Concordia

#

# 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

Top of page

BOOKSTORE Updates Search links Home

### PILGRIMS REST

### 1288 Myerstown Rd.

### BEERSHEBA SPRINGS, TN. 37305