Part I: Prolegomena

It was about twelve years ago that our District office began sending out a single newsletter to all congregations. Boards and executives used it to pass on information to our congregations. I have some observations to make about the content of our District newsletter:

1. Until the last two issues it always featured articles by Lyle Schaller and Gary Macintosh, non Lutheran American Protestant Evangelicals. (To the credit of our new administration, we no longer have these articles in our newsletter).
2. The newsletter of our District regularly promoted a "Church Growth" lending library which almost exclusively features Carl George, George Barna, Lyle Schaller, John Maxwell and many other non-Lutherans Evangelicals.
3. The newsletter regularly promoted seminars led by men such as the above mentioned. I once received three separate mailings urging me to attend a John Maxwell seminar. Our District Stewardship board even offered scholarships to those attending the Maxwell event. I protested but received no response.

Just as important as what was publicized in the newsletter of District is what was not publicized.

1. The newsletter as well as our Michigan Lutheran paper, refused to publicize Dr. Barry’s visit to Lansing Michigan in the spring of 1997. I asked the editor of the ML why it was not advertised and he told me that someone in Ann Arbor pulled the article from publication.
2. The newsletter refused to publicize the time and place of a "confessional" study group which met monthly in Lansing.
3. It refused to publicize the St. Matthias Day lectures at Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Dearborn. These lectures focused on the Lutheran confessions and issues related to church and ministry. Dr. Barry spoke at one St. Matthias Day gathering.
4. I do not recall a single article written by professors of our seminaries.
5. I do not recall a single article addressing how we can apply our Lutheran Confessions to church practice.
6. I do not recall a single article promoting Kurt Marquart’s book on Church Growth.
7. I do not recall articles about C.F.W. Walther’s doctrine of Church and Ministry. (Suddenly there is much chat about Walther but for 12 years there was silence. If he is so important why did we not give him space instead of all Schaller and Macintosh?)

The point is that the major influence exerted by our District newsletter on our congregations was American Protestant Evangelicalism. Then, on the other side, seminars, books, etc. which promoted the study of our confessions or criticized American Protestant Evangelicalism or church growth were not found in the newsletter or lending library of District.

My next observation comes from a program aimed at revitalizing the congregations of Detroit, the "Urban Initiative." It was an effort initiated by our District through the Board for Mission Development which Dave Davis at one point, chaired.

"Consultant Alan Klaas was hired. At a cost of $25,000, Klaas repeated the work he did previously, the "Church Membership Initiative."

In our meetings Klaas espoused variety in worship. He cited as an example for us to follow, a church which features a country and western service, a traditional service and a contemporary service.

Portions of Whoopy Goldberg’s "Sister Act" were viewed and held up as an example of breaking out of old paradigms. We watched the "Paradigms" video in which successful businesses are used as examples for us to follow. "Twelve Keys to an Effective Church" by Kennon L. Callahan was the text book congregations were given to study.

Never did Klaas reference the Lutheran Confessions, C. F. W. Walther or orthodox Lutheran fathers. It was a sociological, statistical study done by a layman with a Ph.D. in statistics.

Klaas’ final report to our congregation, Resurrection, informed us that we were doomed to be small or dead because we only do one style of service, Lutheran Worship.

The point is that when our District wanted to help the city, they offered help from a Lutheran who openly promoted and encouraged a brand of church which comes from American Protestant Evangelicalism and from the business world.

Add it all up and you get a District office which flooded our congregations with American Protestant Evangelicalism and at the same time was silent with respect to serious study of orthodox Lutheran theologians. Pastors who want to pursue American Protestant Evangelical worship styles, administration styles, etc. have been encouraged and supported with every tool of this District. No such support has been given to those who want to study Confessions and orthodox Lutheran fathers.

Part II: "The Michigan 102"

During the time the men were meeting in Lansing I had several informal discussions with Dave Davis. We cordially discussed our theological differences. Dave did not tell me of the Lansing meetings and certainly did not invite me. Why? If serious theological discussion was the aim then why not invite those with differing views?

After the Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter was completed and circulated for others to sign, I asked some of the men why I had not been invited to the meetings or asked to sign. The answer given was that I was not like minded.

I talked directly to Dave Davis, Larry Eckart and others on a number of occasions. They said their concern was to raise theological issues and have them discussed publicly among the brothers and the congregations. I for one can no longer take this claim seriously. These brothers had the opportunity to carry on meaningful theological discussion. They could have called a free conference but instead they chose to do theology in secret with a select group of like minded men.

Is this churchmanship? Is this doing theology? Or is it the "politicalization" which Dave Davis said Michigan avoided? Judge for yourself.

Instead of raising issues their methods raised walls between brothers and congregations.

In the Dave Davis’ article, he intimates that the newsletter and the signers are representative of mainstream Missouri Synod. I make the following observations:

1. The signers represent about 87 congregations. There are 366 congregations according to the 1997 convention Proceedings.
2. Pastor Warren Arndt of Faith Lutheran Church in Troy led at least one of their meetings. Faith Troy has put into practice the model of Willow Creek. I believe even Brother Arndt would hesitate to label Faith as mainstream Missouri Synod.
3. Dave Davis serves St. Paul Trenton which along with Faith Troy was heralded long ago as a leader in the application of "church growth principles."
4. At any given meeting of this group, only a portion of the signers were present and a number of those who signed it never went to a meeting.
5. I asked a number of the signers if they agreed with all that was contained in the articles and the answer was always, NO. One dear brother had the courage to tell me that he not only did not attend any meetings but did not read the entire document.

"An Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter" is representative of very few congregations and pastors of this District but it is representative of the direction of this District for at least 12 years. The prime movers of this Newsletter are men who have been pushing the District into the mainstream of American Protestant Evangelicalism.

Part III: Worship Overtures and Mainstream Missouri

The overtures asked the District to affirm the use of a variety of worship formats from a variety of sources. In addition, overtures quoted a small part of Article X of the Formula of Concord as proof that our Confessions support variety and freedom in worship forms.

These overtures if brought to the floor and passed in their original form would have set a somewhat official seal upon a new direction in worship in the history of the LC-MS. There is simply no way that these overtures can be made to fit into the mainstream of 150 years of our history.

The history of our Synod is in the direction of uniformity not variety in worship forms. Consider the following points:

1. Our first Synodical constitution stated:

"Business of Synod
A. Business of Synod in General
5. Striving for the greatest possible uniformity in ceremonies" (Moving Frontiers, p.151)

2.. Add to this the following from "Moving Frontiers" :

"The congregations belonging to the Missouri Synod before 1856 used the Saxon Agenda or Wilhelm Loehe’s Agenda-Loehe had dedicated the work to Fr. Wyneken-as the manual for the forms for official rites and sacred acts performed by the pastor, such as Holy baptism, marriages, funerals, as well as the liturgies for the various acts of public worship. To promote unity of practice, Walther issued an agenda for the church in 1856."

Article III Objectives "7. Encourage congregations to strive for uniformity in church practice but also develop an appreciation of a variety of responsible practices and customs which are in harmony with our common profession of faith;" (page 10 or 1995 Handbook).

Article VI Conditions of Membership "4. Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school."(p. 11 of 1995 Handbook)

Article III Objectives "1. Conserve and promote the unity of the true faith (Eph. 4:3-6; 1 Cor. 1:10), work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies, and provide a united defense against schism, sectarianism (Rom. 16:17), and heresy;" (p. 9 of 1995 Handbook).

Variety of forms from a variety of sources fits nicely into the mainstream of American Protestant Evangelicalism actively promoted in Michigan.

The overtures quoted a very small portion Article X of the FC to defend variety and freedom in worship. I could not attend the first open meeting of the Floor Committee on Constitutional matters but I did submit an analysis of Article X of the FC and urged the committee to reject the overtures because the overtures misused Article X of FC.

The floor committee did not reject the overtures but they did put forward a resolution that was not as controversial. I attended the second open hearing prior to the convention and spoke up about the use of Article X of the FC. The committee once again altered the resolution.

In the course of the floor debate, Bruce Lucas made a fine presentation on Article X of FC showing that it cannot be used as a proof text for variety and freedom. Jim Blaine pointed out that in Article X of the Epitome liturgy is not counted as adiaphora. Several amendments brought the resolution to its final form. Someone called for an end to the debate and the resolution passed as amended.

After the vote on 1-06a, Dave Davis came to me and said, "I have to hand it to you, you guys are pretty slick." It was his opinion that the amendments, discussion and closing the debate were orchestrated by me or by a group of which I was part. The man who had secret meetings for a year to hammer out overtures, promote candidates, and circularize the District was accusing me and others of maneuvering the convention floor! In fact, all I did was "get involved in the mechanics of the decision making process."

After that discussion with Dave, Vice President Luther Werth (both of the "102") was talking with Paul Moldenhauer about the same resolution. I was nearby and entered their conversation. I then spent almost two hours talking with Moldenhauer and Mike Lutz. In the end Paul Moldenhauer asked me to move that the resolution be brought back on the floor. Moldenhauer knew very well that what passed was not what they intended. The resolution did not come back on the floor.

I agree with Dave Davis when he said "extreme, non-Missouri positions did not carry the convention." The extreme, non-Missouri position on worship, a position representative of American Protestant Evangelicalism was thrown out by good theology and sensible voters.

In Conclusion:
As a small stream of water finally creates a valley, so twelve years of mainstream American Protestant Evangelicalism created a chasm dividing the pastors of this District. The distance across the stream was widened by "An Evangelical Lutheran Newsletter". We can only hope that we are not too far apart to hear each other and have some semblance of theological debate.

You "Forward" folks who are backing John Heins for Vice Pres., ask yourself, where was John Luther Heins through all of this?