Category: Uncategorized

[This project is ongoing. Please check back periodically as I intend to add subsequent theses to this page. Thanks are due to BackToLuther for his translation.]

Proceedings^[1] of the Synod.

---

It is important to hear why the doctrine of the true visible church is taken as a basis here. A burning question of this time, and at the same time the bitter accusation of many who have fallen out of the bonds of a crude, unveiled union into a modern, new-faith Lutheranism against us and other faithful Lutherans, is this: Why do we not accept people of other faiths to Holy Communion? — They want nothing to do with the unholy theory according to which, falsely invoking the word of Christ: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28), everyone should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper as well as to the sermon; rather, they call this theory a downright sin and distortion of the Word of God and exclaim indignantly: One should not throw pearls before swine and the sanctuary before dogs. Nevertheless, they want to admit to Holy Communion all those who are not openly unchristian, regardless of their special confession. This unionist error is also held by the leaders of the so-called Church-Council, among others, who erroneously refer to a passage in our symbols.² We must therefore, they say, admit to Holy Communion all those who prove themselves to be dear Christians. — But this almost unionistic principle is rooted in their erroneous doctrine of the Church. Our opponents do not wholeheartedly believe that there is a true visible church on earth in an unrestricted sense. — It is therefore all the more necessary that we bring this doctrine to our clear awareness in order to justify our doctrine and practice of the Lord’s Supper. If the opinion of the leaders of the “Church-Council” and their spiritual comrades were divine truth, we Lutherans would be committing a grave sin with our ecclesiastical separation from all other Christian fellowships. For if people of other faiths also belong to our Lord’s Supper, they actually also belong to our church, whose bond of unity and sign of confession is precisely the sacrament; we must therefore necessarily unite with them ecclesiastically in all other things as well. But our thesis gives us correct information about the true visible church. It speaks of such a church in an unrestricted sense. One can also speak of a true visible church in a non-unrestricted sense, just as one can speak of a cripple as a true, real human being. However, just as a person who is healthy in all his parts is called a normal person, a person as he should be, so here a true visible church is understood in an unrestricted sense to be such a church as it should actually be according to God’s will and foundation, a normal one. However, it should be noted that we are not talking here about the church in general, but about a visible church. A true visible church in an unrestricted sense is a group of Christians who are always mixed with evil and hypocrites, but with whom the pure, unadulterated Word of God and Sacrament can be found. A true visible church in a restricted sense, on the other hand, is what we call a similarly mixed group in which God’s Word and Sacrament are only essential. Such a church, for example, is the Reformed Church. It is a community that has come together with the intention of practicing God’s Word and Sacrament among themselves. But because it does not have these means of grace pure and unadulterated, one cannot speak of it as a true visible church in the unrestricted sense. However, praise be to God, there is such a church, and that is the Evangelical Lutheran Church. We happily confess this and hold with a firm conscience of faith that our dear church is the church planted by the Lord Christ and his apostles 1800 years ago, because our faith, doctrine, and confession agree in all things in the most exact way with the Scriptures, the words of Christ and the apostles. The Lutheran church is therefore not only a real church, but the true visible church of God on earth, insofar as true means nothing other than: as it should be according to God’s Word. The less we can or want to boast of our pious walk before other churches, the more we can and must boast before others of the pure doctrine which, thanks to God’s undeserved grace, shines on us poor sinners like the clear, bright sunlight. — But the leaders of the “Church-Council” deny this. To them, our church is only the best among many good ones, not the orthodox one next to the false believers, not the true visible church in an unrestricted sense. For these theologians, the difference between our church and other churches is therefore only a gradual one, not a specific one. That is why they only ever speak of “denominations” and thus prove themselves to be a sect whose claim to be the best must appear quite ridiculous. This term denomination or “evangelical denominations” for all Protestant parties, except Unitarians, serves our opponents in the “Church-Council” as a substitute for the expression of vulgar Unionists, that all Christians who are not papists or gross rationalists are to be regarded as orthodox, and that all these orthodox must also maintain ecclesiastical fellowship among themselves. — But this designation is as wrong as this form of expression. For example, one cannot call the Reformed Church an evangelical-reformed church, since it is not reformed by the pure Gospel. The predicate evangelical belongs to our church alone. We appropriately put the word evangelical in front of the name Lutheran because we do not believe in Luther, but in the pure Gospel taught by Luther. We are not Lutherists [Lutheristen]. Our adversaries know this very well and yet our doctrine of the orthodox Lutheran church is basically an abomination to them. They reject it as arrogant, intolerable presumption when we say that we Lutherans alone are in possession of the full truth. One can see that their unionist practice of the Lord’s Supper is also rooted in the miserable theory of open questions. If there are doctrines in the Lutheran Church itself that can be answered with Yes and No by Lutherans, why would one not also want to hold Communion with non-Lutherans who hold this or that special doctrine! — Our theologians of doubt only ever want to seek the truth, but have never found it, and in doing so place themselves alongside those pagan sages who always sought the truth but never found it and therefore called themselves philosophers, i.e., lovers of the truth. — But since Christ and his Gospel appeared on earth, the eternal, complete, saving truth has also been on earth, and for everyone. Anyone who denies this and does not yet have the truth is truly a miserable, pitiful creature and certainly not a Christian. — How clearly, distinctly, and comprehensibly, even for a child, are contained in God’s Word, for example, the doctrines of Baptism, of the Lord’s Supper, of the eternal, universal will of God! — Anyone who only holds his reason captive under the obedience of faith and does not willfully resist can and must be made divinely certain of the truth here and convinced that the counter-doctrine is of the devil. — Would our adversaries dare to accuse those apostolic congregations [Gemeinden] of arrogant self-conceit if they had refused the hand of brotherhood and communion in the sacrament to insidious false spirits, against whose poison of the soul the holy apostles had warned them verbally or by letter, and had declared to them: “We have the truth and you do not, but a doctrine of devils”? — They would not. But they do not want to grant us precisely what they must grant to those apostolic congregations. Why not? Because, as they say, we do not have the apostles as teachers, but only Luther. But O foolish objection, which reveals to us their unbelief in the Word of God! For do we Lutherans not still today have this holy Word of God “pure, well and right by his power, described in Holy Scripture”? Does not St. Paul still speak to us in the Bible in exactly the same way as he preached and wrote to his congregations at that time? Do we not therefore still have the eternal, full, infallible truth today? And would it not be a very false, wretched feeling of shame, stirred up by the devil, to think that it would be arrogant and self-conceited to say: I have the truth, because I stand on the rock of the Word of God, and I reject the contrary doctrine as a lie of Satan! — May God in his grace preserve us from such a sense of shame and all admiration for the spirit of unionism.

Incidentally, the reason why so many shy away from faithful adherence to the Word of God and pure doctrine is that they can easily and rightly conclude from this that faithful adherence to a life that is exactly in accordance with the Scriptures is just as detestable to them as pure doctrine. On the other hand, an orthodox Christian who has correctly recognized the doctrine of original sin has respect for God’s Word in general, as well as only for that piety which agrees with the Word.

We see that the great seductive powers within the Church today are, on the one hand, the Pope, who alone considers himself infallible, and, on the other, the [Prussian] Union, which finds infallible truth nowhere. Against both, we Lutherans hold that there is indeed an infallible truth, but only in the Word of God, and that we certainly possess it as long as we stand on the Word. Or should this be too much of an assertion, and not place us alongside the Roman Antichrist, who claims infallibility in matters of faith, morals and discipline for himself alone? No, never. For there, in Rome, they claim infallibility apart from, without, and even contrary to God’s Word by the devil’s instigation, but here we profess to be infallible, despite all our own personal capacity for error, because and as long as we speak as God speaks in His infallible Word. That is the enormous difference. Our spirit is, praise God, different from that of the Pope, but also from that of the Methodists. For while the latter blaspheme and condemn us because of our doctrine of the only orthodox Lutheran Church, they now claim to be the only true Church of God because they alone live piously. — Therefore, they are affected by what St. Paul writes 2 Tim. 3:1–9 about the glorious, arrogant, pompous, and hypocritical people of the last abominable times, while we are told what is written in the 14th verse: “But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them.”

Listen to what Luther says about the form of the true visible church and the infallible truth of its doctrine: “The Catechism [Kinderglaube] says that there is a holy Christian church, and St. Paul says (1 Cor. 3:17): ‘The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are; but if any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy’^[3]; therefore the holy church cannot suffer lies or false doctrines, but must teach only that which is holy and true, and that means God’s Word; and if it teaches only one lie, then it is already idolatrous. . . . But here someone who is good-natured (as people say) may reply: What harm would it do if we would adhere to God’s Word but would retain all these things (papistic abuses and errors) or also some others that are tolerable? I reply: Such persons may be called good-natured, but they are wrong-hearted and susceptible to seducement; for, as you hear, the church must not teach anything else than God’s Word, serve anyone else than God, place another light beside the [true] Light (placed by God in the darkness). It is indeed a will-o’-the-wisp and error even though it were only a single untruth, for the church should not and cannot teach any lies or error, not even a single one. If it teaches a single lie, it is already altogether wrong, as Christ declares in Luke 11:35: ‘Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light,’ having no part dark, ‘the whole shall be full of light.’ That means the whole must be light and no part must be dark. The church must teach only God’s Word and truth, and neither error nor lies. And how could it be otherwise since God’s mouth is that of the church? Again, God cannot lie and therefore neither can the church. . . . The church must teach only God’s Word and must be sure of it, for on this account it is called the pillar and ground of the truth, built upon a rock, holy and without blemish. That means, as it has been rightly and well said: The church cannot err, for God’s Word, which it teaches, cannot err. But what is taught otherwise or in doubt whether it is God’s Word dare not be a doctrine of the church. . . . Duke George, of unblessed memory, once said that he knew well that many abuses have crept into the church, but that it could not be condoned that a single monk of a diminutive burg should venture to reform it. Very well, he admitted (and not only he) that your church is full of abuses; and that means it is not a pure, true church, for that should be holy and pure and without any additions, not to say, without any abuses.” (Wider Hans Wurst. 1541. Walch XVII, pp. 1682 ff. Walther: Die evang.-luth. Kirche etc., pp. 43–45. [The True Visible Church etc., pp. 36–37.])

Of course, these words of Luther are not meant to imply that there are not often poor, weak, erring Christians in the orthodox church as well; but as soon as they are convicted of their error by God’s Word, they abandon it, fall in line with God’s Word and confess the truth. But those in the Lutheran Church who stubbornly cling to their error must eventually be expelled. It is different in the Reformed Church. For this church, in its distinctiveness, stands precisely on error and, for example, in the doctrine of Holy Communion, does not listen to the clear Word of God, but to its foolish rational thoughts. One is therefore infallible and free from error wherever one holds fast to the Word of God. For as certain as the Bible is the Word of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit, as certain as Christ is the Son of God and the mouth of eternal truth, it is also certain that we cannot err if we hold to the letter of Holy Scripture. He who does not believe this has neither strength and victory in the temptations of the devil, nor comfort in the terrors of death, and must miserably perish. His faith is nothing but a ghost. For true faith, as Luther says, dies a thousand times over because it has the truth. It makes us infallible. We do not say that a Lutheran Christian cannot err even in one thing contained in Holy Scripture, but only this we assert, that he has the full truth in all articles of faith, which are so clearly and distinctly revealed to everyone in Scripture, so that he can live and die happily on them. It is also a great deception of the false spirits when they claim that only this or that doctrine of faith, such as that of the deity of Christ, is clearly and distinctly revealed in Holy Scripture, while others, such as certain doctrines of distinction, are not, and that therefore one cannot attain the infallible truth in the latter. To this we say: No. All the doctrines of faith are clearly and unmistakably revealed in Holy Scripture, and in confessing these doctrines our Church is the infallible mouth of God, an assertion which, as we have said, is an annoyance to our adversaries, but a very great comfort to us. — But what we confess in the thesis we prove from the Scriptural passages appended to it. John 8:31, 32: “Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my speech [Rede], then are ye my true disciples [meine rechten Jünger]; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” According to the basic text, the first part of this passage actually reads: “If ye continue in my word [Worte] (λόγῳ), then are ye indeed my disciples [in Wahrheit meine Jünger],” and from this we can clearly see that the Lord Christ declares those to be his true disciples, that is, the true church, who hold fast to his word, namely to the simple understanding of it. This is what the Lutheran Church does. Indeed, this also applies to the children of God living in false churches, for although they err here and there, they do so unwittingly. But as soon as they realize their error, they abandon it and remain with the speech or words of Christ. Nor do they cling with their hearts to the error, but only to Christ their Lord. But now the same Lord says of all those who abide in his word: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Whoever therefore does not want to make Christ Himself a liar must confess hereafter that the true visible church of God on earth, that is, the Evangelical-Lutheran Church, and every Christian who abides in the Word, has found and really attained the infallible truth. The following passage

John 10:4, 5 reads: “The sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.” — So, what is the Church? The totality of the sheep or disciples of Christ. What is true of these is also true of the Church. A sheep hears its shepherd’s voice and follows him. So does a Lutheran Christian follow his shepherd Christ. He believes His Word, however incredible it may seem to his reason. Furthermore, a sheep does not recognize the voice of a stranger, but rather flees it. This is how a Lutheran Christian condemns false spirits and their heresies, no matter how sweet and acceptable they may sound to his reason.

The passage Rev. 3:7–11 forms part of the epistle to the bishop of the church in Philadelphia. Christ does not say to him through the mouth of John: “Because thou livest so piously,” but rather: “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world.” This adherence to pure doctrine was therefore his crown, which he was not to allow to be taken from him. Although it says earlier: “I know thy works,” these works here mean nothing other than faithful adherence to the word of truth, just as the bishop of Laodicea they mean nothing other than his lukewarmness and his apostasy from the good confession. And how the promise given to the church in Philadelphia has been fulfilled to this day is evidenced by the multitude of Christians still living in this city, while the Laodicean church has disappeared and its place has become a heap of ruins. If the above promise is also to be fulfilled for us and our children after us, then it is truly necessary that we also faithfully keep the word in these last times of temptation. Note also that in this epistle Christ does not call those who have fallen away “dear brothers,” who take a different and justified standpoint, but rather those who “lie.”

1 Cor. 1:10 reads: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Here the divine judgment on the spirit of this time is pronounced and the Holy Spirit breaks the rod over the Union. The Lord says to it, as it were: “You are not my church.” For the unchurched, as is well known, one speech, mind, and opinion is an abomination, which in their opinion brings about the division and fragmentation of the church and which they want to leave to us “Old Lutherans.” But do they not thereby bear witness to themselves that their much-vaunted unity in the Union is nothing but a whitewashed grave and a hypocritical comedy? For how can there in truth be any talk of the unity of the church, where its members are only glued together outwardly (as in the papacy) and where many different beliefs and doctrines are held within it? It is not we, but they, the unchurched, who are accused of splitting up the church, and one might well say that they have as many divisions as there are people. However, the Holy Spirit of God also condemns the leaders of the “Church Council” with the words “the same mind and judgment.” Although they want to have the same speech in the church, demand the acceptance of all confessional writings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, demand the signatures to them, they do not want to argue and argue about the “same mind” and “same judgment” for long. And yet, in the eyes of the Holy Spirit, this is no less a hypocritical and despicable union maneuver. For how can the speech of the mouth or the writing of the hands bring unity where hearts are torn and divided by various minds and judgments? — The passage

Eph. 4:3–6 defeats the man-made work of union. For here it says: “. . . endeavouring to keep the unity” (not of the body, but) “of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And what does this consist of? In one body and one Spirit (namely, in one spiritual body implanted in Christ), so that Christians have one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father. This is the true inner unity that should exist among Christians in the church. And where it exists in this way, diligence should be exercised to maintain it through love, and care should be taken that envy and pride among Christians do not destroy them. Thus we see how this passage, which the unionists so often and gladly cite as their motto and favorite saying, contains precisely their destructive judgment.

This is very clear from the passage:

John 10:26, 27: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” Just as therefore according to this (cf. also the passage chap. 10:4, 5 above) only those are Christ’s sheep or true church who hear His voice, i.e., His Word, and follow Him, so also those who do not hear His voice, i.e., do not believe the Word, are not His sheep, but a false church. Furthermore it says:

Chap. 14:23, 24: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings.” In these words, too, the Lord Christ clearly indicates the characteristics of the true and false church. Those who keep Christ’s word are the true church, in which God Himself makes His home. It is God’s house and true temple. The Lord of heaven and earth dwells in it, not only according to His nature, but also according to His presence of grace. This is the hallmark of the true church. The false church, on the other hand, can be recognized by the fact that it basically does not keep God’s Word, but falsifies it. That is why God cannot dwell in it. It is a sect with which we do not want to have fellowship. — It is true that even within the Evangelical-Lutheran Church this or that person strays from the Word of God, but because this happens out of weakness and ignorance, it does not make our church a sect. But whoever fundamentally and persistently departs from the Word of God belongs to the false church.

But it is also very important that the thesis states that even where God’s Word is allowed to be fundamentally falsified, there is a false church. This is the case, for example, in the [Prussian] Union. For we do not deny that there may still be some in it who generally teach God’s Word purely. This fact alone does not make it, the United Church, either pure or a true visible church of God. On the contrary, we must confess that it is worse off than any other Protestant sect. For in these churches the situation is such that the true Christians therein, in their ignorance, think and are convinced in their hearts that their error is truth. One can therefore fight with them honestly and sincerely, just as we Lutherans do with honest Reformed Christians, on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, baptism, the Person of Christ, and so on. But in the United Church one may falsify the Word of God with impunity. Here the lie is as justified as the truth, and error is permitted in an ungodly way. Pure doctrine is declared to be a matter of indifference and a life characterized by works is considered the main thing. Truly, this wretched principle of union must be condemned even by the pagan Cicero. For when he mentioned in a speech the various doctrines of some philosophers, he added: “Which of these opinions is the right one, I do not know; but one thing I do know, namely, that only one of them can be the right one.” But the Union is also struck by Christ’s terrible judgment of the bishop of Laodicea: “Oh, that thou wert cold or hot! So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:15, 16.) Just as a man who is eager for a refreshing drink of water is so disgusted when lukewarm water enters his mouth, that he immediately spits it out, so the holy God is so disgusted by those who regard His revealed Word as an indifferent thing and equate error with truth, that He rejects them from His presence. — The theory of different directions leading to one goal, invented and held by unbelievers and unionistic, false Lutherans, is also nonsensical. For just as it is not possible for a number of travelers to all reach the same city if they take paths in different directions, so also is it impossible to reach one and the same destination in the spiritual realm by following different directions. Where there are different directions, a very different goal is always reached. — The orthodox Lutheran church certainly knows how to carry those in its midst who have gone astray out of weakness in order to bring them to repentance through punishment and instruction from God’s Word. However, if this does not succeed and those who are stubbornly in error reveal themselves, our church no longer recognizes them as brothers, but separates itself from them. The orthodox church can therefore never tolerate or justify error or false doctrine; it can never enter into union with falsehood. If, for example, a pastor wanted to present false doctrine and his listeners tolerated it, did not protest or punish him, or did not renounce him, we would have to consider them erroneous and possibly even heretical. For one rightly judges a parishioner by his preacher, just as one judges a church by its confession. Therefore, even if we readily admit that there are some honest souls in, for example, the Reformed Church whom we must consider to be dear Christians and brothers if we know them well, we can never unite with them in church. The United Church, on the other hand, is the church in which false doctrines, or at least false teachers, are tolerated and regarded as brethren. It is true that the United churches object, that they also follow God’s Word, that they accept the confessions of both churches, Lutheran and Reformed, where they agree, and where this is not the case, they decide according to the principle of evangelical doctrinal freedom from God’s Word. But even this is nothing but a hypocritical evasion and deliberate godlessness, since the Unionists do not confess a third correct doctrine above the divergent doctrines in question, but rather those among them who are Lutheran hold and declare the Lutheran doctrine to be the correct one, and those who are Reformed hold and declare the Reformed doctrine to be the correct one. Let us also listen to the fathers. First

Luther. He writes: “The holy church fails and stumbles and even errs, as this is taught by the Lord’s Prayer; but it neither defends nor justifies its error, but humbly begs for pardon and corrects its lapse. Therefore it is forgiven so that its failing is no longer accounted as a sin. If I am not to recognize by its obedience or its hardened disobedience, nor distinguish the true church from the false, I can no longer speak of any church. Then we may honor and regard as the holy church all heretics as also all factions and sects, for they are no worse than is the church of the pope, if indeed malicious disobedience toward God is not deleterious. But the papistic church is no better, because it maliciously disobeys God in the same way and perverts His Word; in addition, it justifies itself as being right as no other sects and heretics.” (Brief wegen seines Buchs von der Winkelmesse [Letter concerning My Book on the Private Mass]. 1534. Walch XIX, p. 1579. Walther: Die evang.-luth. Kirche etc., pp. 27 and 28 [The True Visible Church etc., pp. 22–23].)

Furthermore W. Baier: “The unity of the church is opposed also by syncretism or the fusion into brotherly and ecclesiastical concord of parties disagreeing in religion, despite the disagreement, so that there are tolerated either the doctrinal errors in the dissenting part or at least the erring persons themselves within the ecclesiastical communion as brethren in Christ or coheirs of eternal life, which toleration is wrong, even if the latter are regarded as weak and erring, but nevertheless as brethren who participate in the same divine service. Here indeed it is certain that the unlearned who through invincible ignorance are so given to certain errors that nevertheless by God’s grace they retain the saving faith, might be suffered as weak brethren were they known to us. But in this connection we speak of the dissenting part in view of the public ministry and the doctrine of faith and life, as it is publicly preached, as also in view of the sacraments as they are administered, namely, corruptly, so that therefore the members of such a visible communion are regarded per se, inasmuch as they are members of it, and not in view of that which belongs to them per accidens [accidentally]. — Such toleration of errors, first, is in opposition to the Scripture passages which command us to preserve the whole Christian doctrine free from error (2 Thess. 2:15), to keep the good thing committed unto us (2 Tim. 1:14), that is, to keep it intact, uncurtailed and unadulterated, and to continue in the things which we have learned (2 Tim. 3:14). But the doctrine will not be kept pure if opposing errors are tolerated at the same time and in an equal manner or are permitted to become mingled with it. Secondly, such toleration is in opposition to the duty of reproving imposed upon faithful teachers by God, through which [errors] are rebuked and condemned (cf. Titus 1:9, 13; 2 Tim. 4:2; 3:16), to which correspond the examples of Christ (Matt. 5:12 ff.; 16:6) and of Paul (Gal. 1:6). Thirdly, such toleration is very dangerous, for those errors and corruptions, unless they are restrained, assailed, and condemned, will spread ever more widely; the truth of the doctrine is rendered doubtful and suspicious, or at least it is regarded as a matter of indifference; and finally those that err are confirmed, and the deceivers are given a chance to infect ever more [people]. But the toleration of erring persons, since it pertains not merely to the unlearned, but to the entire communion, and therefore at the same time to the very public ministry and the heretical teachers, is in opposition to the commands to convince, rebuke, and avoid false teachers and propagators of errors (Rom. 16:17; 2 Cor. 6:14, 17; Gal. 1:8; 5:12; 2 Thess. 3:6; 1 Tim. 6:3; Titus 3:10).” (Comp. theol. posit. [part] III, [chap.] 13, 37 [pp. 665, 671]. Walther: Die evang.-luth. Kirche etc., pp. 34–35 [The True Visible Church etc., pp. 28–29].)

This thesis is therefore also important for our purpose. Whoever is convinced that there can, should, and does exist a true visible church, as stated above, must also admit that every person has the duty to join it. But the opinion that one has the freedom to join this or that church flows from unbelief that there really can be such a true visible church of God. But what does David say in

Ps. 26:6–8: “I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Lord: that I may publish with the voice of thanksgiving, and tell of all thy wondrous works. Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, and the place where thine honour dwelleth.” So the prophet is referring here to the true Church. In this alone dwells the glory of God, because 1. here only is His Word valid and because 2. here only is it taught that we are justified by grace alone through faith in the Gospel, which is heard here in preaching, absolution, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. In the false church of the works-righteous, on the other hand, God is deprived of his glory. It would be just as absurd as godless to say: I have contributed something to my physical life, to my creation, through my own works or merits. But it is even more frightening and ungodly to say: I have contributed something, even if only the slightest, to the attainment of spiritual and eternal life. Anyone who thinks this way is a robber of God’s honor and is cursed. And yet this happens in the false church. Here people do not thank and praise God, but themselves. But the true Church is the church of thanksgiving, and in it all the miracles of the Lord are preached. That is why David loves this church so much and sticks to it. The passage

Matt. 10:32–33: “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” — is likewise a main passage to prove that one should adhere to the right, i.e., the true visible church; not because, as the papists erroneously claim, it is only through this that one is in the Church at all, a Christian and saved, but because it is a duty to confess. And this is necessary, not for the sake of God, but for the sake of ourselves and our fellow redeemed. For it is God’s will that all men should be saved through the Gospel. Christians, however, are to preach it to and confess it before the world, not as though they all had a duty or a necessity to be public servants of the Church, but in such a way that they adhere to the true visible church, hear the pure Gospel in it, with it confess and defend the same against opposition. In this way the Church is a wholesome leaven in the world.

In Luke 9:26 the Lord Christ says: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.” All those who do not profess the church of the pure Word, or who adhere to a false doctrine, such as the Reformed, are ashamed of the words of Christ. An excellent example of faithful confession and adherence to the true visible church, on the other hand, is given to us by the first Christians in Jerusalem, of whom

Acts 2:41 and 42 testifies that they continued steadfastly not only in the apostles’ doctrine, but also in the fellowship, i.e., they professed the orthodox church, even though doing so was associated with great danger to life and limb. They realized that it was not enough to believe the pure truth for themselves, but that they were also obligated to confess this truth publicly. — Therefore, if Nicodemus had remained as he once was when he came to Jesus by night, in woeful shyness of confession, he would not have been a Christian and would not have been saved — which is why, precisely with this visit in mind, the Lord Christ said to him: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3.) The passage

Heb. 10:24, 25 reads: “And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” The “forsaking” here does not refer to staying away from a church meeting or a public worship service, but rather to keeping away from the fellowship of the orthodox church in general, although it is certain that anyone who misses the worship service and the church meeting is also already leaving the Church.

In Matt. 18:17 the Lord says: “And if he shall neglect to hear them [the witnesses], tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Note this word against the enthusiasts who pretend that Christ has thrown the truth into the world, as it were, and that anyone who wants to accept it can do so. But that is wrong. Christ has established a kingdom through which to save the world, and, according to His word and will, there really should be a visible church whose voice one is to hear and to which one should profess allegiance.

1 John 2:19 says: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” This passage should be held up to those of other faiths who come to us and speak commendably of us and our confession, but who wish to remain quietly with their faith and in their church, because, as they think, they could also be saved without joining us. Tell such people: If you really held with us, you would also come to us. Either your praise is just hypocrisy or you are acting against your conscience. In the place

2 Tim. 1:8 the apostle writes to Timothy: “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner.” This passage provides the proof that and reason why we should also call ourselves “Lutheran.” Paul calls on Timothy to confess not only the word of Jesus, but also him, Paul. Whoever confesses Jesus should also confess those who preach Jesus correctly. Some who consider our Lutheran confession to be right deny it before our enemies by denying the Lutheran name. Even if we can take comfort in such denials, these people are hypocrites to whom Christ will one day say: You have betrayed Me! for you have betrayed my faithful witnesses. Or have you never read: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of my brethren and servants, ye have done it unto me”? Of course, we are only talking here about those who consciously deny the true church. For it may well be possible for someone to leave the evangelical-Lutheran church outwardly and yet still remain a true Christian. For example, an awakened Christian lacking in knowledge may come here from Germany to a Lutheran congregation, but, enchanted by the sham spirituality of the Methodists, he may think that true, living Christianity can only be found in that community, and may then join them without having lost his Christianity. — But we see from all this that it is not enough to believe the pure doctrine, but that one must also publicly confess one’s allegiance to the orthodox believers. Also writing about this very well is

Luther: “I see that it is very necessary to admonish those whom Satan is now beginning to persecute. Among them there are some who think that they, when attacked, might escape danger by if they say: ‘I do not adhere to Luther nor to anyone else but cleave to the holy Gospel and the holy or Roman church; for then we shall remain unmolested.’ And yet they retain my doctrine in their heart as evangelical and hold to it. Truly, such a subterfuge will not help them, and it means as much as denying Christ. Therefore, I beseech them earnestly to beware. It is true that you by no means should say: ‘I am a Lutheran or a papist,’ for none died for you nor is your Master than Christ alone, and you should regard yourself as a Christian. But if you believe that Luther’s doctrine is evangelical and the pope’s unevangelical, you must not cast Luther aside; otherwise you will cast aside his doctrine, which you regard as that of Christ. So you must say: ‘Luther may be a scoundrel or a saint, for that I do not care; yet the doctrine is not his but that of Christ Himself.’ For you see that the tyrants have in mind not [merely] to kill Luther but to destroy his doctrine. It is on account of his doctrine that they attack you and ask you whether you are a Lutheran. Here surely you must not reply evasively, but you must frankly confess Christ, whether He be preached by Luther, Claus, or George. The person you may ignore, but the doctrine you must confess. For thus St. Paul writes to Timothy 2 Tim. 1:8: “Be not thou ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me, who am bound for his sake.^[4]” If it would have sufficed for Timothy [merely] to confess the Gospel, Paul would not have commanded him not to be ashamed of himself, yet not of the person of Paul, but of Paul as a prisoner on account of the Gospel. If then Timothy would have said: ‘I hold neither to Paul nor to Peter but to Christ,’ though he knew that Peter and Paul taught Christ, he thereby would have denied Christ Himself. For Christ says Matt. 10 of those who preach Him: ‘He that receiveth you receiveth me; he that despiseth you despiseth me.’^[5] Why is that? Because in thus treating His messengers (who bring His Word), it is as if they treated Christ Himself and His Word in the same way.” (Meinung von beider Gestalt des Sacraments zu nehmen [Opinion on Receiving the Sacrament in Both Kinds]. 1522. Walch XX, 136. 137. Walther. Kirche und Amt. 1852. Pp. 164–65. [Church and Ministry, pp. 139–40.])

We learn this from:

Ps. 26:4, 5: “I have not sat with vain persons, neither will I go in with dissemblers. I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit with the wicked.” — The vain persons from whom David keeps his distance are precisely the false spirits who stand on their own vain wisdom and righteousness and not on the Word of God. Further it is said:

Psalm 94:20: “Thou wilt never be one with the throne of iniquity, which frameth mischief by a law.” — Throne [Stuhl] here means “teaching-chair” [Lehrstuhl] or “pulpit.” With those who misinterpret, i.e., falsify the law, i.e., God’s word in general, God will never agree, but is their Enemy. But if He is their Enemy, how could we maintain friendship and unity with them? Therefore, not only with those who, as unbelievers, do not want to know anything at all about God’s Word, but also with those who misinterpret this Word or turn it into false teaching, we should and must disagree. We are commanded the very same also in

Jer. 15:19: “If thou holdest to me, then will I hold to thee, and thou shalt remain my preacher: and if thou teachest the righteous to separate themselves from the wicked, thou shalt be my teacher: and before thou shouldest hold to them, they must first return unto thee.” Here, in fact, we are also commanded to separate from the ungodly. People object: Are all members of a false church ungodly? But to this we reply: Certainly not all; there are also Christians among them, but the ungodly — namely the false teachers and stiff-necked defenders of error — are precisely to blame for the fact that such a heterodox fellowship exists and remains, and that is why we must renounce it and keep away from it. From the passage

Rom. 16:17: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” — we see, however, that it is not we who, when we separate ourselves and keep away false believers, disrupt the unity of the Church and cause it to splinter, as we are falsely accused of doing, but rather them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the pure, wholesome doctrine of the Word of God.

In 1 Cor. 11:19 St. Paul says: “For there must be also heresies [Rotten] among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” — Heresy, according to the original text (αἵρεσις), means a fellowship of people who hold an erroneous doctrine against one or more articles of faith, that is, a sect. But the one who separates himself from such sects is revealed to be an orthodox Christian. Christians who unknowingly remain among them may well remain Christians through God’s wonderfully gracious preservation, but they are not revealed to us as such.

1 Cor. 10:18 says, among other things: “Are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” From this we learn what is necessary for our separation from the false church: namely, that we abstain from all worship fellowship with it.^[6] For just as those Corinthians who ate of the pagan sacrifice to idols entered into fellowship with the pagans, so even now a Christian enters into fellowship with the false church through participation in false worship.

Matt. 7:15 is the well-known but unfortunately little-heeded warning of Christ: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Some who listen to false teachers say: “We pick out the best of what they preach,” but we ask: “Is that what it means to beware of them, or is that running right into the gaping maw of the wolf?” Christ says: Do not listen to them! And truly, if they were not heard, they would have to stop preaching. After all, most of them are also belly-servers who preach only for the sake of good money. Luther could say that all he needed to overthrow the papacy was a great sack of money. — The chief proof texts for our thesis are also:

1 Tim. 6:3–5: “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud [verdüstert], knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.”

Titus 3:10: “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject.” — A heretical person is precisely such a one who stubbornly errs in an article of faith.

Acts 20:30 and 31: “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” — The Unionists also want to reject manifest unbelievers, but not the heterodox. This idea, however, is contradicted by this passage, in which we are warned against fellowship with those who hold perverse or false teachings.

2 John 10, 11: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” This is a chief proof text. People like to call John the disciple of love, but if he were to preach this passage to the world today, they would stone him to death. But he speaks divine truth. He also says beforehand: “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.” That is why one also should not bid such people God speed, i.e., not as though he should avoid civil courtesy towards them and the most necessary interaction with them, but rather that he should avoid all such contact with false believers from which they could infer our sympathy with them, for that would mean denying Christ. Marriages with those of other faiths are therefore dangerous, especially if the man is the heterodox party. What a heavy cross the orthodox party then has to bear, and how many thereby often succumb and lose their faith and good conscience completely! Even overly close business connections with false believers are not advisable. The apostle even says of such a person: “Receive him not into your house,” i.e., such people, except in the case of their being in dire need, should not be entertained in a friendly manner, nor given any support whatsoever for their ecclesiastical purposes.

Finally, 2 Cor. 6:14 reads: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” Many people think that this passage does not apply to the heterodox, since it is talking only about unbelievers. But they are mistaken. The Union is based on nothing but unbelief, in that it accepts, authorizes, or even tolerates the heterodox and those who publicly teach against God’s Word. It is therefore actually the unbelievers who build the Union temple. Whoever joins the Union also joins the wicked and unbelievers who are in it as a matter of principle. An orthodox Christian should and must therefore seriously flee such communities and prefer never to receive communion or rather die than enjoy a Zwinglian communion. We are well aware that the false believers accuse us of taking great pleasure in disputes and quarrels over pure doctrine and in disunity in the Church. Oh, they do not suspect that it is a heavy cross for us. Yet God’s Word binds us. The Savior says: “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matt. 10:37); yes, He says: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26.) In these latter words the Lord means to say: Whoever is not resolved to do, does not actually do, something out of love for Me which might perhaps be regarded by his own parents or other relatives as an act of hatred, cannot be a true Christian. Thus a faithful Lutheran may have a father who is tender, but blinded by heterodoxy, and who approaches him with many moving words and pleas, yes, with tears and entreaties, that his son might not belong to the Lutherans, that (in his father’s eyes) stiff-necked, harmful sect, that he might not, by accepting or defending the Lutheran name and confession, cover his father’s gray head with shame and bring him down with sorrow to the grave. And yet, in this case, such a Lutheran Christian must not yield or give way; he must not look to his father’s sorrow and sighing, but only to the Word of his God. But how will the blind world judge this obedience to Scripture? It will condemn his act as the most shameful hatred and malice against his physical father. — To endure this is no small thing, but it is necessary.

The Smalcald Articles in the Appendix [Of the Power and Primacy of the Pope] say: “This being the case, all Christians should beware most diligently that they do not make themselves partakers of such godless doctrine, blasphemy, and unjust tyranny, but they should flee from and curse the pope and all his members or adherents as the kingdom of Antichrist, as Christ has commanded: ‘Beware of false prophets.’ And Paul commands that we should avoid false teachers and execrate them as an abomination. And 2 Cor. 6 he says: ‘Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what communion hath light with darkness?’ etc. It is indeed difficult for us to separate ourselves from so many lands and people and teach a different doctrine. But here is God’s command that everyone should take care and not consent to those who teach false doctrine or intend to uphold it by tyranny.” (Müller S[ymbolischen] B[ücher] 336–37. [Par. 41, 42; Church and Ministry, p. 116.]) and

Luther: “Because so many and great warnings and admonitions of God have been addressed to them (the sacramentarians), . . . I must let them go and avoid them as the αὐτοκατακρίτος [autokatakritos] Titus 3:11, who knowingly and maliciously want to be condemned. Nor will I have fellowship with any of them, nether by letters, writings, words, nor deeds, as the Lord commands Matt. 18:17, whether he be Stenkefeld [Schwenkfeld], Zwingli, or whoever he may be. I regard them all as one ilk [Kuchen], for they refuse to believe that the Lord’s bread in the Holy Supper is His true or real body, which the wicked and Judas receive orally as well as St. Peter and all [other] saints. Whoever refuses to believe this (I declare), let him not molest me with letters, writings, or words. Let him not expect me to have fellowship with him, since that will never happen.” (Kurzes Bekenntniß vom heil. Sacrament wider die Schwärmer [“Brief Confession of the Holy Sacrament against the Enthusiasts”]. 1544. Walch XX, 2211. 12. [Church and Ministry, p. 126.])

1. [Fünfzehnter Synodal-Bericht des Westlichen Districts der deutschen evang.-luth. Synode von Missouri, Ohio u. a. Staaten. Anno Domini 1870 (Fifteenth Synodical Report of the Western District of the German Ev.-Luth. Synod etc.) (St. Louis, Mo.: Druckerei der Synode von Missouri etc., 1870), 21–73.] ↩︎
2. For it says in the Preface to the Book of Concord: “For we have no doubt whatever that even in those churches which have hitherto not agreed with us in all things many godly and by no means wicked men are found who follow their own simplicity, and do not understand aright the matter itself, but in no way approve the blasphemies which are cast forth against the Holy Supper as it is administered in our churches, according to Christ’s institution, and, with the unanimous approval of all good men, is taught in accordance with the words of the testament itself.” [Par. 20; Triglot, p. 19.] ↩︎
3. [Luther’s rendering] ↩︎
4. [Luther’s rendering] ↩︎
5. [Luther combines Matt. 10 and Luke 10.] ↩︎
6. [Note that Walther does not limit this discussion to communion-fellowship: “aller gottesdienstlichen Gemeinschaft.”] ↩︎

Isaac Dragomir serves The Boniface Group by helping out with editing, the website, and other odds and ends here and there. Hailing from the Prairie State, he has worked in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Hawaii as a caregiver, a school-bus driver, a teacher, and a tree-service crew member. But his favorite job so far has been milking cows. When Isaac isn’t quoting print jobs, he enjoys singing at the piano from his TLH; reading Luther, Walther, and history; solving a math problem; and gathering with family and friends around a board game, jigsaw puzzle, or fire pit.

Tomorrow, May 10, is the last Sunday of Easter, called Rogate. The bulletin has been uploaded to the “Boniface Group – Worship and Catechesis” shared Google Drive folder and to the Holy Trinity Gem County Telegram channel.

(If you missed the post that announced this project, you can catch up by reading it or listening to this podcast episode.)

“Rogate” means “pray.” More literally it means “ask,” which is even better, because this reminds us that the essence of prayer in the narrow sense is petition, that is asking.

The Small Catechism:

What is the Introduction to the Lord’s Prayer? Answer: Our Father who art in heaven.

What does this mean? Answer: God would by these words tenderly invite us to believe that He is our true Father, and that we are His true children, so that we may with all boldness and confidence ask Him as dear children ask their dear father.

The Gospel according to St. John:

Ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you. And in that day ye shall ask Me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in My name, He will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in My name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. (16:22-24)

The Last Sunday of Easter

Just to get this out of the way: Rogate really is the last Sunday of Easter. The following Thursday (May 14 this year) is the Feast of the Ascension. Ascension, not Pentecost, marks the end of the season of Easter. Ascension has its own ten-day season leading up to Pentecost — or Whitsunday, as it is customarily known in some churches.

Easter is forty days long. It is not fifty days long. Every calendar-respecting Christian in the West knew this until the homosexual Jesuit higher critics that I mentioned in the last post decided to move Chesterton’s Gate. This means that the Sunday following Rogate, called Exaudi, is not a Sunday of Easter. That is OK. None of this is worth dickering about on the internet. But it is true, and if you want to know what Old Lutheran practice is . . . well, I’ve just told you.

Luther’s Catechism Hymns

Martin Luther wrote many wonderful hymns. The one that most everyone knows, “A Mighty Fortress is Our God,” is indeed excellent, but it is not his best hymn. It’s hard to say which is best, but it might be “O Lord, Look Down from Heav’n, Behold.” If you enjoy the Stone Choir podcast, or if you’ve ever hate-listened all the way to the end of an episode, you have heard an electronica version of this hymn’s melody as the outro.

Luther wrote hymns for each of the five chief parts of the Catechism. Here they are:

1. The Ten Commandments: “That Man a Godly Life Might Live” (TLH 287)
2. The Creed: “We All Believe in One True God” (TLH 251)
3. The Lord’s Prayer: “Our Father, Thou in Heav’n Above” (TLH 458)
4. The Sacrament of Holy Baptism: “To Jordan Came Our Lord, the Christ” (ELHB 401)
5. The Sacrament of the Altar: “O Lord, We Praise Thee” (TLH 313)

On Rogate, it is customary to sing the Lord’s Prayer hymn, “Our Father, Thou in Heav’n Above,” so you will see it appointed as the chief hymn in the bulletin. If you need help learning the melody, the Lutheran Kantor project is here to help:

Luther’s hymns inspired the great Evangelical-Lutheran composers and organ masters of the Renaissance and Baroque eras: Demantius, Praetorius, Schütz, Scheidt, Pachelbel, Böhm, Buxtehude, Crüger, Telemann and, of course, the greatest of them all, Bach.

Short motifs drawn from hymn tunes (some Luther composed, others he adapted) were developed, adorned, and embellished by these and other composers into longer works. Sometimes an entire line of melody would receive the same treatment. J. S. Bach would often use an entire chorale as the basis for a cantata.

The results of such wise master building have endured throughout the centuries as the most sublime music ever created: vessels of lament to chasten and soothe contrite hearts, offerings of praise and thanksgiving — all of them catechesis for Christian minds and hearts, words of faith and of good doctrine drawn from the Scriptures, able to make one wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Take Georg Böhm’s Vater unser im Himmelreich, for example.¹ This is the most beautiful thing you will ever hear played on a pipe organ — provided that it meets the standard set by the late great Wim van Beek.²

The Martinkerk’s west-gallery organ is one of the most famous church instruments in the world. The video below features some impressive visuals of it. But hang fire, anon — you’re going to want to save this for when you have about five minutes of uninterrupted dead quiet. Make sure you have earbuds or headphones with good low end or an audio setup with a decent subwoofer.

There is a bit of fry in the video. But there is no fry in this Telegram playlist of the full album of van Beek’s recital, from whence the recording of Vater unser was taken.

Singing “Our Father, Thou in Heav’n Above” as the chief hymn is indeed a fixture of Rogate Sunday. But if you’re looking at the bulletin³, you will notice something else way before you get to the chief hymn. In fact it will be the first thing you notice, after the lovely cover art:

Singing the Litany

The opening hymn, Invocation, Introit, and Kyrie are gone, and in their place is this long thing, which you may or may not recognize. And since the only labels in our bulletin are placeholders, you might not know that this thing is called “The Litany,” sometimes “The Great Litany.”

A lengthy digression on the history of the Litany at this juncture would be tedious, so I won’t make one. Check the footnote.⁴

For now:

• The Litany is old.
• The Litany is a long prayer. It is best sung. “He who sings prays twice,” St. Augustine says, and he’s right.
• Over time the Litany was embellished with un-Christian things like invocations of the saints.
• I am not going to debate you on the invocation of the saints, and if you compose an essay about it in the comments, you will have wasted your time. Repent, or you are going to waste an eternity.
• Martin Luther, the pious servant of God raised up by Him to reform His Church, purged the Litany of its un-Christian accretions. He published a German version and a Latin version.
• The version in the bulletin is #661 in The Lutheran Hymnal. It is a translation of Luther’s Latin Litany. It is slightly more prolix than the German version.⁵
• This version (below) is #368 in Walther’s Hymnal.⁶ It is a translation of Luther’s German Litany. The differences from the one in TLH are minor, e.g., it keeps “Kyrie Eleison” in Greek at the beginning and the end. I set it to the same melody, so it should still work as a guide. This was recorded in 2019 when I was headmaster of Trinity Lutheran School in Cheyenne. I’m a little surprised to see it up still.

• You should buy Walther’s Hymnal, even though it is expensive ($43.99).⁷ New is the best price, unless you are one of the three people who will save $2.67 by buying one from Alibris.
• It is customary to pray the Litany in church on St. Mark’s Day (April 25), on the three so-called “rogation days” in between Rogate Sunday and the Feast of the Ascension, during Lent, and at various other times.
• It is customary for some children (for example, my children, and soon yours) to sing the Litany to themselves while they while away a half hour in the Fisher-Price swing on a breezy summer day.
• The version of the Litany published in the Lutheran Service Book has been bowdlerized, like virtually everything else that appears between its covers.⁸

In future years at Holy Trinity, if the Lord tarries, we might mark the three rogation days with the corporate praying of the Litany at Matins or Vespers. For now, we are marking Rogate Sunday in this way. (We also pray it at Matins from time to time.) When the Litany is prayed at the beginning of the divine service, it takes the place of the entrance rite. Think of it as an extended Kyrie.

Here is what I want to leave you with:

The hymns and prayers of the Church belong to you. You can learn to sing the Litany. Like all Christian hymns, it is a thing to be prayed, sung, and in all ways taken to heart, not passively consumed as a product.

“Look at this video of this Russian monk singing the Litany, so based”

Do not do this.

Flee every form of spiritual voyeurism as if it were the devil himself. Exorcise the low-rent demons of para-spirituality through prayer and fasting. Sing and pray. Pray and work. Fill your mind and heart with the Word of God through songs, hymns, and spiritual songs. Paul and Silas were not watching videos of Russian monks in the Philippian jail: they were singing from what they had stored up in their hearts.

Taking the time to learn the Litany and singing it : catching a trout, cleaning it, panfrying it on the bank, and eating it⁹ :: watching videos of other people performatively praying : ingesting Swedish Fish Oreos through an abdominal feeding port.

Experiencing target confusion? Don’t know where to start?

Every week, there will be recordings of two or three great hymns in the Google Drive folder and the Telegram channel. Use those in conjunction with the weekly bulletins to learn the hymns. In time you will find that their words have become part of the furniture in the room of your heart.

Amen, that is, So shall it be.
Confirm our faith and hope in Thee
That we may doubt not, but believe
What here we ask we shall receive.
Thus in Thy name and at Thy Word
We say: Amen. Oh, hear us, Lord!

+SDG+

---

Thank you for reading. The Boniface Group is the mission society of Holy Trinity Ev.-Lutheran Church of Gem County. If you would like to support our work, you may do so here. (Crypto options coming soon.) To learn more, visit our homepage and start reading from the top. Thank you, and God bless you.

✠

Footnotes

1. This particular composition is entirely instrumental, but it still serves the catechetical function described. How? Well, it’s based on a hymn which is based on the Lord’s Prayer, which is the prayer that Jesus taught us, His disciples, and commanded us to pray. It’s all woven together. ↩︎
2. Some organists, while technically very talented, lack the spirit of the great Orgelmeistern and are thus unable to connect with the soul of the Baroque literature. Van Beek was not one of these moist robots. ↩︎
3. If you want the Google Drive link to a pdf, here it is — I don’t think that will dox you, if that is a concern, but I don’t know for certain. Use a private tab or something. If you want a link to the file on Tele, here it is. Same caveat. If we purchase a higher-tier WordPress plan in the future, this won’t be necessary. ↩︎
4. “The German and Latin Litanies became very popular and were seen by Luther, the Reformers, and their heirs as a core component of their life of worship and faith. All over Reformation and post-Reformation Germany, the Litany appears to have been sung once or twice weekly (Friday and in some places also Wednesday). It thus must have been extremely well known, probably well loved, and certainly well ingrained into the minds and hearts of all Lutherans. In his detailed study of early Lutheran worship practice, Joseph Herl notes that the German Litany was the fourth most popular ‘hymn’ in the church orders that he investigated” (Benjamin Mayes, “Restoring the Great Litany in the Lutheran Church,” CTQ 81 [2017]: 321-330). Unfortunately pdf is the only available format for this one, so do what you must (take the Kindle Scribe pill, bros). It’s an enjoyable read. ↩︎
5. The version in TLH does not include music for the minister or leader of the prayer. The urban legend reason for not printing these parts — here or anywhere else in TLH — is that it was a cost-saving measure during the war (TLH was published in 1941). Maybe this is part of the reason why the Litany was not much used in American Lutheranism. I don’t know. Whatever the case may be, the version in the bulletin is from The Music for the Liturgy, a small volume published in 1944. You can guess what’s in it. It has the music for the minister’s part of the Litany (and much else besides). You’re looking at what they call a “rare find.” ↩︎
6. This is not a real hymnal name; it is just what CPH decided to title it instead of “Church Hymnbook for Evangelical-Lutheran Congregations of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession,” which is what it’s called in German (but in German). Around here we just call it the KGB, short for Kirchengesangbuch. ↩︎
7. I will talk more about this later, but frankly you can see for yourself when you open WH and compare it to modern Lutheran hymnals, especially to the Lutheran Service Book, published by CPH in 2006, q.v. footnote 8. WH slots into the “This Is What They Took From You (And They Are in the Process of Taking Even More, And, No, It Won’t Make a Difference Who Wins the Missouri Synod Presidency This Summer)” file with a resounding thud. ↩︎
8. Published in 2006, LSB is the consensus hymnal. Which consensus? You pick. In the Litany, “to preserve all women in the perils of childbirth” has become “to grant all women with child, and all mothers with infant children, increasing happiness in their blessings” — not a bad sentiment, but why the replacement? “To set free all who are innocently imprisoned” has become “to free those in bondage” — a very bad sentiment, if you think about it. “To have mercy upon all men” has become “to have mercy on us all” — the classic feminist edit. Truth be told, the entire LSB suite of liturgy and hymnody is so inimical to true Lutheran piety that you would think it had been designed with the sole purpose of emasculating the churches of God. The purpose of a system is what it does, and this is what LSB has done and continues to do. ↩︎
9. If you don’t like fish, substitute a tasty vertebrate of your choosing. ↩︎

An Wolfgang Brauer, Pfarrherrn zu Jessen,
von der Hauscommunion, am St. Davidstage, 1536.^{1 2 3}
To Wolfgang Brauer, Pastor of Jessen,⁴
on Family Communion, on St. David’s Day, 1536.

Grace and peace in Christ!

Esteemed, dear Mr. Parson! In response to the question that your good friend in Linz, Sigmund Hangreuter, posed to you by letter and desired that you would pass along to me, this is my answer: You should inform the good gentleman and friend that he is under no obligation to adopt such a practice — of communing himself and his household — and that it’s also pointless to do so, since he is neither called nor commanded to do so. Besides, if the tyrannical church ministers, who actually do have an obligation to do it, won’t administer it to him or his family, he can still be saved in his faith through the Word. It would also cause a lot of sinful confusion if the Sacrament were administered like that in this home here and that home there. For sure in the long term there would be no good outcome and it would cause nothing but division and sects — seeing as people are just strange right now and the devil is a madman.

The early Christians in Acts did not separately use the Sacrament like that in homes; they gathered together for it. And even if they had done so, that example would still not be tolerable any longer now, just as it is not tolerable now for us to let all our possessions be communal property, as they did back then. For now the gospel has spread publicly, along with the sacraments. But a head of household teaching his family the Word of God is right and should take place, since God has commanded us to teach and train our children and household, and the Word is entrusted to each father. But the Sacrament is a public confession and should have public, called ministers, since what Christ says applies there — that it should be done in remembrance of him, that is, as St. Paul says, it should proclaim or preach the Lord’s death until he comes. And he also says there that people should come together, and he harshly rebukes those who wanted to use the Lord’s Supper specially, each one for himself. So too, though each separate head of household is not forbidden but commanded to teach his household with God’s Word, and that includes himself too, yet no one can baptize himself, etc. For a public office in the church and a head of household with his family members are two very different things, so that they should not be confused with each other, nor divorced from each other. Now since no necessity or proper call is involved here, nothing should be undertaken on one’s own initiative, without God’s specific command, for nothing good will come of it.

You may give this, my dear Mr. Parson, as an answer on my behalf. With that, I entrust you to God. Amen.

St. David’s Day, 1536

Mart. Luther

---

1. D. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Johann Georg Walch, vol. 10, Die Catechetischen Schriften (Halle im Magdeburgischen: Johann Justinus Gebauer, 1744), [Walch 10:]2736–39. ↩︎
2. Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Joh. Georg Walch, vol. 10, Catechetische Schriften und Predigten, neue revidirte Stereotypausgabe (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1892), [St. L. 10:]2224–27. ↩︎
3. No. 2281, in D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe. Briefwechsel, vol. 7 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1937), [WA BR 7:]338–39. ↩︎
4. Trans. Nathaniel J. Biebert, Red Brick Parsonage (blog), April 6, 2020, https://redbrickparsonage.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/luther-on-family-communion/. ↩︎

excerpt from
De instituendis ministris Ecclesiae.¹
Wie man Kirchendiener wählen und einsetzen soll,
an den Rath und Gemeine der Stadt Prag.^{2 3}
CONCERNING THE MINISTRY.⁴
1523.

To the ILLUSTRIOUS SENATE
and People of Prague, from Martin Luther, Preacher at Wittenberg.

Grace and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. . . .

These atrocious and cruel conditions ought in all justice compel us, with one accord, to rid all Bohemia of these monsters. Clearly if misfortune and need are so great that they can secure ministers in no other way [than by subterfuge], I would confidently advise that you have no ministers at all. For it would be safer and more wholesome for the father of the household to read the gospel and, since the universal custom and use allows it to the laity, to baptize those who are born in his home, and so to govern himself and his according to the doctrine of Christ, even if throughout life they did not dare or could not receive the Eucharist. For the Eucharist is not so necessary that salvation depends on it. The gospel and baptism are sufficient, since faith alone justifies and love alone lives rightly.

Surely if in this way two, three, or ten homes, or a whole city, or several cities agreed thus among themselves to live in faith and love by the use of the gospel in the home, and even if no ordained man, shorn or anointed, ever came to them or in any other way was placed over them as minister to administer the Eucharist and other sacraments, Christ without a doubt would be in their midst and would own them as his church. Christ would not only not condemn, but surely would reward a pious and Christian abstinence from all the other sacraments when these would be offered by impious and sacrilegious men. For He himself said “One thing only is necessary,” the Word of God, in which man has his life. For if he lives in the Word and has the Word, he is able to forego all else in order to avoid the teachings and ministries of impious men. And what would it avail to have all other things, but not the Word by which one lives? The mercenary papists who have intruded themselves ply their trade of consecrations, so that while the sacraments are here the Word does not exist in Bohemia. That is, they deprive you of essentials and lord it over you in nonessentials.

The father in the home, on the other hand, can provide his own with the necessities through the Word and in pious humility do without the nonessentials as long as he is in captivity. In this regard we follow the custom and law of the Jewish captives who were not able to be in Jerusalem or to make offering there. Upheld in their faith alone by the Word of God they passed their lives among enemies while yearning for Jerusalem. So in this case⁵ the head of the household suffering under the tyranny of the pope would act most appropriately and safely if while longing for the Eucharist, which he neither would dare nor could receive, in the meantime zealously and faithfully propagated faith in his home through the Word of God until God on high in his mercy either brought the captivity to an end or sent a true minister of the Word. So, I hold, it is better to have none than to have a minister who is guilty of sacrilege, impiety, and crime, and comes as a thief and robber only to kill and destroy.

But now, thanks be to God, this condition is grievous and inevitable only in the case⁴ of the weak and over-scrupulous. The others who have faith and know the truth, possess full freedom and means to drive away unworthy ministers and to call and appoint only such worthy and devout men as they choose. For by a pretty invention, of which only the man of sin is capable, the papal theory perpetuates its ministry through an indelible character and safeguards it against removal by any kind of wrongdoing. In this way the pope establishes his tyranny and confirms the commission of sin with impunity while no freedom is given to choose better men and we are forced to endure evil men. But of this we shall speak a little later.

---

1. D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe, vol. 12 (Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1891), [WA 12:]160–96. ↩︎
2. Trans. Paul Speratus, in D. Martin Luthers Sämtliche Schriften, ed. Johann Georg Walch, vol. 10, Die Catechetischen Schriften (Halle im Magdeburgischen: Johann Justinus Gebauer, 1744), [Walch 10:]1808–75. ↩︎
3. Trans. Paul Speratus, in Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Schriften, ed. Joh. Georg Walch, vol. 10, Catechetische Schriften und Predigten, neue revidirte Stereotypausgabe (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House, 1892), [St. L. 10:]1548–603. ↩︎
4. Trans. Conrad Bergendoff, in Luther’s Works, gen. ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 40, Church and Ministry II, ed. Conrad Bergendoff (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1958), [LW 40:]3–44. ↩︎
5. LW has ease. So also in following paragraph. ↩︎

[Audio Version]

On Monday, March 23, we made the following announcement over on X:

We will be publishing resources for family and group devotions after Easter. Meeting regularly for prayer, Scripture-reading, etc., on the Lord's Day is the first step in the process of discerning the possibility of establishing a congregation.

— The Boniface Group (@bonifacegroup) March 23, 2026

Today I’m going to describe what these resources will be and tell you where you can find them every week. Before I do all that, I’m going to set the frame a bit with some comments on the general situation faced by right-wing Christian men.

This is a somewhat lengthy post. You’ll need about fifteen minutes.

God bless.

---

There has been a significant uptick in interest in churchgoing among right-wing men in recent years.

Correlated with this, and over the same rough span of years, my circle of friends and acquaintances has become a de facto “church finder” network. It is rare for a week to pass in which I do not receive direct or indirect requests for assistance in this regard. Conversation with mutuals confirms that my experience is not unique — far from it.

This is a wonderful thing. God be praised for it.

I’m not going to waste my time and yours by giving a definition of the term “right-wing” or a history of politics since the war or a history of Christianity in America since the same war. I’m simply going to build a basic profile of the sort of man who asks someone like me to find him a church.

Such a man . . .

1. generally speaking, is White.
   
2. understands that liberalism is not merely a set of viewpoints roughly corresponding to a preference for the Democratic Party in electoral politics, but is much more like adherence to a New Global Religion.
   
3. is fed up with the creeping liberalism of his local congregation, which matches the creeping (or lurching) liberalism of the “church body” that his congregation is part of/associated with
   
   – or –
   
4. hasn’t been to church in a long time; has recently become convicted about this; wants to start going again, but a cursory search and a few reluctant visits have revealed that the liberalism described in (2) is deeply embedded pretty much everywhere
   
   – or –
   
5. has never been to church (but, being an American male in the Current Year, knows what church tradition his family hails from) but wants to start going, but . . . a cursory search and a few reluctant visits have revealed that the liberalism described in (2) is deeply embedded pretty much everywhere.
   
6. has done enough research (maybe listened to some podcasts, maybe read some things) to know that he is at least somewhat interested in Lutheranism.

Last but not least:

7. thinks cracking a few beers with John Chrysostom, Vlad Țepeș, and Martin Luther sounds like a great time.

But we have a problem:

The Problem

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.¹ Most congregations and church bodies are not explicitly right-wing. They have not been for a great while. Ergo, they have become left-wing.

The grim reality is that they are almost universally controlled by cabals of men whose contempt for the beliefs of their nominal fathers in the faith (except within the very narrow bounds of confessional theology) is quite open.

These men are in fact explicitly not right-wing, and they want to make sure everyone knows this. “We need to admit that Luther said a lot of awful things.” “Dabney was a product of his time.” “Their theology was gold, but the rest of their beliefs were terrible.”

By and large, the men in the pews are familiar with this state of affairs. It is the one they know best; more likely it is the only one they know.

The number of men alive today who remember anything substantially different is small and rapidly dwindling: they are senior citizens. Of these, the majority greatly prefer how things are to how things were. Indeed, many of them helped destroy the old ways — and they are quite proud of it.

For example: most men in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) over the age of 60 approve of female suffrage in congregational assemblies (“She’s a pistol, ain’t she?”), and of this number, many recall with pride how they were part of the (all-male) vote to enfranchise the women sometime in the 80s.² If you doubt this, go and ask one of them — they are quite thick on the ground in your average LCMS church, so it shouldn’t be difficult to find one (or twenty).

But I digress. Because the men in the pews are familiar with this state of affairs, they tend to want to conserve it, even if unconsciously. They are, at the end of the day, conservative about what they know best, i.e., the moral norms of the post-WW2 consensus. Which is why they are called “conservatives” . . .

. . . and why they are worse than useless in the general effort to rebuild, reinstitute, and reenshrine the basic civilizational goods that have been destroyed, deconstructed, and desecrated — and that is the case even if they recognize that their churches (and their families, and their country) are on a bad path.

All of this is a problem because it means that nine times out of ten, when anon gives me his ZIP code, I cannot in good conscience send him to the nearest Lutheran church, because it is a den of liberalism.

Even if the church “does the liturgy.”

Even if it explicitly identifies as “confessional.”

I grew up in the LCMS, so the LCMS church locator is where I look first. When my results are grim — again: about nine times out of ten, they are — I query my (W)ELS friends. Sad to say, but this doesn’t usually improve the score.³

What about the one time out of ten that I tell anon “yeah, go visit St. Paul’s”?

In that case I know that the pastor would not persecute him for being right-wing.

That’s it. That’s the low bar. And most Lutheran congregations cannot clear it with a running start.

“Then why are you Lutheran?”

Because Lutheranism is true, and I have super low time preference.

The real question is, how are you, someone who maybe also believes that Lutheranism is true, going to go to church if the only option within two hours is pastored by a nerdy hireling who fantasizes about putting men like you under discipline for recommending the Stone Choir podcast to your friends?

For the sake of brevity, I will not deal with the “uh, that’s Donatism” flag that sometimes gets thrown at this point. I will simply note that it is bogus. It proceeds from ignorance or stupidity or both, and you should ignore it.

Thou shalt sanctify the holy day.

Are you alone, with no family or friends? Plan and build for the time when you are not. Begin setting aside time on Sunday, as the Lord’s Day and chief Christian holy day, to pray, read Scripture aloud, and sing (or read) some hymns.

To help you do this, I’ll be posting a modified version of our Sunday bulletin on the Holy Trinity Gem County Telegram channel and in this Google Drive folder every Friday night.

I would highly recommend printing it out. It’s going to run between two or three sheets double-sided, sequenced so that you can fold the stack and have a neat little 5.5″ x 8.5″ booklet that’s 8-12 pages long.

If at all possible, print it out. If you can’t, you can’t. But the more offline and offscreen you can be during this time, the better. My personal recommendation is that you do not try to “gather” with others via webcam, voice call, etc. That isn’t gathering. If you can’t gather yet, because it’s just you, then embrace the time of exile that you find yourself in as a blessing from the Lord. Hug the cactus.

The basic inkjet printer I picked up at a garage sale for $10 — a Canon TR4720, looks like it retails for $100 — prints double-sided. I don’t know very much about printers, but from this I infer that double-sided printing, even with basic inkjets, is a common feature.

That said, if you have to read things from your phone, then do so with a good conscience. It’s tough out there.

Maybe you’re not alone. Maybe you have a family or some local friends or roommates. If so, do all of the above with them: set aside time for prayer, hymns, and the recitation and reading of the psalms and other passages of Scripture.

What about a sermon? Much could be said here. For now, I will suggest that you read something. There are several resources that I would recommend. As before, I would advise against piping something in digitally on Sunday morning. As edifying as that may be, save it for another time.

Instead, read aloud . . .

• One (or both) of the devotions of N. J. Laache (these are shorter) (serial Tele channel)
• One of Martin Luther’s postils (sermons) (Church Postil pdf and epub) | (House Postil pdf and epub)
• The catechetical expositions of Johann Spangenberg (hard copy)
• One of C. F. W. Walther’s sermons (Year of Grace, Part 1) | (Year of Grace, Part 2)

All of these are going to be expositions of the lessons appointed for the day.

Appointed for the day by whom? By your Christian ancestors, anon — by way of custom, not of law.

At Holy Trinity we use a lectionary, or system of weekly appointed readings, corresponding to what is called the Church Calendar. To be very brief: this lectionary is largely the same one that prevailed throughout northern Europe since the time of Charlemagne’s reforms in AD 800. Virtually all lectionary-using Christians in the West used the same one until the 1960s, when some homosexual Jesuit higher critics persuaded the followers of the papacy to start using a different one. For reasons which we won’t get into today, most of the other calendar- and lectionary-respecting Christians in the West followed suit, post haste.

That said, the revised version of the new lectionary, called the Revised Common Lectionary or Three-Year Lectionary, is not evil (but it has certain problems). The Word of God is still the Word of God. If you prefer this new lectionary, that is fine. That said, we do not use it. We use the old one, so if you’re going to start using our weekly bulletins to help you get things up and running where you are, you’re going to use it, too, or you’re going to spend an awful lot of time retrofitting things, at which point it might not be worthwhile.

“I think using a lectionary and church calendar are strange fire and the sin of Jeroboam, and I think the same thing about hymns that aren’t from the psalter. Your bulletin violates the Second Commandment.”

Well, you’re wrong, but don’t go against your conscience. There’s probably not a whole lot for you here, to be honest. God bless you as you go about worshiping Him according to the dictates of your conscience.

The Lord’s Supper

You should hold off on celebrating the Lord’s Supper until a congregation is formally established, which act should entail the calling of regular ministers. This gets into other topics which we will address here eventually, but not today.

Lord willing, you will get there. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. For the moment, we are just focusing on squaring up the compass and taking those initial steps.

Miscellaneous Notes

1. Everything is meant to be done out loud. Yes, even if you’re all by yourself.
2. In the bulletin, italics are ordinarily sung. Plain italic is the part of the minister or leader. Bold italic is everyone together.
3. We will eventually provide guidance on chanting and singing. For now, if you don’t know how to sing what’s in front of you, just read it.
4. The various parts of the rite are not labeled in our bulletin. Upon seeing our bulletin, a friend of mine described it as very “Spartan.” He’s not wrong. But it works for us. (It also helps us save on ink.) For you who may be coming from the outside, it might be confusing at first. But I would submit that taking an inductive, gradual approach to learning what each of these different parts is called will pay dividends in the long run. At some point I will publish an outline and explanation. For now, just take it as presented, as an organic whole.
5. Some churches include an Old Testament lesson during the Sunday service. We do not, because we read and study the Old Testament congregationally at a different time on Sunday. If you want to include an Old Testament lesson, use the suggested lessons here. In fact that page should be a very useful resource just in general.
6. We use the Authorized (King James) Version for the New Testament — not because we think other versions aren’t the Bible, but because it comes from the most stable NT textual tradition (the Textus Receptus, 98-99% overlap with the Majority Text), and because we find it to be beautiful and reverent. We like it. You might not. That is fine. If you don’t, use a version of your choosing instead.
7. Yes, anon, we use the Septuagint for the Old Testament— Lancelot Brenton is preferred. That said, for the various psalm verses interspersed throughout the rite, if there is no material difference, we generally stick with the AV.
8. We review the Small Catechism every Sunday before the sermon, two questions at a time. Each question gets repeated two weeks in a row. (Old Missouri inside baseball: we use the text of the old 1912 catechism from Concordia Publishing House because it is in the public domain, and there are things about it that we prefer to the 1943.)
9. Third sex Dunning-Kruger Lutheran liturgy spergs keep walking. Every modification I made was conscientious and deliberate. Does it make you mad? No one cares.

Lighting the Beacon

As the OP states, meeting regularly for prayer, Scripture-reading, etc., on the Lord’s Day is the first step in the process of discerning the possibility of establishing a congregation.

If you do this with a core group consistently for the better part of a year, you are ready to start that conversation.

But how do you assemble that group? How do you find your fellows? How do you establish concord?

That will be the topic of the next installment, which, since it will require less in the way of introduction and ramp-up, should be forthcoming much sooner.

+SDG+

---

Thank you for reading. The Boniface Group is the mission society of Holy Trinity Ev.-Lutheran Church of Gem County. If you would like to support our work, you may do so here. (Crypto options coming soon.) To learn more, visit our homepage and start reading from the top. Thank you, and God bless you.

✠

Footnotes

1. “Robert Conquest’s Three Laws of Politics,” Isegoria; July 11, 2008. ↩︎
2. The Missouri Synod in convention voted to allow female suffrage in 1969, but adoption by congregations rolled out gradually over the course of succeeding decades. ↩︎
3. “Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod” and “Evangelical Lutheran Synod,” two small Lutheran synods that are in communion with each other but not with the Missouri Synod. (W)ELS congregations are a lot fewer and further between than LCMS ones, and although they do not formally allow women’s suffrage . . . well, they wish they did. So the women just rule them through the usual means: by dominating their whipped husbands. Ultimately liberalism dominates in (W)ELS congregations just as much as in LCMS congregations. Exceptions are exceptional, just like they are in the LCMS.
   
   To round things out: I don’t bother checking AALC congregations, and there is a snowball’s chance in hell that anon is near a micro-synod church or an independent one that’s any good — most of these are just LCMS or (W)ELS in miniature with no realistic plan for perpetuating themselves. But there are a few that are very good, with more shrewd and sanguine leadership, and I have sent men to them. ↩︎

Some wag put my name down as a signer of the Antioch Declaration. For the record, I did not sign it, and furthermore I never would. I also do not reside in “Emmet” (the town’s name is spelled “Emmett”).

I would appreciate you sharing this post. Thank you!

It has come to our attention that someone has put the name of one of our directors on the list of signatories to the "Antioch Declaration."

Trent Demarest did not, and does not, subscribe to the Antioch Declaration, nor does St. Boniface Lutheran School of Western Idaho.

— The Boniface Group (@bonifacegroup) November 23, 2024

It was the Feast of St. Michael and All Angels, several years ago. At the time my family and I were blessed to be members of a Lutheran congregation that still observed this holiday— historically dear and precious to Lutheran Christians— with an evening communion service.

Continue reading “How It Started”