bible in this world. But what have they gained by it.” (Emphasis Added) (A Theological Opinion of the Faculty of Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, 1923)

Surveys indicate that a large minority of our clergy no longer believe women s ordination to be unscriptural and that a majority of our people expect Missouri to ordain women to the pastoral office in the near future. We find these trends to be extremely alarming. At a time when the world desperately needs our witness, we seem to be intent upon blending in rather than standing out. Our testimony on the role of women in the church must be forthright and consistent, a joyful affirmation of the truth of God s Word and a loving desire to model that truth to the world.

This, then, is our vision for the future of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and the Texas District. We are convinced that it is thoroughly Scriptural and fully consistent with the historic confession of our church. We assert our firm intention to continue to work toward the realization of that vision through theological discussion and active participation in the life of this church body. We ask your prayers and your support in that endeavor. May God bless our beloved Synod.

Back to Concord's Homepage