“Exclusive Use of Doctrinally Pure Agenda…”
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
— Eph 4:4-6No one should rebaptize them; just as nothing is detracted from the Sacrament though some one approach it with evil purpose, and he could not be allowed on account of his abuse to take it a second time the selfsame hour, as though he had not received the true Sacrament at first; for that would mean to blaspheme and profane the Sacrament in the worst manner.
— LC 4:55Conditions for acquiring and holding membership in the Synod are the following…. Exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms in church and school.
— LCMS Constitution 6:4
Our Lutheran Confessions mention the Anabaptists 21 times, and not once in a positive way. Several times they are “condemned.” Their name includes the Greek prefix “ana-” which means “again” (just as in English, we have the prefix “re-”). Thus the Anabaptists are the sect that does “re-baptism.”
Their spiritual heirs today include not only most Baptists, but also Pentecostals and nondenominationals.
They deny the validity of infant baptism, and usually insist on full immersion - though they don’t believe anything supernatural happens even in a baptism that they consider to be valid. To this day, it is not uncommon for a person to leave one of the historic communions of Christendom - including Lutheranism - and join a Baptist, Pentecostal, or neo-Evangelical nondenominational congregation, and then be subjected to an alleged re-baptism. And since baptism is merely a ritual in these church bodies, they can be repeated again and again as a renewal of one’s commitment to the faith.
Lutherans, however, do not re-baptize.
When LCMS pastors and congregations engage in such a practice - even if it is called “renewal of baptism” (even as the minister uses the very words: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” during such an alleged “renewal”) - it not only confuses the faithful, misrepresents the Sacrament, and mocks our Lord Jesus Christ - it also, as a result, scandalizes other members of synod.
The point of having a synod is that we “walk together.” We all confess the Bible and the Lutheran confessions. But this confession is more than a cerebral and intellectual acceptance of propositional truths. To be a synod requires unity of practice that binds us together. So in addition to the Bible and the Confessions, we have other agreed-upon conditions for being in the LCMS. The LCMS is a particular association of congregations, pastors, and affiliated schools. And just as there are Christians outside of Lutheranism, there are faithful Lutherans outside of the LCMS. Moreover, the synod doesn’t have the power to shut down a congregation or to defrock a pastor. The synod can only recognize, or refuse to recognize, a pastor or congregation as a member. We can receive members, and we can remove members - although the latter is exceedingly rare. Unless a pastor commits a sexual, financial or political transgression, synod membership is basically an unconditional lifetime affair - even if he runs roughshod over the alleged conditions of membership.
In order to prevent scandalous practices like rebaptism, like lay “consecration,” like Divine Services that are actually make-believe stage productions, like entertainment pretending to be worship, like burying the name “Lutheran” and aping neo-Evangelical (sacramentarian) churches that deny the efficacy of the sacraments, like confusion between the vocations of the preachers and of the hearers in matters of proclamation and absolution, like having fortune-tellers on stage doing readings, and the like, we have agreed-upon guardrails in place.
Those who don’t like the way we train, ordain, and call pastors are threatening to invoke the Smalcald Articles and ordain their own ministers. They have every right to do so as a Christian congregation. But they will be walking away from us if they do. And that would be the honest thing to do. Instead, they are like the lukewarm water in our Lord’s mouth, neither willing to actually walk together with us, nor to formally depart from us. Instead, they are like that particular member of the family who repudiates his parents and siblings - except when he needs money. Why do these people remain in the LCMS? Is it the benefits package? Nostalgia? Gravitas? Are they on the financial teat somewhere?
I recently read a statement by a retired LCMS pastor who struggled with gender dysphoria. After apparently coming to his senses, realizing that he is a man after all, he still advocates for “gender affirming care” for “transgenders.” An ELCA pastor (who was for a time his pastor) invited him to come back to the ELCA. But he turned down the offer with the explanation that he wanted to remain as a change agent, a “transgender” activist, in the LCMS. It’s not enough that the ELCA is what it is. He wants the LCMS to walk together with them in such matters.
This is similar to the pastor who, just a few years ago, performed a same-sex “wedding,” which was not received well by his congregation (which is liberal by LCMS standards). As a result, he decided to retire. He explained candidly in a now-deleted YouTube video that he had became a pastor in the first place for the express purpose of changing the LCMS’s doctrine on same-sex “marriage.” He was disappointed that he did not succeed.
We are also seeing those who want to change how we train pastors, wanting our LCMS megachurches to become their own autocephalous and autonomous seminaries, and/or to create a completely computer-based stay-at-home option for pastoral formation - even under the auspices of a pan-Lutheran institution run by a lady “pastor.” And those who want to change us rightly recognize that such long-term change is possible by changing how pastors are formed and called. They understand that change comes from pastors, from education, and from how worship is conducted (“ceremonies teach”).
Instead of going to church bodies where they could walk together with those who already agree with them, these activist change agents want to stay in the LCMS and try to change us. This is exactly what the Seminex debacle was all about. It’s a well-worn stratagem: They wander from the path while remaining nominal members of synod - and then accuse us of not walking with them. Then they attempt to use the political apparatus to recreate us in their own image, to drag us to a different road with them. We have seen this before, and history repeats itself. This calls for wisdom, discernment, and courage - unless, of course, we want to see the LCMS merge bit by bit with the ELCA.
The best way to protect our doctrine and practice from corruption and degradation (which is what happened gradually in the ELCA, the Church (sic) of Sweden, the once-Lutheran Church (sic) of Australia, and all of the counterfeit “churches” of the Lutheran World Federation, and seems to be happening by a thousand papercuts in the SELK) is to have guardrails in place. And since ceremonies not only confess, but “teach the people,” we as a synod require, as a condition for membership - adding this requirement to the confession of the Bible and the Book of Concord - the “exclusive use of doctrinally pure agenda, hymnbooks, and catechisms” in our churches and schools.
So how is it that we have member congregations that don’t use any agenda or hymnbook at all, or they just make stuff up as they go along? It is as though this is more of a suggestion than a “condition… for holding membership in the Synod.” It is certainly not being enforced by those with the authority to do so.
Obviously, those who ditch the liturgy, refuse to use the hymnal, and make up their own agendas and services claim the high ground. They are being “missional.” They “care about the lost” (unlike those of us who are “playing defense” and are overly fastidious about “doctrine” in our “echo chamber” of the “purity cult”). One of the unintended consequences of opting out of Article 6 and using made-up liturgies and Evangelical pop-ditties instead of hymns is that the guardrails provided by the rubrics are torn down. While it is true that guardrails are a restriction on our freedom, they have a salutary purpose. We usually discover their benefits after something bad happens, when it is too late.
Those who opt-in to Article 6 and make use of our synod’s agendas and hymnbooks are taking advantage of our fraternal guardrails - not only preventing false doctrine and practice, but also providing a sense of unity and brotherhood, of mutual recognition and respect for other members of synod. And in our hymnals and agendas (such as the Pastoral Care Companion) we have both “shall” and “may” rubrics. The “shall” are mandatory. The “may” are optional. For within our unity there is also diversity. There is a balance. We avoid both extremes of constraining lockstep uniformity, as well as the other side of the coin of do-what-thou-wilt chaos. To opt out of our synod’s hymnbooks and agendas is to opt out of those helpful rubrical guardrails that prevent pastors and churches from engaging in behavior that destroys trust and results in having to apologize for scandals later. Guardrails prevent accidents. Their use reflects the wisdom that we should expect from our pastors.
If a pastor, congregation, or school is going to make use of a liturgy or hymn that is not in the hymnal, they are taking a risk. Care must be taken to assure that what they are doing is, in fact, “doctrinally pure.” Though not perfect, the use of our synod’s agendas and hymnbooks is a helpful default.
There are other advantages to using the agendas and hymnbooks of our synod. Of course, a valid baptism happens when a person is baptized (not re-baptized!) in the name of the Holy Trinity using actual water. The other ceremonies are not necessary for a baptism to be a baptism. But at the same time, there are some beautiful ceremonial guardrails in place for those who want to walk with us. Using the hymnal’s rite of baptism, there is a renunciation of the devil, of all his works, and of all his ways - and who can say anything bad about that? There is a spoken confession of the Apostles Creed - a baptismal custom that goes back to the first century, and makes it clear what faith the church - including the newly baptized - confesses. There is the giving of the sign of the cross - thus providing for the newly baptized a lifetime liturgical tool in his Christian toolbox to remember his baptism and call to mind not only its benefits, but from where those benefits come. There is the praying of the Lord’s Prayer - reiterating that to be baptized is to be adopted into God’s family, made a child of the Father and a brother or sister of Jesus. And our Pastoral Care Companion also provides a rite of exorcism of the candidate, which Luther retained in his own 1526 simplified German rite of Holy Baptism. This calls to mind the exorcistic nature of Baptism itself, that the Holy Spirit displaces the evil spirits.
Look at the richness of these liturgical, baptismal guardrails! Look at what this order confesses and teaches! And would it be pleasing to Satan to retain these renunciations, exorcisms, prayers, and confessions - or to omit them? As the kids say, “Cui bono?”
So while it sounds trite, “say the black, do the red” remains a helpful rule of thumb for walking together, with guardrails in place to avoid tumbling down the side of a cliff. Our District Presidents - and indeed, our entire synod apparatus, not to mention our member pastors and congregations - would do well to spend more time on prevention than cleaning up messes afterwards.