Many in our congregation are aware of some of the issues that have deeply troubled and even brought division in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. Many of these issues have long historic roots, others result from actions taken at the last synodical convention. I have not allowed these issues to dominate or get in the way of the preaching of the gospel among us. On the other hand it is important that our membership be aware of these issues. I am a member of “Consensus,” a group of confessional pastors and laymen dedicated to “building the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). We have issued a statement called “A Call to Repentance” for the purpose “that the LCMS may once again make a clear and united confession to the world, one that is faithful to the Holy Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions,” urging the next regular convention (2007) “to take demonstrable actions to correct these errors of doctrine and practice that have arisen within our beloved synod.” This group makes a careful distinction between doctrine and politics, addressing each appropriately. You may read this statement by requesting a copy or on the internet at www.consensuslutheran.org . I will be attending our annual meeting during Easter week in St. Louis.

  Some pastors and congregations have already given up and left the synod. Some have become independent Lutheran congregations, some have joined other confessional synods like the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS). An astonishing number of pastors have even gone so far as to forsake their Lutheran confession and become priests in the Eastern Orthodox church! It has been observed that the LCMS has lost more members (pastors and congregations) in the last decade than during the split that happened in the 1970s over the so-called “battle for the Bible” when we rejected the “historical-critical method” of Biblical interpretation. Here is a brief summary of the issues addressed by the “Call to Repentance.”

1. Unionism and syncretism. Ever since the President of the Atlantic District participated in the televised “Prayer for America” held at Yankee Stadium after the 9/11 attack in New York, the President of the synod and the 2004 convention have tried to excuse what was plainly wrong, namely, participation with other, even non-Christian religions in a service of worship and prayer. “Syncretism” and “Unionism” is giving the impression that Christianity is only one “truth” among many.

2. As a result of the above, the synod adopted the idea that a member cannot be removed from membership for any action as long as he has the permission of his “ecclesiastical supervisor,” in this case the President of the synod or, in others, District Presidents. When their “permission” violates doctrine, however, they participate in the individual's guilt.

3. The adjudication process adopted by the synod has effectively removed the biblical right of ordinary laypeople, pastors and congregations of judging the doctrine of the church's public preachers and pastors, saying any and all actions may now only be initiated through a District President.

4. The biblical “order of creation” has been ignored, effectively changing our already permissive agreements regarding the role of women in the church. Many do not agree with our biblical and historic position that only men may serve as pastors. Our synod has allowed women to vote in congregational voters assemblies and to hold elected offices as long as they do not “exercise authority” impinging on the pastoral ministry. For this reason women have not been allowed to serve as congregational President, Vice President or on the Board of Elders. The 2004 convention said women could now serve in all those offices.

5. Closed Communion. The practice in many congregations of regularly communing those who do not share the same public confession of the faith is a violation of Scripture and the Confessions and does not serve the unity of the church. While pastors have the responsibility and authority to decide individual cases of admission to the sacrament, many blatantly practice “open” communion, are not disciplined by their “ecclesiastical supervisors” (District Presidents), and thereby cause confusion in the church.

6. Uniformity in Worship practices. Though the LCMS Constitution states that membership includes the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms,” many so-called “styles of worship” have been adopted that are at odds with the central doctrine of the justification of the sinner by God's grace through faith in Christ alone.

7. The Office of the Holy Ministry. The synod has for too long played around with the “licensing” of laymen to perform Word and Sacrament ministry without a regular call in violation of the Augsburg Confession article XIV.

In addition to these doctrinal issues legal action has been initiated by certain members of synod against the President and First Vice President of synod for violating the law with regard to synod's legal status as a corporation subject to the laws of the State of Missouri. The issues here deal with manipulating the rules to give more voting representation to circuits supportive of the current administration and violating the legal authority of the synod's Board of Directors by elevating the opinions of the Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM).

  In conclusion, there will never be a “perfect” man-made church body, association, fellowship, synod or even congregation. The “visible church” is always a mixture of true believers and saints and false Christians or hypocrites (Augsburg Confession VIII). When it comes to the issue of church or Christian fellowship, I have simply asked in every day language, “how much ‘sin' are you willing to put up with?” and, is that “putting up with” merely uncaring permissiveness or is it a “bearing of one another's burdens” (Galatians 6:2) and caring enough to “be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2)? As I indicated, there is much debate concerning how much is too much, how far is too far, when or where “the line” has been crossed that causes the need for confessional separation. I, for one, cannot simply stand by but am compelled to stay engaged in the discussion and debate.