To The Rev. Frank E. Winter, Jr., Aurora, Colorado, and the members and congregation of Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Aurora, Colorado.
Also to The Rev. Roger L. Krause, President of the Rocky Mountain District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Rev. Dr. Alvin L. Barry, President of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the rest of the members of the Presidium of the Synod, The Rev. Robert T. Kuhn, The Rev. Robert King, The Rev. Dale A. Meyer, The Rev. Eugene W. Bunkowske and The Rev. Wallace Schulz.
No preacher of the Gospel and the congregation which he is called to serve should accuse others of false teaching just so they can hear themselves speak. Such conduct would be against the law of love in the Gospel. So that, even though from a human point of view it may be that someone has the right to believe and confess the way he wishes, it must be remembered that every pastor and congregation of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has agreed that love demands unity in doctrine, standards by which dissent may be expressed, and willingness to be admonished and repent when shown to be in error. The law of love then, for the individual right of any one person to be allowed to believe what he wills is superseded by the law of love for God's people who desire, deserve and have been promised unity of doctrine. Stated another way: The law of love for the individual is superseded by the law of love for the body of Christ.
The admonitions we have in the Bible against anathematizing one another to preserve the unity of Christ cannot be exercised when there is a question concerning the judgment of doctrine. As Dr. Luther says: "Faith neither will nor can put up with even father and mother and the dearest friend, if he attacks doctrine and faith." 1 And to pastors especially he says, we must never doubt "that the preacher who fails to speak up sins most grievously and shows no concern for his neighbor's salvation, which is the highest treasure." 2 Not until "we have discharged our office, be it preaching or public rebuke or fraternal admonition," may we "bear, conceal, and extenuate the neighbor's faults." 3
A state of personal or corporate confession (causa confessionis), or a ban, "arises only when the proclamation and doctrine of the gospel of God's mercy and the sole authority of Jesus Christ are falsified and held in contempt, or when it becomes obvious that the authorities in their God-given task of preserving order and protecting the good and the right are not fulfilling or are even denying that they have this duty." 4
By constitutional agreement it is clear that the congregations of the Synod have given District Presidents and the Synodical Presidium the authority to act on our behalf in many areas, including in matters of discipline over against false teaching. In writing to the equivalent of our District Presidents, Luther confirms this, "For the visitation, too, the rule applied that where `unruly heads' willfully opposed the preaching of the Gospel they are not to be tolerated but expelled." 5 "Let them make their noises in their own little corner, but as far as possible you may not permit them to take the platform, mount the pulpit, or step before the altar." 6
In other words, while we have certainly given authority to certain elected Synodical officials to act in our behalf in cases of false doctrine, if they fail to do so, or are unable to do so for any reason, the burden still falls on individual pastors and Christians to do the right thing. We cannot and must not give up our ultimate right to act faithfully in the face of false teaching. In light of history this places those who hold the office of public ministry and their congregations as successors to the ancient Councils of the early Christian church. Whenever a Council anathematized according to the Word of God, it was "nothing else than a consistory, the verdict of the imperial or supreme court, or the like." 7 Such councils and consistories never proceeded arbitrarily but in conformity with the imperial law of the kingdom of God, that is, the Scriptures. 8 Therefore, in our day, even though District Presidents and the Presidium have been given responsibilities by the congregations of the Synod, this does not remove pastors and parishes from ultimate obligation in dealing with false doctrine. It is ever true that "the servant or judge of this law and kingdom is not only the Council, but also every pastor and teacher." 9 Therefore, even if "Councils and Consistories" of Synod should fail to keep order and watch over doctrine, pastors and congregations have the inherent right, authority and obligation to correct and rebuke false teachers. This authority comes from God Himself, having only been delegated to officers of the Synod in the first place.
The inheritors of the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther have a good and faithful example to follow. When Dr. Luther rejected the teachings of Rome, Geneva, and even those who said that they were with him and yet promoted a different spirit, he made it "perfectly clear that it is neither possible nor permissible to be indifferent to false doctrine." 10 Therefore, it is the duty of every pastor and congregation to identify false doctrine in behalf of the community of faith so that they will not be deceived. Dr. Luther writes, especially to pastors:"He, therefore, is a faithful shepherd who not only feeds but also guards the sheep. This is done when he points out heresies and errors." 11 The called ministers of Christ must "correct, rebuke, and encourage 2 Tim.4:2." Pastors must guard themselves "and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit had made [them] overseers Acts 20:28." Pastors must act responsibly as shepherds who not only "feed the sheep" but "resist the wolves." 12 Pastors have been called to proclaim doctrine purely. As Luther put it, "Among the teachers there must be those who keep cleaning and polishing the lamp so that the dirt will not obscure the light." 13 This also means that pastors are not just encouraged, but required to try by God's Word to convince those teaching in error that they must change for the sake of the truth. If such brotherly admonition is rejected then there is nothing left to do except "turn completely away from them. Rom. 16:17" Or, "Let them go. Mt. 15:14" Or, "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning. Titus 3:10" There is no doubt that it is not just the pastors who have been given this authority and responsibility. Remember that Jesus gave a general warning to all Christians in Matthew 7:15: "Beware of false prophets!" Every believer is obligated to be on guard at all times so that the church is not deceived. By instructing us to "beware" Christ is telling us that we cannot ignore or treat casually, false doctrine. In the short term, if allowed to stand unchallenged and uncorrected, it brings disunity within the body of Christ. In the long run it has power to kill and destroy.
It is evident, then, that there is a place and necessity for entering into a state of confession or a ban against an erring teacher (and, or, congregation) promulgating false teaching without repentance. It is especially clear that this is true when the one promoting the new doctrine admits that his teaching is at variance with the accepted teaching of the Christian community to which he belongs. 14 (See evidence) This causa or ban, in the narrow sense is a "condemnation" which does not first seek to question the salvation of the individual, but to challenge the false teaching which he holds over against the truth of God's Word. It is a "condemnation" which seeks the return of the erring after repentance, not the commission of the soul to hell. Dr. Luther: "You must sharpen your teeth and bite whatever is contrary to sound doctrine." At the same time, "You must correct, not castigate." 15
The care we must exercise for weak consciences and future generations of the church is what first and most importantly compels us to faithful action. While we are concerned about the faith of the false teacher, there is the greater concern for "the larger part;" the whole church. As Dr. Luther says: The welfare of the church is served not only when a "victory" over false teachers has been achieved - a victory that would always remain doubtfu l- but rather in service to the brethren who are thus alerted to the danger. 16 Hence the chief concern in the rejection of false teaching is the preservation of the Christian community.
To this end, and because of these truths, based on the evidence attached to this document, I, James D. Bauer, pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church, Denver, Colorado, and the officers of Trinity Lutheran Church who have affixed their signatures to this document, in the name of, and for Trinity Lutheran Church, declare that we are in causa confessionis over against The Rev. Frank Winter, Jr., Aurora, Colorado, and the congregation which he serves as called pastor, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Aurora, Colorado.
The practical meaning of this causa confessionis is that because of the unrepented false doctrine being taught and promoted by both Pastor and congregation, already pronounced so by District President, Roger Krause of the Rocky Mountain District, and the President of the Synod, Dr. Alvin L. Barry and the Presidium of Synod, (see attached evidence) we are no longer in fellowship with Pastor Winter or the members of Mt. Olive Lutheran Church.
Therefore, because of the different spirit which we have, we agree that in good conscience we will not receive with, or give to, Pastor Winter or any member of his congregation the holy Sacrament of our Lord's Body and Blood. This will also mean that members of Mt. Olive who might wish to transfer to Trinity Lutheran Church, Denver, Colorado, will not be received by transfer. Furthermore, any member from Mt. Olive who desires to become a member of Trinity Lutheran Church, Denver, Colorado, will have to be received by rite of affirmation after having been catechized by our pastor. Likewise any member of Trinity Lutheran Church, Denver, Colorado, who may make application to Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, Aurora, Colorado, for transfer will not be granted such transfer but will be released from their membership in this congregation if they should persist in their desire after earnest counseling in the matter. In addition, if Pastor Winter should receive and accept a call to another congregation, or, if he should initiate retirement, or go to CRM status, and subsequently be asked to serve another congregation of the Synod in a pastoral function, this ban will extend to that congregation, also. If we are in error in the conclusions which we have drawn, and the ban which we have put into place, we earnestly desire to be shown our error according to the Word of God and the Confessions of the Lutheran Church. We will repent of our sin and beg for forgiveness from all parties which we have involved in this action.
If, however, we are not shown to be in error, we believe that the pastors and congregations of the Synod should join us in this causa. Therefore, if the officials of the Synod, given authority to act in the Synod's behalf in these matters 1) have failed to show us our error and lead us to repentance; or, 2) have not suspended or expelled Pastor Winter and his congregation within 180 days of the initiation of this causa confessionis, we will enter into a state of fellowship in protest against the Synod. In addition, we will prayerfully consider charges of malfeasance against the President of the Rocky Mountain District. Furthermore, if within one year from the effective date of this causa confessionis the false doctrine and practice of Pastor Winter and Mt. Olive Lutheran Church has not been dealt with either by repentance or removal, we will prayerfully consider whether it is necessary to enter into status confessionis against the Synod with the full consequences described above. To this faithful action, the pastor and responsible officers of Trinity Lutheran Church, Denver, Colorado, have affixed our signatures this twenty-first day of October, 1997.
The Rev. James D. Bauer_________________________________ Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church
Mr. Robin Grossman, President
Robin Grossman_________________________________
Mr. Dennis Kaeding, Secretary
Dennis Kaeding ________________________________
FOOTNOTES
1 WA 17 II,114,6
2 WA 10, II,108,21
3 WA 32,476,3; 477,22
4 The Debate on Status Confessionis. Studies in Christian Political
Theology. Ed. Eckehart Lorenz. Department of Studies the
Lutheran World Federation, Geneva 1983, page 71.
5 WA 51,184,18 (Sermon on Matt. 13:24ff., Feb. 7, 1546).
6 WA 26,200,22.
7 Ibid., 615,28.
8 Ibid., 615,28.
9 Ibid., 616,8.
10 We Condemn, How Luther and 16th Century Lutheranism Condemned False
Doctrine, Hans-Werner Gensichen,
Concordia Publishing House, 1967, page 61.
11 [WA 25,29,1])
12 WA 48, 215, 20. Cf. 25, 29, 1.
13 WA 23, 565, 19 (Exposition of the Prophet Zechariah, 1527).
14 (See evidence)
15 (WA 31 II, 679,9 and 19 [Lectures on the Song of Solomon, 1530,31)
16 (WA 25, 29, 1; 31, 25; Tischreden, 2, 444,11).
April 30, 1998
Brothers, I just received word this morning that the pastor and congregation which we and several other congregations had registered a causa confessionis against because of unrepented false doctrine...HAVE REPENTED!
Pastor Frank Winter and his congregation have changed their minds. Pastor Winter will sign a statement that says he agrees with the teaching of the Synod with regard to closed communion and will so practice. His congregation, long practicing open communion before he arrived, will bring their statements and practices into line with the confession of the Scriptures, the Confessions and the LC-MS.
Causa confessionis can work if you are public and persistent.
The next thing upon which we wait is the ruling on by-law 2.27b. That by-law, in my opinion, requires that a DP finish action on matters of false teaching and such within 90 days of the complaint. If he is unable to do so he must turn it over to the Presidium for their action. The DP's have been thinking that all they had to do was talk with the party within 90 days and there was no time frame for any definitive action. This denies due process and makes it impossible for us to discipline ourselves. We are expecting a ruling from the CCM any day now.
If the ruling goes against us the only recourse is the Synodical convention. There is an overture in your workbook that deals with 2.27b. It was submitted by a liberal congregation because they believe that their pastor was denied due process by the misuse of the by-law. In other words, this issue has appeal on both sides of the aisle. Consider this all ye delegates...
As more info becomes available I will post.
Jim Bauer, Pastor Trinity Lutheran Church Denver, CO
pastor.bauer@sdoct.com