The general movement in the LCMS has been to not take public stands of confession. We give lip service to our historic confessions, and officially we are a confessional church body, but do they function as norms and actually rule over people in present-day disagreements? Since our confessions are based on and convey the teaching of Holy Scripture, they should decide all matters. Confessions are not to be in the past. To hold to the Lutheran Confessions means to hold to them presently and continue to confess with the boldness of God’s Word.
But in the idolatry of the eighth commandment—ignoring the other commandments, especially the first three, and treating Mt. 18 as if it were a better summary of God’s will than John 3:16, an overemphasis on the personal is perpetrated. Why is this?
The Scriptures and our confessions do not give the benefit of the doubt to human leaders and pastors. God speaks clearly. But in Satan’s modern move to make the Scriptures unclear in our minds, the confessions are sure to be treated as historical relics of little practical importance—no matter the ordination or installation vows recited verbatim. The clarity, power, and conviction of God’s inspired Word must underlie any man-made confessional statement.
In the dispute resolution process of our synod, truth is not the aim—theology is relegated to the personal domain. Reconciliation implies two parties, and the name of the game is simply to get along—regardless of the differences in practice or the doctrinal impasses. If it is personal, no one is pure and holy, so “eligible parties listed in Bylaw 1.10.2 are urged to reject a ‘win-lose’ attitude that typifies secular conflict.” (LCMS Handbook 1.10.1).
But God’s truth is black and white. There can be no compromise on it. To treat both parties in a doctrinal matter as equally culpable is to deprioritize the truth. We are not to be reconciled to error! God forbid! Christ cannot be joined to false doctrine and what denies His Gospel—and neither should we who want to remain in Christ. But in the personal realm there is not just one clear sinner, lost in the sea of emotions and external get-along-ness. In the relational realm we must compromise and forgive. But God forbid we apologize for confessing the truth or forgive false doctrine and practice.
Not dealing with fundamental doctrinal differences and preserving human power seems to be the goal in treating all church conflict as a matter of personal reconciliation. If synodical and district leaders have the right to make everything personal, they get to facilitate and stay above the fray—and refrain from discipline and speaking publicly. But two people getting along does not mean they agree on the teaching of the Lord given in the Scriptures. This seems to be a power grab: “Therefore, the Synod in the spirit of 1 Corinthians 6 calls upon all parties to a disagreement, accusation, controversy, or disciplinary action to rely exclusively and fully on the Synod’s system of reconciliation and conflict resolution.” The beginning of 1 Cor. 6 talks about the folly of bringing disagreements before unbelievers: “So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church?” But Jesus did not say trust the Pharisees in doctrinal disagreements. Trust in a human organization is utterly foolish, since every single one is full of sinners and also hypocrites (as also the visible church). Trust in a man-made “system” is not trust in God’s Word. A system is a fallible, human creation—not a living, divine power.
Even worse, when public confessional differences are made a matter of the private reconciliation process, the truth is not allowed to be freely spoken. Public actions contrary to God’s Word are not private matters—they deceive the faithful and set a bad example for all. They must be corrected! If someone disagrees—they should not do so privately, but correct publicly. But sadly, the implicit trust in God’s Word is lacking. Some do not trust laymen to make a scriptural judgment by laying the case out plainly. But that imperils the Gospel by placing human leaders above the text of the Bible.
The synodical process admits that “Matthew 18 does not apply directly in cases of public sin, but face-to-face meetings are required nonetheless, even in the case of public sin, toward the goal of reconciliation and winning the brother or sister” (1.10.1.2). Required by who? Not God. They are applying a passage (Mt. 18) they said does not apply. Why? We have to get along, it seems. The assumption is we are “brothers” before that reality, according to our actual confession, is established. Is discipline ruled out as a real possibility? In practice that seems to be the case.
If we replace conflict resolution with “doctrinal disagreement” or “denying the articles of the Gospel” or “abusers of Christ’s truth,” the ludicrousness of this is obvious. Disagreement over what Christ has plainly revealed in His Word is not a merely human conflict about the human players and arguments. It is about Christ and persevering the purity of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, says: “for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized,” since not all have the same teaching (1 Cor. 11:19). The underlying assumption in reconciliation is that being in the same church body means we have the same confession—that is exactly why the process breaks down. A real confession is not a formal box to check but a living, breathing doctrine actually taught and practiced.
When everything is made personal, compromise and assuming unity, rather than declaring and confessing it by speaking the Gospel, are the name of the game. “Disputes are more likely to be resolved harmoniously if those involved in the conflict recognize one another as redeemed children of God.” But children of God can promulgate heresy. It begs the question of one’s living confession. Is being a Christian (ostensibly) enough for actual unity? Not for a confessional church. The confession of what we say and practice matters. So personal reconciliation is not the aim for faithful confessors. Did Luther need to reconcile to the Pope or the heretics he wrote against? That was not his goal—he had a much higher one: to preach the saving truth so some could be saved. We should not apologize for rejecting and speaking against false doctrine: “Christians involved in conflict must always stand ready to ask for or extend forgiveness in accordance with Scripture” (1.10.1.5). On a human level, we should forgive and seek forgiveness. But this is worthless in the face of false doctrine. Do not ask for forgiveness for speaking the truth accurately! It is about Christ and His Scriptures, not your sinful heart. It is not a personal matter but about the salvation of persons our Lord has made.
Without basing its conclusions firmly in Scripture, we have a legal mandate in the handbook:
It shall be the exclusive remedy to resolve such disputes that involve theological, doctrinal, or ecclesiastical issues except those covered under Bylaw sections 2.14–2.17 and except as provided in Bylaw 1.10.3, and shall be binding on all parties. It is applicable whether the dispute involves only a difference of opinion without personal animosity or is one that involves ill will and sin that requires repentance and forgiveness. No person, congregation, or agency to whom or to which the provisions of this dispute resolution process are applicable because of their membership in the Synod may render this procedure inapplicable by terminating that membership during the course of the dispute resolution process.
In the end, what sounds good in theory—that we should get along and be reconciled as brothers, is used to squelch public discourse and silence those speaking the truth. It favors the heretic—he is encouraged to reconcile just as much as the one calling the heretic to repent and hold to God’s Word. It levels the playing field and makes the confession of the truth equal to the confession of error—what a system man has invented! Human reconciliation is worthless if unity in God’s Word is not first established and confessed. We dare not play getting along against the stand for the truth of Christ, which saves sinners in the Gospel. —ed.
Christian News 