The Concordia Crisis
–
A Crisis
that Affected Our Own Church
When a
crisis occurs, it tends to bring us to a fork in the road. Decisions have
to be made. The results can be with us for years to come.
Our
denomination entered upon a crisis in the early 1980s, but the decisions
our leaders made at that time were heavily influenced by a slanted report
they read with closest attention a couple years before the crisis struck.
This is
an in-depth report on the entangled web that caused our denomination to
draw back—when the time came to stand for the right though the heavens
fall.
1 - The
Cottrell Report
2 - When
the Crisis Struck in Our Own Denomination
3 - History of the Attempted
Takeover in LCMS
4 - The Historical-Critical
Method
— PART ONE —
THE COTTRELL REPORT
In the
January 13, 1977, issue of Adventist Review (at that time called
the Review & Herald), the first of a series of articles
appeared. Authored by Raymond F. Cottrell, the articles told the story of
a denomination whose leadership was too headstrong to avert a crisis which
it could have avoided. When it struck, the crisis shook the entire
denomination—yet it could have been averted if church leadership had
been more willing to appease the dissidents.
According to
the articles (January 13-February 17, 1977), certain faculty and students
at a non-Adventist seminary (Concordia) had legitimate complaints; and, if
their concerns had been met, the entire problem could have been resolved
with a minimum of difficulty.
That was the
impression conveyed by the series, along with repeated admonitions to our
own leaders to be careful lest someday they also be confronted by a
similar crisis, —and, instead of placating the opposition, they
stubbornly refused to adapt to changing situations.
Surely,
Raymond Cottrell knew all about the situation at Concordia. In his
extensive Review report, he said he had researched into the matter
over a period of several years, and had spent hours interviewing each of
the two main protagonists: Drs. Preus and Tietjen.
Raymond Cottrell and certain
others in our denomination knew what the rest of us did not know then.
That we were also headed toward a confrontation—which could project us
into a crisis of startling proportions, depending on how we met it.
By 1977, when
Cottrell wrote those articles, the theological crisis in Australia was
already far advanced. Desmond Ford had very nearly gathered the entire
Pacific Union College faculty, administration, and many of the students
into his camp; and a majority of the teachers at the Adventist Seminary at
Andrews University and faculty and religion teachers at Southern
Missionary College (now Southern University)—had already shifted
significantly from historic Adventist theology. They were busily
instructing students as well as future pastors in, what would come to be
known as, the “new theology”—the concepts that purity of
heart and life and obedience to God’s commandments were no longer
necessary for salvation.
Cottrell, a
brilliant and liberal thinker, was an associate Review editor at
the time. His tilted portrayal had the effect of freightening Adventist
leaders toward a certain course of action. Forthcoming events would reveal
that he achieved his objective.
Two and a half years later, our
own latent crisis suddenly emerged into the open; when, on October 27,
1979, Desmond Ford delivered an Adventist Forum lecture at Pacific Union
College in which he presented a sketch of our key doctrinal beliefs as
ridiculous, old-fashioned, inaccurate, and in need of major revision.
(See the present writer’s How Firm Our Foundation—Part 1-8
[FF–8-15], now in our New Theology Tractbook for a rather
complete presentation of, and reply to, Ford’s concepts in that
lecture). In that speech, he lampooned our basic beliefs as sheerest
folly, and said it was time for a radical change.
Fortunately, a
few stalwarts in the church heard that meeting, or a tape of it soon
afterward, and demanded that Ford be ousted.
The crisis had arrived. What would
our leaders do? Would they meet the iceberg head on, as was done at the
turn of the century, or would they waffle and partly compromise with the
insurgents?
Undergirding
the fears of our leaders was the worry that the denomination might split
down the middle if they did not deal very carefully with the situation. It
was decided that only moderate policies and cautious actions could achieve
cohesiveness—that is, to keep a church of rampant liberals and strict
conservatives glued together.
As in the days
of Chamberlain in the late 1930s, so it was again to be: “Peace in
our time,” was the goal to be reached. If the liberals would give a
little and the conservatives would yield some of their principles, all
would be well.
Such a
course naturally appealed to the liberal element in the church. They had
everything to gain by it. Year after year, they could continue molding the
minds of the young, winning them to their sides, as they moved forward in
their plan to take control of the church.
Have you ever
noticed that, while the faithful are rubbing the sleep out of their eyes
and wondering what is happening, the worldlings are working in concert,
guided as by invisible strings from a single puppet master? Do the
liberals really realize how ably they are serving the devil? They could
know if they would read the Spirit of Prophecy and compare their lives and
objectives with its clear pronouncements.
The first of Cottrell’s series
of five articles (ultimately six) began with
these words:
“The first week in December
witnessed the formation of a new Protestant denomination in the United
States—the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches. And thereby
hangs a tale of interest and concern to Seventh-day Adventists, one we
shall do well to heed and from which we as a church may learn lessons of
importance and value. Willingness to learn from the experiences of others
can spare us from inadvertently making the same mistakes. To neglect, or
refuse, to learn from history dooms a person, or a church, to repeat
history—to learn the hard way.”—Raymond F. Cottrell, “A Church
in Crisis,” Review, January 13, 1977.
That
initial paragraph in the series clearly revealed to whom Cottrell was
writing: our leaders.
He then went on to emphasize that our denomination was peculiarly able to
fall into the same schism trap which opened before the feet of another
denomination, which was riven as if by lightning.
That
denomination was the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) which
split wide open:
“We can try to understand why
schism came and we can take appropriate measures to avoid repeating the
mistakes that led to it. Such is the purpose of this series of articles .
. Primarily because LCMS is conservative, as we are, its traumatic
experience is particularly relevant to us. LCMS and SDA have much in
common in addition to their conservative approach to Scripture, the
ostensible bone of contention in LCMS.”—Ibid.
The above
sentence hints at what Cottrell was repeatedly to point out: It was the
fortress mentality of LCMS, their overwrought concern to stay with the
fundamentals (the historic beliefs), when a little doctrinal compromise
could have kept the split from occurring—which was the root of the
problem.
Throughout the
series, the portrayal was that it was not the liberals who were to blame,
but primarily the conservatives who refused to meet them halfway.
Cottrell
pointed out that “LCMS and SDA operate the two largest Protestant
parochial education systems in existence,” and “today the Synod
operates 16 institutions of higher education in the United States.
Missouri Synod’s early interest in Christian education remains a major
emphasis in the life of the church” (ibid.). The parallels
between the two denominations were striking. Especially since, as Cottrell
noted, LCMS has historically been the most conservative Lutheran
denomination in America.
Thus the
focus of this first article was that a terrible crisis had occurred in the
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and that a similar crisis could happen to
our own denomination, since ours is also very conservative and
education-oriented.
The second article in the series,
“The Authority of Scripture” (Review, January 20,
1977) was cleverly arranged, defining “liberals” as including only
those who reject Scriptural authority outright. This article downplayed
the possibility that there might be any genuine liberals in that
denomination or ours.
“This word [‘liberal’] is
often used, particularly by some conservatives, to pin a pejorative label
on someone they consider more liberal and open-minded than they personally
choose to be, when as a matter of fact the difference between them is
trivial and the person thus labeled is not ‘liberal’ by any fair,
objective definition of the term.”—R.F. Cottrell, “The Authority
of Scripture, Review, January 20, 1977.
Frankly,
this categorizing of “liberals,” as only including those who totally
reject any profession of faith in the Bible, was obviously erroneous. We
shall learn, later in this documentary, that it was widely recognized that
the insurgents in the Missouri Synod were clear-cut liberals. We shall
also learn that the standard definitions of liberalism, used widely in
Protestantism, includes the teachings of such men.
Most of our
readers know from sad experience that there are many people in our local
churches, and many preachers in our pulpits, who are in open rebellion
against the teachings of God’s Word, yet all the while professing to
love and revere it.
“In this series of articles, liberal
denotes a person who rejects the Bible as the inspired, authoritative Word
of God; and conservative, a person who accepts it as inspired and
authoritative.”—Ibid [italics his].
In later
articles in the series, Cottrell used that definition, aided by the
omission of important historical details, to speak highly of the liberals
who split LCMS.
Cottrell next
asserts that “higher criticism” is something we all do!
“The historical-critical method, .
. is, in short, a careful study of the Bible in the light of historical
evidence. This method is closely related to, if not identical with, what
is known as higher criticism (strictly defined). Higher criticism stands
in contrast to lower, or textual, criticism, a study of the ancient Bible
manuscripts.”—Ibid.
The
historical-critical method is but a variant of higher criticism! The
premise is that, not God’s Word, but man’s is the supreme authority.
He alone is to decide if there is any truth to be found in the Bible, or
anywhere else. He must decide what truth, if any, is to be found in the
Bible. There are various patterns of liberal attack on Scripture, but they
are all based on the this premise.
No sincere
Christian believes in, or practices, higher criticism.
“By definition, higher criticism
is ‘the literary-historical study of the Bible that seeks to determine
such factors as authorship, date, place of origin, circumstances and
composition, purpose of the author, and the historical credibility of each
of the various biblical writings together with the meaning intended by
their authors.’ ”—Ibid.
“As a matter of fact, all
conservative Bible scholars, including SDAs, make at least some use of
both lower and higher criticism in their study of the Bible.”—Ibid.
Such a
definition is farcical. Higher criticism is deadly; it is not the study of
the Bible, but a determined attack to destroy it.
In the next two articles
(“Decisions that Polarized the Missouri Synod,” January 27, 1977, and
“The Parting of the Ways,” February 3, 1977), Cottrell briefly
overviewed some of the events in the deterioration of mutuality by the two
sides. In his view, both sides consisted of sincere Christians who
unfortunately lost contact with one another and, therefore, became unable
to work out a satisfactory compromise.
According to
Cottrell, the conservatives in LCMS wanted to take an ax to, what they
supposed were, liberals at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. This
is what started all the trouble among brethren who should have been
dwelling together in peace.
“The immediate chain of events
that culminated in schism within LCMS in December 1976 began a little more
than seven years earlier, in 1969, with the election of Dr. Jacob A. O.
Preus as president of the Synod and the appointment of Dr. John Tietjen as
president of Concordia Seminary. Within LCMS these are considered the two
most prestigious and influential offices. Drs. Preus and Tietjen were
destined to play the two leading roles in the seven-year confrontation.
“Let us begin with their
respective predecessors in these two key offices, Dr. Oliver Harms as
president of the Synod (1962-1969) and Dr. Alfred Fuerbringer as president
of Concordia Seminary (1953-1969). Dr. Harms, a conservative, pursued a
moderating administrative policy and sought to be fair to both sides of
the ongoing debate. His moderation, however, was not acceptable to the
grass-roots conservative majority and their conservative pastors, who
defeated his bid for reelection in 1969 . . To them, Dr. Harms’s
middle-of-the-road policy seemed vacillating at a time when they felt that
vigorous action was needed. In effect, Dr. Preus thus came to office with
a mandate from the conservative majority to ‘clean up the Synod.’
“That which the conservatives felt
particularly in need of cleaning up was the faculty of Concordia Seminary.
(See “A Church in Crisis,” Review, Jan. 13, 1977.) With a
view to strengthening the academic training of ministers to serve the
Synod, President Fuerbringer had built up a strong faculty and established
Concordia’s standing with the American Association of Theological
Schools, its accrediting association. Upon his retirement in 1969 the
Concordia Board of Control appointed Dr. John Tietjen, who continued the
policies of his predecessor, which were designed to maintain academic
excellence. However, grass-roots conservatives were unhappy with the
choice which they say as perpetuating at the Seminary, the situation to
which they took exception—use of the historical-critical method of
interpreting Scripture, in the training of future ministers.
(See “The Authority of Scripture,” Review, Jan. 20,
1997.)
“The coming of Drs. Preus and
Tietjen to office confronted them personally and the Synod with an
opportunity and a challenge either to resolve, on a mutually acceptable
basis, the differences of opinion that had been troubling the Synod for a
number of years or to escalate the differences into an adversary
relationship that could be resolved only by victory for one side and
defeat for the other. For better or for worse, the Synod chose the latter
course, and its conservative majority vested initiative for action in the
newly elected administration. The stage was thus set for the domino series
of events that followed. Given the Synod’s frame of mind in 1969 and
thereafter, events seem, in retrospect, to have followed an inexorable,
predetermined, course with schism in December 1976, as its inevitable
conclusion.”—R.F. Cottrell, “Decisions that Polarized the
Missouri Synod,” January 27, 1977.
Cottrell
next cited two incorrect decisions legislated by the LCMS denominational
headquarters which produced the terrible crisis that followed: (1) The
board decided that LCMS would maintain certain standards, and (2) they
decided that the Seminary was not adhering to those standards. Then,
instead of being willing to compromise in order to maintain harmony among
brethren, they became intransigent:
“Two decisions LCMS made between
1971 and 1973 were crucial, and their subsequent implementation
(1973-1976) completed the process of polarizing the church, and
precipitated schism: (1) the formal authorization of A Statement of
Scriptural and Confessional Principles “as a tool to identify
theological and doctrinal issues which the Synod needs to consider and
resolve,” and (2) the Synod charge that a majority of the faculty of
Concordia Seminary were teaching false doctrine. With these decisions the
conservative majority went on the offensive and set out to purify the
Synod of what they considered heretical tendencies. Both sides appear to
have been utterly sincere; whether in retrospect, their wisdom was always
equal to their zeal is a matter of opinion. These two closely related
decisions determined the course of events that followed.”—Ibid.
The two sides
gradually hardened in their positions, with the conservatives thinking
they should stand by the Bible, and the liberals (Cottrell calls them
“moderates”) declaring that more flexibility was needed.
“To Synod conservatives, A
Statement simply affirms what they have always believed about the
Bible . . To the ‘moderates,’ however, A Statement does not
identify and deal adequately with the very real problems with which it
professes to deal. It is simplistic with respect to ‘very technical
matters’ that ‘need much careful study.’ ”—Ibid.
“ ‘Large
sections’ of the Statement, which listed basic historic beliefs,
the liberals charged as being “ ‘merely traditional; that is, they
reproduce theological opinions about the Bible which frequently have been
taught in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’ ” (ibid).
“To the conservatives, then, the
issue on doctrine is one of accepting or rejecting the Bible as the
inspired, authoritative Word of God. To the ‘moderates’ that is not
the issue at all, for they, too, acknowledge its inspiration and
authority. As they see it, the issue is not on the level of inspiration
and authority at all, but on the level of traditional interpretation
versus an objective examination of the evidence. The issue is a matter of
opinion.”—Ibid.
Apparently,
the liberals in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod were obviously as
clever as those we are confronted with in our own denomination. Our
beliefs are merely “opinions”; and theirs, learned at outside
universities, are better.
In the fourth article
(“The Parting of the Ways,” Review, February 3, 1977), it was
implied that Tietjen’s charges may have been correct. But, more
important as we shall learn later, Cottrell said nothing about the
multitude of devious misstatements and mischievous activities carried on
by Dr. Tietjen, president of the Seminary.
If the
truth of what Tietjen and his associates actually did had been told, the
reader would have drawn far different conclusions about the Concordia
rebellion.
In the fifth article
(“Postmortem on the LCMS Conflict,” Review, February 10, 1977),
Cottrell attempted to summarize how the crisis could have been avoided.
He cited four factors—and said the conservatives were responsible for
each of them.
The first factor
was the nature and authority of Scripture. Cottrell said the
conservatives were at fault, since the liberals were only using the
historical-critical method which was totally harmless. The
conservatives would not admit this fact, and refused to learn the facts:
“The controversy began with the
charge that members of the Concordia Seminary faculty were teaching false
doctrine with respect to the nature, authority, and interpretation of the
Holy Scriptures. These charges came to a focus on the use of the
historical-critical method of interpretation, which we discussed at some
length in the second article of
this series.
“The ‘moderates’ affirm the
validity of the historical method within a conservative, evangelical view
of Scripture, as a means of attaining a more accurate understanding of its
messages for our time. To the conservatives, however, this approach to
Scripture seemed incompatible with historic Lutheranism and equivalent to
rejecting the Bible as God’s inspired message to man. To our knowledge
this charge involved only the Concordia faculty.
“Both sides seem sincere in their
convictions; we know of no reason to think otherwise. The problem appears
to have been basically one of understanding and communication. We
understand that there were protracted discussions at a lower level prior
to the escalation of the conflict to crisis proportions five years or so
ago; but, since then, to our knowledge, the two sides have never sat down
together, as brothers in Christ and with open minds, to investigate the
substance of the points at issue. Under any circumstances there never
seems to have been real communication between them on the Synod level, no
real opportunity for a meeting of the minds. Those who brought the charge
seem to have assumed that they understood the ‘moderate’ position
fully, that their own conclusions with respect to it were right, and that
the faculty was therefore necessarily wrong. They were so sure of their
judgment in the matter that
they did not consider it necessary even to listen to what the other side
had to say. As a result they never dealt objectively with the real issues
involved. And if the real issues were never clearly identified and defined
to the mutual satisfaction of both sides, how could their differences of
opinion over the issues ever be resolved?”—R.F. Cottrell,
“Postmortem on the LCMS Conflict,” Review, February 10, 1977.
Mark those
points well: Cottrell maintained that the historical-critical method was
perfectly all right and that the conservatives never tried to find out
what the Seminary faculty were really teaching. We will learn, later in
this documentary, that exactly the opposite was true.
The truth is
that Tietjen, and his associates, repeatedly said they were totally in
agreement with historic conservative Lutheranism—when they were
teaching rank liberalism; that is, claims that various portions of the
Bible were only legends (Genesis 1-2, the miracles of the Bible, etc.);
Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, and others did not really write any Biblical books;
etc.
But
Cottrell said not a word about that; instead, he repeatedly refers to, or
quotes, Tietjen’s statements that he was totally in agreement with
historic Lutheranism.
“In his Christianity Today
reply to Dr. Preus, Dr. John Tietjen, president of Concordia Seminary
until February 1974, said Dr. Preus’s charge that the authority of the
Bible is the main theological issue in LCMS ‘is a smokescreen. The
authority of the Bible is not at issue in the Missouri Synod . . I fully
accept the authority of the Bible. I am totally committed to the Bible as
the inspired and infallible Word of God . . Everyone in the Synod accepts
the authority of the Bible.’ ”—Ibid [quoting J.H. Tietjen,
“Piercing the Smokescreen,” Christianity Today, April 11, 1975].
Tietjen
frequently issued false statements such as that.
The following
comment by Cottrell, in explaining the difference between ‘moderates’
and conservatives, is an accurate statement of what liberals say:
“The moderates consider the
message of the Bible, the ‘gospel,’ that which the Holy Spirit and the
inspired writers intended to convey as truth, as inspired and
authoritative (the ‘material principle’); whereas the conservatives
consider the entire Bible, in all its parts, to be inspired and inerrant
(the ‘formal principle’).”—Ibid.
According
to liberals, it is not the Bible that is inspired, but the “message of
the Gospel” in it. It is the work of the liberals to find that message,
and discard the rest. The deciding factor as to what shall be thrown out
is their own opinion.
But the
definition sounds inviting. That is the way the liberals win you over.
They are doing an excellent job capturing your children whom you send to
our colleges, universities, and Seminary.
We should be
kind to the liberals the way a hawk is kind to the snake found in her
nest, gorging on the eggs.
Conservatives
take God’s Word—both the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy—just as it
reads. But the liberals use confusing labels and complicated theories to
cover over their hideous beliefs. And they are hideous, for they lead to
doubt and agnosticism in regard to Scripture.
From beginning to end, these men are devious. Their words are mysterious;
their theories are confusing. Because they have been trained in the
universities, they are supposed to be smarter than you; so, assuming that
if you were more intelligent you could understand what they were talking
about—you yield your mind to their control, and you are hooked.
Again,
Cottrell emphasized that the liberals at Concordia were presenting
perfectly correct, safe, teachings.
“Both affirm every major Lutheran
teaching set forth in the
Bible and the [Lutheran] Confessions, including the doctrine of Holy
Scripture . . The conservatives adhere to the traditional method of
interpretation, while the ‘moderates’ follow the historical method, as
do most conservative, evangelical Bible scholars.”—Ibid.
Cottrell
placed “moderates” within quotation marks because he earlier stated
that both sides were really conservatives, but that he would term one
“moderates” to distinguish them. Yet, later in this documentary, you
will be shocked to learn just how rampantly liberal they were.
Notice the
definitions implicit in the second sentence, quoted above: The
“moderates” think for themselves; the conservatives are too dumb to.
The second factor
which Cottrell cited, as causing the Concordia crisis, was theology—and
the conservatives were to blame for that.
“The basic theological factor
responsible for the misunderstanding in the Synod, we believe, is a
concept of Biblical inerrancy and inspiration that goes beyond anything
the Bible claims for itself.”—Ibid.
That is not
true. Even a casual study into the actual events during the Concordia
Crisis reveals that. All that the conservative leaders requested was that
the Seminary teach the Bible as though it was true!
In order to
elaborate on his contention that the smarter way to figure out Scripture
is by reading new ideas into it, Cottrell goes to some length to explain
that, like Christ, the Bible is a combination of divine and human—and
therefore needs our human interpretation in order to make it come
alive for us. In contrast, the conservatives stubbornly, narrowly, imagine
the Bible is only “divine,” and refuse to add to it the “human
dimension.”
“As Christ was the living Word of
God manifest in human form, so the Bible is the Word of God written in
human language, in order to express infinite truth in terms comprehensible
to human beings. As with the nature of Christ, there is a balance between
the divine and the human dimensions of Scripture . . Fundamentalist
conservatives stress the divine aspect of Scripture almost to the
exclusion of any real human dimension.”—Ibid.
So, when you
sit at the feet of the liberals and learn of them, you receive in their
theories the “human dimension.” But when you prayerfully read the
Bible for yourself, you encounter divine truth. Which do your want?
This concept
of needing to add our human dimension to God’s Word is but a lame excuse
used to justify the devastating historical-critical method! Carl Walther,
one of LCMS’s earlier leaders feared that the liberalism in the other
denominations would creep into his beloved LCMS. Realizing that the
teachings of such men as Harnack of the German higher-criticism school, if
allowed to creep into LCMS, would destroy it, Walther wrote this:
“We must apply this [liberalism]
to the so-called ‘divine-human
character of Scripture’ as that term is used by the modern-conservative
theology: Beware, beware, I say, of this ‘divine-human Scripture’! It
is a devil’s mask; for at last it manufactures such a Bible after which
I certainly would not care to be a Bible Christian, namely, that the Bible
should henceforth be no more than any other good book, a book which I
would have to read with constant sharp discrimination in order not to be
led into error. For if I believe this, that the Bible contains errors, it
is to me no longer a touchstone but itself stands in need of one. In a
word, it is unspeakable what the devil seeks by this ‘divine-human
Scripture.’ ”—Carl Walther, quoted in Bible in the Balance,
Harold Lindsell, p. 249.
As Cottrell sees it, the third
factor which led to the crisis at Concordia was church “authority
and power.” Denominational officials were picking on the Seminary
faculty, when those good men were actually teaching what everyone else was
teaching: the historic beliefs of the denomination.
“There does not seem to be
sufficient doctrinal difference between the ‘moderates’ and
conservatives in the LCMS to justify schism, no valid reason why the two
differing points of view could not abide at peace with each other, on the
basis of the golden rule. Both believe in the inspiration and authority of
the Scripture, and within that frame of reference there should be room for
more than one method of interpretation.
“Why, then, was the Missouri Synod
controversy characterized from the very first by an adversary relationship
that waxed more intense and bitter as time went by?”—Ibid.
Cottrell
says the problem was that leadership wanted to exercise authority and push
people around. —But you are going to learn that the situation was far
different! It was a matter of liberals determined to take over the
denomination, just as liberals have
been regularly doing throughout the 20th century.
“The grass-roots majority and the
elected administration took issue with a small but important segment of
its intellectual community. With both knowledge and administrative
authority and power go certain responsibilities and obligations . . One of
the first responsibilities of an administrator is to use administrative
authority and power with discretion, moderation, and impartiality.”—Ibid.
Cottrell
explained to our leaders, who intently read this riveting, frightening,
series, that they should treat their own “intellectuals”—the
administration and faculty of Adventist colleges and universities—with
extreme care. Be nice to them; go along with them. Avoid a crisis in our
own church.
“To the conservatives, then, the
issue was one of accepting or rejecting the Bible as the inspired,
authoritative Word of God. But to the ‘moderates’ that was not the
issue at all, for they too acknowledged its inspiration and authority. To
them the substantive, doctrinal issue was one of following the
traditional, subjective, deductive method in interpreting Scripture versus
an objective inductive study of Scripture. Again and again the
‘moderates’ appealed to the conservatives to face up to what they
considered the ‘real issues that are troubling the Synod’—‘a false
understanding of authority in the Church,’ a ‘threat to the rights of
congregations,’ the ‘effort to settle doctrinal issues by majority
vote rather than [by] the Word of God,’ ‘ethical issues,’ and other
actions that have divided the Synod.”—Ibid.
“Deductive”
was a key word, above. The so-called “moderates” wanted to be inductive;
that is, approach the Bible by reading in their own imaginings and
theories instead of accepting it for what it said.
Note, in
the above paragraph, that Cottrell criticized a special kind of
“authority in the church,” which he termed a “threat to the rights
of congregations”—that is, settling doctrinal issues by “majority
vote.”
—That is
why the conservatives won and the liberals lost at LCMS. It was the
members, not the leaders, which sent delegates to the Synod meetings
(comparable to our General Conference Sessions),—and they convened every
year instead of every five. They demanded that the liberals be eradicated
from Concordia. That was why the liberals were routed! Leadership, by
itself, never would have had the nerve to make that decision otherwise.
Leaders always
fear splits and strive to hold the organization together, regardless of
the integrity of principles which might be lost. But, unlike the
Seventh-day Adventist denomination, the LCMS synods were composed of
members from the local congregations. Ever since the 1950s, their sons had
come home with stories about the increasing liberalism at Concordia—and
by the 1970s it had gotten so bad, they demanded changes!
Unfortunately,
our own Session delegates are automatically packed with over 51 percent
church leaders and subordinates; the agenda is preplanned, so no major
crisis can come to the floor of the Session for vote. Only 7-12 percent of
the delegates are laymen.
In contrast,
within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the laymen and their local
pastors held the deciding votes in every Synod!
Raymond
Cottrell knew that our liberal crisis would break within five to eight
years (it broke in two). In the above quotation, he was warning our
leaders not to let the “majority” have the say in settling the coming
crisis.
In the very
next paragraph, Cottrell amplified on his thought:
“The Lutheran Church-Missouri
Synod is a body of dedicated Christian people who purpose to bear faithful
witness to Scripture, to the principles of the Reformation and to historic
Lutheranism. The conservative, grass-roots majority are disposed to
preserve their traditional way of interpreting the Bible and their
traditional concept of what it means to be a Lutheran church.
“The Synod ‘moderates’ are
likewise loyal to Scripture and to historic Lutheranism, but they do not
look upon this loyalty as obliging them to accept traditional opinions
about Scripture or methods of interpreting Scripture. In their Biblical
studies they purpose to react positively and discriminatingly to the very
considerable body of factual information about the ancient past now
available—within the framework of conservative Lutheranism. They seek to
study, understand, and interpret Scripture inductively and objectively, in
the sense intended by the inspired writers, in order to hear what God is
saying to us today.”—Ibid.
Cottrell
warned our leaders to be wary of the “conservative grassroots
majority” of members, who might want to “preserve their traditional
way of interpreting the Bible and their traditional concept” of what it
means to be Seventh-day Adventists.
He said our
leaders should have confidence that the so-called “moderates” are
themselves equally “loyal” to God’s Word and to our “historic”
beliefs.
“Historic”
Adventism, Cottrell explained, is nothing more than a stack of timeworn
opinions; it is the task of the wonderful “moderates” to “positively
and discriminatingly”—and “inductively”—present us with
something better, and what is it? “what God is saying to us today”
(not in the 1st or 19th centuries).
The fourth factor
which Cottrell claimed to be the cause of the crisis—was also
attributable to the conservatives!
“The sociological root of the
problem in LCMS was the ultraconservatism of the grassroots majority,
pastors and parishioners . . It was this conservative majority that
elected Dr. Preus to office and gave him a virtual mandate to ‘clean up
the Synod,’ that called for and voted the doctrinal statement, that
charged Dr. Tietjen and his faculty with heresy.”—Ibid.
Although
giving it a different name, Cottrell only said what he said earlier, under
what he termed the “theological factor.” According to him, the problem
was the “grassroots ultraconservativism,” which he now adds is
dangerous.
The cry of
the liberal is, It is dangerous to be a conservative and defend the
historic beliefs of the denomination! It is dangerous to listen to their
complaints and let them have any say in what goes on. They might return us
to obedience to God’s Word!
Notice that,
so far, Cottrell has not blamed the liberals; all the problems were caused
because the conservatives wanted to defend their historic beliefs.
“We believe that the sociological
factor—the prejudgmental, exclusive frame of mind of the conservative
majority and their unwillingness, as it seems, to communicate
meaningfully—was decisive in causing the split in the Missouri Synod.
The issue was not one of conservatism versus liberalism, of Bible
believers versus Bible doubters. The ‘moderates’
consider themselves conservatives.”—Ibid.
We have here a
clear-cut statement of condemnation of the conservatives, and it all turns
on the phrase “consider themselves.” The conservatives knew that,
year after year, the Concordia Seminary was corrupting the students and
sending out liberal pastors. But the teachers and administrators at the
Seminary protested that they themselves
were as doctrinally pure as the driven snow.
These
deceptive tactics caused perplexity among some of the LCMS members (just
as it has for years created confusion
in our own church),
but the majority knew that Concordia was corrupt and elected Preus to
“clean it up.” They did right! It
is not wrong to do right! It is not wrong to reprove sin; it is not wrong
to cast the lump out of the church (1 Corinthians 5).
Alternating
between one point and then the other, Cottrell keeps hammering at both:
(1) The cause of the church split was that the conservatives irrationally
stirred up trouble, when they did not need to. (2) The liberals are our
friends, our bosom buddies. Instead of arguing with them, we should listen
to what they say. They have new light, advanced information they have
learned at outside universities.
“Missouri Synod
‘conservatives’ and ‘moderates’ apparently represent two different
frames of mind within a genuinely conservative tradition . . To a
conservative, the old ways are, ipso facto, better; to the
‘moderate,’ new ideas and ways of thinking are worth at least
exploring. The conservative prefers to remain in his own familiar home
valley; the ‘moderate’ is
an explorer at heart. The conservative feels secure in adhering to the
heritage of the centuries, to the letter; the ‘moderate’ feels more
secure in applying the principles inherent in that cherished heritage to
the world of reality as he finds it today. The conservative places a
premium on uniformity; the ‘moderate’ believes that a diversity of
ideas can contribute to a clearer definition of truth and thus to a
firmer, more viable faith. The conservative prefers to be guided by
traditional preconcepts and to weigh evidence subjectively and deductively
from his presuppositions (if, indeed, he is aware of them); the
‘moderate’ is willing that other conservative points of view shall
coexist with his own, and is willing to respect those who hold such views
as people of integrity.”—Ibid.
The above
paragraph is packed! It is an encyclopedia of reasons why we should fall
at the feet of the liberals and heed their counsels. They are smarter than
we conservatives. While we slavishly remain at the Tree of Life, eating
its leaves (MH 199, 6T 230, 7T 195), the liberals have found a tree
with different knowledge. The serpent told Eve that day, “Think for
yourself; don’t just take what God says in His Word!”
The liberal
“is an explorer at heart,” and “feels more secure” in his
“cherished heritage,” “the world of reality” he discovered at the
universities. The liberal scorns “uniformity,” when he can have
“diversity of ideas” that give him what Eve thought she obtained: “a
clearer definition of truth.” Her faith had been transferred from
God’s Word to her own opinions and feelings; but that automatically
placed her in subjection to Satan.
So it is
with the liberals. The devil promises them new freedom. He promises that
they will enter upon a higher experience as they make themselves
the normative standard of truth, and “weigh evidence objectively.”
Liberality and pluralism is the cry. The liberal is actually saying,
“Give me freedom, freedom to believe as I wish and do as I wish.”
“Above all,” he says, “let me devise a new set of beliefs, a new
theology, which will enable me to sin all I want, without fear of the law
of God or a coming judgment.
Before passing
on to the next point, it should be noted that the concluding phrase of the
above-quoted statement by Cottrell, about conservatives, is simply not
true. Liberals are not in submission to the Word of God and its
standards and laws, and are not pleasant people when they are in
control.
“The doctrine which, from the very
first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by all bigots of all
sects, when condensed into a very few words, and stripped of rhetorical
disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong.
When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me; for it is your duty
to tolerate truth. But when I am stronger, I shall persecute you; for it
is my duty to persecute error.”—Sir James Mackintosh, Critical and
Historical Essays, Vol. 1, pp. 333-334.
With the leadership of the entire
Seventh-day Adventist Church hanging on each word presented only 32 months
before Desmond Ford’s October 27, 1979, lecture which began our own
crisis,—Cottrell summed up
the problem. He told what our leaders must do to prevent such a split from ever occurring in our own church. That solution
was what he has been saying all along: (1) Do not try to protect the
conservative position. (2) Do not let the conservative majority take over
matters. (3) The liberals are actually conservatives, except that they are
more intelligent. (4) Placate the liberals, and everything will turn out
fine.
“How shall we fit all of the
pieces of the Missouri Synod Puzzle together into an accurate picture,
with meaning and value for Seventh-day Adventists? . . We find no evidence
that the original issue with respect to the inspiration and authority of
Scripture, or the charge that the majority of the concordia faculty was
teaching false doctrine, had any substance in fact (though there may have
been individuals of whom it was true). The ultraconservativism of the
grass-roots majority, pastors and parishioners, prejudged the issue
without really understanding it, drew a tight little theological circle
designed to exclude the faculty as credible members of the Synod without
hearing them, and was unwilling to enter into meaningful communication
with them. They were also responsible for an arbitrary use of
administrative authority and power to achieve their objective of
conforming the Synod to their particular mode of thought. As an instrument
to denounce the ‘moderate’ position, A Statement of Scriptural and
Confessional Principles was false and misleading despite its clear
delineation of the boundary between conservative and liberal views of
Scripture. The blanket charge against the majority of the faculty seems to
us grossly irresponsible.”—Ibid.
The Statement,
mentioned above was merely an official statement of historic Lutheran
beliefs which the liberals at the Seminary were required to assent to, and
which they refused to do.
At this juncture, Cottrell finally
affixes some blame, though the lightest possible, on the “moderates.”
He says the conservatives should have tried to share their beliefs more
with leadership, so it would be understood that there really was no
doctrinal problem.
“We wish that, before passing the
point of no return, both sides had attempted a full-fledged peace
conference, examined all of the facts and issues candidly and
objectively.”—Ibid.
As you will
learn later in this documentary, Dr. Preus, the leader of the LCMS
conservatives, tried repeatedly to do just that! But, each time, Seminary
personnel sidestepped and refused to say exactly what they believed. This
happened over, and over, and over again! The only reply was that they were
conservatives, they believed in the Bible, and they were faithful to
historic Lutheranism. But not on a single, specific point would they
freely say so. Occasionally, some of their real teachings slipped out, but
it was not their intention that they be made public.
The entire
crisis was just like the one in heaven when Lucifer talked out of both
sides of his mouth, all the while buying time to win as many over to his
side as possible—all the while trying to edge closer to his goal of
taking over all heaven.
That concluded the fifth part of what
was initially said to be a “five part” series. But, by this time,
Cottrell had decided to add a sixth article, entitled “An
Ounce of Prevention” (Review, February 17, 1977).
The theme of
this final article was the need for “brotherly love” and
“maturity” in our own ranks. We must love one another, even when they
believe something different. We must grow up and no longer childishly fuss
when something we perceive as error is taught in the church.
Here are a few
brief examples of this compromising line of thinking:
“The gospel makes a spirit of
brotherhood under the golden rule paramount under all circumstances.”—R.F.
Cottrell, “An Ounce of Prevention,” Review, February 17, 1977.
“A mature Christian will
not permit differences of opinion on nonessentials, or
circumstances, to undermine the spirit of brotherhood . . Men of good will
can associate and work together at peace, with mutual respect and
confidence, despite differences of opinion.”—Ibid.
“The fundamentalist mind-set of
the LCMS majority, it seems, predisposed them to an exaggerated concept of
inspiration and inerrancy, to misjudge the moderates, and to use
questionable tactics to achieve their objective. We do not for a moment
question their sincerity in so doing. This mind-set,
nevertheless, inspired A Statement of Scriptural and
Confessional Principles, designed to prove that the moderates were
teaching false doctrine and to purge the Synod of them. Mind-set—a fixed
way of thinking—was crucial in the LCMS confrontation. A person should
have conviction, but he should also be open to truth.”—Ibid.
“One feels more secure with
objectively established facts, even when they may require an adjustment in
thinking; the other feels more secure with familiar facts and thought
patterns, and tends to feel threatened by unwelcomed facts. One respects
sincere convictions that conflict with its own; the other prefers that all
conform to a particular mode of thought, and tends to be judgmental and
exclusive.”—Ibid.
“Mature, responsible persons will
recognize and respect mind-sets that differ from their own. They
will accord conscientious convictions full honor and respect, and
make adjustments as may be necessary in order to relate meaningfully to
people whose way of approaching a problem differs from their own.”—Ibid.
“Mature, responsible Christians .
. will listen intently and with respect to points of view that differ from
their own, and endeavor to evaluate them objectively. They will avoid
drawing lines that have the effect of excluding as credible church
members, persons with views differing from their own.”—Ibid.
“The very conservative LCMS
concept of inspiration and inerrancy is rooted in traditional concepts and
preconcepts that, superimposed on the Bible, provide a basis for
misconstruing the moderate approach to Scripture as an abandonment of
inspiration and inerrancy and resulted in the charge of teaching false
doctrine.”—Ibid.
In a
footnote at the bottom of that concluding article, Cottrell quoted an
example of the kind of fanatical conservative attitude which caused the
Concordia crisis, a view we should turn from with loathing, if we are to
keep our own denomination safe for liberals to run rampant in:
“In a paper presented to a Synod
theological convocation in the spring of 1975, Dr. Ralph A. Bohlmann, now
president of Concordia Seminary [after Tietjen and his fellow liberals
vacated the place], said that ‘considerations of truth must take
precedence over considerations of love, should these be in conflict.”—Ibid.
That footnote
referred the reader back to an antecedent statement by Cottrell, where the
footnote originated:
“Brotherly love was made
contingent on submission to the conservative doctrinal position.”—Ibid.
CONTINUE - PART 2
|
