The LCMS is not the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”

This is the tenth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The first seven posts focused on an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

This is the last of three posts examining the article "My Journey Home" by a former LCMS pastor named Ezekiel who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago.

I remember the day when my pastor shared that the LMCS is not the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” and is simply a “voluntary assembly of congregations”. He then argued why our local church was a part of the invisible “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. The argument was basically that since we preach the Gospel and correctly administer the Sacraments, we are the Church.

I was then instructed that there is no need for Bishops because the Priest (pastor) is the same thing as a Bishop. When asked why we did not have any Deacons, he stated that the congregation has looked into that and we may get one someday.

I knew from my reading of history and the early church fathers that from a very early time there were Bishops, Priests and Deacons. My pastor shared that this is just one way to organize a church government, but there are other ways.

The question for me is did Jesus and the Apostles institute a specific form of church government or is my pastor correct? This will be the focus of future posts.

Ezekiel shares some of my same concerns and states:

"Lutherans are run by a congregational polity. This is to say that a local congregation has autonomy and can do pretty much as it pleases. Indeed, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod is a “voluntary assembly of congregations,” NOT the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. And as such a body, it really has no bishops. It even uses language that says that every pastor (priest) is a bishop – directly contradicting the teaching of the Fathers and the Church through the ages."

From reading "My Journey Home", here is a summary of Ezekiel's reasons for leaving the LCMS and converting to Eastern Orthodoxy:

1. Confessions given lip service
2. Confession and Absolution are not required
3. Abandonment of the historic Liturgy
4. Lack of focus on the visible Church
5. There should not be a Lutheran Church
6. Abandonment of the historic Office of the Holy Ministry
7. Pastors simply hired and fired by a ruling congregation
8. Lack of honor given to the Theotokos
9. No Bishops
10. The LCMS is not the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church
    

The Priesthood and the Theotokos

This is the ninth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The first seven posts focused on an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

This is the second of three posts examining the article "My Journey Home" by a former LCMS pastor named Ezekiel who converted to Orthodoxy a few years ago.

In reading the early church fathers and church history, I find a different view of the Priesthood and of Mary than what one finds in the LCMS today.

Many LCMS churches view the pastor as simply a man they hired. The voter's are "in charge" of the congregation and can remove a pastor whenever they see fit. Adding to this problem are the LCMS pastors who have stopped dressing like Priests and now wear jeans, shorts or Hawaiian shirts during "service".

In regards to Mary, I read a different view of her in the Lutheran Confessions and the ancient church. The Theotokos simply does not have a place of honor in the majority of LCMS congregations.

Ezekiel comments:

“Our prayers and study continued, amidst the crumbling Lutherans. All of us were very much concerned that the Office of the Holy Ministry (the Priesthood) was more often than not not seen as ordained by Christ and given to His Church. Pastors were defined as those selected to carry out things given to every Christian to do. They were literally hired and fired. All of us were very much in the minority in our church body regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Theotokos. Most treated her ever virginity as a “pious opinion, ‘ in spite of the fact that the Church East and West confessed and taught this from the apostolic times.”

"Correcting a Misperception" by Rev. Weedon

Rev. Weedon has a post on is blog entitled “Correcting a Misperception” where he addresses some of the issues discussed in “Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?”.

Rev. Weedon states:

“Some former Lutherans persist in slandering our faith by saying that it is spiritually damaging - pointing especially to the teaching that we are simultaneously just and sinner. Thus, to their way of thinking, Lutherans teach that one may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness. But this is a complete falsification of our teaching.”

"Does Lutheran Theology Destroy Souls?" is not arguing that Lutherans teach that one “may intentionally and willfully persist in sin and rejoice in forgiveness”. Here is Drew’s criticism of Lutheran theology:

• The Lutheran ‘Gospel” left him powerless to fight against his sin.

• The psychological benefit of ‘extra nos’ was “spiritually deceptive”, especially in regards to living in a culture “saturated by carnal sensuality”.


• When he fell into sin, the message of ‘extra nos’ did calm his “troubled conscience”. However, this was the danger for him – the “satanic delusion” he calls it. As he states, “the extra nos leaves one thinking they are 'right with God' when in fact, they may not be -- as in my case.”


• He knew that he was “sowing in the flesh, and therefore reaping corruption”. Yet, he was led to believe that he was “justified before God, righteous in His eyes” because he received the Sacrament of the Altar trusting that it was “for him”.


• He believed that God would see him “through to the end no matter what” he did in his life. However, he had a terrible prayer and thought life. His life was really no different from a non-Christian.


• His life was “centered around the passive reception of Christ’s forgiveness through Word and Sacrament”. He points out that “passive” is the key.


• Hearing sermons that Christians are really no different from non-Christians (he used sermons about the Corinthians as an example) “only pampers the flesh, and definitely does not lead to true repentance.”


• “The boogeyman of 'works righteousness' will always haunt the Confessional Lutheran. Anything that looks even remotely close to 'works righteousness' is shunned. Just bring up fasting around Lutherans and witness the debate that ensues. In fact, exhorting the Christian to do anything (besides the passive reception of Word and Sacrament) often leads to debate as well. Just go read about the Lutheran debates centered around the so-called 'third use of the Law'.”
  

I think Drew’s main point is that Lutheranism did not give him the tools to fight sin effectively. The emphasis on the "passive" reception of Word and Sacrament does not necessarily lead to significant behavior change or an increased desire/motivation to fight sin.

For example, Rev. Weedon states:

“What simul justus et peccator is rather seeking to confess is that to be a Christian is to be in a life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts. You will never advance to a point where the struggle is ended. It goes on to the very end. The fact of the struggle doesn't mean one isn't a Christian (the absence of the struggle does!). As St. Paul wrote of himself to the Romans: "I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh, for I have the desire to do what it right, but not the ability to carry it out." (7:18)

Drew’s criticism of Lutheranism is that it failed to give him the tools for the “life-long struggle against the flesh and its lusts”. Further, some of the tools can actually “backfire” – produce short-term relief from a troubled conscience but pamper the flesh in such a way that true repentance and effort to resist sin does not occur.

I think Rev. Weedon would agree that the “tools” for fighting sin are often hard to find in many LCMS churches. How many LCMS churches have weekly Communion? How many offer private Confession and Absolution? How many spend time during sermons and study classes discussing ways to resist temptation and fight sin?

The Lutheran Confessions and Sola Scriptura

This is the sixth post in a series looking at the reasons why some Lutheran pastors left the LCMS for Eastern Orthodoxy. The focus is an article written by the Reverend Thomas L. Palke in 1999 entitled “MY JOURNEY TO THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST: A Son of the Reformation Enters the “Mighty Fortress” of the Orthodox Church.”

LCMS Lutherans teach Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). However, we also have the Book of Concord. I was taught that our Confessions are the correct interpretation of Scripture. This led me to have several questions. For example:

• If Scripture is all I need, why do I need the Book of Concord?

• If the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture, should I read Scripture through the "lens" of the BoC?
  

• If I can determine the correct interpretation of Scripture without the BoC, then why do I need it?

• How do I know if the Book of Concord is the correct interpretation of Scripture?
  

Here are the answers I have received from LCMS pastors:

• Read Scripture and see for yourself that the Book of Concord accurately interprets Scripture.
  

• Scripture is clear and don't use the BoC as a "lens".
  

• Use the clear passages of Scripture to interpret the unclear parts (i.e. use Scripture to interpret Scripture).
  

• Use the BoC to make sure that all personal interpretations are correct.

Let you head go down these rabbit holes for a few hours and you will need more than an aspirin.

Rev. Palke discusses the Scripture/Confessions issue when he states:

“Lutherans, in contrast to other Protestants, seem to be inconsistent in their approach to sola scriptura. On the one hand, they support the concept of sola scriptura, yet, on the other hand, rely heavily on their confessional writings as a form of tradition. In order to explain away this inconsistency, Lutherans admit that the Scriptures are the “norms that norm” and that the confessional writings are “norms that are normed.”

The Lutherans who corresponded with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople indicated that the Scriptures were self-sufficient and clear “so that even the most simple person can understand them.” Yet, a cursory reading of the Lutheran Confessions will reveal appeals to patristic sources. It finally occurred to me that the Confessions employed patristic sources on a selective basis. For example, they utilized the Orthodox objections to the primacy of the pope. When they espoused unique teaching, the teachings of the Fathers were silenced in favor of the opinions of the theologian(s).

In Luther’s forensic understanding of justification, a lack of patristic evidence is strangely apparent. In reacting to Roman abuses of Holy Tradition, Luther may have forgotten to ask whether his teaching had been taught “everywhere, always, and by all (see the rule of St. Vincent of Lerins)” This selective use of the Fathers has also given rise to the priority of human reason. Luther, at the Diet of Worms, stood by his own teachings, unless persuaded otherwise by Scripture and reason. The use of reason has been elevated to such an extent that it has led countless numbers of Lutheran scholars of the past century to reject many of the essential doctrines of Scripture, and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves. Thus, for much of Lutheranism today, the very foundation of its faith has been questioned and even rejected. Without the Church and its holy tradition, Lutheranism, in varying degrees, will continue to flounder in the wake of mainstream Protestantism.”