The President of the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod (L.C.M.S.) recently claimed, when recounting his experience at the latest “annual informal discussions” between his Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (W.E.L.S.), and the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (E.L.S.), that he “has been very heartened that our W.E.L.S. and E.L.S. brothers have recognized that serious doctrinal discipline exists in the L.C.M.S.. They have also expressed deep appreciation for our L.C.M.S. struggle against the theology and detrimental influence of the liberal era prior to and into the Seminex event.”
Now, one may reasonably wonder: How, exactly were the representatives of these two synods convinced of these claims of “serious doctrinal discipline” and “struggle against the theology and influence of liberalism” on the side of Missouri? For all “doctrinal discipline” in the L.C.M.S. in recent memory has been directed against not the liberals, but Bible Christians, those who actually believe what God says to His Christian Church in His Word. But any deviation from the Word of God is at least tolerated, if it is not encouraged at the highest levels. An example: At last year’s Synodical Convention, it was allowed for an active “ordained minister” in the L.C.M.S. (Benjamin Squires) to advocate for a synodical repudiation of the death penalty, which was instituted by God, Gen. 9, and later confirmed in the New Testament, Rom. 13; John 19:11.
However, there was an example of quite public “serious doctrinal discipline” last February. The readers of the Altlutheraner are well aware of this, for we publicized President Harrison’s whole antichristian letter (with commentary) in the article “Matthew Harrison comes out in support of Antifa.” In this letter, President Harrison threatens to use “pastors and district presidents” against Bible Christians — even going so far as to threaten excommunication —, which, we later learned, he did in fact do. — If this is what the representatives of the W.E.L.S. and the E.L.S. meant when they “recognized that serious doctrinal discipline exists in the L.C.M.S.,” then the state of Lutheranism in America is even worse than was hitherto believed.
As for their “deep appreciation” for the L.C.M.S.’s “struggle against the theology and detrimental influence of the liberal era prior to and into the Seminex event,” this is undoubtedly based on a profound ignorance of real history. A real study of available sources tells us (in this instance Hausmann’s Science and the Bible), for example, that after the 1974 “Walkout” theology was still taught according to the historical-critical method (pp. 179, 74, 177), and it was also taught that Genesis 3 is “symbolic religious history.” On pages 113–114 he says: “Bible classes, Sunday school, confirmation instruction appear to be the place to discuss in detail the relationship between science and Scripture, the theological, philosophical, and scientific problems, questions, and possible solutions that would arise from such a dialogue.” Of note also is the fact that Hausmann claims Luther as the patron of his “accommodating” stance. — Would the representatives of the W.E.L.S. and E.L.S. truly regard this as showing a valiant “struggle against the theology and detrimental influence of the liberal era”? Such a contention is quite absurd. An alternative, much more likely, is that, as written above, the representatives of those synods are ignorant of the history of Missouri, and imagine that because many liberal false teachers participated in the “Walkout,” therefore all of them must have left. But, as Hausmann shows, this was, alas! not the case. In the future, it would be desirable if, before commenting on the L.C.M.S.’s relationship with “the theology and influence of the liberal era,” they would acquaint themselves with the actual situation.
Altlutheraner 